C-
Genre: Contemporary Romance, New Adult, Romance
The Hurricane by RJ Prescott is aptly named: it’s a book that’s going to blow you strongly in one direction or another. I personally enjoyed the first three quarters of the book and the THE THING happened and it disappointed me immensely.
I’m fairly iffy on New Adult, largely because I think there’s so much of it in the market right now that you have to filter through a lot of sub par writing to find the authors that really work. The Hurricane opens with the hero standing in the street, in the dark, with a boner, watching the heroine through a diner window, and at first I was like “Ohhh, shit. This is going to be another stalker-hero New Adult. Thanks Fifty Shades.” I gave the book a chance though and was pleased to discover that despite the Boner Incident of Chapter One, the hero was not a creepy stalker dude, but actually a lovable character.
The Hurricane offers the fairly standard New Adult trope of Heroine with Tragic Backstory meets Guy Who Gives Her Pants Feelings, and they have lots of angst and orgasms and find True Lurve. The hero is also scarred but the pure white light that emanates from the heroine’s inner goodness–and her vagina–makes him want to commit. It’s actually a tremendously Old Skool plot line (which I am always down for).
In this case the heroine is Emily, a college student in London. Emily is an American, and she moved across the pond to escape her abusive stepfather (trigger warning: this book contains graphic depictions of rape and domestic violence. Graphic. Do not say I didn’t warn you). Emily changed her name and is lying low so her stepfather can’t find her. When the book opens she’s working at the diner and going to classes, but not doing much else. She’s afraid of nearly everyone she meets and has no friends. One thing I liked was that as much as the book was dedicated to the main characters’ relationship, it was also about Emily coming out of her shell. She finds friends that have nothing to do with the hero, goes to parties, has her first drink. Her growth as a character wasn’t totally dependent on the hero.
Speaking of the hero, his name is Cormac “The Hurricane” O’Connell aka Boner Under a Lampost Dude. He sees Emily from afar and immediately falls in lust with her. When she’s hired to do the book-keeping at the gym he boxes at, he resolves to himself to mend his drinking, womanizing ways so he that he can be good enough for the magic glow of her hoo-hoo. We don’t get into Con’s head a lot as this book is told 98% first person POV from Emily’s perspective. I liked Con immensely though. When she first meets him he’s a cut, intimidating Irish prize fighter, “a bit of rough” as he puts it, but as Emily gets to know him, it’s apparent that he has a tremendous sweet side. I mentally cast Tom Hardy in his role.
As their relationship develops, Con is sensitive to Emily’s past. She’s insecure about never having had a boyfriend and worries that Con is out of her league what with his eight pack and all. He reassures her. He never pushes her into doing anything she’s uncomfortable with–in fact I think of all the New Adults I’ve read, Con and Emily took the longest time to actually have sex with each other. A lot of their early relationship is heartfelt kisses and holding hands and spooning, but it felt right given the horrible trauma Emily’s endured.
Emily inspires Con to not half-ass his boxing, and he goes into an intense training regimen, determined to make something of himself. I feel compelled to mention that I know nothing of boxing (or most sports in general) so I just sort of tossed all the prize fighting refrences into a mental box titled “Con is sportsing now.”The two major conflicts in this book were Con’s horrible mother, Sylvia, and Emily’s terrifying stepdad. I didn’t actually need them though, because I think the internal conflict they represented (“I’m a poor boy from the wrong side of the tracks”/”I suffered terrible abuse for years”) was sufficient. Still the external threat of Sylvia arriving and fucking things up and Emily’s stepdad finding her ramped up the tension.
While I really loved Con and I enjoyed the slow burning UST of their romance, I did acknowledge that there were some problems. Con is exceptionally protective of Emily, basically threatening to beat up anyone who looks at her wrong, and while this mostly comes across as playful, I can see how his behavior could be seen as controlling and squicky given Emily’s history with domestic abuse. In fact, all the hot Irish guys at the gym love Emily but I can get the “heroine finds a band of protectors” fantasy that was going on.
One thing that bugged me was that Emily doesn’t sound like an American; she sounds British. Emily used words like mum rather than mom and arse rather ass. I suppose she could have just adopted the lingo when she moved to London, but it felt wrong to me.
These were minor things though, and I was going to give the book a good B+ and then THE THING happened.
Con, the hero I was loving so hard, called someone a fucktard. In fact, some of his friends used the word too. Ugh. Nope.
Admittedly, “fucktard” and “retard” (used pejoratively) are bugaboos for me. The word “fucktard” comes from “fucking retard,” which is never, never an okay thing to say. I know a lot of people who have developmentally disabled children, I previously worked with the developmentally disabled, and my husband was labeled as DD or ED before his dyslexia was diagnosed in high school. I have heard the words fucktard and retard used in the harshest possible way and I’ve seen how cruelly it hurts people.
If I had to guess, I would assume the author didn’t know how offensive this word is to a lot of people. I can see where readers might suggest that Con, growing up in a rough environment, might have heard that word hurled around a lot and wouldn’t be sensitive to it.
Frankly, I don’t care.
I want my hero to be better than that. I certainly wouldn’t be cool with him throwing around a racial slur or saying “well, that’s gay.” There were so many other things Con could have said–asshole, asshat, douchebag, douchecanoe, douchewizard, goddamn-mother-fucking-son-of-a-bitch. The options are endless. There was no reason that “fucktard” had to be used.
So yeah, this is a huge hot-button topic for me. I’d personally be really happy to never read the word “fucktard” again in my life. As a result, I really struggled with what to give this book for a grade. The use of “fucktard” didn’t completely ruin the story for me, but it did totally pull me out of the narrative and I had to pretend the hero never said that. It would also make me hesitant to read the author again, honestly.
The Hurricane was doing such a fine job of impressing me with a sweet hero and a heroine who was given the depth that she deserved, that it made THE THING feel even worse somehow. It started off as New Adult that I was digging, but the big disappointment toward the end made it hard for me enjoy the rest. If you’re on the fence about whether or not to try it, the ebook is currently 99 cents so at least it’s not a huge investment.
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!
Elyse, I don’t know why you take Emily to be American? (How would she have gotten to London? What about her old teacher?) I too don’t go in for NA, but something about the description of this one made me bite. Unfortunately, I did not have to wait that long before I just started skimming, headed for the end (which I did care enough about to want to read). I did really like Emily and Con, but would have been much happier with the novella version.
I also didnt get the impression. She was American. In my version she’s from Northern England. Now I’m going to have to double check
Just checked. She’s from Cardiff, Wales. It was one thing I actually enjoyed about the book was how authentically British it was. Made me a little homesick.
To keep this real, I know nothing about this book except this review which other than this hangup of mine was a convincing review. Now to my hangup: If the concern is the use of demeaning and hurtful slang, I think that douchebag, douchecanoe, douchewizard, and goddamn-mother-fucking-son-of-a-bitch could easily qualify as demeaning to women. It seems like a bit of a double standard to defend one subset of humanity by hurting another, and pretty much any insult is an insult aimed at somebody. Seeing as said “somebody” is more than likely in the middle of a bell-curve, the insult applies to lots of people. I think it suffices that the character was honest to his world, even if his world is a bit on the bigoted and/or ignorant side.
I have to agree with Liz; any pejorative is going to be hurtful to someone and if, in real life, no one used them, I could see rating a book based words you found offensive. But in real life, real people use them all the time. If an author’s language is constrained by our sensitivities how are they to create a character? It seems supremely unfair to knock a book’s rating down a grade and a half for giving a character language, rough and ugly as it might be, that helps the reader see his character.
Funny thing – first time I ever heard(saw) that term (fucktard), was right here (not necessarily this site) in Romancelandia.
I never knew fucktard was a portmanteau. I thought it was a funny way of being more sensitive, actually. I never heard it until long after people had dropped the use of retard/retarded.
It’s pretty ubiquitous, but I get unhappy feels with douchebag thrown around as a pejorative. To me it demeans women; why should a tool used in the vagina have such a negative connotation? But pretty much all the curses I can think of (and to be fair, I use them creatively and often!) have to do with either the body or spirituality in some way. Unless, of course, they are person/race/incident specific. I agree with the other posts that said it was a character-development choice. I also respect your right not to enjoy or like it or want it in your books.
On a broader scale, I think there is something to be said for people still being worthy of love (universal love, not just [but not precluding]) if they say/do ignorant or hurtful things in that moment. I don’t mean sloughing off something and saying that you love *it* per se, or depending on the incident, that you’d want to be/remain in a relationship with them. But we are all complex humans with deep backstories and on a more spiritual level, I don’t feel some one needs to be lovable to be loved. Usually the people who are acting the least lovable are that way because they are disconnected from who they really are.
*but not precluding romantic love
@Liz – Completely off topic of the review, I must admit I have thought about whether or not “douche” can be used as a feminist insult, and I came to the personal conclusion that it can. Apart from the very rare medical prescription, the idea behind most douches is to make your vagina extra-squeaky clean or perfumed, presumably for the enjoyment of someone else. Douches are usually just cosmetic at best, and harmful at worst (they encourage infections by disturbing the normal microflora). As a mostly useless and occasionally harmful product foisted upon vagina-owners, variants of “douche” seem perfectly cromulent to me as insults. But everyone has different sensibilities, YMMV.
@Storyphile, you legit had me looking up cromulent! Thank you for the education!
My feeling about douching (like anything about the body) is it’s pretty much an individual choice. I would also prefer, though, to see more acceptance of the vagina for the sophisticated, beautifully evolved creation that it is. The idea that it is inherently *dirty*? :/ It’s just doing its thing!
Also, how superb would Cromulent be as a villain name??? (Dude sounds totally hot!)
I believe the thinking behind a douche bag as an insult is that it’s bad for the vagina. So when you call someone a douche bag you are in essence saying they are bad for women
@Elyse I like that interpretation, thank you. Plus, kind of makes sense within the insult spectrum. Cause just like douchebags are not great for women, asses are just *notoriously* bad as hats 😉
I agree with Sara. One word that knocks a book’s rating from a B+ to a C-? A word that is impolite – as it’s no doubt intended to be – but is true to character? Are we really to expect a guy who describes himself as “a bit of a rough” to be PC all the time? I haven’t read the book, but as much as you tuned out of the book after the use of the offensive term, I wrote off the remainder of your review and considered it a B+ book with a heads up for people who are particularly offended by the word in question.
****************good****************** for you calling out this author on the use of the word “fucktard.” It is a horrible word.
I agree with Sara, too. B+ to C- for one word that was spoken in- character? That’s extreme, and speaks more to the reviewer’s issues than the author’s, I think. It’s unfair to the book.
That brings up an interesting issue, though. If you’re a reviewer and you have a particular hot-button issue that comes up when you’re reviewing a book, at what point do you recuse yourself (if ever)? Or is mentioning it in your review good enough?
I’m thinking if the issue (JUST that issue) causes you to lower your assessment more than one full grade, then recuse yourself.
I’m going to disagree with Shana F.
A review is nothing more than a personal critique of something. The only reason, IMO, for a reviewer to “recuse” themselves is if they have a personal relationship with the author.
The words “fucktard” and “retard” are obviously a hot button for Elyse, and since this is a review of HER experience reading the book, then I have no problem with her ranting about it or downgrading her review because of the use of the word. And, to be honest, I’d have a problem with that word as well. The word “retard” is considered not just derogatory, but offensive. Words such as “douche” or all its variations (I’m partial to “douchecanoe myself because it makes me laugh) can be derogatory to women (though I personally think that’s a stretch), but they aren’t as offensive and don’t have the stigma attached to it that “retard” or “retarded” does.
In fact, when I did a quick google search, I discovered that the Special Olympics has a global campaign to stop using the “R-Word.” http://r-word.org I don’t see anyone trying to get people to stop using “Douche.”
I don’t believe Elyse had any obligation to recuse herself. She stated her opinion on all things related to this book, and this particular word choice was one which took her out of the story and offended her on a personal level. That’s a valid objection.
Having said all that, it is absolutely your right to dismiss her objections and her review in part or in its entirety for any reason at all. Including this one.
Language tells us something about character and language depends on context – both context in the history of the word itself and context in who is using it and how.
Regarding the word “retard” and “fucktard”, My sister-in-law was born with brain damage in the 1970s – not Downs, not autism. Her clinical diagnosis is as someone who has mental retardation. When her mother says, with affection, “She needs special help because she is retarded” there’s no pejorative intent and I do not think badly of her for using the clinical term she is accustomed to using in a clinical context. But I do make note of the fact that “retard”, like “f.gg.t”, like “n.gg.r, when used in a different context, are insults that target specific groups for specific hate speech.
I have not read this book and I don’t know what I would grade it. But if the author wanted me to think of a hero as a romantic hero, and he used the word “fucktard” (or “f…” or “n…” or several other words I can think of, and he spoke this word without consequence, and without changing as a person or changing his attitudes later in the story, then the author would fail to convince me that this person is heroic. He could do something wrong and change – we all mistakes, we all evolve, and that’s often a powerful theme in romance. But if the word is just tossed out there, then the author has failed to convey the image of the male protagonist as a romantic hero and will absolutely grade the story down accordingly, because that’s a technical writing mistake. This is not a matter of pearl-clutching or “political correctness” – it’s a matter of what picture the author is drawing with her language. If she’s drawing a picture of a hero who uses hate speech without later change, then I reject this person as a romantic hero based on the author’s linguistic choice.
