A Rogue of One's Own
Evie Dunmore emerged onto the historical romance scene last year with Bringing Down the Duke, a tightly written, strongly characterised story which clearly marked the appearance of a fresh voice in the genre. So – with that runaway success under her belt, the question fans of the genre were asking was ‘can she do it again or was that a flash in the pan?’ Well, I’m here to tell you that she clearly can do it again, because in A Rogue of One’s Own, she once more tells a thoroughly entertaining story featuring compelling characters and a sensual romance that is very firmly anchored in its late Victorian setting, while also delivering a feminist message in a way that is properly entrenched within the fabric of the story and faithful to the character of the heroine.
Lady Lucie Tedbury, a leader of the British suffragist movement, was disowned by her family a decade earlier for publicly espousing her radical beliefs. She now lives in what can best be described as genteel poverty in Oxford, where she and her friends meet regularly to discuss and organise their activities on behalf of the sufrragist cause. Their current focus is lobbying Parliament to abolish or amend the Married Woman’s Property Act, and they are on the verge of purchasing half of the shares in publishing house London Print, with a view to publishing their report attacking the Act in its periodicals. But a few days later, Lucie is horrified to learn that the other fifty percent have just been purchased by Tristan Ballantine, heir to the Earl of Rochester, a notorious libertine who was the bane of her childhood existence.
This is a major setback. Tristan is never going to agree to publish the report, which means all the time and effort spent collecting their data will be wasted. But Lucie has never been one to give up without a fight and asks Tristan what it will take for him to sell her another one percent of the shares to give her a controlling interest in the company. Tristan’s price? A night in her bed. Or his. He’s not fussed.
Tristan, a second son, never expected to inherit his father’s title. The Earl of Rochester is a cruel man who insisted on absolute obedience and did his best to beat anything he regarded as not masculine out of his younger son. Tristan went into the army and served in India, where he earned the Victoria Cross, but the death of his older brother means Tristan is now heir to the Rochester earldom, and his father is determined to make Tristan do his duty to the title by getting married and begetting an heir. Tristan has no wish to do any such thing, but the earl – who can no longer beat him into submission – has found other ways to control his wayward son over the years, and anticipating his refusal, says that if Tristan doesn’t do as he’s told, then he will arrange for the Countess – who, by the sound of it is what we’d call bi-polar – to be put into an asylum.
Tristan is no longer fully financially dependent on his father, but his plan to get his mother away to safety – perhaps to India – needs funds, which is where London Print comes in. Years earlier, Tristan anonymously authored a collection of romantic poetry which proved very popular; he now plans to republish it with his name attached, knowing that his reputation as a war hero and London’s most notorious rogue means it will sell in large numbers and provide the money he needs.
Both Lucie and Tristan are extremely well-drawn, complex characters who have upsetting and painful circumstances in their pasts and are trying hard to do what they think is right in their presents. They’re easy to like and root for, and although Tristan does come across as a bit of a cold bastard to start with, Ms. Dunmore does a brilliant job of showing the reader that a thoughtful, sensitive and damaged man lies beneath the outwardly heartless philanderer, and revealing why the boy who liked to read rather than shoot, and to take care of animals rather than hunt them grew a tough outer shell and cultivated a reputation as a callous womaniser and corrupter of youth.
It’s clear that Tristan has long been carrying a torch for Lucie, but typical of the emotionally-stunted male, he metaphorically pulled her pigtails (and even dyed them once!) to hide the fact that he was sweet on her when they were younger. Lucie has no interest in giving up the little freedom she has by getting married and has dedicated herself to the suffragist cause, but her disinterest in marriage doesn’t – to her dismay – mean that she isn’t interested in men, or at least, in one man in particular. The chemistry between the pair crackles right from the start as they embark upon a battle of wills, and things heat up even more. Tristan knows what a woman’s desire looks like; Lucie is horrified at herself for being so strongly attracted to him, and the confusion that afflicts her is very well depicted – how can she desire a man while despising him? But she is also surprised as she starts to discover the real man beneath the veneer, a well-educated, well-read man with an artistic soul and a willingness to listen and understand.
