A Hero in the Making by Kay Stockham

Bitchin' Blog Posts

by SB Sarah | by SB Sarah | December 07, 2011 | Wednesday at 3:29 pm | 89 Comments

Title: A Hero in the Making
Author: Kay Stockham
Publication Info: Harlequin Jan 2012
ISBN: 978-0373717521
Genre: Contemporary Romance

This book made me mad. Really mad. Mad to the point where I'd mark passages that pissed me off and yell at the book instead of making a note. The hero is awful until about 75% of the way through the book, and the heroine lets everyone push her around and permits varying levels of cruelty. Her family is made up of some horrible people. Her conflict is real enough, but her decision-making ability as an adult is constantly questioned and undermined to the point where she makes the decision that everyone else wants, mostly because she abandons her perfectly valid arguments.

And that last bit is what pissed me off the most. In this book, the subtext is that family is more important than anything else, and the people who are your family deserve your undiverted loyalty, no matter how shitful, cruel, and hypocritical they are. Love and family are more important than anything else, even when that love and that family are the opposite of beneficial to the heroine.

That subtext wove through the book repeatedly, because that was the only reason I could find why the heroine stayed around to put up with the number of horrible people she was staying with on her vacation.

Let me back up and give a plot summary- which is something of a tricky notion because the bits of the backstory are revealed in pieces and in a strange order, and I had to draw out the timeline on paper to make sure all the clues fit.

Marcus Whitefeather - hold up a minute, let me start with the cover.

First, where is that kid's helmet?

This book caught my eye because of the prominence of the racing wheelchair and the possibility of a paraplegic hero, and the plot summary - Montana! reconciliation! angst! - made me very curious. I bought it during this past Sunday's 50% off sale.

So, plot summary:

Marcus Whitefeather, and yes, characters remark on his Native American looks many times in the book, is a former Heisman-winning, Dallas Cowboys starting quarterback who, after a bad tackle on the field, found himself paralyzed from the knees down.

I had to Google that one - I'd not heard of paralysis from the knees down, but hey, Google knows all. Paralysis from the knees down can result from different injuries, but according to the Merck Manuals website, spinal injuries from T-12 to L1 locations on the spine can result in paralysis above and below the knee.

Marcus' former girlfriend, Skylar Mathews, is back in Montana at her family's ranch for vacation with her 7 year old son, Cody. Skylar is a widow; her husband, Tom, died recently of a hereditary blood disorder. Cody is having a great deal of trouble processing his grief. And by "a great deal of trouble," I mean that he is convinced that his father has become a vampire, lives up in the mountains somewhere, and is going to come and suck his blood and turn him into a vampire, too, so they can be strong and fast and together forever. So Skylar thinks that a vacation in Montana on her family's ranch, which serves as an activity center for disabled people, is a good idea. She'll definitely be able to avoid seeing Marcus, who she knows uses a wheelchair ~~wheelchair-bound~~, on a ranch that specializes in serving the local disabled community.

Skylar is dealing with a lot of grief herself. Not only is her husband's death present in her and Cody's minds and conversations, but Skylar is a counselor at a private school in Manhattan, and one of the students there committed suicide just before Skylar left on vacation. Her co-counselor and friend (who is strangely barely present in the story aside from text messages that everything back in New York is fine) says she can handle the grief counseling at the school, and Skylar decides to head west.

So the conflict (one of about 19) is this: Marcus is Cody's father. Marcus knows this, and Skylar knows, and her late husband knew, but no one else is aware.

Here's where I'm really unsure as to whether something is a spoiler, but I'm giving away a lot of the backstory that is revealed in pieces, so Be Ye Warned, this review, and the reasons this book pissed me off, is very spoiler-y.

Sometime before his accident, Marcus had asked Skylar to drop out of school and travel with him and the team and be with him all the time. Skylar was conflicted about that and asked for time to think about it, saying that she needed a break from him and their relationship as it was too intense for her. When she went back to Marcus' house to talk about it, she found him in bed with some woman he'd picked up at a bar.

Several times in the text, Marcus implies or states outright that his desire to pick up some chick at a bar to ease his pain was Skylar's fault. Oh, and the accident that led to his paralysis was Skylar's fault, too, because she wasn't in the stands where she should have been and so his head wasn't in the game.

But I get ahead of myself. After the "I found you in bed with some chick" evening, Marcus and Skylar are broken up, and Marcus gets tackled, resulting in permanent injury. He's in the hospital, and Skylar comes to see him because she's discovered that she's pregnant. Marcus freaks out, screams at her that he wants nothing to do with her or the baby, and that he never wants to see her again. Skylar gets the hell out of there, and a week or so later marries her late husband.

The late husband had known he was going to die young, and knew that he couldn't father children because he'd pass along this genetic blood disorder, and so he and Skylar work out a plan that he'll marry her, they'll be a family for as long as he had left, and somewhere along the way Skylar fell in a very warm and abiding love with him. Not the set-your-pants-on-fire love she'd had with Marcus, but a real relationship with real feelings (and real grief when he's gone).

So here's Marcus talking to Skylar shortly after she returns to Montana with Cody:

"I need to check on Cody. But your secret is safe. I kept my promise, Marcus. I didn't tell. No one knows. I left you alone, and I raised my son -"

"With help from Daddy Warbucks." His voice was full of scorn.

It took everything inside her to control her fury yet she refused to rise to the taunt.

I'd have risen to it. I'd have risen up out of my chair and walked away and made sure never to talk to that assmunch again. But anyway. Skylar thinks to herself:

Yes, Tom had been well-off. He'd been a partner in a very successful business. But more important he had been a good man and a wonderful father. And trust worthy when I needed him most.

But she doesn't say that. She says

"You have no right to judge me or any decision I've made."

I'm sorry to report that Marcus does just that for about 50-odd more pages.

Later, he tells Skylar that Cody has to be told that Marcus is his father, not Tom, and that Skylar also has to come clean to her family as well. I'm not sure what put the bug up Marcus' ass after 7 years of silence and no bothersome paternity, but he's adamant about it. Skylar, in a moment of clarity, says oh HELL no:

"Telling Cody now will only confuse him and hurt him when he's already upset over Tom's death. Telling him wouldn't be looking out for *his* best interest, only yours…. I won't let you hurt him when you've already proved yourself untrustworthy multiple times."

The words were hateful but they had to be said.

Yeah, no shit, they had to be said. It's because they're true.

Finally she made it to the threshold, but Marcus called out to her one last time.

"I regret what I said to you that day. But you and I both know it will be easy to find an attorney to take my case and argue that you took advantage of my accident and emotional state to keep Cody for yourself."

"You would DO that?" What happened to him wanting her? Caring for her?

"Only if I have to. You either tell your family, or I will. That's a promise."

You know what's the best strategy when talking to the mother of your child, your former girlfriend and someone you profess to care about, trying to convince her that you should be allowed to be part of their lives, even though 7 years ago you threw her pregnant ass out of your life?

Threats and emotional blackmail. Scare the ever living shit out of her that the golden former NFL quarterback is going to take custody from her, or force visitation, or worse. Good Lord. What a fucking dickbag.

