Good morning, class! I’m Charlotte B., and I’ll be your professor for Legal Ethics 101. I hope everyone has done the assigned reading.
Wait – you say you didn’t sign up for law school? That this is a site about romance novels? Well, I’m sorry, friends, because today we’re discussing a romance novel – Cynthia Rayne’s Blood in the Water – whose entire plot turns on the ethical obligations of a crusading criminal defense lawyer to her odious, murderous client. Here’s the fact pattern:
Our heroine, Jane, is a defense lawyer in Dallas. Jane has recently won acquittal for an accused serial killer named Oscar Valentine. It’s obvious as soon as Valentine enters the page that he’s actually guilty – he doesn’t twirl a mustache, but only because he doesn’t have one. When he invites Jane over for a celebratory dinner, he closes out the night by revealing, in gory detail, the crimes he committed and pledging his undying love for Jane. Since he’s a Very Creepy Romance Villain, Oscar quickly escalates to burglary, stalking, assault, and (more) murders.
Jane, however, is a highly ethical person! And she did super well in law school! And thus, Jane determines that because of attorney-client privilege, she can’t tell the police that Oscar has confessed to the (horrible and thoroughly described) murders OR that he’s committed a series of crimes against her and her friends and is a clear threat to her life. Instead, she reluctantly turns to another of her clients, Hot Criminal Byron Beauregard, for protection and support. Flirting, southern accents, a road trip, and a predictable level of violence ensue.
In the mid-1970s, a man on trial for the murder of an 18-year-old hiker confessed to his lawyers that he had recently murdered two women and hidden their bodies. His lawyers found the bodies, but determined that they were prohibited by attorney-client privilege from disclosing the murders or the location of the bodies to law enforcement. When the murders eventually came out at trial, the lawyers were criminally charged and threatened with disbarment. Ultimately, however, the charges and the disbarment claim were dismissed: because the defendant had confessed to past offenses, not an intent to commit future crimes that could be prevented by disclosing the confession to law enforcement, the courts (and the New York State Bar Association) determined that the lawyers were correct in finding that they were required to keep the secret. All law students study the so-called “Buried Bodies Case,” and Jane name-checks it in Blood in the Water as the reason why Byron (who she finds to be morally repugnant, but also hot) is her only option.
Here’s the problem, my dear unwilling law students: without spoiling anything, I’ll simply say that Oscar commits a series of crimes against Jane (crimes that he doesn’t even try to cover up) and threatens to harm a number of people. No, Jane can’t tell the police about his confession to the murders, but attorney-client privilege doesn’t require Jane to keep mum about crimes where JANE HERSELF IS THE VICTIM. Nor is Jane required to stand by silently while Oscar threatens to harm other people. The entire premise on which the plot turns – that Jane can’t go to the police and thus has to turn to Byron – is wrong.
I don’t demand strict realism in romance, even when it comes to on-page lawyering. Given that I’m a sorority girl who unexpectedly found herself at an elite law school, I love Legally Blonde with an all-consuming passion, and the fact that I’m quite sure Massachusetts limited practice rules wouldn’t allow a first-year law student to cross-examine a witness in a murder trial has never interfered with my enjoyment. The problem is that, aside from the fact that the central conceit of the plot rests on a complete misconstruction of legal ethics, the romance in Blood in the Water didn’t work for me.
First, while the plot of Blood in the Water stands alone, the emotional relationship between Byron and Jane doesn’t. When the book opens, they’ve already met and the emotional dynamic (unwilling attraction on Jane’s part, lust-verging-on-love on Byron’s part) is established. There is a prior novel in this series and it’s a spinoff of a related motorcycle club-themed series, and presumably the foundation of the relationship is laid in those books. When Blood in the Water picks up, Byron and Jane are already at least 40% of the way along the arc of their romantic journey. The ultimate resolution, therefore, didn’t have the resonance that it likely would have had if I’d seen the relationship play out from the beginning.
Beyond that, though, there’s a central tension that the book never resolves. Oscar the Creepy Woman-Hating Serial Killer is clearly the villain. But Byron is also a murderer – an enthusiastic and prolific one. Byron’s crimes, however, happen offstage. We’re told he’s a mobster, but we never see what that involves. We’re supposed to see Byron as a hero, but what is the difference between Oscar and Byron? That Oscar is kind of icky while he kills people? That Oscar kills women and Byron only kills men? That for Byron, it’s business, not personal?
Perhaps if the full scope of Byron’s actions – the workaday violence of the mobster life – was present on the page, he wouldn’t be a plausible romance hero. But if a character can’t be a plausible romance hero if the book is honest about what he does for a living, maybe that character shouldn’t be a hero at all. There is a great moral cowardice in trying to make a murderer a hero by pushing his violence out of sight.