I was impressed with the way the author incorporates the feminist message in this book. Lucies’s thoughts and feelings are incredibly well articulated and never come across as preachy or mere lip-service, but as essential truths:
“A man’s lack of voice is connected to his lack of property… A woman’s lack of voice is forever connected to the fact that she is a woman. “
Anyone who knows anything about the period will know that women had few (if any rights) and that the few that were eventually won took a lot of continual, hard work by many. (And that while many things have changed in the last 150 years, there are still many that have not). And while Lucie is outspoken and prepared to stand up for what she believes in she also recognises the need to operate within the limits of the society in which she’s living. She may be tough and determined, but there’s a vulnerable side to her she strives never to reveal, but which readers are allowed to glimpse as she wrestles with her conscience over her ability to continue to dedicate herself to her work should she become involved with Tristan.
Kudos to her, too, for incorporating a bisexual hero into a mainstream historical romance. It’s not stated overtly, but it’s fairly clear that Tristan has had relationships with men as well as women (he even gets to flirt with Oscar Wilde at one point!), although this aspect of his character isn’t explored in any detail.
Electric chemistry, an intense attraction and a growing tenderness and understanding – the romance in this book works superbly on pretty much every level, although towards the end I started to feel as though Lucie was so overwhelmed by all the work she was undertaking and all the different directions she was being pulled in that she would never have time for a romantic partner in her life – and that impression, unfortunately, remained with me until the end. It’s one of the reasons this book didn’t quite reach DIK status. Another is that while it ends in what is probably the only way it could have ended and remained true to Lucie’s character, it’s a bit too pat and easy; for Tristan and Lucie to do what they do is pretty risky, especially given that discovery could pose a real threat to Lucie’s ability to continue her work.
And then there’s this:
Near the end, Lucie learns something unpleasant and slaps Tristan on the face with no provocation other than a misunderstanding and her own anger. Violence never solves anything, and a character who resorts to it for no reason other than temper immediately loses some of my respect. It’s not acceptable, and had the situation been reversed, the book would probably never have been published.
Overall however, A Rogue of One’s Own is a terrific read, a sensual, insightful and wonderfully poignant love story featuring a well-matched central couple whose HEA is hard-won and thoroughly deserved. The last couple of chapters left me feeling a teeny bit deflated, but not enough to give the book anything other than a strong recommendation.
Buy it at: Amazon, Audible, or your local independent bookstore
Visit our Amazon Storefront
Buy A Rogue of One’s Own by Evie Dunmore:
Book Details
| Reviewer: | Caz Owens |
|---|---|
| Review Date: | August 31, 2020 |
| Publication Date: | 09/2020 |
| Grade: | B+ |
| Sensuality | Warm |
| Book Type: | Historical Romance |
| Review Tags: | A League of Extraordinary Women series |
Ah never change AAR. One place I can rely upon where the discussion of a hugely offensive, fetishising tatoo of a Hindu god on a colonisers body centers upon the “historical accuracy” rather than the colonial violence. Because “there are books for everyone” right? Because a daddy kink is the same as racist material right? Sexual preference is the same as cultural and racial identity right? Well yes for white women, for whom this site is very clearly for. This Indian woman is out
.
Bu-Bye, Shash.
Glad you sussed that this hospitable, everyone has a voice, place ain’t for you. All of us others who want a spot where we and the people who run it are allowed to question, chat, and nicely argue will still be right here.
While I thank you for your support, I’d ask that your tone be a bit less cutting. We really do want this to be a welcoming place for ALL.
Yeah, except it’s really not. And for more reasons than a “cutting tone.”
Have fun at Smart Bitches, whose site moderators censor comments calling out their reviewer’s blatant biphobia.
Oh gosh, I’m nervous about this one! It’s coming in the mail tomorrow, but from what I’ve picked up here (haven’t read the spoiler yet…) and what I’ve seen on Goodreads about the hero’s tattoo, my excitement has definitely dampened. Historical romance, stop breaking my heart!!
A tattoo? Unless the hero was a sailor at some point, I agree that doesn’t sound very historically accurate. Actually, it was only very recently in history that a person would get a tattoo outside of the navy, civilian life at sea, or possibly prison. The fact he was in the army and got a tattoo (don’t know exactly when he obtained it) is a bit of a stretch, but I suppose it’s possible if he obtained the tattoo abroad.