So Skylar comes clean to her mom and her assorted siblings/siblings in law, and they're all wonderfully supportive of her decision to marry Tom and give her son a father and a wonderful, though sadly brief, time with a loving set of parents who both wanted him and loved him without limit.

HA. No. Sorry. First they accuse Skylar of keeping Cody's parentage a secret from Marcus, but Skylar, bless her occasionally-appearing spine, corrects them.

"You have to tell him. He has a right to know. Cody's his son and he's missed everything. Cody as a baby. His first words - first steps."

How like her family to lay fault with her rather than someone else….

"Marcus knows." Skylar was more than a bit bitter that her own family immediately assumed the worst about her. "He's always known."

So they go back and forth, with Skylar doing a fine job of defending Tom, their marriage, and her decisions - none of which she really ought to have to defend so stridently - until Skylar's mom, Rissa, and the other assorted nitwits in the room decide that if Skylar tells Cody that Marcus is his father, Cody will stop fantasizing that vampire Tom is coming down from the mountain, and will also stop getting into fights with kids who mock his assertions that vampire dad is a true story.

Surprise! Your dad is this asshole over here in the speedy wheelchair. Hope that fixes your very scary break with reality, kid.

And Marcus, let me tell you, folks, he is just all heart and soul and plaid and fishing lines and tackle boxes and golf shirts and all those other dad things you see in the Hallmark store on Father's Day when he thinks about his reasons for informing Cody of his parentage:

Skylar might claim his reasoning was selfish - maybe it was - but now that he had his life in order, he couldn't help but think he had more to offer Cody than a make-believe vampire. Couldn't she see that?

Skylar herself was difficult for me to sympathize with. Sometime in the past, Skylar dressed in a "Goth" fashion - it's repeated several times that she was "Goth" without any description of what that meant. She's blonde, but I think her hair was dark then, and she wore a lot of makeup, which Skylar says at one point served to hide her pain behind paint or something. I have no idea or concept what they meant by "Goth" except that it was a facade that concealed her misery behind an appearance that she says was outwardly miserable. That, and Skylar comments on her past a lot.

I am not sure if this reveal is a spoiler but I'm hiding it anyway:

Skylar was miserable as a teen because when she was 14, an older man had begun an affair with her, and Skylar's dad found out. He dragged Skylar into the car and drove irresponsibly in a thunderstorm, heading to the older man's house. They wrecked before they got there, and Skylar watched as her father bled to death in the car.

This also: Skylar's fault. Never mind the whole statutory rape thing, child predator thing, or the part where her dad elected to drive too fast and out of control of himself in a storm.

The Goth part of Skylar's backstory really bothered me, as several characters including Skylar herself make sweeping statements about how dressing in a "Goth" fashion is somehow immature, playacting or false pretense. I found that so judgmental and diminishing, particularly of Skylar as a character because she works with teens:

She'd worked hard to put the past behind her, but seeing Marcus dredged it all up again, and she hated how it made her feel. Panicky and sick and dark inside. Angry. In an instant, she was transported to the Goth teen she'd been, the one who had hidden behind a mask of makeup and clothes because she couldn't handle the problems in her life. Even if she'd created those problems herself.

Skylar also makes a few broad statements against recommendations from child therapists that Cody ought to be receiving medication to help his fixation on his dead father, saying "before she began feeding her child chemicals, she had to try removing him from everything and focus on him one-on-one." Again, judgmental - and dismissive. Especially because on the next page, after Skylar rejects the idea of feeding Cody chemicals, Cody starts exclaiming that the mountains in Montana are perfect because his father the vampire will be able to live in the mountains and find Cody and Skylar at the ranch so easily. Terrifically creepy, that Cody, until later, when he turns into a level 4 Plot Moppet™.

Skylar carries a lot of guilt with her, and her mother and Marcus are both determined through much of the first half of the book to pile on more. Marcus decides that Cody should be informed that Marcus is Skylar's father, not that bothersome dead man who Cody loved a great deal and is mourning in a terribly frightening fashion. Marcus also decides that he should determine the time table for telling Cody the truth, despite Skylar's insistence that Cody is fragile right now (no shit - he plays vampire with Batman and Robin action figures and tells other children without hesitation that his dad is a vampire and he will be too someday) and despite the fact that Marcus has not paid one cent of child support or shown any inclination to learn one thing about Cody's life in the past 7 years. He's the dad and father knows best (Yes, knows best how to alienate me as a reader and behave consistently like a spoiled, self-centered asshole, apparently).

Marcus is also gifted with heroic superlativeness. He's a Heisman-winning NFL quarterback. Then he's paralyzed but no worries - he's an award winning metal sculptor whose latest work is a commission from the state. AND he's one of the fastest wheelchair racers ever, with a local police officer once clocking him by radar at over 45mph. And he slices and dices the heroine's confidence in herself without a thought! What a man.

I thought about stopping in the middle but I wanted to see if Marcus could get back to at least some level of normal human behavior before the end of the story, or if he'd expect Skylar to give up everything about her life back home and stay in Montana with him. Or maybe if Skylar would get on a plane with Cody and leave all these jerkwards behind. Especially her mom, Rissa, who waits until nearly the end of the book to address the way Skylar feels about her father's death and the way Rissa has been looking at her all those years. Rissa also thinks it is totally a good idea to pass judgment on her daughter's marriage to Tom:

"Skylar, what you and Tom had wasn't a marriage, it was a business arrangement."

"It was what we wanted. You don't have to understand anything more than that. Accept it. Tom was wonderful. He was a good man and a better father and he deserved the life he dreamed of but couldn't have for fear of a biological child developing his disease."

"I understand that but, even if Marcus didn't want to be in Cody's life, did you ever stop to think about Ben? He's my friend, and how am I supposed to look him in the face knowing you've kept his great-grandson from him all these years? Robbed him of Cody?"

It wasn't Skylar who did that. It was Marcus. But Marcus can for whatever odd reason Do No Wrong.

"I know." That was one of the things that had always made her feel guilty.

WHY? BLAME MARCUS. It is his fault! HE made the decision to reject her. But no, better that Rissa be reassured than forced to confront her own prejudice again.

"You have no reason to feel guilty. If Marcus had wanted to tell Ben the truth, he could have at any time."

"How could he? Anything he said would destroy the life you'd created. You think Marcus would have done that to you?"

"You act as though Marcus is totally innocent in this…."

"No, Skylar. I know Marcus has his flaws but I also know, deep down, he loved you like nothing I've ever seen before. You tied his hands because the only way he could have his son was by revealing your deceit with Tom."

If Marcus had beat the shit out of Skylar, would they be having this conversation? Probably.

"And that brings us right back to how he cheated on me."

Thank God Skylar remembers. Everyone else, including Marcus, seems to forget. Marcus is totally hung up on the fact that Skylar married someone else, but conveniently forgets that he stuck his dick in someone he'd just met hours after Skylar broke up with him, AND that he'd had other relationships since Skylar moved to New York.

"Was that Marcus showing his love for me? Oh, but wait, you're on the 'we'd broken up' side of the debate. You supported him then, too."

"Oh, Skylar. I'm not taking sides. But if I was? I'm on Cody's. That little boy needs help to cope with what's happened to him."

"You mean, to deal with what happened because I married Tom…."

"You knew he was dying. How am I supposed to overlook that? You had to know losing the only father he'd known would be devastating."

