The idea of two complete strangers getting hitched has always intrigued me, for one simple reason—why would they do such a thing? Could such a relationship succeed? By successful relationship, I understand not only the longevity of the marriage…but is it possible for the participants to actually fall in love with each other in such a strange arrangement? I write romance, after all, and love is found in the most unexpected places.
A Convenient Marriage grew over a number of years. The basic story was simple—a divorcee with two children, an ex-husband being difficult over visitation, as well as a fiancée unable to commit. Holly’s friends suggested that she needed a new husband, placing an advert in the paper for one behind her back. Joshua was struck by a simple plan when he saw the ad and responded to it. Boring stuff, huh?
The problem was motivation. Why would Holly marry a man she’d never met, and why would Joshua respond to an ad for a husband, then actually propose to a woman he had never clapped eyes on? So, in came the dawdling fiancée, Nicole. Both Holly and Joshua were justified in not planning the marriage to be a real one, because they each had an agenda of their own, but Nicole was the injured party. For their plan to succeed, they had to marry—the real kind, down to that all-important piece of paper married—and they had to seem to be totally in love with each other. Holly needed to be married to take her ex on for custody of her children, while if Joshua wanted to motivate his reluctant fiancée into church, he had to be off limits to Nicole. That would make him very attractive to her again, and maybe she would even set a date for their wedding.
And here comes the ‘but’. Holly and Joshua’s plans go awry from the moment they meet on the steps of the chapel where their fake marriage is to take place, when both recognize the immediate attraction. Back at Joshua’s wine estate—yes, he is a rich landowner where Holly expected him to be a pauper—Holly meets Joshua’s mother, his brother and sister-in-law, and Nicole, the fiancée, who found out about Joshua’s duplicity in a room full of people. No one can blame Nicole for being a tad upset. Or can they? To add to Holly’s woes, she seems to have acquired a ‘ghost’ demanding she tell a story.
Amidst Nicole’s shenanigans, Joshua’s mother’s disapproval, Holly’s ex’s aggression, and the ghost following Holly around, will these two accomplish what they set out to do? Or will life get in the way?
Joshua’s and Holly’s journey through the uncharted seas of a blind marriage, where no rules apply, is a stormy one.
Clothes aren’t part of the human body, so how can it be part of the spirit of the deceased we see as ghosts? Because we see ghosts as wearing clothes, that might be proof to those who don’t believe in ghosts that they are no more than a figment of the imagination of those that do.
The famous picture from The Shining
In life, the energy inside a person is called his spirit or soul, which is at the basis of the personality. Science can’t prove the existence of the soul/personality, but we all know it exist. So, why can’t this energy exist outside the body once the person dies?If this is possible, this electromagnetic energy we know as the soul or spirit, that also contains the personality, is what we see as ghosts. In a lot of instances, what we see is no more than a cloudy, formless apparition, but when the ghosts appear as wearing clothes, they are identifiable as human.
This electromagnetic energy is precisely the grounds for the skeptic to disprove the existence of ghosts. Scientific experiments have shown, after all, that exposure to high levels of electromagnetic energy can cause people to have vivid dreams, nightmares and even hallucinations, and because ghosts are accepted to consist of electromagnetic energy, ghost sightings are no more that tricks of an exposed mind, right?
But if ghosts are no more than energy, why do they need clothes? Most of the ghosts seen wearing clothing are simply “residual” images – imprints or memories that linger on the atmosphere of a place, like a recording. This type of ghost doesn’t have a “personality”, but is simply like an old movie playing over and over.
In other words, people are seeing clothes because they have been conditioned that people wear clothes. The clothes aren’t necessary to the ghost, but our brains process them as clothed in order to class them as ‘human’.
The London Ghost
And what about the other type of ghosts, the spirits who remained behind after death, the ones who aren’t merely imprints of past events? If spirits have any sort of control over the energy they are now comprised of (or even if their personalities are somehow manifested in the energy), then I would think it possible for the witness to see the spirit as the spirit sees itself. If the personality really does remain, the spirit would visualize itself as it was when alive, appearing as a living person and wearing clothing. The ghost might even make the person see what the ghost wants them to see.The clothes aren’t real either. When the ghost disappears, the clothes are gone too.
The ghosts in the Bridesmaids, Weddings & Honeymoons series are residual ghosts up to book 3 – You’re Wrong (which will be released in June). The clothes they’re seen in dates them to a certain period in the past, although they are like a recording on a loop. From book 4, the ghosts themselves change and become more interactive – and dangerous! – but still they are seen in clothes of the same period.
So, what do you think? Are the clothes ghosts are seen in a preconception or a part of the reflection of the person the ghost used to be