The problem wasn’t with historical accuracy. It was a classic example of cultural appropriation which in 2020, I think should’ve been caught before the book was sent out.
What about all those heroes in contemporaries who sport tribal tattoos and the like? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying you’re wrong or she’s right or taking sides of any kind, just pointing out that this is far from the only example in romantic fiction, but I don’t see those authors getting pulled up on it.
I want to be clear: Caz, I did not mean to imply that there was anything amiss with your review and I have not read the book.
I think it’s always important to remember how privilege and past experiences may inoculate us from problematic content. When I come across homophobia, transphobia, fatphobia, Islamophobia, or racism in romance novels, it’s disappointing but it’s not nearly as distressing as it would be for someone who experienced those forms of discrimination in real life.
When people who belong to colonized, marginalized and/or historically oppressed communities tell us that their culture, religion, and/or traditions have been appropriated, we should believe them. Full stop.
If a protagonist (rather than say, a villain) has a tribal tattoo in a romance novel, it’s problematic. Period.
If a problem is widespread, that alone isn’t enough to render a specific instance of that problem less problematic.
At the same time, I think context is important here. Personally, if I read a contemporary erotic novella that had been self-published in 2002 and a character had a tribal tattoo, it would be problematic on a particular level. If I read a historical romance wherein the white hero — who participated in and/or directly benefited from the colonization of Hawaii — had appropriated an indigenous design for his tattoo and that novel was released by a major publisher in 2020, it would be problematic on a whole different level. It would be especially egregious if the author was perpetuating appropriation by including this information without interrogating the hero’s privileged decision or contextualizing why this behavior is problematic.
“If I read a historical romance wherein the white hero — who participated in and/or directly benefited from the colonization of Hawaii — had appropriated an indigenous design for his tattoo and that novel was released by a major publisher in 2020, it would be problematic on a whole different level.”
As I’ve proven before, I’m no expert on the history of tattoos. :) But wouldn’t it be possible for a white sailor to have been tattooed by a Hawaiian artist? It seems to me that would be likely given that somebody had to demonstrate how to create tattoos and replicate certain designs in the first place. For all we know, maybe some Hawaiians were amused by the idea of Europeans wanting to wear their tattoos. Not excusing colonialism, but the possibility certainly exists.
“It would be especially egregious if the author was perpetuating appropriation by including this information without interrogating the hero’s privileged decision or contextualizing why this behavior is problematic.”
Well, this is where historical fiction- particularly HR- gets iffy. As uncomfortable as we regard certain historical views today, those views were widespread. Imposing our 21st century standards on 18th or 19th century characters can make them little more than 21st century time travelers in fancy costumes. Do historical fiction and HR readers really want “woke” 19th century sailors, as an example? Sure, there’s definitely a balance of creating characters a 21st century reader can relate to while remaining true to the time period. Personally, I lean on the side of, “This guy lived 200+ years ago. I can deal with his shocking views and behaviors in the context of the time period in which he inhabited, no hand-holding required.”
One example of an HR that shocked me in a good way was the f/f The Care and Feeding of Waspish Widows by Olivia Waite. One of the heroines’ husband (in name only) and her brother are whalers. Reading this, I was worried the author would interject 21st century “Save the Whales” rhetoric into the story, but I was pleased that she didn’t give even a whiff of it. Why? Because whaling was regarded as a vital industry and pretty much nobody in the 1820s would have questioned it the way we do today. Olivia Waite was true to the time period and quite unapologetic about it, which I found extraordinarily refreshing. Because I think she trusts readers enough to know, “Hey! It’s the 21st century and whale hunting is not okay anymore!” But she didn’t need to stick her 21st century nose into a 19th century narrative. Frankly, I think her work was all the better for it. (And she still managed to create a few same-sex partnerships that felt believable and true for the time period!)
In the scenario I outlined previously and the book discussed in the review, the salient point is not who may have done the tattoo and what their mood was. It’s that the hero belongs to the dominant/colonizing group and he has fetishized the culture of less privileged/colonized people.