"Yes. I did I married a man who loved and supported us when Cody's biological father wouldn't even acknowledge us. I don't regret it. Cody is hurting now because he had seven wonderful years with a man who was a great father, who loved him unconditionally, which is more than Marcus had ever offered. You're blaming me, and even Tom, but what about Marcus? He knew, Mom, and he chose to do nothing."

"If you had only waited, given Marcus time -"

"What are you saying? You would rather I had waited around in the hope that he might change his mind? What about my self-respect? Dignity? Mom, are you serious?"

At this point, I wanted the next scene to be of Skylar packing their things and going home. Then Rissa lets this exit her mouth:

"I'm saying, had you not been so hasty, maybe Cody wouldn't have the problems he has.

Excuse me while I go 0_o.

So if you're keeping score: Skylar's relationship with her family: her fault. Marcus being paralyzed: her fault. Her current misery and grief: her own fault. Aaaaaand Cody's fixation that a vampire version of his late father is going to come be with him? Totally Skylar's fault. It's the Carquest Super8 Guacamole Guilt-o-Rama Reinforcement-of-Emotionally-Manipulative-Gender-Roles Bowl game: Skylar: 4, Marcus: 0.

I remain totally confused how I was supposed to sympathize with Marcus, or Skylar's mother. Maybe I was meant to see them as villains, or figures who were prominent parts of Skylar's past, a past she needs to overcome while also finding ways to have happy relationships with both? I don't see how that would be possible with her mother, especially after her mother tells Skylar that Cody's problems are all her fault (despite Skylar otherwise being a pretty strong, compassionate, and understanding mom) AND after Skylar learns that the story of her teenage years is now used by her mother and other women as a cautionary tale to the teenagers who live on the ranch.

I have no idea how I was supposed to sympathize or understand any of them. I just hated them, and never got to the point where I thought there was anything or anyone there worth Skylar's giving up her life in New York and staying in Montana.

But there is one scene I really liked. Skylar's mom, Rissa, remarried to a very firm man named Jonas. Skylar has a relatively good relationship with Jonas, and Cody admires Jonas greatly. Jonas is a sheriff, and something of a quiet badass. When he finds out from Rissa that Marcus knew Skylar was pregnant, but rejected her and refused to man up to his responsibilities to her or to Cody, he gets really, really pissed. AND IT IS AWESOME.

…there was only one reason for Jonas Taggert to visit.

He tried to brace himself, knowing this conversation would go nearly as smoothly as the one with his grandfather. Marcus positioned himself by the design desk and waited for Jonas to enter….

"Evenin'."

Jonas's gaze was cold as he stalked toward Marcus. A man on a mission. When he stopped in front of Marcus and grabbed hold of his shirt, it wasn't hard to guess what was coming.

"You knew?"

"Yes, sir. She told me. And I sent her away."

Jonas drew his arm back. Marcus made no attempt to block the blow, even though Jonas gave him plenty of time to do so. The punch to the jaw lobbed Marcus' head hard to the right and his wheelchair rocked up on one wheel. He saw stars for a second, then blinked his eyes to clear them.

If this was on video, I'd have a LiveJournal icon of that scene on endless loop. I'd Photoshop Skylar taking a swing at Marcus, too. A few of them. He was such a cowardly, whiny, gutless, unflinchingly cruel asshole. Especially when he talks to Skylar later and she sees the bruise on his face:

He watched as she continued to stare at the bruise with an expression of remorse, and wondered if there had ever been a time when he didn't want her.

When you had the bar chick in your bed, maybe? Marcus says he told Jonas everything that happened. Skylar says:

"Did you blame me?"

How sad is it that she even asks that?

"No. I cowboyed up and admitted I made a mistake."

ABOUT GODDAM TIME. But then he forgets to stop talking:

"I hope when the time comes, you'll do the same."

WHAT MISTAKE? Marrying someone else? What is with these people who think she was she supposed to sit at home, pregnant and alone, hoping Marcus would cowboy up sooner than seven years after the fact?

I wanted her to make another "mistake" and get herself and Cody into the car and get the hell away from all these assholes. This was one of the few times I read a romance and didn't want the protagonists to have a happy ending. Marcus didn't deserve much of anything, and Skylar was pressured from all sides to give up her life, career and responsibilities in New York to stay with Marcus now that he'd suddenly yanked his head out of his ass and decided to ask her to stay with him. Marcus expects her support when Cody rejects the idea of Marcus being his father and wants nothing to do with him. He lectures Skylar about what she ought to do to help him.

Heh. Yeah. As soon as she gets a check for seven years of child support, sure. She'll get right on that support.

(Sorry, that was my fantasy. That's not what happened.)

Marcus never finds a way to be a better person at key moments. When he learns about the student at Skylar's school who killed himself, his reaction is tepid, and he uses Cody for more emotional blackmail, while wondering why on earth Skylar would put her life, job, students and friends in New York above him, and above her family in Montana. He refuses to see the parallel between himself 8 years prior asking her to skip classes and travel with him to games, and himself in the present telling her to drop her life and move back to Montana because that's what he wanted and thought was best. When he decides that she can fly to Montana every vacation so Marcus can see Cody, she gets angry, and he whines to himself that there's no making that woman happy. Oh, and: "Her work was important, he got that, but there were kids in need everywhere."

What a guy.

What made me the most irate was the subtext. Of course it was acceptable for Marcus to treat her like that, to threaten and scare and coerce and manipulate Skylar. Pick your reason: He's the hero. He's in a wheelchair*. He's the local golden boy many times over. He's a good person who was deceived by some former-Goth strumpet. So much negative past piles up against Skylar's character, and there is not nearly enough redress, aside from Jonas punching Marcus (BEST SCENE EVER) (I totally laughed and read it twice) for anything that Marcus does in the present. The wrongs of the heroine in the past are more important than the shitful behavior of the hero in the present, and I couldn't figure out why.

*The fact that Marcus is in a wheelchair is handled in an interesting balance. There are comments about how much of the ranch and Marcus' home are equipped with handicapped-accessible ramps and access points, and there's a scene where he's driving his van, which has a hydraulic lift to get him in and out. He jokes about how he stares at people's backsides most of the day. But there were also moments where I was confused. The most that is said about Marcus' ability to get himself in and out of the chair is that he "transfers" from one place to another. There's clearly no problem with the scrumpin' and at one point Marcus holds himself on his arms and knees - which made me wonder which muscles in his legs were under his control. There's a scene where he's wearing braces and riding a horse, using the braces to move his ankle to tap the horse's flank. His existence in the wheelchair just … is. It doesn't define him. His chair causes problems and causes other moments of success and potential, and Marcus makes the best of the fact that he's paralyzed. He doesn't whine about it nearly as much as he does about Skylar's marriage.

But as for Marcus himself, he's a dick, and most of the surrounding family members are assholes. Everyone rolls right over Skylar's protests (no pun intended) that she should not abandon her life in New York.

I struggled to answer the question, "Why?"

WHY should she stay, be with Marcus, have a relationship with him and be his wife? He surely didn't earn it. He didn't earn anything except a few more cracks to the jaw.

WHY should she stay and repair her relationship with her mother, a woman who seems determined to remind Skylar of everything she's done wrong, and how morally weak and shameful she is as a person?

