Diamonds and Desire

TEST

In Diamonds and Desire, Constance Laux’s latest novel set during Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee, a titled jewel thief meets his match in a spunky tabloid reporter.

Aggie O’Day and her brother were left without funds, so the pretty redhead got a job as a reporter with a scurrilous rag called the London Daily Enquirer and Illustrated News Chronicle. The Chronicle encourages Aggie to make things up, which she cheerfully does. When a wealthy man finds a crown that might once have belonged to King Arthur, Aggie breaks into his study to get a glimpse of it. There she stumbles across a notorious thief, known to the popular press as the Shadow. She manages to escape during the ensuing chaos, but not before she and the Shadow get a good hard look at each other – and like what they see.

Aggie is convinced that the Shadow is none other than Lord Stewart Marsh, the dullest and most scholarly of the Marsh brothers (Lord Stewart, like Superman, finds glasses to be a sufficient disguise). But the Chronicle won’t print such an allegation against a nobleman without proof, so Aggie dons a series of disguises to follow him. The encounters between these two protagonists are probing verbal duels, which gradually become more and more sensually charged.

A sensuous battle of wits between a woman trying to make it in a man’s world and a man who is not what he seems – great set-up!

But Diamonds and Desire does not live up to its promise. For one thing, it’s extremely verbose. Paragraphs of description and internal dialogue are everywhere, interrupting action sequences and slowing down conversations. For instance, in one confrontation, Stewart asks Aggie, “What is it you want, Miss O’Day?” What follows is twelve paragraphs – that’s two and a half pages – of thinking and wondering and gazing before Stewart mutters, “Hell in a handcart.” One has to wonder how much time has passed, and why Aggie doesn’t answer him right away. Then Aggie does answer, and four more paragraphs go by before he responds to her. No conversation is scintillating when you have to backpedal several pages to figure out who spoke last. After a while I found myself jumping from dialogue tag to dialogue tag, simply skipping all the unnecessary stuff in between.

The humor is also incredibly forced. I know that one person’s comedy can be another person’s yawn, and not all readers will have the same reaction. But the things that were supposed to be funny were not funny to me. Stewart has five brothers who complete one another’s sentences like Huey, Dewey, and Louie in the Disney comic books. The sections that are in Aggie’s point of view are studded with long samples of her incredibly melodramatic writing. An author has to be careful about deliberately inserting large chunks of bad prose into her books, even in the name of humor. A little bit goes a long, long way.

Stewart is a fun character, or could have been in a better book. He has several personas that shield his real identity, and penetrating these disguises was pure pleasure for me. But I could not stand Aggie. In her relentless pursuit of a story she goes way over the line from spunky to obnoxious, and everything she does wrecks one or another of Stewart’s carefully laid plans. Even when her intentions are good, her constant interference puts him in danger and gets him hurt. It’s supposed to be funny, but once again, I wasn’t laughing. Halfway through the book, Stewart says to Aggie, “I want you to go on saying my name so that when I’m alone, I can close my eyes and still my breathing and hear your voice, and pretend you’re there beside me.” I thought, “Yeah, right.” Moments like these aren’t romantic when the heroine is a pill.

This should have been a lighthearted and dagger-quick comedy with lots of witty repartee and sexy chemistry. I found it to be slow, encumbered with too much verbiage, and not nearly as amusing as it tried to be. But since humor is such a subjective thing, your reaction might be different from mine. If you’re a Constance Laux fan or if you like stories in which the hero and heroine are constantly at odds instead of working together, you might enjoy Diamonds and Desire more than I did.

Reviewed by Jennifer Keirans

Grade: C-

Sensuality: Subtle

Review Date: 02/09/00

Publication Date: 2000

Review Tags: Victorian journalist thief

Recent Comments …

  1. excellent book: interesting, funny dialogs, deep understanding of each character, interesting secondary characters, and also sexy.

guest

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments