I read widely from many genres. Perhaps this blog will feature fewer ratings and reviews, but I certainly intend to write about my reading life - it's the subject I most find myself wanting to talk about.
Jane Feather's "Vixen" pushed quite a few of my historical romance "buttons," and not in a good way. What a shame, for it was a waste of characters. The female hero is an animal advocate, and the male hero is an alcoholic who works very hard for his sobriety.
But readers of my blog will know that my historical romance deal-breakers is sexual humiliation. In this novel, the paternalistic male hero is so annoyed that the female hero went out an about in male attire that he makes her strip immediately and run through the house naked. Ridiculous. She is shamed, and she does feel it. But it's about punishment and breaking her spirit, not setting the female hero up for an equal partnership in a love match. Not fun for a female to read.
And why is the male hero so paternalistic? Because he is in the range of 20 years older than the female hero. Indeed, he was in love with the female hero's mother many years before the novel took place. He saved the mother from a sex cult. And in gratitude, the mother "willed" guardianship of her daughter to him upon her death. Of course, in due time, the male hero must also save the female hero from the same sex cult.
Really? I know there were sex cults in England in the old days. But historical romances are about as historical as a Renaissance Faire, so just because there were sex cults doesn't mean they are good fodder for love stories. It's just stupid.