Amaryllis (Jayne Castle)
3
Summary -
First futuristic romance by Jayne Castle (also writes historicals as Amanda Quick, contemporaries as Jayne Anne Krentz and Stephanie James). Interesting mystery overshadows the romance between two psychics. World-building very weak and far from credible. Not recommended for those looking for SF romance (such as those written by Asaro), or for those wanting a romance-heavy plot. Will probably be enjoyed by those who like Quick's more recent historicals (with strong mystery and suspense elements).
Details -
I read science fiction (and fantasy) as well as romances and mystery. While I haven't read equally extensively in all these genres (and their sub-genres) I think I have read enough to detect influences of one author upon another. In the past, the first historical romances (Jean Plaidy and Georgette Heyer) that I read were by Amanda Quick (alias Jayne Anne Krentz alias Jayne Castle alias Stephanie James). AMARYLLIS is the first Jayne Castle book of hers I have read. It also happens to be her first futuristic romance.
The problem I have with this book, among others, is that I read it well after I had read Marion Zimmer Bradley's Darkover series (all written by her alone) and Lois McMaster Bujold's Miles Vorkosigan series. So, compared to those books/series, Jayne Castle's world-building could not really match up. Bradley writes fantasy (her characters also have strong mental/psychic powers), Bujold writes what is called military space opera (although she is now writing fantasy). Both authors set their best known series - mentioned above - on worlds cut off from humanity by some mysterious collapse of communications and transport. In Castle's case it was the "Curtain", in Bujold's case, it was a wormhole, and in Bradley's case, I believe it was the total incapacitation of the spaceship on an unexplored and undiscovered planet. So, when I was reading this book, I was constantly comparing how Castle's world St Helens matched up to Darkover (Cottman Four) and Barrayar. This is probably not the perspective of most readers, so they might want to stop right here.
Castle is not a writer of science fiction or fantasy, but one of romance. I do expect, however, that a writer of romance (contemporary, futurististic, alternate-reality/ paranormal, or historical) will still make her world a credible one. Throughout this book, I could not figure out why Castle did not simply bother to set her book on Earth (in an alternate reality or timeline) or in the future. The book constantly told me about differences in the planet's way of life, but rarely showed me. For example, I never found any references to different flora and fauna.
Furthermore, Castle constantly used terms such as "coff-tea" for a beverage, "chick-turk" for some form of poultry, and so forth. [It sounds more likely to me that homesick colonists would call any drink similar to an American popular beverage by that name, using "corn" for anything like corn, "coffee" for anything like coffee.]
This became almost an irritant while I kept on reading.
The cities were named exactly for cities on the Western United States coast, the continental geography sounded nearly the same. So why bother to create a new world? Castle argues that nearly all the colonists came from the north-western part of the United States. Hmm... I might buy that, but not the curious resemblance in geography.
The social structure did not make a lot of sense to me. Marriage is apparently for life; affairs (if discreet) between married people (not married to each other) are condoned, but not an affair between a married man and an unmarried woman. Marriages are considered safer if arranged. These are all apparently based on rules set down by the original leaders (the Founders). There were constant hints that the Founders were more complex (and less decent) than they appeared to their descendants, but not one clue was thrown out to the reader.
The so-called psychic abilities seemed far from supernatural. There are technical talents, agricultural talents, diagnostic/ medical talents, and so forth. Not much different from today, I would think. [I have no green thumb, and clearly have no agricultural talent]. People with talents need people who can focus those talents (called "prisms") to use those talents for a longer period or at a higher level, but the level of talent must be matched to the level of ability to focus those talents. AMARYLLIS (and perhaps its sequels) is about a man with high-level talent and a high-level "prism". The hero Lucas does have some unusual talents, notably the ability to create illusions (which he keeps secret) and the ability to detect others using their talents (which he has officially declared). Later, we learn of other people with unusual talents, not often declared to the authorities.
And the political structure? We meet a candidate campaigning for return to traditional values, but no sense of why this has suddenly become popular (his charisma aside). We have no real sense of how this planet is governed, policed, and otherwise organized on a day-to-day basis. All that is said is that the marriage laws are strict, and people have strong views about legitimate birth, lineage (and pedigree), and the like. St Helens sounds more like a tradition-bound society (where a person's status is determined wholly by his birth status and his family's status) than anything like the modern United States.
The story itself is more mystery than romance - the hero Lucas Trent, a loner like most of Castle/Quick/Krent's heroes, has to solve a case of industrial espionage (more whydunnit rather than whodunnit) initially, which escalates into his assisting the heroine to solve a suspicious death. We learn a little about the hero's past (his parents dying young, the pirate raids in the islands he called home, the deaths of his partner and his wife, and more). We also learn that the heroine Amaryllis Lark was born illegitimate and was rejected by her father's family (her parents too died young). While the romance develops, the mystery actually takes center stage (rather as in Quick's later and most recent historicals). The heroine is excessively naive, and very nearly stupid enough to get herself killed. The hero is smitten by the heroine, despite (or because of) her naivete. Rather like most of Quick's heroines....
And yes, I could tell that there would be stories about at least two other characters, former allies of Lucas Trent whom we meet briefly. Their appearance was not obnoxiously obvious (as in some novels where characters practically scream out "I am going to be in a sequel").
The real problem I had with this book was that I didn't buy the world-building at all. Although I don't dislike futuristic romances, I prefer what are sometimes called SF Romance (or romantic SF) such as those Skolian stories written by Catherine Asaro. And if I want to read about psychic characters, I would prefer to read a good old-fashioned paranormal romance or a Darkover book by Marion Zimmer Bradley.
This is not a discommendation for lovers of futuristic romance. Just be warned that if you want a strong romantic element in your book, this book has a stronger mystery and suspense element than a romantic element (it is pretty obvious that Lucas and Amaryllis are attracted to each other quite early on). If on the other hand, you want a strong world-building element in your book, you might want to pass this up. I am not sorry that I read AMARYLLIS, since I had read Castle in her other alter egos. On the other hand, I will stop right here, and stick to re-reading her early historicals.
-- Reviewed by bookjunkiereviews 18 February 2006