I would love to link to the Goodreads review that outlines this issue, but the user has private settings. As someone who belongs to the less privileged/colonized community the tattoo originally comes from, she pointed out that this part of the book was problematic. I believe her and although I had bought the book and still plan on reading it, I appreciated that she took the time to point this out. I also wish that this issue would’ve been caught — by the author, by the editor, by sensitivity readers, etc. — before ARCs went out.
And yes, I agree with you that readers have varying expectations of how much of the 21st century we want in our Regency or Victorian romances. For me, cultural appropriation needs to be interrogated, contextualized or left out of the narrative. After reading your other comments in this thread, I understand that your expectations might be different.
“After reading your other comments in this thread, I understand that your expectations might be different.” Yes, and that’s okay. We don’t have to have the same comfort level with certain issues. That’s why it’s nice there are so many different books out there for different tastes.
One of the really nice things about self-publishing is the way it has leveled the playing field for writers and readers. True, it’s not a perfect system, but at least our reading choices are no longer largely limited by the Big 5. As long as someone has internet access, Microsoft Word (or an equivalent), and a story to tell, that person can weave a narrative s/he and others enjoy. :)
Agreed, self-publishing has been a huge boon to my reading life! I want us all to find books we enjoy and I think the reviews here and elsewhere, including reviews that point out what may be harmful or problematic, go a long way in helping us do that.
Yes! I’d add to that how the reviews at AAR also help readers decide if something is just plain icky for them. For example, the review of a recent erotica short warned readers about the presence of a daddy kink. A lot of commenters basically said, “Thanks for the warning. I’ll pass.”
BTW, AAR’s spoiler feature is great for allowing additional discussion without “ruining” the story for someone who wants to be surprised.
I didn’t think you were implying that, Cece, so no worries :)
Okay, phew! For the last two years, your reviews have played a huge role in pointing me towards historical romances I’ve enjoyed. :)
Thank you :) And honestly, this is a good book and worth reading, in spite of the reservations I expressed.
“If a protagonist (rather than say, a villain) has a tribal tattoo in a romance novel, it’s problematic.”
Just a stray thought on this. I don’t want cultural appropriation (like racism) to be portrayed as part of unredeemable villainy. Once that happens, it’s too easy, IMO, for someone to think, “Only evil people do this. I am not an evil person. Therefore, when I do whatever I do, it’s okay.” I’d like the handling of cultural appropriation to be more nuanced so it will get past this not-me reaction.
I’m not sure that’s true. Tattoos have been part of humanity since ancient cultures. And they have a long history in Britain: British and other pilgrims to the Holy Lands throughout the 17th century were tattooed with the Jerusalem Cross to commemorate their voyages,[31] including William Lithgow in 1612. [32] In 1691, William Dampier brought to London a native named Jeoly or Giolo from the island of Mindanao (Philippines) who had a tattooed body and became known as the “Painted Prince”. Between 1766 and 1779, Captain James Cook made three voyages to the South Pacific, the last trip ending with Cook’s death in Hawaii in February 1779. When Cook and his men returned home to Europe from their voyages to Polynesia, they told tales of the ‘tattooed savages’ they had seen. The word “tattoo” itself comes from the Tahitian tatau, and was introduced into the English language by Cook’s expedition[citation needed] (though the word ‘tattoo’ or ‘tap-too’, referring to a drumbeat, had existed in English since at least 1644)[33]It was in Tahiti aboard the Endeavour, in July 1769, that Cook first noted his observations about the indigenous body modification and is the first recorded use of the word tattoo to refer to the permanent marking of the skin. In the ship’s log book recorded this entry: “Both sexes paint their Bodys, Tattow, as it is called in their Language. This is done by inlaying the Colour of Black under their skins, in such a manner as to be indelible.” Cook went on to write, “This method of Tattowing I shall now describe…As this is a painful operation, especially the Tattowing of their Buttocks, it is performed but once in their Lifetimes.” Cook’s Science Officer and Expedition Botanist, Sir Joseph Banks, returned to England with a tattoo. Banks was a highly regarded member of the English aristocracy and had acquired his position with Cook by putting up what was at the time the princely sum of some ten thousand pounds in the expedition. In turn, Cook brought back with him a tattooed Raiatean man, Omai, whom he presented to King George and the English Court. Many of Cook’s men, ordinary seamen and sailors, came back with tattoos, a tradition that would soon become associated with men of the sea in the public’s mind and the press of the day.