Triangle

“Amanda was given to serious relationships and spent long periods on her own between the men she loved, after the relationships failed for whatever reason. Pascal’s romances were brief and passionate. They rarely lasted more than a few months.”

Pascal serves as a foil to Amanda, who showcases a contrasting approach to love and relationships. While Amanda seeks depth and commitment, Pascal embodies a carefree, impulsive attitude—evidenced by Amanda having “serious relationships” that take “long periods on her own” to heal from compared to Pascal’s “brief and passionate” relationships that “rarely lasted more than a few months.”

“It had been three years since it ended, and she hadn’t had another deeply serious relationship since, and didn’t really want one. She wasn’t bitter, she was cautious, and she no longer fully trusted her own judgment. She’d gone out with several other men but hadn’t fallen in love again. She enjoyed the fact that her life was pain-free now. She wasn’t suffering, sad, or disappointed. She liked having an orderly life, and a man she could count on. There were no candidates offering her that at the moment, and she didn’t really care.”

Amanda’s reflections on The Link Between Love and Marriage reveal a cautious approach to relationships, shaped by past disappointments and a desire to avoid future emotional turmoil. While she values the stability and peace her single life provides, her reluctance to trust her judgment exposes lingering insecurities and unresolved fears about intimacy. Her preference for order and predictability underscores a need for control, which contrasts the unpredictable nature of love. Amanda’s past traumas hinder her ability to embrace vulnerability and make her doubt her decisions.

“‘A girlfriend is easy to get rid of,’ Pascal said confidently. ‘A wife is more complicated, although nothing is insurmountable,’ Pascal added, sounding very French. ‘If he is married, he should have dropped a hint and told you, just to keep things aboveboard.’”

Pascal’s remark highlights the contrasting societal and cultural attitudes toward relationships, particularly Amanda’s view that his perspective on extramarital affairs sounds “very French.” The phrase “a girlfriend is easy to get rid of” speaks to his more flippant approach to relationships. “A wife is more complicated, although nothing is insurmountable” simultaneously affirms the potential roadblock if Olivier is married and his belief that it could change for Amanda. Pascal’s quote also reflects the theme of Appearances, Perceptions, and Reality, as he believes transparency would resolve complications, evidenced by the phrase “just to keep things aboveboard.”

“Her style was European, but there was something American in there too. There was nothing oblique about her. Frenchwomen felt they had to be at times, to get what they wanted. She was very direct. You could tell where you stood with a woman like her. There was nothing hidden about her, or disguised.”

Part of Amanda’s personal growth journey includes reconciling the contrasting cultural influences of her upbringing. Olivier’s observation captures the blend of her European style and American directness. Unlike the ambiguity and pretense others around Olivier display, Amanda’s honesty and straightforwardness stand out, evidenced by the phrase, “there was nothing oblique about her.” The fact that “there was nothing hidden about her, or disguised” establishes further contrast, as Olivier has secrets of his own.

“She felt sorry for him. There was something sad about him. Clearly his life hadn’t turned out the way he wanted, or maybe he was just at a low point right now after the divorce.”

Amanda’s reflection on Tom reveals her empathetic nature and tendency to see others’ vulnerability. Amanda tends to give people the benefit of the doubt and believes Tom is simply at “a low point” after his divorce. This initial misjudgment of Tom’s character will later cause Amanda distress when he emotionally and physically harms her. Here, his outward sadness masks his obsessive and manipulative tendencies, as will soon become evident.

“He was creative and ambitious, and excited about his work, just as she was. They were an even match, which was new for her. There had always been an imbalance in her relationships with men before. This time she loved the idea of being with someone whose energy and goals matched hers.”

Amanda’s reflection on her relationship with Olivier illustrates the theme of Embracing Vulnerability in Interpersonal and Romantic Relationships. Unlike her previous unbalanced relationships, Amanda is attracted to Olivier because of their shared creativity, ambition, and mutual respect. This balance fosters a healthier dynamic and serves as a mirror for Amanda to understand her desires and values better. Through their developing relationship, Amanda realizes that an equal relationship is “an even match” that enhances her self-worth.

