So, not quite a gentleman. More blame attached to him, but I still see a situation of "no decent woman would allow herself to get in such a situation." Which makes no sense, but never did. Unless Tracy has someone who would push the point, the authorities would probably decide to let the matter go "to spare the scandal." Whispers would still go 'round.

I haven't read the work, so I don't know if Anna would castigate herself overmuch. I can see a whipsawing between "I had to defend myself!" and "It says 'Thou shall not kill,' and, oh, there was so much blood, and he whimpered and it was horrible."

HOw isolated is the house? Could we have a lovely game of Hide The Body?

edit: IE, dump him in an alley behind a convenient den of iniquity?

I'd have to isolate it more than it is on my current mental map to make it work, but that could be done.

And I think she'd definitely have some serious remorse over it--that's why it'd make the rest of the book so much darker, and why I'm not sure yet whether I'll do it.

DH read my original post over my shoulder and thinks I should have the gun go off accidentally. Maybe it's the Buffista in me, but I just don't like, "Oops, I shot you!" nearly so much as, "You threatened my lover--DIE," even though the former is simpler to work with in a lot of ways.

It's a cliche, Susan, but if he tried to wrestle the gun away from her and it went off accidentally, there's no way she could actually be blamed, is there? It would still look odd, there'd be a scandal, because what was he doing in her room? But it would ease her own conscience a bit if it was accidental, even if convenient.

If you decide to go with the cliche, then what you need to do is write the scene --or possibly their whole relationship--in a way that isn't a cliche. Which would be the challenge, I'd think.

I just saw what your DH said, and I seem to be agreeing with him. But I think you can take the snake's desperation far enough to make him jump for the gun, thus negating her familiarity with it.

If she has remorse, she's got a lovely reason to weep on our hero's shoulder as he explains that horrible things happen in desperate situations and she's not to blame.

I haven't been reading Anna, Susan, but it seems to me that, in that era, the bad guy is going to have to be seriously threatening her virture for the readers and the other characters to buy into it.

Deb, if you still need a beta, I'm home and able to turn something around pretty quickly.

Unless Tracy has someone who would push the point, the authorities would probably decide to let the matter go "to spare the scandal."

This, plus what Ginger said. Maybe things could appear to be going badly, but then someone comes forward as a character witness against Tracy. Maybe someone overheard T say something that would make it more believable that he would attempt to blackmail Anna into marrying him.

Modern readers would give her more slack than her contemporaries. Another source of reader sympathy: "She was defending herself!" But, yes, Tracy would at least need to have a hand on her in a definitively threatening fashion to justify killing him.

Ah, much to think about. Fortunately between rewriting Lucy and actually getting to that point in Anna's story, I've got a few months to make up my mind. t ponders

Um - why have her kill him?

Why not just have her wound him, badly enough to completely fuck up her head? The sort of wound that would effectively end his career, but leave him alive, and just as eager to hush it up as she would be?