It’s worth comparing the approach in Blood in the Water to the TV show Sons of Anarchy, which focused on a California motorcycle club. Despite its myriad flaws, over the top plots, and unforgivable wide-leg pants, SOA was unflinching in the portrayal of both its protagonist’s moral qualms and his crimes. The challenge to the viewer was whether you could still care about his happiness knowing the people he’d hurt, and the conflict (on the screen and for viewers) was real.
Note: when this was posted as a sale book, a few readers noted that the crossed gun tattoos on the cover were reminiscent of a Confederate flag. I had a lot of problems with Blood in the Water, but the book doesn’t fall into Confederate apologism (just apologism for murder, if the murderer is hot). Also, Jane is described as being on the autism spectrum. I have significant experience volunteering with children with autism and the characterization didn’t feel authentic to me, but nor did it read as overtly offensive. (I can’t speak to how it would read to someone who is on the autism spectrum.) Finally, there is a plot moppet in peril, but no need to worry on that score – everyone knows plot moppets are fireproof.
The book is fairly well-written, and the emotional and romantic tension between Jane and Byron felt real, but the failure to confront the reality of Byron’s crimes ultimately made Jane feel inauthentic as a character. We are told she cares about morality and ethics, so much, in fact, that she puts her own life at risk to uphold her ethical duties to Oscar. But she is signally untroubled about tying her life to an unrepentant and premeditated criminal. In fact, in one of the final scenes, Jane cheerfully points out that as Byron’s wife, she can’t be compelled to testify against him. Legal issues aside, Blood in the Water’s complete failure to confront the moral stain on its hero was what really tanked the book for me.
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!
Yeah—as soon as I saw those gun tattoos, I remembered that exchange in the Books on Sale post. This book is not for me, but your review did remind me that there was an old Law & Order episode with this same plot (minus the stalking and harm to the lawyer)—a killer tells his attorney where bodies are buried, and said attorney feels ethically bound not to reveal that information to the police.
Since I am on the spectrum I will read the sample and tell you what I think. It’s not really my type of book though. Often autistic people in books come across as stereotyped or (worse!) Sidelined by the author over neurotypical characters.
This book sounds like a whole lotta yikes to me, cover included. Great review though!
That tattoo on the cover is so extra. Even if the review hadn’t ruined it for me, that cover does.
Jesus, this sounds like an unholy mess.
@Kit #2 – I’d be really interested in your feedback. I’ve seen a whole lot of “neurodivergent romance” in the past couple of years, enough to qualify as an emerging subgenre. Some of it I feel has been really well done (e.g. THE KISS QUOTIENT); others … not.
Although as the parent of a defense attorney with autism, it’s nice to see characters allowed to have other careers besides math / computers / accounting etc. – but the legal blunders would make this a wallbanger, I think.
Spoilers for Cathy Pegau’s Rulebreaker below:
Some of the ethical issues you talk about here remind me of the issues I had with a totally different book (Cathy Pegau’s Rulebreaker). One of the heroines in that book is involved in unethical testing on prisoners, many of whom die. It all gets handwaved with “well they had signed consent forms!” which is not a great answer when 1. a lot of people died and 2. generally we understand that people who are incarcerated are not always able to freely consent because of their situation. If the authors address issues like this, maybe by having the characters make restitution, or change their lifestyle in the case of this book, I can sometimes still enjoy the book. But it’s very hard to enjoy in the same way.
I will never understand the attraction of a romantic hero who kills people as a purely criminal behavior. Sure, I stayed up way too late many nights of my girlhood watching To Catch A Thief on the midnight movie, but that’s a different kettle of fish entirely from the Mafioso/MC romances that seem to be so popular. NEVER going to get it.
@hapax, have you read Ellie and the Harpmaker? Another non-STEM character. I enjoyed it despite some really questionable behavior by one of the characters.
Kati Wilde has an MC romance series that I like. The illegal things the heroes do are more along the lines of fight club rather than drug running. They do kill people but as vigilantism not as purely criminal behavior or part of their normal business dealings. These are things that I wouldn’t approve of in RL but can read about if written well, and they’re about the limit of how over-the-top (swashbuckling?) I’ll go. Mafia romance is a hard no for me. I’m also very unlikely to read thief romances.