“‘Why didn’t you get divorced?’ ‘Tradition, her family. My parents are gone now, but no one in either of our families has ever been divorced. We stayed together for the boys when they were young, and eventually you settle into a way of life, and it’s easier not to take everything apart. There was no reason to. It has worked the way it’s been. I could never see the point of getting divorced unless I met someone else I wanted to marry, and I never did. This seemed more respectable to us, and it makes sense financially.’”

When Olivier confesses that he is married, it affects Amanda, who struggles to understand his pragmatic view of marriage. This emphasizes their conflicting views of The Link Between Love and Marriage. For Amanda, marriage is an emotional bond rooted in love, while Olivier sees it as a social construct influenced by tradition, family expectations, and financial practicality. His admission reveals how external pressures and convenience have shaped his life choices, contrasting sharply with Amanda’s idealistic perspective on love. This moment creates narrative tension due to their differing values.

“She wasn’t trying to force his hand to get divorced and marry her. They didn’t know each other that well. She just didn’t want to be his mistress, which was the only position he had open. Amanda had too much pride and was too ethical for that.”

Amanda has a strong sense of morals and pride that reflects her ethical approach to relationships. Despite her feelings for Olivier, she refuses to compromise her principles or settle for the only open role—“his mistress”—that conflicts with her values. Amanda’s rejection reflects her desire for authenticity and equality in her relationships. Additionally, the phrase “she wasn’t trying to force his hand” reflects that she understands Olivier will not get divorced unless he wants that.

“‘Art is a dangerous business,’ Olivier said, teasing her. ‘So is love,’ Amanda whispered back. But so was life. There were risks around every corner. You never knew what could happen.”

Pascal’s metaphor compares art and love to a dangerous business. While art is often viewed as a creative pursuit, Pascal’s remark highlights the underlying struggles, conflicts, and risks tied to its creation and acquisition. Similarly, his reflection on love as a dangerous endeavor acknowledges its potential for heartbreak, obsession, and betrayal. This moment also foreshadows danger to come and contributes to narrative suspense. “There were risks around every corner” speaks to Tom’s lurking presence, stalking and later physically assaulting Amanda.

“Amanda had made him accountable for why he had stayed married to a woman he hadn’t been in love with for almost their entire marriage. It was practical, if nothing else, which seemed like a poor excuse not to divorce, even to him. He couldn’t actually explain why he had stayed married to Stephanie, except that he felt it was the right thing to do, and it was expected of him. He had never questioned that for twenty-six years, until he met Amanda, and now things had changed. He was stuck with a life and a woman that didn’t suit him, and he had seriously upset the woman he had fallen in love with.”

Olivier’s reflection highlights the themes of The Link Between Love and Marriage and Embracing Vulnerability in Interpersonal and Romantic Relationships. Olivier adhered to societal and familial expectations for 26 years, remaining in a loveless marriage with Stephanie out of duty and practicality. However, Amanda forces him to confront the truth about his choices, namely the personal cost of his decision to stay married. Meeting Amanda catalyzes Olivier’s personal growth. In particular, he realizes how his marriage has trapped him in a life and partnership that “didn’t suit him.”

“Their home was a hollow shell with no love in it, or too little. Olivier felt love-starved by the end of the week. And he wondered if Stephanie felt that way too.”

Olivier reflects on the emptiness and emotional disconnect in his marriage. Their home, described as a “hollow shell,” symbolizes the lack of genuine affection and intimacy in their relationship despite their outward appearance of stability. Olivier’s realization that he feels “love-starved” and his reflection on Stephanie’s potential feelings reveal the mutual dissatisfaction they both endure but fail to confront.

“Sometimes I wonder if that was the right thing to do, for the children’s sake. Maybe they needed parents as a unit, not just two separate individuals who love them. Do you ever think that?”