[34] In the process, sailors and seamen re-introduced the practice of tattooing in Europe, and it spread rapidly to seaports around the globe. By the 19th century, tattooing had spread to British society but was still largely associated with sailors[35] and the lower or even criminal class.[36] Tattooing had however been practised in an amateur way by public schoolboys from at least the 1840s[37][38] and by the 1870s had become fashionable among some members of the upper classes, including royalty.[39][40] In its upmarket form, it could be a lengthy, expensive[41] and sometimes painful[42] process. Tattooing spread among the upper classes all over Europe in the 19th century, but particularly in Britain where it was estimated in Harmsworth Magazine in 1898 that as many as one in five members of the gentry were tattooed. Taking their lead from the British Court, where George V followed Edward VII’s lead in getting tattooed; King Frederick IX of Denmark, the King of Romania, Kaiser Wilhelm II, King Alexander of Yugoslavia and even Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, all sported tattoos, many of them elaborate and ornate renditions of the Royal Coat of Arms or the Royal Family Crest. King Alfonso XIII of modern Spain also had a tattoo. The perception that there is a marked class division on the acceptability of the practice has been a popular media theme in Britain, as successive generations of journalists described the practice as newly fashionable and no longer for a marginalised class. Examples of this cliché can be found in every decade since the 1870s.[43] Despite this evidence, a myth persists that the upper and lower classes find tattooing attractive and the broader middle classes rejecting it. In 1969, the House of Lords debated a bill to ban the tattooing of minors, on grounds it had become “trendy” with the young in recent years but was associated with crime. It was noted that 40 per cent of young criminals had tattoos and that marking the skin in this way tended to encourage self-identification with criminal groups. Two peers, Lord Teynham and the Marquess of Aberdeen and Temair however rose to object that they had been tattooed as youngsters, with no… Read more »
Wow! I learn something new every day. Thanks for replying so extensively.
I was definitely aware of tattoos in ancient cultures, but I always associated tattooed Brits in the pre-modern era as having a navy or merchant connection in order to obtain them.
“Many of Cook’s men, ordinary seamen and sailors, came back with tattoos, a tradition that would soon become associated with men of the sea in the public’s mind and the press of the day.[34] In the process, sailors and seamen re-introduced the practice of tattooing in Europe, and it spread rapidly to seaports around the globe.”
This was my impression too, and I hadn’t realized it spread to other segments of the population outside of seafarers. The more you know…
I don’t know how prevalent it was across society. There was definitely a 20th century middle class bias that they were, as you said, associated with sailors or criminals in many circles.
One interesting fact I learned a few years ago was that Winston Churchill’s mother, the famous beauty and American Heiress Jenny Jerome had a snake tattoo! She was a “Dollar Princess” much like Cora in Downton Abbey who came to England and married into the British Peerage. Now having said that, she was a noted rebel who did as she pleased and it in no way means it was generally acceptable or done that the aristocracy or the rich Americans got tattoos.
Personally I would find it most believable in a historical romance if the person with a tattoo was either an aristocrat (who often made their own rules if they were rich and influential enough), an adventurer/ traveler, and/or someone who’s job or lifestyle was among the types that typically got tattoos (sailor etc).
Regarding tattoos and cultural appropriation- I don’t know what the tattoo is of but a 19th century hero or heroine wouldn’t have any sense of the idea of “cultural appropriation” as it’s such a modern term and its more accurate they would have a tattoo of anything that caught their fancy.
I think what is being criticized is that in 2020 an author is supposed to “do/know better” rather than whether or not the tattoo is culturally accurate.
It’s not an argument I’d make but I think it’s coming from a sensitivity perspective rather than an accuracy perspective.
Sure, and everyone has their own idea of what is or isn’t appropriate. I don’t necessarily agree with every objection but like any facet of a story people must choose what they want to support and what they will and will not enjoy.