I didn’t write this review, but I’ve written many others, and there are things I recuse myself from. For instance, I’ve found that when I try to read romantic suspense, my thoughts are “Too violent and scary!” Since it’s sort of the point of romantic suspense to be violent and scary, I recognize that that is not a fair criticism and I don’t review within that sub-genre. However, in the review of Hurricane, the author used language to paint a picture – and it didn’t work. To criticize that and lower the grade accordingly is exactly what a reviewer is supposed to do.
I suspect that some readers don’t realize that “fucktard” is specific hate speech on the level the other examples I offered as opposed to words that are less specific ((for instance “bastard” used to be a major burn, but over time it’s lost so much of its historical context that it’s less targeted. People born out of wedlock are no longer the target of systemic discrimination in the way that the mentally disabled are, or people of color are, of gay people are). So the use of the word was quite serious to anyone who understands the context.
@Sara – I just re-read your comment I think you made a great point that language helps the reader see the character. I think the problem here is that now I see the character as ignorant at best and hateful at worst- and I doubt that’s what the author wanted me to see. If I was supposed to see him as a villain, we’d be all good.
Shana F, I have to disagree with this. “If you’re a reviewer and you have a particular hot-button issue that comes up when you’re reviewing a book, at what point do you recuse yourself (if ever)? Or is mentioning it in your review good enough?”
I have a hot button issue and I will continue to give bad reviews to books that hit it. It is when an author uses the phrase “drink (or drank) the Kool-ade” as if it is a funny thing to say.
I’ve said it before and I am certain I’ll say it again, but I have a HUGE problems with authors ignorant of history.
In case anyone here is unfamiliar with the origins of the phrase “drink (or drank) the Kool-Ade because you are either too young to remember or weren’t born yet, this phrase has its origins in the Jonestown Massacre when hundreds of deluded (as we then found out) Christians followed of Jim Jones obeyed him, serving cyanide-laced Kool-Ade to their children and then drank it themselves. They “drank the Kool-Ade.”
Please tell me how anyone could possibly find that funny?
This is a highly personal issue for me because I was part of the evangelical Christian community at the time and many of us, including my professors at my college, and other evangelical Christian leaders thought highly of Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple Agricultural Project. Many of us wanted to join but due to financial constraints were unable to. Three people who went were very dear friends of mine who took their daughter, my goddaughter. These dear friends murdered their daughter and then killed themselves.
Now, of course, I exonerate an author of knowing my personal ties to this tragedy, but I find it unforgivable that anyone at all would ever use this phrase as humor.
Incidentally this event was one of the many that propelled me out of evangelical Christianity and into mainstream Episcopalianism with high church tendencies.
Here’s the full story: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Jonestown
I *just* mentioned in a comment on the Lauren Willig review that I had abruptly DNF’d a different book about the 20s because a dog was shot, killed, dumped in a river. That triggers me and in no way would i ever give that book a good review because it took me out of an otherwise engaging story and I then gave no fucks about it. I was too stunned by the disturbing cruelty to an animal which was likely historically accurate and might not bother a lot of people as severely as it did myself. Still, if I reviewed it you can bet I’d mention that and how it wrecked the entire story for me. So, the reason I come here is to read smart and honest reviews. Anything a reviewer considers de facto unromantic (controlling behavior, misogyny, rough language used abusively) needs to be mentioned. Thanks for the review and for all the perspectives on the use of this word.
One of the things I really appreciate about the reviews is that they are the readers’ honest reactions to the stories they review. I especially like it when they tell me what jerked them out of the story because very often those are things which will bother me also.
@Mary you’re right about curse words being mostly about body/sexuality/spirituality since the intent behind them is to offend. There is a great book about the history of swear words that looks at what sort of words were offensive when (ie [if I’m remembering correctly] Rome was all about sex, the Middle Ages all about god).
The book is Holy Sh*! by Melissa Mohr. http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/16225525-holy-sh-t
@Mara B., that sounds awesome! Thank you for the suggestion — I’ll order from the library!
I’m an admitted flaming liberal, but even I think considering the word “retard” and its variations to be hate speech is a bit much. It’s rude and tasteless but not indicative of hatred, unless the character actually does hate disabled people (I haven’t read the book, so I can only comment in general terms). It’s on par with “douchbag,” in my opinion, an insult that repurposes a female bodily function as something to be ashamed of. The only difference between “douchbag” vs “fucktard” is what your personal pet peeve happens to be.