Like Olivier, Stephanie faces an internal conflict about her choices to stay in her marriage. While she and Olivier decided to stay married for their sons’ sake, she now wonders if the result—“two separate individuals who love them” rather than them having “parents as a unit”—was the right decision to make. Her uncertainty highlights the tension between expectations of a couple being a cohesive unit and the reality of her and Olivier’s separate lives, even while still married.

“Their marriage had been a terrible mistake and he saw that Amanda was right about it. It had been an even bigger mistake to stay together. They should have moved on years ago. He was sure of that now. With the children as their excuse, they had been lazy about starting new lives on their own, and making whatever financial sacrifices they would have had to. Having less money would have been better than twenty-six years of a loveless marriage. And it couldn’t have been good for their kids either, although they had survived.”

Olivier belatedly recognizes the consequences of staying in a loveless marriage. His reflection reveals how societal expectations, financial convenience, and their children became excuses for avoiding a divorce. By acknowledging the long-term damage to himself, Stephanie, and his children, Olivier confronts the reality that maintaining appearances comes at a steep cost.

“Olivier was so vital and alive and exuberant, so dashing, exciting, and handsome. There was a strong current within him, a kind of creative electricity Amanda found irresistible, and that had caught her attention from the beginning. Stephanie seemed painfully shy and uncomfortable, and austere.”

Amanda observes the stark contrast between Olivier and Stephanie, highlighting their marriage’s emotional and personal incompatibilities. Olivier’s vitality and creativity attract Amanda, akin to the electric spark of “a strong current,” while Stephanie’s shyness and discomfort emphasize her struggle within the relationship. This quote foreshadows her eventual admission of unhappiness and repressed desires, which will prompt their divorce.

“She was still the same woman who had never been the right match for him, or he for her, from the beginning. He felt sorry for her, but her accident didn’t bring them any closer. It was obvious that she preferred the company of her friends. It didn’t upset him, he was happy for her.”

Olivier reflects on the evolution of his relationship with Stephanie, illustrating his journey toward increasingly Embracing Vulnerability in Interpersonal and Romantic Relationships. Rather than viewing Stephanie as an obstacle or casting blame, Olivier now sees her as the second part of a partnership that “had never been the right match.” His acknowledgment of their platonic friendship and his happiness for her finding solace with her friends reveals his personal growth and acceptance of their separate paths.

“‘How does it end?’ ‘He kills her.’ She was surprised. The heroine was the main love interest throughout the book, and he’d been in love with the character since the beginning. ‘That’s a little harsh, isn’t it?’ ‘Not really. He loves her so much, he can’t bear to think of their love affair ever ending and someone else having her, so he kills her.’”

Tom’s description of his novel’s ending reflects his distorted view of love and foreshadows his increasingly violent behavior toward Amanda. His justification of murder as a manifestation of “true love” highlights the dangerous disconnect between Appearances, Perceptions, and Reality. While Olivier’s love for Amanda is respectful and loving, Tom’s obsessive and violent tendencies reveal a warped understanding of affection where he has blurred the lines between love and control. This contrast highlights the novel’s exploration of how love can be misinterpreted, twisted, and ultimately become destructive.

“He seemed dangerous to her. She was just grateful that she could get out of his car, and that he hadn’t overpowered her.”

Amanda’s perception of Tom shifts dramatically. Before this moment, Tom had never seemed threatening to her, but his behavior during the car ride forces Amanda to confront the danger he poses. Despite feeling physically endangered, Amanda still refuses to accept that Tom could be her stalker, illustrating the cognitive dissonance she experiences in reconciling her previous perceptions of him with the reality of his increasingly erratic behavior. This internal conflict underscores the difficulty in accepting uncomfortable truths, particularly when those truths challenge one’s previous understanding of a person.

“It does sound crazy […] The guy has some impressive degrees. He’s smart, educated, went to one of the best colleges in the States, he’s an attorney. He may be a pig the way he treats women, but a guy like that is not going to climb up a building, and risk killing himself, to steal your underwear. He could have come for a drink and stolen it while he used your bathroom. He’s not a cat burglar or a pervert, he’s just a shit.”

