So a "romance" novel in which the male hero drugs the female hero in order to have sex with her in Chapter 3 does not earn a spoiler tag. 

The sad part is, it wasn't even necessary and spoiled an otherwise fine novel.

-cg

I recently read five of Jane feather's "V" books, and I was disappointed that most of them featured male and female heroes with significant age differences - in some cases almost 20 years. 

Now, I know that in the old days it was very common for a man in his 30s to marry a teenager, but historical romance novels have the verisimilitude level of a Renaissance Faire. There's no reason Feather couldn't write like Stephanie Laurens, who contrives a way to make most of her male heroes and female heroes much closer in age. For romances, I appreciate an age difference of less than 10 years. 

"Valentine" was pretty good. I like the plot contrivance of a forced marriage with benefits to both parties, plus the backstory of the male hero's war experience and the female hero's work on her family estate.

But I couldn't help but think that although the male hero was in his late 30s, her was a better age for the female hero's widowed mother. The mother has daughters in their early 20s, and she was a young bride herself, so she could be no older than mid 40s. She is wise and kind and loving. Why not make her the female hero? It would be far less creepy for contemporary readers and a lovely take on this kind of story.

-cg

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. 

-cg

Don't read this. Don't read any Catherine Coulter based on this book. You won't believe these two ever fall in love. You will believe the female hero has Stockholm syndrome. Humiliation, abuse, and rape should never lead to love. -cg

For me, the sexual humiliation of either the female hero or the male hero is a no-go in mass-market historical romance. I should have known Jane Feather was capable of it, as in an earlier review I critiqued her for much the same reason: http://carissagreen50.booklikes.com/post/1335080/kissed-by-shadows-automatic-dq.

I'm about to spoil the shit out of this book, so if you care about the plot of an almost 30-year old story, stop now. Also: Trigger warnings. 

"Venus" was originally published back in the late '80s, when historical romance didn't just mean "Regency era." You were just as likely then to find Victorians, medievals, Scottish, westerns, swashbucklers, and more. This book happens to take place in Restoration England, following the intrigues of a minor noble (that's our male hero) in the court of Charles II. 

The male hero rescues the female hero from a London tavern and sets her up in a new life as a celebrated stage actress and up-and-coming courtier. (So already it's kind of a novel story, as most female heroes in romance are "ladies," not lower-class.) The male hero and his buddy recruit her in their plot to take down the evil "Duke of Buckingham" (who was a real figure of the time), and at the same time, the male hero makes her his mistress, with the plan to marry her when the court intrigue is completed. 

Unfortunately, the whole darn plan backfires, and Buckingham has the male hero locked in the Tower. His terms to get him back are that the female hero - who already has rejected Buckingham's advances after stringing him along both at the theatre and court - must spend seven nights with him, in a brothel, submitting to his sexual will (which, apparently, involves tying her up and bruising her).

In a proper romance novel, the female hero would get out of such a fate, either by improbably intrigue or last-minute rescue. But in this book, she goes through with it. The entire week. Fortunately, Feather only gives us a scant few pages of explicit description.

So, you hit one of my disqualification triggers here, Feather. Do not sexually humiliate your characters. Big thumbs down. It may be "realistic" to have the plot play out this way, but we all know mass market historicals are about as realistic as a Renaissance faire. So, no. It was a mistake. Not recommended. -cg