Based on the comments, it seems nearly impossible for an author not to offend somebody, no matter what they write. Seems like in this case the author just got unlucky with her particular reviewer.
(BTW – I don’t condone using the word “retard,” I just don’t think it’s hate speech. And none of this is meant as a personal attack on the reviewer. She was asked for her opinion and she gave it. Rather I’m making the case for anyone whose isn’t triggered by the word “retard,” which is probably the majority of readers)
@Shana – agreed that it seems like it’d be difficult for an author not to offend *someone* if their characters are remotely human. That said I think the problem is with the idea of the rating at all. A rating isn’t nuanced the way Elyse’s review was. If I’d been lazy I might have seen the C- and just nope, nope, noped, never to look back. But the review said so many good things about the book and let me know that the Bad Thing was highly personal, so, if I read NA, I might be tempted to go ahead and buy it. Maybe we could all take the ratings with a grain of salt and have conversations about the books, with the review as a starting point. At least then we don’t have to agree on the degree of ugly each word might carry or whether or not recusal is even a thing in book reviews.
@Sara – Good point. I feel bad for the author. She used one word that offended the wrong person (doubtful she actually has anything against mentally disabled people), and now her book has a permanent black mark against it. Unfair I think, but that’s the risk you run as an author.
I wrote a story recently with the word “spastic” in it (used once to describe thrashing arm motions), and another author warned me that the word is considered on par with “retard” in England, so I might want to change it. I had no idea. Now I’m freaked I’ll accidentally use another word that’s considered an insult in another culture and be ripped apart. This review is a perfect example of that nightmare.
@Shana: I think it really hinges on what these grades mean to you. To me, a C grade (no matter if it’s a plus or minus) is average. Elyse’s grade isn’t necessarily a black mark on the book. I would still read it after seeing this review.
I also hope that people would read through the review to see how it achieved that grade. Like someone mentioned before, Elyse outlined what she liked and disliked well enough to let other readers know how they’d enjoy the content based on Elyse’s assessment.
I certainly agree reviewers have the right to their sensitivities. But in this case, I would have liked to have known what the rating would have been if that term had not been used. As the rest of the review is positive overall, that would have been helpful.
I read this book and really liked it. I loved the gym manager and his crustiness hiding a soft heart. I loved both hero and heroine, and I’m not a fan of NA overall so that’s saying something. I would definitely recommend this book, and that price is hard to beat.
@ML she mentions that the book was a B+ book until the use of fucktard.
(and on an amusing note autocorrect tried to change to offending word to “ducktail”)
@Shana
I’ll admit to being a flaming conservative and I say that yes, retard (and fucktard) IS hate speech. I have multiple disabilities (it’s like a twisted buy one get two free deal when you’re dealing with the brain) and you don’t know fear until you’re sitting across from your college adviser and they unintentionally imply that you should be removed from your masters program because they’ve realized you’re learning disabled. Seeing fucktard and retard used as an insult reminds me of all the times someone asked me, “Should you be here?” because I wasn’t as mentally fast as everyone else. “What are you? Fucking retarded?” That is HATE. A book that uses hate speech casually should be called out on it. Loudly.
To say it’s merely “rude and tasteless” is like saying holocaust denial is tasteless or calling a grown black man “boy” is a bit rude. It’s continuing the cycle of demeaning people with intellectual disabilities by first dismissing them then dismissing slurs against them. They are one of the most horrifically abused minorities.
I’m not particularity triggered by racial slurs and insults because I’m white as chalk. That doesn’t make it a “pet peeve” for other people. Hate speech can not be defined by “Well, this doesn’t upset ME.” It can only be defined by the people it is being used consistently against. Otherwise it’s the majority deciding for the minority.
I’m a bit surprised you didn’t mention the incredible misogyny of the early parts of the narrative. Barely a chapter goes by without a woman being described as a slut because she has a sexual interest in the same man the FMC has a sexual interest in, but isn’t afraid to express it. I had to stop reading before getting to the point Elyse mentions, because I have no interest in reading romance that hates women. Sure, you can argue that it might be true to the character, but I want to be able to like the characters and I cannot like a woman who is so misogynistic.
Hate speech can not be defined by “Well, this doesn’t upset ME.” It can only be defined by the people it is being used consistently against. Otherwise it’s the majority deciding for the minority.
Eloquently put, Nemo.