WHY is Skylar obligated to take this shit from anyone, biologically related or not?

Because he's the hero and she's the heroine? And this is a romance and his needs and wants are more important than hers? Because the city is bad and the country is good? Because forgiveness is better than holding a grudge, even though holding that grudge might protect you from more emotional abuse in the future? Because doing what's best for your pregnant self is unacceptable when someone "deep down" loves you but can't figure out how to extract his cranium from his own colon and act like he cares?

"Marcus was the father of her child, and right or wrong or screwed up or not, she wouldn't turn him away."

Lines like this, which is during a love scene I might add, underscore Skylar's obligation based on circumstance rather than conduct, and that subtext made me scream at the book. Because of the import of biological family, Skylar is obligated to tolerate, accept, and ultimately embrace people who I found completely awful.

She says at the end of the book, "I'm not a kid anymore. I don't expect the world to revolve around me."

The reinforcement of the idea that it's ok for someone who professes to love you to treat you cruelly is unacceptable, in romance, or anywhere else. Nor is it acceptable to dismiss poor treatment on the part of other people as one's own fault, and a signal of the victim's immaturity. This was not romance, or a happy ending, I could believe in. Unfortunately, the title in this book got it way wrong. Marcus was not a hero, and if he was making anything, he was making an almighty mess.

This book is available for pre-order from Amazon | Kindle | BN & nook | On sale now at eHarlequin.com.

Filed: General Bitching, Reviews, Reviews by Author, Authors, Q-S, Reviews by Grade, Grade D

Tagged: wtfery, wheelchair, superromance, make the burning stop, harlequin, handicapped, contemporary romance, asshole heroes

| |

Ros Clarke said on 12.07.11 at 04:26 PM • [link]

Taking this one off the TBR list right now. Wow.
Ridley said on 12.07.11 at 04:37 PM • [link]

Convenient that he’s paralyzed below the knees. Nothing causes authors to contort themselves more than making sure paralyzed characters can have sex “normally.”
Katie Dunneback said on 12.07.11 at 04:40 PM • [link]

Now I’m wondering what saved this book from being a flat-out F.
SB Sarah said on 12.07.11 at 04:43 PM • [link]

In the end, Marcus does own up to some of his assholish behavior (though not all), and their compromise, such as it is, works for just about everyone (though more for Marcus than for Skylar). While it wasn’t enough for me to change my opinion of Marcus, or my desire to see Skylar with anyone other than him, the solution, and the handling of Marcus’ use of a wheelchair, raised it above an F for me.
Sheryl Nantus said on 12.07.11 at 04:44 PM • [link]

Double Wow.

I’m speechless. Totally speechless. My fingers are numb.

I’d love to see some defense of this book.
Anony Miss said on 12.07.11 at 04:56 PM • [link]

I frankly can’t see why this got a D and not an F. What a horrible, atrocious conniving surreptitiously undermining jerk head.

Ick.
Julieinduvall said on 12.07.11 at 05:01 PM • [link]

Sarah, thanks for saving us from a book I would be donating to the recycle bin. I haz no love for assholish heroes, verbally abusive family members, or those who believe love = pain.
Jami JoAnne Russell said on 12.07.11 at 05:01 PM • [link]

Probably Jonas punching Dickus.
Pamela said on 12.07.11 at 05:02 PM • [link]

Long time lurker, first time commenter here. I just had to say… WTF!?!?

I hate the idea in some romance novels that bad behavior by the hero is caused by the heroine. This makes no sense to me. An adult is responsible for their own behavior.

Plus this entire obligation theory, that one is “obligated” to be with the other parent for the good of the child is right out of the 1950’s.

I cannot handle doormat heroines. I assume she did let the asshat, I mean hero, tell the child he was his father? This is totally a deal breaker for me. This is some serious emotional abuse/physical abuse set up, convincing her to feel guilty and her believing it enough to do what she *knows* is not in the best interest of her child. And she’s a counselor! Argh!

None of this is my idea of romantic.
snarkhunter said on 12.07.11 at 05:05 PM • [link]

Wow. Just wow. That’s a book that straight-up hates women, right there.
snarkhunter said on 12.07.11 at 05:07 PM • [link]

And if you think about the fact that she was in a “relationship” with an older man when she was a child, her whole psychology seems to be set up to reinforce the idea that women are simultaneously men’s playthings and responsible for every single thing that goes wrong. It’s like this whole book was written as what not to do in a romance.
Susan said on 12.07.11 at 05:16 PM • [link]

Oh, yeah. Pre-ordering right now. (Not.)

I could barely read this post, it was that upsetting to me. This sounds like a lot of those 80s/90s “romances” where the guy is a Neanderthal/stalker/bully type and the woman is a doormat. I was never happy when they had their HEA, because my idea of a true HEA would be for the heroine to dump him and file a restraining order. And, yes, the heroine’s friends and family members were also often douchey—excessively needy, domineering, cruel, whatev. These kinds of books were the reason I quit reading romances for many, many years. I hope this book isn’t heralding a comeback of sorts.
mbot565 said on 12.07.11 at 05:25 PM • [link]

Ugh, why is it this type of romance plot still exist? Still approved? Still sold? Thanks for reading & reviewing it, so we don’t have to.
Anah Crow said on 12.07.11 at 05:28 PM • [link]

This, exactly.
lisa pomales said on 12.07.11 at 05:51 PM • [link]

Thanks I was going to pick this cuz of the theme now I dont want to any more. Personally if you going to do a secret baby theme do right . I like ” Baby come home by stephaine bond” and “the wrong hostage by elizabeth lowell” secret children done right ( at least to my POV)
Tania Kennedy said on 12.07.11 at 06:01 PM • [link]

Oh, my god. This sounds absolutely horrible.
Melanie Cremins said on 12.07.11 at 06:49 PM • [link]

Wow.

Well, I will be happy to stay away from that one. I’m amazed that it exists.

On the other hand, I got to enjoy your very through evisceration of it, so that was fun. Thanks!
Ilona said on 12.07.11 at 06:51 PM • [link]

Wow. that sounds like… abuse, geez hoe did this get published as romance?
Redheadedgirl said on 12.07.11 at 07:04 PM • [link]

Oh my fucking GOD. This is a NEW BOOK? Like, published THIS YEAR? THIS WHAT IS THIS FUCKERY NO SERIOUSLY.

Even *I* would not read this shit.
donna said on 12.07.11 at 07:28 PM • [link]

Well, that may be the longest review I’ve ever seen from you Sarah, and thank you for giving it what it deserves. Holy just plain crap! Although giving it a D for the wheelchair aspect may be a little like saying that Charles Manson is redeemable because he likes dogs.

I’ve had a couple “Goth” kids in my life, and I gotta say I’m tired of people believing this means they don’t value themselves, have deep emotional problems or are unable to “fit in” and writers using it to infer these traits in a character. They were fun and loving kids then, & they are responsible and loving adults now.
Evelyn Ryan said on 12.07.11 at 08:18 PM • [link]

Passing on this one.
AnnB said on 12.07.11 at 08:22 PM • [link]

Amen to your defense of Goth kids. I am sick and tired of “Goth” being used as short hand for depressed, suicidal and immature. But since the author gets so much else in this book wrong, why be surprised she got that wrong too. Thank Sarah for the review. What an awful mess of a book.
DreadPirateRachel said on 12.07.11 at 09:14 PM • [link]

Jesus. H. Christ.