I think the protagonist/sailor (Will) in Cat Sebastian’s latest book Two Rogues Make a Right has a tattoo when he returns to London. Birds maybe? And gets another from a friend/fellow sailor/tattoo artist during their convalescence in the country? Sorry – I know there is a tattoo and it’s a slightly portrayed a slightly risque thing for a gentleman, not so much a sailor (or soldier).
Lots of contemps of all genres feature principal characters with tattoos – and a LOT of them are tribal in origin. I understand the concern and why reviewers are critical of this depiction on his chest (?), but many tattoos appropriate faith/cultures/proverbs etc. and I don’t often see criticism of these tattoos.
I agree, how do you tell the world what they can tattoo or not on their body? Where do you draw the line?
Dolce and Gabbana use images of Catholic and Christian art on their clothes constantly and no one demands baptism certificates for anyone who wears them.
My opinion is as long as something is done appreciatively and not in a denigrating way it’s acceptable. I know many disagree with that but ultimately who has ownership of non-copyright images? Even the Vatican doesn’t control all Catholic images and icons. For a tribal tattoo who could give permission?
I agree with you, Chrisreader. When you think about it, the entire world is a form of appropriation. And thank goodness for that! I think life would be rather bland if people were only allowed to wear something from the culture/ethnic group they were born into as a result of fate. Also, like you said, who would give permission? Even if a person from a particular culture said, “Yeah, it’s okay for you to wear that,” why does that person get to say so? After all, that particular person didn’t invent the tattoo, symbol, or whatever else.
On a related note, I’ve noticed that some of the biggest critics of cultural appropriation are not from members of the supposedly appropriated cultures themselves but crusading, often white college students or fifth generation descendants of a culture they really have no significant connection with. For what it’s worth, there have been a few videos on YouTube demonstrating this. True, you can edit footage to look like anything. But I think it’s telling when lots of people from the supposedly offended culture are far more bothered by the fact that people outside the culture are getting up in arms on Twitter about a white person wearing a qipao or sarape than the fact some white person wore a qipao or sarape on Twitter.
Culture appropriation is a difficult issue, and I think you need to look carefully at the consequences that certain actions can have on members of a minority group. As a Hindu woman, I find the hero’s decision to have a four-armed naked woman, supposedly inspired by Lord Shiva (a deity that my family worships), tattooed on his body, wildly problematic and offensive. It quite honestly reminded me of how I was harassed by white boys in college and school, asking if I had read the Kama Sutra and whether I knew any tricks in bed. That’s the issue – the hero’s tattoo fetishizes and trivializes a marginalized group of people. There is a fine line between appreciation and appropriation. The hero’s action here is an example of cultural appropriation. He is a member of a colonizer class (literally a member, not a descendent), who is misusing the image of a deity worshipped by the colonized community. An example of cultural appreciation, would be my white friends who wore sarees for my temple wedding, to celebrate my culture and to be respectful of the appropriate attire to be worn in a Hindu temple.
I hadn’t read the book so I wanted to know the story around what the tattoo was and the circumstances for the hero getting it. If it was a case where he had a tattoo because he had adopted a religion or belief and the tattoo was supporting that, I would have been fine with it, but according to people’s reports that is not the case-and as you say, it’s far worse than just appropriation as it’s also a distortion of the deity.
I am pretty shocked that the author included that, and as people have said, that it made it through the whole editing process without anyone picking up on it. Anything that distorts a religion or religious symbol is very offensive and having a colonizer wearing it even adds further “insult to injury”.
Thank you for your comment here it as it really clarified what was offensive in the book and how it affected you. I appreciate you sharing that.
Having read a bit on how the tattoo plays into the story as a whole, I think it’s going to be more involved for the author and publisher to fix the problem than just removing a section it’s going to involve some rewriting. And I think it is something that needs to be addressed and changed particularly as this is the hero.
You’re welcome and thanks for understanding! When I discussed this with my husband (who is also Hindu and has sleeve tattoos), we both agreed that if it had been the case that the hero was really drawn to Hinduism and its tenets and decided to get a tattoo that reflected this, then it would probably be classified as cultural appreciation. I agree with you though, that it would be quite difficult to remove this section due to how the tattoo plays into the story.
I appreciate thoughtful way you crafted your comment and your willingness to share what are obviously some painful memories and experiences.
