Note - this is a revised review and not the original.
I wrote my first review of this after finishing it in a rage at the way Mills&Boon books were used in the story, and decided not to grade the book because I knew that my view was extremely coloured as a result. Calm reflection and the urging of several fellow M&B authors made me get in touch with the author directly to express my concerns. I have to say, she not only took my concerns seriously, but took the time to express her own reasons and POV. We didn’t agree on everything, there are some things we agreed to differ on, but she has graciously allowed me to quote her, and I’ve realised that in some ways I was out of line and decided to go back and take a fresh look at the book. I’d like to stress that this re-review was my own idea and not the author’s. So here goes now – with a warning, it’s long!
First up, the use of ‘Mills&Boon’ as a derisory term full of assumptions about the contents of the books, about them being cliché-ridden fantasies that are only read by sad women who don’t have real romance in their life. Sadly, I come across this attitude all the time, not least from my own family – and in particular the males. People who don’t read romance mock it. The press takes the p*s out of the genre in a way that wouldn’t be accepted if it wasn’t written mostly by women. Having a pop at ‘Mills&Boon’ is easy, and it gets us all furious, as readers and writers, because it’s wrong on so many levels. No need to go into the why’s, we’ve all been there, all defended or walked away or ranted or cried about it. But the fact is, people do it. And James, to quote Ms McFarlane, 'is a 30-something metropolitan male who fancies himself, and I think we can safely say, someone who would not be seen dead reading any romance, M&B or otherwise'.
True. In the scene I objected to most, James picks up Anna’s book, reads it out jeeringly, asks Anna why she likes it. He listens to her defence of the genre. Then he tries, as he woos Anna, to ‘get it’ – to vocalise his feelings, to try the odd romantic gesture. Not because he’s converted to romantic novels, but because he wants Anna and that’s what Anna wants. So in the final scene, in the restaurant, when he’s got her, he lapses back into mocking M&B again. Which yes, I think is true to character, and sadly true to life. In fact, if James had been one of my relatives I would have laughed at him and that’s what Ms McFarlane truly intended, I believe.
Okay next, Anna, the M&B-lover in the book. My issue with her was that she could be flagged up as a clichéd M&B reader, having once been fat and bullied, now unattractive but unable to see it. I didn’t discuss this point with the author, but I do feel that she played into the hands of the M&B-haters a wee bit. And I do feel that had she been a true fan of the genre, she would have defended that, for me, wrong line the line at the end - 'Mills & Boon heroines don't usually do string-free bonks. There's always a wedding at the end...(they are) an old-fashioned fantasy'.
And this we did discuss. Ms McFarlane has read recent M&Bs, so I was wrong to criticise her lack of research, but she’s not an avid reader. The fact is that there are so many imprints written by such a range of authors catering for wildly different readers that it’s true, ‘string-free bonks’ are a no-no in lots of cases. But not all. And in my view, definitely not in the majority of stories. Yes, sex does mean something when the hero and heroine meet, but that doesn’t mean that the heroine hasn’t had sex before and it hasn’t been particularly meaningful. Ms McFarlane suggested that wouldn’t be the case in Historicals. I agree to an extent, the consequences would have been more dire, and sexual history is sometimes a conflict, but not always. But I’d also say here that my judgement was VERY coloured because in MY books there isn’t always a standard HEA involving marriage and kids, and in MY books the heroines sometimes do behave unconventionally. The thing is though, I was being specific and Ms McFarlane was generalising. So to be absolutely fair, we were both right.
The main point that I still objected to, and which remains painful for me, which was the actual excerpt which James reads aloud form a so-called M&B historical which was done in what I’d call a Barbara Cartland-ish style. I still object to this. The language implied that M&B heroines hang about waiting to be rescued, it used flowery clichés and implied they were wilting wallflowers with no mind of their own. No doubt there are still such Historicals out there, but I believe they are definitely in the minority, and that not only are M&B Historical heroines independent and strong-willed, they quite often rescue the hero. I am biased, there’s no doubt about it, and I took this a personal slight when I shouldn’t have, also no doubt about that. But one of the most back-handed complements I get in reviews is that new readers (to me or to the line) are 'surprised at how well written it is'! So although this was satire, I felt and still feel that this aspect of the book was inappropriate. That said, Ms McFarlane has agreed to put some M&B Historicals on her 2014 reading list, so…
So what’s the upshot of all this? I was wrong, and I apologise for going off on one and for allowing what I took to be personal slights to colour my judgement – and for taking things too personally, which I think is the same thing. I stand by my comments on the content of the ‘Mills&Boon Historical’ being all wrong. I can now see that James’s behaviour and comments are sadly accurate and intended to be laughed at, and that overall the book isn’t critical of M&B romance but actually intended to reinforce it as well as to use the tropes satirically. I can also see that Anna is, to quote Ms McFarlane, 'an intelligent, sympathetic and unapologetic modern fan of M&B and crucially remains so to the very end. Attaining James doesn’t mean she stops reading them'. True, but I do wish Anna had been more staunch in her defence and that she hadn’t reinforced some of the clichés about romance readers.
I’d like to thank Ms McFarlane for taking the time to have this out with me in private. In short (finally!) I owe her an apology for some of the things which I misinterpreted and which were coloured by my taking them personally - and so I do, I am sorry. But there’s also some things which I’ve wittered on about above that we will agree to differ on. She was happy to leave it at that, it was my idea to re-evaluate in the light of. Can I give her book a rating? I’ve done so, though I can’t honestly say that it’s unbiased because I still have strong personal feelings about some aspect of it that have everything to do with how romance in general is perceived, and not very much to do with this book. For me, those aspects spoilt the story, but that’s also personal and says more about me and my writing than Ms McFarlane’s. I will read the next one though, which I’m assured has no M&B in it at all.