Are we absolutely certain that the author of this piece of shite didn’t invent a time machine and travel here from the Victorian period? Because, seriously, portraying women this way is sooooo 150 years ago.

I’m with the others who think this is an F, as in “Fucking awFul.
beletseri said on 12.07.11 at 09:28 PM • [link]

Wow, it sounds like a revenge fantasy on women’s lib. How dare you actually act like you’re a human being! You’re a broodmare and less than human! It’s like someone wanted to teach all those good for nothing “former-Goth strumpet[s]” to learn their place.

FYI I want to be a Goth strumpet when I grow up.
Emily said on 12.07.11 at 09:34 PM • [link]

Marcus knew she was pregnant and he kicked her out…
But he still knew she was pregnant. He could have tracked her down anytime in the last 7 years and argued for his right to see his child. He could have apologized and asked her for visitation. Why is visitation seen as a threat? It says bad things about both of them that visitation is a threat. Also cheating while sucks for a relationship does not make someone a bad parent. Its how they treat the child that matters.
Melissa Bradley said on 12.07.11 at 10:09 PM • [link]

Yes! Hats off to your defense of Goth. And I want to see that punch playing a loop too. This book sounds like a crock of bad stereotypes. It makes my inner feminist roar with rage.
MissFifi said on 12.07.11 at 10:27 PM • [link]

I think I am more amazed that this crap got published as Romance. It should have fallen under a guide for young girls called “Here Are The Signs You Are Attracted To/Involved With a Jackass.” Or keep it short and sweet “Men to Stay Away From”. Jeez!
Vicki said on 12.07.11 at 10:35 PM • [link]

Actually, it’s kind of like a textbook on how women who have been damaged have trouble caring for themselves later in life and how some families potentiate that damage. And I say that as a pediatrician who is on her second generation of kids, seeing the moms I had to call CPS for now bringing their kids, dealing with the wreckage of their lives and being blamed by everyone around them for stuff they really cannot help and had/have no control over. A fourteen year old with anyone over sixteen is abuse and there is damage. They fall into these abusive relationships over and over. So, maybe use this in a class about sequelae of trauma? With the classic unhappy ending in a bad relationship?
PamG said on 12.07.11 at 10:35 PM • [link]

This plotline or a facsimile thereof is the reason I stopped reading Phyllis Whitney back in the day. Her heroines always had some unresolved anger or issue, though not always with the hero. However, the hero as well as other cast members would hammer away at her throughout the story to admit her responsibility for the situation and forgive whoever she was pissed at or suspicious of. Problem was, her issues always seemed perfectly understandable to me and it irritated me that the heroine always had to cave before she could be worthy of a HEA. The last one I ever read involved a woman who had been committed to a mental institution and had her kid’s custody taken from her by her family. The so-called hero spent the entire book chiding her for her anger and demanding that she acknowledge that she was at fault. That was it for me… and that was back in the 70s!
Leogirl said on 12.07.11 at 11:41 PM • [link]

I would have liked to find that she’d gotten behind Marcus and rolled him down a nice sized hill.
Sybylla said on 12.08.11 at 12:31 AM • [link]

Holy crap! Without the review, I would probably have given the book a shot…I’ve got a definite soft spot for novels with disabled protagonists, even though I feel like a lot of them don’t handle it well (either because they focus on the disability to the exclusion of all else or because they treat it as an interesting quirk that can be ignored when it becomes inconvenient). This book, however, sounds like the best that can be said about it is that asshole “heroes” aren’t exclusively able-bodied.

Just reading the review makes me want to enter the novel so I can stage an intervention.
Connie333 said on 12.08.11 at 03:32 AM • [link]

Wow. Well umm yeah - enjoyed the eviseration of it, but hell no I am I ever going to read it.
What a dick of a “hero”. Was it ever suggested that Marcus could move so that Skylar could the work that is important to her? For that matter so that the kid could return to the school and environment he was presumably settled in before. And for goodness sake heh how about not demonising medication for kids when it is needing or you know counselling. I can not see how “it’s ok sweetie, that man you loved and raised you wasn’t really your dad so it didn’t count. this asshole here who abandoned and refused to acknowledge you is your real dad, so everything is going to be ok” isn’t going to end up sending an already troubled kid off the rails a little down the line.
(He might even go Goth - eep!)
Susan said on 12.08.11 at 03:54 AM • [link]

Goth Strumpets would be a great name for a band.
Susan said on 12.08.11 at 03:55 AM • [link]

I say, sue him for child support, including back amounts, and get him a *lot* of embarrassing publicity. The media loves stories like that.

That is, if this were real life.
Susan said on 12.08.11 at 03:58 AM • [link]

Sarah, I suggest a contest - Write a Better Ending for This Book! And the contestants don’t have to provide an HEA. At least, not one where the hero & heroine are together.
Ann Somerville said on 12.08.11 at 04:12 AM • [link]

Jesus H Christ on a pogostick. I feel like I’ve been in an abusive argument with someone after reading all that. What an *ugly* set up, and characters.

And why do I get the impression that our ‘hero’ is only paralysed from the knees down so that the author can use that to tug at our heart strings without dealing with the reality of paralysis for most paralysed footballers - which wouldn’t involve enthusiastic rumpy pumpy. It’s like the disfiguring scars on the hero’s face that only enhance his handsomeness, instead of inhibiting his ability to speak or causing serious nerve damage.

A better for ending for this book? Skylar sues for child support, knees wotisface in the nuts repeatedly and refuses to tell Cody he’s biologically related to such a douche. Cody is given therapy by a kind person who lets him know that his dead daddy *was* his real daddy, and not the sperm donating fuckwit who only sees him as blackmail material. Skylar’s stepfather divorces his idiot wife and goes to live with his stepdaughter and stepgrandson in a place far far away from her genetic relatives.

And the fuckwit dies excruciatingly from an untreated infected anal pustule.
VATERGrrl said on 12.08.11 at 06:04 AM • [link]

To think, I had briefly considered buying this book for the disability content! You’ll find me off in the corner, clutching my HSRs A Man Like Mac and Man From Montana—they get the disability content right and the romances are actually romantic, not misogyny fests.
Darlene Marshall said on 12.08.11 at 08:10 AM • [link]

Thanks for taking one for the team, Sarah. Euwww! I might have been swayed by the cover to give this one a try.
Patricia Eimer said on 12.08.11 at 08:30 AM • [link]

Thanks for saving me from this godawful mess
Ros Clarke said on 12.08.11 at 08:37 AM • [link]

Here’s a new weird feature of your comments, Sarah. They all appear to have odd numbers. So, it tells me there are 39 comments, which there are, but they are numbered 1, 3, 5…., 75, 77.
Michael Cobases said on 12.08.11 at 09:01 AM • [link]

Sounds like really strange book but I love to read books that has completely different perspective to life than I have as I can imagine myself in their position and think what I would do if that or that would happen.
Angela Quarles said on 12.08.11 at 09:14 AM • [link]

Wow! Delurking to comment—this reads like a primer on what not to do in a romance novel. Also, sounds like the author needs to read Austen’s Persuasion to find out how the lost-romance/persuaded-too-much-by-family is done.
Red said on 12.08.11 at 10:06 AM • [link]

I was going to read this because my husband uses a wheelchair due to a bicycle crash as a teen. He’s paralyzed from the waist-down but the important parts still work just fine.

However, after this review, not gonna buy it.
Ruth Madison said on 12.08.11 at 10:07 AM • [link]

So true!
Lori said on 12.08.11 at 10:13 AM • [link]

In addition to what everyone else has said about how this book is not a romance, but instead a story about abuse, I have to point out the title. The fact that this title was attached to this story makes my head hurt. What in the world were they thinking?
RebeccaJ said on 12.08.11 at 10:24 AM • [link]

Gawd, worst of all it sounds like this book was all over the place, throwing in whatever drama the author could find.
R.Savage said on 12.08.11 at 10:45 AM • [link]

Wow ... that’s just ... wow. Brought to mind a particular family member whose existance I attempt to ignore whenever I can. Because there are things that cannot be forgiven, and shall never be forgot.

And they publish this shit? /shudder
Jane Lovering said on 12.08.11 at 10:52 AM • [link]

I find myself reminded of the ‘Big Bang Theory’ ep where Raj falls for a deaf girl who takes him for his money and Penny refuses to believe that she can be manipulative ‘because disabled people are nice’. He’s in a wheelchair - so what? He’s still a bloke. A cowardly, manipulating, dismissive, petty-minded bloke. Being conveniently (and picturesquely) disabled doesn’t change a thing.
snarkhunter said on 12.08.11 at 11:12 AM • [link]

I think the Victorians would be appalled, actually.

In fact, I’d rather enjoy turning Wilkie Collins or Anne Bronte or even George Eliot loose on this author.
JenniferP said on 12.08.11 at 11:25 AM • [link]

I am against censorship, but I would enjoy the hell out of burning that book over a bonfire or at least running it over with a tractor trailer a couple dozen times.
Brandi said on 12.08.11 at 11:52 AM • [link]

I am sick and tired of “Goth” being used as short hand for depressed, suicidal and immature.

Adds hilariously (maybe) to the book’s outdatedness, though—‘cause I thought they’d been calling those types “emo” since, geez, the late 90s?
Jami JoAnne Russell said on 12.08.11 at 12:03 PM • [link]

You know what I wish? That someone would find the author’s e-mail address and send her this review along with the comments. Oh, and send them to the publisher as well. Maybe they’ll learn to not do this again.
DreadPirateRachel said on 12.08.11 at 12:25 PM • [link]

It’s true that any of the above authors would rip Kay Stockham to shreds, but remember that they’re the exceptions, and not the rule. For the rule about the Victorian gender double standard, look no further than John Ruskin. Or the Marital Causes Act of 1857.
Gabbiesq said on 12.08.11 at 12:53 PM • [link]

Thank you for this review. Won’t be letting myself into THIS level of misery.
Emily said on 12.08.11 at 01:14 PM • [link]

I agree that people shouldn’t have to be together just because they don’t have a kid. Skylar could definitely use some therapy and not because she’s goth. Her mother sounds awful.
That being said I think its awful that a father wanting to see his son and pursuing visitation rights makes him a villian and used as blackmail. If he is Cody’s father and the DNA proves that then he has a right to see his son. That’s the way the laws work in this country. That he was mean to Cody’s mother while in the hospital once, and is angry at her wouldn’t be enough to provide reasons for him not to see her.
Plenty of men (and women) are bitter and fight with the ex-spouses and still get to see their children.
On the other hand the courts might suggest counseling for both of these people, which be good.
I also don’t support the heroine’s lying about her son’s paternity. Adult children who were lied to at young age often get mad when the truth comes
out. Forget Marcus and focus on Cody. How does he feel when he realises his mother lied to him? Its a hell of gamble to decide he’ll understand, especially considering everyone else in the family likes to hold a grudge.
Nobody gets a pass in my eyes. If Marcus really cared about having a relationship, he should have acted seven years earlier and he owes her back child support. Skylar should not have lied to her son. And the stepfather and Skylar should have tried to arrange a legal adoption. If they had got a legal separation and Marcus had signed away his custody rights then he would be no longer the father.
To be fair I am mad that any of this is glammorized. None of this is romantic or anything I want to read about. But you’re wrong when you say the correct solution is to runaway and take her son and never come back. The legal solution is to admit she lied or force Cody’s father to get a DNA test. Then ask for back child support. Let the court decide how much interaction Cody has with his father and ask them to supervise this. Get back to her life and get some therapy. (I do Not blame Skylar for anything other than the lie and setting up custody issues.) If Marcus is really just using Cody then she should call his bluff. But if he wants to be a father, then she has to on some level acknowledge that (legally at least!). These two should Never be married or a couple but there’s no reason they can’t learn to be civil for the sake of their son. And who knows with the courts involved there can be transcripts.objective wittnesses of all the things Marcus says to her.
As Pamela pointed she’s counselor she should know all of this. She has a choice. To act like visitation is a threat worthy of blackmail let alone being blackmailed into a lifetime commitment is absolutely ridiculous. I don’t think the heroine should have to take all the blame but the amount of anger directed at hero seems really extreme. Because the mother is a victim she can’t do anything wrong.
If this was a fantasy though I would like the stepfather to actually be an immortal vampire.
Marcie said on 12.08.11 at 01:15 PM • [link]

Putting myself out there - I DID LIKE THE BOOK! Sure these characters are messed up, but they are realistically messed up. People are jerks and idiots and act accordingly - as do Marcus and Skylar - they aren’t perfect. As to Rissa and the way she treated Skylar - Skylar wasn’t the easiest daughter to raise (read Montana Skies).

But here’s one thing you’re forgetting - this author made you think and feel - how many authors can you say that about?
Lee said on 12.08.11 at 02:58 PM • [link]

I am coming out of lurking to comment. Sarah I enjoyed your post, it made me laugh and had I not alreay read this book I probably wouldn’t pick it up. So let me state that I have no problems with your review. What gets me is the response in the comments. A great many of them follow the line of “this book is a piece of shit” (I think someone even said that) but the problem with these rather nasty responses is that no one has actually read the book. The comments tear down and roast an author without first reading the source. Reviews are great, I use them quite often when considering books but I don’t offer my opinion, especially such impassioned ones, without first having knowledge of the subject that goes beyond taking a reviewer’s word for it. I’m not sure what my point is other than i got sick to my stomach feeling when I read comments that targeted the author, even in a round about way. (Also posting from my phone so please forgive typos!)
samantha said on 12.08.11 at 03:15 PM • [link]

How very sad that this book is so wrong… I love the SuperRomance line and expect better from it. :(
R.Savage said on 12.08.11 at 03:36 PM • [link]

There is perhaps some snap judgement no doubt from those of us who haven’t read the book - but some of the described emotional abuse as written in the book (based on exerpts posted in the review above) hit a little too close to home for me. Based on this review, I do not have to read this book to realize I would not like it at all. Reviews do not control me and my reading habits in that sense, but they can assist me with things I really don’t need to waste my limited time/budget on.

I know people are like this in real life. I have one of my very own actually and as much as I try to be above it and life my life outside their influence, it will never leave me completely. That said, I do not need some work of fiction to remind me of the fact that there are mentally abusive pricks in the world.

Reading is my escape, a brief departure from reality. I respect that others may like such in their books, but I simply don’t. Not this sliver of reality anyway.

Deciding I don’t like something, or shaking my head and wondering how something like this could be published doesn’t mean I’m against the author or think they’re a bad person. There are plenty of books I haven’t liked, or have hated even, but that doesn’t mean I hate who wrote them. I may never purchase another work when I didn’t like it, but there are plenty of authors out there to choose from.
Gayle Lord said on 12.08.11 at 04:06 PM • [link]

Harlequin used to offer free stories on their website, and they were almost ALWAYS like this one. Those stories made me suspicious of all Harlequin novels and this one has not eased that suspicion.
Giedre Is said on 12.08.11 at 04:27 PM • [link]

How could a woman write this female-hating drivel?!
snarkhunter said on 12.08.11 at 04:54 PM • [link]

Oh, believe me, I’m more than well-versed in the Victorians. (It’s my primary area of expertise.) I think I was more defending Victorian novels, rather than society. (In other words, I read your comment as a comparison to the work of Victorian authors.) However, despite “Of Queen’s Gardens,” I actually think Ruskin would spit at this, too. He was a douchebag and a sexist and probably a pedo, but I don’t think he’d justify the kinds of behavior we’re seeing here. Coventry Patmore, on the other hand…
Susan said on 12.08.11 at 05:09 PM • [link]

In defense of Harlequin, I don’t think we need to steer away from all Harlequin books based on our gut reactions to the description of this one book, no matter how offensive and reactionary it sounds.

The Harlequin umbrella covers a lot of lines/imprints catering to different tastes. I have to admit that some of them don’t appeal to me (those that emphasize happy families, babies (secret and otherwise), workplace relationships (secretary/boss), billionaire tycoons, etc.), but even most of those are perfectly fine, workmanlike books. The authors and editors usually know what they’re doing, adhere to their proven formulas, and produce creditable books on a pretty impressive scale.

I’ve read some truly fantastic books from Harlequin and Harlequin imprints (Carina, Kimani, HQN, LUNA, MIRA, etc.—yay). And, no, I don’t have any relationship to Harlequin other than as a lowly reader. :-)
Donna said on 12.08.11 at 05:14 PM • [link]

I so agree! Some of my favorite authors have written books I hate. Doesn’t make them bad writers, or indicate that I won’t give the next one a try (Linda Howard, you are on thin ice). A bad book is a bad book. You can take the word of someone whose opinion you respect - and this site hasn’t let me down yet - or you can ignore the recommendation and read the book yourself at your own risk. For me life and money are too short and there are too many really good reads out there to waste time on something that will make me want to bang my head into the wall.
I do also agree with Lee. A book review is a BOOK review & shouldn’t be an excuse to take personal pot shots at a writer you aren’t even acquainted with. As far the book itself goes: if the author is so thin skinned she can’t take the heat, well, we all know the cliche.
Ann Somerville said on 12.08.11 at 06:39 PM • [link]

I think this would be an unconscionable thing to do. Reviews are for readers. If an author chooses to ignore reviews that is her absolute right. Forcing it on her is an invasion of privacy.
Ann Somerville said on 12.08.11 at 06:40 PM • [link]

“If he is Cody’s father “

He’s Cody’s sperm donor. Takes more than fucking to make a dad. Marcus isn’t any one’s ‘father’, at least not in this story. And on the evidence of the review, that’s a good thing.
Ann Somerville said on 12.08.11 at 06:42 PM • [link]

“The comments tear down and roast an author without first reading the source. “

Not seeing any ‘roasting’ going on. But if an author creates a misogynistic treatise, then she can expect to be held to account for what she wrote.

REviews are for readers, and in this case, I’m glad the warnings are there. The book sounds highly triggering and unpleasant and if I read it without knowing the content, it would really upset me. That’s not a good thing.
Ann Somerville said on 12.08.11 at 06:43 PM • [link]

Internalised misogyny is a real and ever present issue. And with people like Ann Coulter and Phyllis Schafly around, are you surprised that other women have also swallowed the patriarchal line of bullsh*t?
Ann Somerville said on 12.08.11 at 06:52 PM • [link]

“A book review is a BOOK review & shouldn’t be an excuse to take personal pot shots at a writer you aren’t even acquainted with.”

You make it sound like the author created this through automatic writing. Does a writer not bear any responsibility for the stuff they write? Should we somehow divorce ugly speech from the speaker? The author hasn’t just put hateful crap in the mouth of one character, she’s created an entire book arguing for the validity of that hateful crap. Thus it’s right to challenge her on why she did that.
Elizabeth Gunther said on 12.08.11 at 07:15 PM • [link]

Actually, if Marcus isn’t on Cody’s birth certificate, he doesn’t really have a leg to stand on. This is what happened with my cousin. Her “father” suddenly decided that he wanted to get to know her (of course when she was getting money from a court case with McDonalds), there was nothing he could do because my aunt hadn’t put him on my cousin’s birth certificate.

He might be able to force a paternity test, but I don’t know how likely that would be. Either way, Skylar could argue that Marcus knew about Cody and didn’t want anything to do with him until it was convenient for him. (Of course, based on the portrayal of her family in the book, they would testify for asshole Marcus.)
GoldieGal said on 12.08.11 at 07:15 PM • [link]

Dear HQ SuperRomance Editor,

Please stop buying awful books like this. Authors who have no clue about the difference between “conflict” and “abuse the heroine” need to be off your acceptance pile.

Editors who are also clueless on this should likewise quit and go into food services.

Abusive asshat heroes and doormat heroines are not my idea of fun.
Elizabeth Gunther said on 12.08.11 at 07:19 PM • [link]

i used to read Harlequin books all the time (before i realized that i could pay attention to something more than 200 pages), and none of the ones I read were like this. Some of my favorites were in the SuperRomance line.
Elizabeth Gunther said on 12.08.11 at 07:26 PM • [link]

Am I the only one freaked out by the picture on the cover? It looks like his legs are a completely different color than the rest of him. I know that this is supposed to be pants, but I have never seen pants that completely cover the legs or have an opening on the bottom. Maybe there are special pants for amputees?

Just realized that the rest of his legs are bent back, only making it look like he has no legs below the knees. Thank God this guy can’t feel anything below the knee because that pose looks painfully uncomfortable.
Ann Somerville said on 12.08.11 at 08:35 PM • [link]

“Just realized that the rest of his legs are bent back, only making it look like he has no legs below the knees.”