I’m sorry you had to go through that and I hope people are trying to do better and expecting better of people, no matter what their age.
I know my post and some others were speculative as we hadn’t read the book and your post provided a lot of clarity. Thank you for taking the time to respond so gracefully. I think it added the missing piece that we needed to the discussion.
Hope to see you in the discussions more often!
It’s always a pleasure to join in discussions in AAR because everyone is respectful and open to discussing new insights and perspectives – it has been especially lovely talking to you, thanks again for being so understanding!
“It quite honestly reminded me of how I was harassed by white boys in college and school, asking if I had read the Kama Sutra and whether I knew any tricks in bed.”
That’s horrible. I really don’t get how people can be such jackasses. Although to play devil’s advocate here, I’m sure college boys of any color would find plenty of stupid things to say to college girls of any color in a feeble attempt to get laid. But yes, what they said was completely uncalled for.
As for tattoos of religious icons, I totally get why you and others would find that offense. When I originally posted my comments about cultural appropriation, I wasn’t aware the tattoo was specifically of a deity. That, I agree, is where things get tricky. And a lot of it comes down to tolerance level. Like Chrisreader said, Dolce and Gabbana’s use of Catholic images in fashion is similar. Should we be offended if people wear it just because they think it looks cool and pay no regard to the plight of many Christians in the world today?
Before anyone says Christians aren’t oppressed and therefore it’s not the same thing, I’d like to make a few statements about this. First, there are countries with dwindling Christian populations today because of war and persecution. This is a serious matter, but how many Christians are going to get up in arms about someone outside the religion wearing a symbol just for kicks? Some yes, and unfortunately, their grievances will never be taken seriously in the mainstream because Christians are considered a privileged majority that has no real right to complain about anything in today’s society. Never mind that some Christians come from desperately poor countries, get mocked mercilessly in the media with impunity, or that Catholics still get accused of worshipping statues and abetting sex offenders. Or that nuns and priests are often held in high suspicion or treated as nothing more than a popular comedy punchline with no regard for the fact many of these people are good-hearted souls who have devoted their entire lives to helping others- only to get ridiculed for it and, in extreme cases, killed for it. No, according to much of the left-wing, they’re all of the oppressive class, so what business do they have fussing about anything?
Me personally? No, I’m generally not offended by misuse or cavalier use of Catholic symbols. But I know more conservative members of my family might be, especially the older ones who remember strong anti-Catholic sentiment quite clearly. Just as it’s clear the hero’s decision to get a tattoo of Lord Shiva is offensive to you because of what you have experienced. So, thank you for sharing your perspective on this.
That’s really interesting, and I think if anything, your observation highlights the importance of context. I should also note that I (obviously) don’t speak on behalf of other Asian women, and there will be others who may not have found the tattoo offensive (as you rightly point out regarding your conservative relatives). I think in the context of this book and the genre of historical romance, Dunmore could have been more careful/thoughtful. The lack of diverse voices in this genre (although it is thankfully changing) renders it more vital that authors make sure they are not accidentally trampling upon another group’s culture or beliefs when they are writing/researching. I completely get your point about not having characters be too ‘woke’ – I too get pulled out of the story when I have heroine who sounds like she belongs in the 21st century. I think a balance can however be struck and there are definitely authors who have done this well. Elizabeth Kingston has written an excellent post on this: https://www.elizabethkingstonbooks.com/single-post/2018/04/15/Romanticizing-White-Supremacy
That’s an interesting article, AlwaysReading. Thanks for sharing. Although I must say, I have no clue what Elizabeth Kingston means when she says, “Just don’t write stories that make it hard for non-white perspectives to even exist in the same space.” Uh, what?
In fact, parts of her argument seem contradictory. On the one hand, she says there’s nothing wrong with writing dukes, fancy ball dresses, and so forth. On the other hand, she says not to write so many dukes, fancy ball dresses, and so forth. ???
I’ve said this many times, and I’ll say it again. Self-publishing is one of the greatest advancements in literature. You, I, or just about anyone else with internet access and MS Word (or similar program) can say, “Dang it! I don’t like how X culture is being portrayed or how Y is stated. I’m off to write a book!” I say, the more books the better. I’m not saying never complain, but I think the world would be better served by more story writers and fewer irate Twitter fights.
