I think I like Candice Horn. She writes "clean" Regency romances. Here's the library journal summary of this one: "When the unconventional spinster Lady Mary Haviland offers to help the confirmed rake and libertine Jack Raeburn, Marquess of Pemberton, find a wife, she has no idea that she and her money will soon become the object of his pursuit-with surprising results."
Why are rakes and libertines so stereotypically attractive in Regency romances? Why does the coupling of the innocent woman and the experienced man still persist in appearing as the "ideal" in these so-called clean romances? I did NOT like Jack Raeburn. When he's misunderstood and jilted by his true love, he goes on a harlot binge, a bimbo bender. Really, he just goes to bed with as many women as he can get. YUCK. Who wants a guy like that? He's not just used, he's practically used up. Ew. He was a user from top to bottom and yet he was our hero, the match to our damaged and love-starved heroine. Sigh. Not my idea of romance.
It was an engaging book with a thoroughly soiled male protagonist. I guess I can swallow a less tarnished reformed rake from time to time (what Regency hero isn't a reformed rake? I'm going to start noticing this a little more often), but I couldn't fall in love with our Jack. Ick.
Oh, I'll read more Candice Horn. Perhaps I should stay away from the "The Regency Rakes Trilogy", though. I'm not sure this one could really qualify as "clean".
Bad language: nope
Sex: Well, yes. Lots and lots. But absolutely no titillating descriptions, no sex scenes really. We were told about Jack's behavior, not shown it. I felt bad for all the females that Jack burned through. It just felt so ugly.
No comments:
Post a Comment