Pascal’s attempt to downplay the severity of Tom’s actions highlights the theme of Appearances, Perceptions, and Reality. He struggles to reconcile Tom’s polished, educated background with the possibility of him climbing up her building and stealing Amanda’s underwear. While Pascal readily believes that Tom attempted to rape Amanda and has protective instincts toward his friend, he finds it difficult to accept that Tom could be a violent stalker. This illustrates how outward appearances can obscure the truth of a person’s character.

“The police reported to her at the gallery the next day that they had interviewed Mr. Quinlan, and he had been very calm and polite and sympathetic. He was very sorry to hear about the incident, and gave them his card from the law firm. They assured her that they had no reason to suspect him, and he denied ever manhandling her. He said they had been lovers in college and recently renewed their romantic relationship. It hadn’t worked out and she was angry at him, so he said she had cooked up the story against him, and it was all a lie. He discreetly suggested that she might even have done the damage herself for the insurance money.”

Tom’s calm response to the police underscores his manipulative abilities, deepening the novel’s exploration of Appearances, Perceptions, and Reality. By presenting himself as sympathetic and cooperative, Tom redirects suspicion away from himself, convincing the police to dismiss Amanda’s claims. His suggestion that Amanda fabricated the story to collect insurance money further distorts the truth, making her appear suspicious and unreliable. Tom’s ability to manipulate perceptions of his character highlights the danger of judging people based solely on appearances, as his polished demeanor conceals a darker, violent reality.

“And I knew something was wrong with me. I didn’t know what. I didn’t have the guts to ask myself, but I knew. I knew it after Edouard was born. I was twenty-four years old. And I ran. I ran into my horse life. I created a world for myself where I could hide, from the truth and from you. And when I was twenty-seven, I fell in love, really in love for the first time. With Lizzie. And I’m still in love with her, and I hope I will be till my dying day. I cheated you, not just cheated on you. I cheated you of the opportunity to have a real life, to meet the right person.”

Stephanie’s confession to Olivier marks a pivotal moment in her journey toward Embracing Vulnerability in Interpersonal and Romantic Relationships. For years, she hid from the truth of her sexuality, masking her true desires with the safety of marriage—evidenced by the phrase, “I created a world for myself where I could hide.” By acknowledging the past hurt she caused both herself and Olivier, Stephanie emphasizes the long-standing internal conflict she has faced. Her love for Lizzie, which she now fully embraces, represents a significant step toward her personal growth as she breaks free from the constraints of her past and seeks to live more authentically.

“He really is insane […] He was my stalker all along. And I don’t think he found me by accident. I think he came to Paris looking for me, to settle an old score, for ending it with him twenty years ago.”

Amanda’s realization of Tom’s true nature emphasizes the theme of Appearances, Perceptions, and Reality. Throughout the novel, Danielle Steel portrays Tom as a charming and polished individual, which contrasts with his increasingly predatory, violent behavior. Here, Amanda’s acknowledgment of him as her stalker reveals the contrast between his outward persona and his obsessive, dangerous behavior.

“Stephanie’s revelations had taught him how little one knew about people sometimes, even those you knew well. But nothing he had seen of Amanda worried him or made him feel uneasy.”

Olivier’s realization that even those closest to someone can remain mysterious highlights the tension between appearances and reality. While Stephanie’s honesty deepens his understanding of people, Olivier’s unwavering confidence in Amanda emphasizes his belief that she is genuine and transparent. This contrast illustrates how personal experiences shape perceptions, with Olivier trusting Amanda despite the uncertainties revelations of his past have revealed.

“Stephanie had to come to terms with who she was, and Olivier had to be brave enough to want more out of life than he was getting.”

Both Stephanie and Olivier experience significant character growth in their journeys toward Embracing Vulnerability in Interpersonal and Romantic Relationships. Stephanie accepts her true self as she confronts her sexuality and the limitations of her past choices. With Stephanie having “come to terms with who she was” and the truth out, Olivier must now overcome complacency and pursue a more fulfilling life.