A common trope in romance novels is the hero and husband of the heroine have a less than ideal marriage, he goes away for several years until he's presumed dead, and then he magically reappears. I used to think this was a pretty unique premise, but I now know of three different authors who have done this, all quite differently. Apparently, it's not that uncommon! Unfortunately, this book didn't really deliver, in my opinion. Stranger in My Arms is full of misogyny, some racism, and even more tired tropes than the resurrected husband figure.

When I first met Lara, I was told she sacrificed her own comfort for those less fortunate than her. She cares deeply about orphans, children in general, and anyone sick or injured. I really hoped she would evolve into a more dynamic character. Sadly, she never does. Haunted by an unloving and neglectful marriage, Lara doesn't want anything to do with Hunter when he returns from India. In a way, her rejection of his sexual advances is progressive. She exerts her desires (or lack thereof) with confidence. That said, she often comes off as self-righteous, to the point where she is quite critical of anyone who doesn't live as sanctimonious of a life as she does.

This is most evident when we meet Hunter's old mistress. Lady Carlyle is considered as less ideal than Lara because she is independent, preferring to have men on her own terms instead of marrying them. She likes masculine pursuits like hunting and hawking. Additionally, she's tall and described as "mannish". Yet, if a reader looks deeper, we see a woman who loves a man with similar interests, a man who is then pushed into a marriage with a woman he doesn't love, who then dies in a shipwreck, and when he returns to the land of the living, rejects her outright. Lady Carlyle is not as pure as Lara, but she doesn't deserve to be ridiculed.

Additionally, all of the women in this story who aren't Lara are repeatedly disparaged. They're compared to the heroine and constantly coming up wanting. Even Lara's own sister is described as the "less interesting sister" when she's deathly ill. Hunter's own mother is described as outlandish, and Lara clearly considers her as not maternal enough. Finally, Janet is considered a "creature" for constantly saying nasty things. Which, she does, but there is a grain of truth to them. Overall, I don't mind a heroine who is "pure" and "innocent", but I don't like being preached to that those are the most desirable qualities in a woman and that a woman who's anything else deserves her unhappiness.

The racism part of this books gets a little trickier. Please note, I am a white woman, and so my response to these elements are colored by my white experience. I understand that authors sometimes want to set a particular tone and to be "historically accurate", and so sometimes their characters will say things like "that's barbaric" when learning about another culture's customs. And yet, there are enough times that I, as a reader, looked at the text and wondered "is this necessary? what point is this trying to make? who is this serving?". There are times when Kleypas paints Indian culture in a respective light, but there are also times when the turmoil is meant to be an exotic backdrop and to provide additional depth to the hero's character, rather serving any real substance.

Yes, this is historical romance, so things like petticoats and reputations and women being unable to hold jobs is a staple, and if it's disregarded, the story feels disingenuous. However, this is also a fantasy, and if we can have a husband who respects the word "no" and a man who has never worked with money before suddenly knows how to make sound investments to triple their income in 3 months, then we can have characters with more forward thinking attitudes about cultures different from England's.

Overall, this book doesn't offer anything unique while being painfully moralizing. This book was trying to make me adopt a dozen poor orphans, but all it really made me want to do was wish the hero divorced the heroine and left her to be poor, since that's what she clearly wanted. Then, she wouldn't feel so guilty for being a hypocrite. ( )

I've been reading through the Kleypas oeuvre and this is the first one I've encountered that, as a writer, I found intriguing enough to write about here. What do I mean? Well, the heroine is hard to like or even relate to. She's an inconsistent person, deeply sensitive to the suffering of others, but this is combined with a complete lack of self-awareness (or self-preservation) and worse, to parse complex ethical situations consistently (what she wants to do for her sister vs how she copes with Hunter). Yes, she was hurt in her first marriage, but golly, she sounds like such a wetsop. It's hard. (And yes, I can't help but think the love triangle is based on the Camilla, Diana, Charles scenario.)
While it's dangerous, in terms of pleasing faithful readers (who do and don't want the exact same story every time) to create an unlikeable main woman character in a novel about love and romance--Madame Bovary comes to mind, if that's not over-reaching. I can't say much without spoiling but the ethical issue that arises around the returned Hunter, is again not in the least bit simplistic and several characters have to make difficult decisions based on what they feel is best for everyone in Hunter's orbit--his community. The point of writing this is to say that Kleypas as a writer was going a little out on a limb and I admire her for daring to do something difficult in the generally tight choreography of the genre. **** ( )

Molto bello, una storia emozionante e avvincete anche se, forse, un po’ sopra le righe, con due protagonisti interessanti e di carattere.
Quando Hunter, il marito temuto e mai amato, già dato per morto in un naufragio, tornerà inaspettatamente a casa, Lara, sua moglie, avrà difficoltà a riconoscere in lui la persona insensibile e dura che aveva conosciuto in passato e che ora, invece, sembra voler conquistare in ogni modo il suo amore incondizionato.
Anche questa volta la storia e i personaggi mi hanno totalmente conquistato e la Kleypas si conferma nuovamente garanzia di una lettura appassionante e suggestiva.
( )

Not my favorite of her books and the intrigue dragged on a bit but I liked the characters. ( )

This is backlist Kleypas, from 1988, and boy did she get better with experience. I love Lisa Kleypas now, she is my go-to girl, but the writing is terrible here -- utterly awful. And also I already do not like the heroine a mere 1.5 hours in to the audio. I am going to skip this one. Leaving this here to remind myself I tried it and did not like it. ( )