F
Genre: Historical: European, Romance
This is a painful, difficult review to write, as I have to face the uncomfortable truth that I was initially too focused on the book’s glittery bits (amplified by my own excitement around the history of the women’s suffrage movement) to question, deeply or fast enough, its many hurtful messages.
A Rogue of One’s Own held my attention, and that is to say a lot these days. I was happy to return to the early years of the women’s suffrage movement in Britain (the backdrop for the series, A League of Extraordinary Women; this is the second book) and to have the spotlight shine on an activist heroine, and to enjoy the writing.
Ultimately, however, this review is not about what I wanted or hoped a book to be, and is about what a book shows itself to be. Yes, this book had a lot of what is my catnip, but there was also unchecked colonialism, cultural appropriation, depiction of the women’s suffrage movement as the sole purview of White women of means, and homophobia.
Tristan’s valet is Indian, the only POC in the book and not tangentially related to the Suffrage movement. The character is there largely as a reminder to Tristan, the hero, that he squandered his Oxford education, as his valet deeply wishes he could have gone to Oxford, an option that was virtually impossible for him. Tristan has some good insights about the futility of his Army service in Afghanistan, but still plans on writing a book that would garner the support of the Prince of Wales and capitalize on the fact that he is considered a war hero, vaguely promising some criticism between the lines.
The one gay character in the book is an antagonist: spurned by the hero, he turns bitter, petty, and vindictive. The character exists solely as a conduit for a revenge plot when a secret he shares about the hero triggers a chain of events that dominates the last third or so of the book. The secret he reveals is that Tristan, who is White, has a chest tattoo inspired by a Hindu deity. I do not have the fluency to fully unpack the implications of his tattoo, but perhaps it is enough to say that what initially felt to me a poorly handled appropriation is all that, plus deeply offensive and hurtful to those who have experienced, again and again, the othering and the fetishization of the same select few aspects of their culture.
I want to believe that the issues that I pointed out here were not intended to come across as they did. And, bafflingly, most of it might have been avoidable from a narrative standpoint. Ultimately, though, intention is as irrelevant as my hopes for the book, because the demeaning messages are in view. Looking the other way, even if in the name of catnippy enjoyment to get me through challenging times, is reinforcing these hurtful, harmful messages.
This book is available from:
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
We also may use affiliate links in our posts, as well. Thanks!
Correction: its
I had a totally different take on this book. I thought that the introduction of Avi and Arthur were meant to show what a dick Tristan was initially. Somehow I had the impression that the author was wanting us to see how irredeemable the hero was at the beginning. The scene where Arthur confronts Tristan about his behavior really worked for me. I felt pity for Arthur, not because he was gay, but because he had the bad luck to fixate on a a**hole. The gradual awakening of Tristan was well done in my opinion and as Blackjack stated above, the romance worked for me.
@MizFletcher Free speech means that one will not be penalized by the government for speaking out, not that one’s statements are above critique.
If someone doesn’t care about the racism and homophobia, then they don’t care. Other people are, however, allowed to take issue with that. You’re upset with the “clutch pearls” statement (even referred to it as a microaggression). I think it’s ridiculous to say that a harmful book should be reviewed in a positive way so that potential readers aren’t put off by the racism and homophobia. Expressing that infringes on no one’s right to free speech.
@MizFletcher – it is not escaping me that you are completely mis-using the language of social justice (“microaggression,” “positionality,” “safe space”- I don’t think any of those words mean what you think they mean) in service of a bad-faith “free speech” argument. You will note that there are several comments praising the book or aspects of the book, including a very detailed 4.5/5 star review, in the 40+ comments on this post, that have not been responded to either way. Clearly, the issue here is not whether different takes on the book are respected.
The primary point of Joyce’s initial comment was not about the merits or not of the book, but the appropriateness of even *giving* an F grade to any book. By your own standards as given in your numerous comments, this comment section is not actually the appropriate venue for such a sentiment as it is not actually responsive to the content or merits of the book. Little weird that you are trying to tone police me for saying “clutch pearls” in response to a comment tone-policing the *entire review.*
@MizFletcher, in response to this: “To repeat, if any book is negatively reviewed on a major romance website such as this, it will affect sales.” I don’t know how to interpret this other than you take issue with negative reviews? The issue isn’t the review, it’s the content that led to the review. If I hadn’t read the review, and bought this book, I would have returned it when I ran into the racist comment,
I realize that I may have not made very good word choices in my first comment. What I should have probably said was that it was disappointing that the author seems to make bad writing choices all throughout this series. Shouldn’t she have people around her to discuss those choices in plot or characterization with her? AT least, wouldn’t it be helpful?
I went back to read the book after this review to understand what the tattoo was all about. This to me goes beyond the author and as @Stefanie points out where were the editors? In 2020 shouldn’t somebody point out that having a naked south asian woman in a nataraja (religious Shiva dance) pose and the dialog around the meaning of the Hindu trinity in such a removed way, as if they were from another planet trying to understand earthlings, isn’t a good idea?
FWIW I’m an atheist so it’s not personal but it is cultural appropriation by people who don’t understand the stories and how meaningful this still is for so many people. Classical Indian dancing (and Yoga for that matter) is deeply spiritual and rooted in the Vedas. It is also extremely old, some as early as 500 BCE. This isn’t the same as Bollywood dancing and pop culture.
The tattoo composition turns out to be a huge plot point where the imagery is a gotcha. This is hugely problematic because treating a colonial culture as a prop in 2020 is not okay. Having the white colonial man with a tattoo of a naked south asian woman in a not of his own religious dancing pose is not okay. It is fetishistic and for a book that is supposed to feminist it reduces a woman (not white) as an object on a white man’s body only there to serve his story.
The bisexual spurned want to be lover character is also deeply problematic. He falls in to the stereotype of the spurned angry gay man vindictively telling the spurned want to be wife a detail which almost derails the happy ending.
As with all books everyone has their opinions and what they can and can not overlook. I don’t fault the A+ recommended reviews. However, I do appreciate the reviews that add content warning because if I went in to this blind not knowing what was going to happen I’d be unsettled to say the least.
After last year’s RWA implosion,I don’t understand how these glaring red flags got through. I saw in netgalley reviews somebody who was of south asian heritage said the author contacted her (my hypothesis is this reader reached out but I don’t know) to say sorry if she was hurt and she didn’t have to finish it (she did). The problems outlined here were mentioned more than a few times in the arc feedback. Why didn’t they make some edits? A fast search and replace would be to change the tattoo to, I don’t know, a blue frog. That could have worked just as well.
Reviews like those found on this site are deeply appreciated by many and build trust because those who fall in to minoritized communities know that this site will flag these issues.
@Emily C – Not a romance (though romantic plots are there throughout), but “The Devourers” by Indra Das is a gorgeously written novel by an Indian author that spans several parts of Indian history.
Of related interest: a short article from Coalition Snow (women’s outdoor sports & social justice) on the racist aspects (foundation?) of the suffragette movement.
https://www.coalitionsnow.com/blogs/blog/is-she-a-hero
I think it’s possible to respect what the suffragette movement achieved and still acknowledge the injustice that it accepted and perpetuated.
@BatGirl:
Also of related interest. This short write-up explains the difference between suffragists and suffragettes. https://www.nps.gov/articles/suffragistvssuffragette.htm
Thanks so much for this review! I will skip this book. I read the first one and had similar feelings. It seemed to be about the suffrage movement, but the was really window dressing, and the characters and plot didn’t deal with this theme in a thoughtful way. Want suffragettes? Try The Suffragette Scandal by Courtney Milan.
I’m sorry Claudia found this book offensive and I certainly respect her opinion. I enjoyed the author’s first book, and this one too, even though enemies to lovers is one of my least favorite tropes. I thought the hero got called out on a lot of his bad behavior, and his redemption arc was believable to me. He was clearly a victim of parental abuse, which shaped his behavior.
I also want to point out that the gay character is not the big villain of this book. Towards the end, him and the hero come to an understanding of sorts and the hero apologizes to him.
I can’t, and won’t defend the tattoo, and I can see why that would be a deal-breaker for some people.
For context, I’m a WOC whose race/culture is fetishized a lot, married to an Iraq/Afghanistan veteran who is bi. I read this book after I read the review (so fully aware of the red flags), and honestly loved it (I also did love the first book in the series) – couldn’t put it down, and the characters are still in my head. Ultimately, I read romance novels because I want a good love story centered on the main protagonists. The romance in this book was one of the best I’ve read in a long time – complicated, passionate, tender and smart. I actually liked it more than Bringing Down the Duke.
Regarding the red flags, I can honestly say I did not get any homophobic vibes – it is heavily implied that Tristan is likely bi and he also has an encounter with Oscar Wilde (author’s note indicates that this was her inspiration for the hero). And I wouldn’t call the gay character the villain – the main villain of the book is Tristan’s father who represents all that is evil about the patriarchy & white supremacy. As Karin mentioned above, there is some form of reconciliation between him & the hero – they have a conversation about what the reality is for queer people in the Victorian age.
I also want to address the criticism about how the suffrage movement was characterized. This is a story centering on a small group of noblewomen & middle class women fighting for their rights (very specifically the Married women Property Act of 1882). I don’t think it pretends to be anything other than that, and I wasn’t expecting a full & comprehensive exposé on all facets of the suffrage movement – that’s really not why I read romance novels. I actually liked that the book had a solid feel of time and place, and it is obvious that a lot of research went into it. In both the first & this book, there are clear and realistic considerations and consequences for women who identified as suffragists and were activists.
As far as the tattoo goes, I can see how that could be offensive to some people – I personally wasn’t bothered by it, and it does serve a plot purpose. Basically when reading any historical romance, dealing with implicit, explicit or lack of reference of colonialism is a given – in this case, I didn’t think it was portrayed as a positive thing, but rather as a reality of the time.
Bottom line is, I think the content warning about the tattoo is legitimate – the one about homophobia not so much.
I read this book and these reviews, and wouldn’t recommend it either. I thoroughly enjoyed the first book. For me, going into a book is to find escape, so I’m not terribly bothered if a story isn’t 100% accurate ito history. Equality and empowerment are very hot topics at the moment, so I understand and agree with the reviewer’s opinions. There are certainly CW necessary for this book because of the almost glib way in which characters are portrayed. I’m sure this was not the author’s intent, but given what is happening in the world the editors could perhaps have taken a closer look or at least considered how it will be received. What I found bothered me was not so much that a gay man was a villain (villainy is not only for heterosexuals), but that he was stereotyped and written to react completely over the top. I realise in the scene he was drunk, but what self-respecting person (gay or not) behaves in that way? It was just OTT. There are other scenes in the book related to other characters (mostly central to the reviewer’s issue) that gave me the same feeling. However, while what has been mentioned in the review and comments are important, what actually put me off, and why I wouldn’t recommend it at all, was the almost toxic nature of the relationship between the hero and heroine. This is not what I want to read in my romances. I’m all for anti-heroes, bad boys, redemption arcs etc. Those are my catnip. Maybe it’s just me, and where I am in my life, but this romance left a bad taste.