@MaryK: Kati Wilde is my girl—even though the publication date of her latest MC romance, LOSING IT ALL, was pushed back yet again! IMHO, her MC romances ate head and shoulders above most other MC books. But other than Kati’s Hellfire Riders MC books, I don’t read much motorcycle romance, but I do read quite a lot of dark/crime/mob/mafia romance. I think I adjust my expectations based on the type of book I’m reading. For example, I love, love, love Katee Robert’s O’Malley series about a big family the Irish-American mob. I’ve also enjoyed most of A. Zavarelli’s Boston Underground series with interconnected Irish, Italian, and Russian mob families. And I’m always talking up Sybil Bartel’s books—and you don’t want to even start counting the bodies that pile up in those. If I’m reading an HP, I’d be shocked (and disappointed) if the hero whipped out a glock and blew someone away because that’s simply not an element of HPs. When I read dark/crime romance, I know going in there will be violence and, more than likely, killing. My expectations adjust for the sub-genre I’m reading. Naturally, everyone’s mileage may vary.
@Nan de Plume: Yes, HP refers to Harlequin Presents, of which I also read a lot. Plucky heroines (often virgins), billionaire or royal heroes, passion (usually on a rather euphemistically-described level), angsty misunderstandings, unplanned pregnancies, secret babies. I freely admit they can be somewhat regressive, but I love them just the same—and often read them as “palette cleansers” between other books. In fact, I just read an incredibly good one, THE MAN SHE LOVES TO HATE by Kelly Hunter. I’ll be writing more about it in the next What Are You Reading post—which I think is this Saturday.
@DiscoDollyDeb – I’m pretty sure it was one of your Watcha Reading comments that got me started on Kati Wilde.
I read a sample of blood in the water and it definitely is not my book. I knew this from chapter one when Byron admitted to killing an FBI agent who got too close to them. So the killing of an innocent man is definitely a turn off for me.
As for Jane, if I hadn’t been told by the author she had Aspergers I never would have guessed. There’s no indication of sensory problems or communication issues described to us, everything is told in exposition rather than describing the feelings and observations of Jane. Since Jane was diagnosed at a young age (which is quite rare as many women have reached adulthood without a diagnosis, myself included) there was no compensations made by the other characters who just say “go on get laid! How long have you been single?” nonsense and it’s just irritating. This wasn’t the most annoying thing about Jane’s “autism” though, it was her saying she lacked emotion to have a husband and children! It was a Kindle hurling moment, people with Autism do not lack emotion and empathy, they just have difficulty showing it! This would be the final stop reading moment for me but it continues until the end of chapter three when she met with Valentine. I actually think her not being cautious about meeting Valentine might be accurate with Autism though as I (in the past) have lacked judgement with people, mistaking flirting for friendship and getting myself into a difficult situation. But I’m calling bullshit on this plot. I’m not in the law profession, never have been, the closest I get to the law is walking past the crown court in my city when I’m shopping. There’s no way a lawyer would be allowed to make an informal visit to a former client? The no sexual relationship between lawyer and client I get, but it’s alright if they had one before? No, I’m sorry not buying it, if they had a previous relationship, would it compromise the case? I’m sure it would be against the rules?
Anyway I could do a full review but my plasterwork wouldn’t thank me! So I’ll just leave you with my ramblings. I have read the Kiss Quotient and enjoyed it. So far, the only other fairly accurate depiction of an autistic woman I have read was Wildfire Griffin by Zoe Chant (a paranormal romance). It is hard depicting Autism as it varies from person to person. Some have lifelong passions whereas some (like me) cannot fixate on one passion for very long and find themselves stuck between one. I’d like to read about someone who has the latter. Also books about someone on the spectrum dealing with a tramatic event (like grief, I lost my partner in May this year).
A long post! Good job I didn’t mention the Good Doctor we could be here all day!
@DiscoDollyDeb — Oh man, I loved The Man She Loves to Hate so much! It is the only HP I’ve ever read.
@Star: I discovered Kelly Hunter this year when I read one of her royal romance HPs—and was surprised at how nuanced and emotional it was (plus it had a supporting character who was bi and got an HEA with the man he loved). I then read Hunter’s MAGGIE’S RUN and loved it (although not published in 2019, it will definitely make my top ten books read this year), and since then I’ve been on a backlist glom of her books. I love how complicated and sometimes prickly her heroines are.
@Kit – thank you so much for this comment. I had forgotten about the “lacked emotion to have a husband and children” thing, which is truly awful. What you said about exposition rather than feelings/observations is exactly what bothered me about it. We are told Jane is on the spectrum, but that doesn’t turn up in actual characterization.
@Kit – thanks for taking one for the team! This sounds like a wallbanger for sure.
@ Kit:
I’m sorry to hear about the loss of your partner. Sending much of whatever works for you in the healing process.
@HeatherS thanks for your message. @Nan de Plume I’m not surprised that there’s a certain amount of meddling in the publishing world. Self publishing has it’s faults (I’ve winced at some bad editing) but it allows the writer more freedom.