That’s pretty normal for racing wheelchairs:

http://www.google.com.au/searc…
Susan/DC said on 12.08.11 at 09:25 PM • [link]

Among other crimes committed in this book is the implication that if someone is not the biological parent of a child he can’t be the “real” parent - tell that to all the adoptive parents out there who love their children with all their heart.
Jami JoAnne Russell said on 12.08.11 at 10:46 PM • [link]

And I think maybe she’s unaware of how badly she writes, Ann. Think of it like taking the hand of a two year old who has just tried to stick a fork in an electrical socket and smacking them on the back of the same hand with two fingers while loudly saying “NO!” Some authors obviously need a virtual smack on the hand with a “NO! BAD AUTHOR!” attached.
eggs said on 12.09.11 at 01:55 AM • [link]

LOL @ Jami JoAnne Russell! Unlike sticking forks in electrical sockets, reading crap books has not yet been proven to kill, so I think we can cancel the bad author amber alert. If I bothered to hunt down and email the author of every crap novel I’d read, I’d have no time left over for actual reading!
Theresepatrick said on 12.09.11 at 02:31 AM • [link]

This is a book I would have bought/read because of the cover but THANK YOU for this review because I also would have waded through every damn page in hope of redemption somewhere.
Ann Somerville said on 12.09.11 at 04:55 AM • [link]

If someone’s old enough to write a novel and negotiate a contract with a major company, then they’re old enough to look up their reviews if they choose to. Shoving their nose in it is ridiculous and rude.
Jo said on 12.09.11 at 05:16 PM • [link]

Just reading this made me angry, so I think I’ll skip buying the book. This kind of thing doesn’t even register as a romance in my mind, let alone the ‘super romance’ Harlequin would have us believe. :/
B. Sullivan said on 12.09.11 at 06:11 PM • [link]

Agreeing with everyone else - ugly ugly plot there. And yes, I think you’re spot on with using the goth label for the heroine. Not that I haven’t met goths who’ve had traumatic pasts - but I’ve also met people with similar issues who weren’t. Using any group as a rubber stamp for Troubled Teen is pretty lazy. (Kids who play videogames are also a scapegoat, I’ve noticed.)

I’m chiming in as a goth of many years ago - who still wears a lot of black, only the skull and bat jewelry is slightly quieter/smaller because, yeah, I’m mid 40s and trying not to be the “weird older lady dressing like a kid.” I never went for the mohawk or the nose ring (so I suppose I was more pseudogoth or poseur, because there are apparently degrees of gothitude) - which was edgy in the 80s. But we did have a lot of fun with our clothes and makeup and bleaching out our hair so we could dye it ridiculous colors. Thing about most Goth folk is that a lot of it is simply something to do with your friends, and it usually revolves around liking the same kinds of music, dressing up and going to concerts. It’s not too different from the kids who were into heavy metal and went for that look. And for me, a lot of it was getting away from the boring midwest to college and being able to wear whatever I wanted without my mother having a fit. While studying English literature. (And yes, the original gothic novels too.) Along with other gothish friends also at my college, who were studying art, history, theater, politics, etc.

And now, humorously, it’s much less weird to dye your hair green or blue, and you can find those colors in your local drug store. Go figure.

So the stereotype is silly, and different people take on the fashion for different reasons. It would be just as difficult to make a sweeping statement about Lady Gaga fans, some of whom I’ve noticed also seem to be very taken with recreating the fashions. Why does anyone pick up a particular pastime?

Oh and also when you’re a student trying to live on the cheap, wearing all black means you don’t need to sort your laundry or worry about colors running. It’s also hard to tell a really expensive black shirt or skirt from things you’ve bought at the thrift store. Also you don’t have to worry about things matching. So there was a small bit of the practical in amongst the bats.
Susan/DC said on 12.10.11 at 10:09 AM • [link]

Thought I’d added a comment the other day, but don’t see it here so will try again. . . .

The fact that Tom is portrayed as not Cody’s “real” father is an insult to adoptive parents everywhere. Not to mention that according to the parable of King Solomon and the baby, Tom, who actually stood by Skylar and Cody, versus Marcus, who sent her away, would be awarded the child in a heartbeat.
Psychbucket said on 12.10.11 at 01:18 PM • [link]

Ewwww. That’s truly disgusting. Kudos to you for making it through this one, Sarah.
Emily said on 12.10.11 at 05:20 PM • [link]

Kudos to Elizabeth Gunthar for being the only person to argue my point on legal grounds. I am still unconvinced that Skylar and Tom did was legal and legally adopted the child. Adoption is a legal process. Suppose people kidnap a child and take very good care of the child his/her entire life? Does that make them the real parents?
Anyway the latest theories on adoption do encourage adoptive parents to acknowledge and tell them their adopted. It doesn’t mean they don’t love them; it just acknowledges where they came from and why they are there. At 7 Cody is old enough that Skylar and Tom could have at least hinted at “Tom is your adoptive father but he loves as much as any other parent.”
I could be wrong. But if I am all the more reason the blackmail is ridiculous. Why on earth would she have something to fear from them? (And yes I know she’s victim but she is also a New York social worker who should know better.)
Ann Somerville said on 12.10.11 at 08:21 PM • [link]

“I am still unconvinced that Skylar and Tom did was legal “

What?

Marcus and Skylar weren’t married. Marcus has therefore no say over Cody even if Skylar hadn’t married Tom before Cody was even *born*. In English law, at least, the presumption is that a child born to married parents is the child of both parents, and has the right to both names on their birth certificate. Tom could have sued to have his name removed after paternity was disputed, but since he didn’t, Cody is legally and emotionally his son.

Marcus has *no* rights whatsoever. Nor does he deserve them. Cody doesn’t need to know this dickhead is related to him at all, and since Tom was his father from birth until Tom’s death, there’s no psychological reason for him to be told. Not unless interferring busybodies tell him what should have been kept private by all concerned.

I agree with Susan/DC’s remarks about how repugnant the portrayal is to adoptive parents.
Cally said on 12.13.11 at 10:17 AM • [link]

Another goth chiming in here. I’ve met most of my goth friends at concerts, club nights etc., and I’d say the majority are very social people. Yet goths stereotypes in mainstream genre books I’ve read are so utterly and despairingly alone. I felt bad just reading the review, picturing this little baby bat and her trauma. (And of course she sheds her gothic facade the minute she grows up) Ugh. Why can’t more writers show us some ‘happy’ goths?! Or *gasp* ‘successful’ goths! But then again, that would require actual writing with well researched and imagined characters instead of cardboard stereotypes!
Dragoness Eclectic said on 12.15.11 at 02:23 PM • [link]

Now I know you’re an “old-school” goth! You sound just like the goths I used to post with back in the days of Usenet’s alt.gothic! Heh. Makes me feel all nostalgic.
Dragoness Eclectic said on 12.15.11 at 02:30 PM • [link]

This review makes this book sound like a horror novel, not a romance—the kind where the protagonist comes to a bad end. In this case, I get the impression that the woman suffering from a lifetime of emotional abuse surrenders to her abusers and lives the life they dictate, accepting their verdict of her guilt and worthlessness…. geez, this is a Harlan Ellison horror story! Please keep it far, far away from me.

I hang out on some other blogs that are “safe spaces” for people who have suffered just the kind of emotional abuse described by your review, from family members—and from what those bloggers have posted, it’s a hideously toxic environment that will seriously damage you if you don’t get out. They’ve survived by getting out and cutting all ties with toxic family—which Skylar should have done. This novel sounds not just bad, but downright evil in its misogyny.
Dejla said on 12.24.11 at 12:40 PM • [link]

Whoa. Thanks for the warning.

It almost sounds as if the author has some sort of agenda in the writing.