On the subject of diversity in literature, I think there’s a lot more of it in self-published erotica than romance. I don’t have any official statistics on this, just general observations based on Amazon Top 100. Just as an example, there’s an entire category devoted to “Interracial” erotica, which, on the surface, seems fetishizing. And I’m sure in some cases, it is. (But let’s keep in mind these are sex stories designed to appeal to specific fantasies, not sweeping historical romances or political treatises.)
Having said that, I’ve heard that a lot of the market for BWWM (black woman, white man) stories is not white supremacists or even whites with an “exotic” fantasy, but black women. Interesting. I think it ties in with a Tumblr poll I read on WritingWithColor about a number of black romance readers wanting to be swept away just like any other romance reader, sans talk of slavery, oppression, or obnoxiously “strong” women. Some asked outright, “When do I get to be the soft, helpless princess waiting to be saved?” I think erotica more than romance fulfills a lot of these fantasies because the genre as a whole is much more free-form (and it can be romantic, depending on how it’s written). In an erotica, anyone can be the subject of desire, and political/historical context rarely- if ever- matters. In these types of interracial stories, all that matters is that the beautiful black woman is desired because she’s so frickin’ gorgeous, and the white man is desired because he’s so frickin’ handsome and WOW sexy times. Concerns regarding colonialism typically don’t play into a story that’s pretty exclusively about sex and desire.
Romance, I don’t think, has quite the same luxury, as many of the debates on AAR and elsewhere have shown. In an HR in particular, there are going to be a lot of questions about accuracy, believability, and how to realistically achieve an HEA given the circumstances of the time period- as well as issues like the one’s we’ve been discussing regarding the appropriate and inappropriate use of religious symbols. Erotica, which is going to be offensive to many by definition, generally has the ability to skip past all that without complaint to get right to the steamy fantasy. Plus, there’s the added bonus for the author of few people having the courage to say, “That 5,000 word BBW spanking story that takes place in Ancient China I just read is so offensive!” ; ) Really? Do tell. It’s a spanking story…
From what I have read above and from other places (Dabney posted an excerpt below) is that the hero isn’t getting a tattoo of a deity, he’s taken a male deity, Lord Shiva and basically transformed him into a dancing girl.
While the hero admits it wasn’t right and he wouldn’t do it again, I understand completely why people are asking why it had to be included at all.
Oh, definitely. I can see both sides of it, especially now with Dabney’s direct quote.
And I’d like to reiterate how nice it is that AAR encourages these kinds of discussions that help foster understanding. Twitter with its limited character count and other similar social media sites really aren’t equipped to discuss matters in a nuanced fashion.
I’m reminded in an odd way of former House of Representatives member Ron Paul who addressed the floor about some war or another. He basically said, “You know, we have a huge diplomatic corps at our disposal. Isn’t it about time we used them for the job they’re trained to do instead of acting like the policemen of the world?” Perhaps that’s a bit of a stretch for the topic at hand, but I feel like we’re all navigating issues here much more effectively than on other platforms- sort of like internet diplomats, if you will. Listening, learning, sharing, growing… The world could use a lot more of that I think, both on the internet and off of it. :)
I agree, and I appreciate that people took the time to post with their analysis and Dabney posted the source material.
I understand the problem with it now and why it’s offensive. I have to confess if I were just reading the book without their input I may not have picked up on the nuances or understood how problematic it is as I don’t have that level of familiarity with the deities being discussed.
Thank you for sharing your perspective.
I will say that I think the hero realizes now it wasn’t a great thing to do. Here’s the passage:
Thanks for posting this passage, Dabney. I think this whole thread proves that without actual quotes, we can end up arguing based on hearsay. (At least, I did…)
“He gave her a grave look. “I have you know that when I stayed in General Foster’s house, I had conversations with the Pujari, the temple priest, after which I considered it wise not to tattoo all powerful deities onto my thoroughly debauched English body.”
That’s an excellent contextual quote that shows a bit of character development in a way that still feels somewhat period appropriate.
If it had been presented differently, I think it would have given Caz and I pause.