I was briefly on Team “really, knocking down a letter grade just for one word?” And then I remembered I recently read a romance that dropped “she-male” into an otherwise cute scene, because YAY CASUAL TRANSPHOBIA IS THE BEST KIND OF TRANSPHOBIA, and it really did lower my opinion of the whole book. I quite enjoyed it, and I went on to read others by the same author, but there is a cloud hanging over the series and there’s no way I’d recommend it to anyone without a HUGE caveat, if I recommended it at all. Words matter.
It never occurred to me that “fucktard” was a portmanteau involving the admittedly objectionable “retard”. I always thought it was an elision and compression of “fucking bastard”, and that’s how I’ve always used it.
But, rather than inadvertently offend anyone whose perception differs, I will revert to the all-purpose “fuckwit” or “fuckwad” from hereon in.
@Wendy – Ah, good point! So if the author meant it as a contraction of “fucking bastard,” does the review get a higher grade? Or still lost points for ambiguity? OR hate speech against people born out of wedlock? OR hate speech against people that have sex? So many hate speech possibilities…
Hate speech in any form is despicable.
I really don’t know why Elyse’s personal reaction to something should receive the reaction it has. She clearly stated that it was her *********personal********* issue. She clearly stated why she had a personal issue with that word. She clearly stated she was loving the book until that moment when Our Hero uttered that word. She clearly stated that had that word not been in the novel, she would have given it a B+.
Speaking solely for me, myself and I, I applaud her honesty. I respect her reasons. I respect her for sharing them with us.
Obviously, at least to me, the author had her reasons for putting that word into Our Hero’s mouth. I am certain that those who say it is used to develop the character are correct.
The author has the right to develop her characters as she sees fit.
We as readers also have the right to react to what happens in a story. It would be so boring to read if we didn’t. One of the things I have always loved about the reviews on SMTB is the honesty demonstrated on the part of the reviewers. They engage the novel they review. They have personal reactions to it.
My own reviews, posted on Goodreads and Amazon are highly personal. I recently posted a review that was more of a rant about a book titled “Rebel Cowboy with Quadruplets.” Frankly, I don’t know how that got a publisher.
I learned something from Elyse’s review. I did not know the etymology of that word. I too thought it a conflation of “fucking bastard” and thought it ugly enough. I’ll be honest, I cringe every time I hear or read the word “fuck” because I think it an ugly word even if it has a long long history since, apparently 1475 in English and even older with its Germanic, Latin, and ancient Greek uses. “Bastard” is clearly derogatory so if it were a conflation of “fucking bastard” that would be bad enough, but Elyse’s explanation is even worse.
I respect Elyse, her reviews and her reaction to this word.
Seriously, this book was a DNF. It just got boring, they didn’t feel like how people are, and the writing!
Apart from that, the fucktard thing wasn’t an issue for me, but to each their own. And the reviewer did say why it was a no go area for her. She’s reviewing it as her personal opinion, not doing an essay where she must show both sides and try and be objective. Reviews are, by nature, subjective, and she did state what and why the issue was, for her.
Now, I lost it early on (apart from the terrible writing and characterisations and the over the top – yet it really is only a superficial hurt – damage inflicted on both characters with complete cartoon villain parental units) over the usage of the word slut.
I don’t have an issue with swear words or representing people how they are in their natural socio-economic habitat, but girls in this book were neatly placed into Good Girl and Slut boxes. The sluts were the people the rock hard 8-pack human god fighter machine guys fucked because you know, they could and they’re waiting for a hot good girl honey to come along.
In the book, a girl can’t be a human being and like sex and want to be young, because then you’re super skinny with fake tits and a Slut. The heroine calling all these girls a slut was a huge turn off for me.
I understand that there are certain rules in romance, but I feel there could have been more, and a lot more nuance in this, and to give – especially if this is aimed at the younger set – girls a sense that it’s much more complicated than whore or virgin.
But, I lost interest around that point where slut was bandied about and then everything went downhill and then I started skimming and then I just couldn’t finish.
There were some nice scenes between them, but I’d have liked it if she was more attracted to him beyond his body. And also if she had more of a reaction to intimacy because of her past.
But then it might have been a very different book.
All that being said, I do think there are going to be people who view it very differently to me.
@Dahlia: I had that same issue recently too! I read a book that I heard good things about and essentially every other girl in the book apart from the heroine was just used as an obstacle for their relationship. And if a woman was interested in the hero apart from the heroine, she entered “slut” territory.
I’m honestly not sure the book could have passed the Bechdel Test either.