• About WordPress
    • WordPress.org
    • Documentation
    • Support
    • Feedback
  • Log In
  • Register
All About Romance Logo All About Romance Logo
  • HOME
  • REVIEWS
    • New Reviews
    • Power Search
  • BLOG
    • The Blog at AAR
      • the [email protected]
    • Vintage AAR
    • BRIDGERTON on NETFLIX
  • VOX POPULI
    • Steals & Deals
    • Using tags to find books you love
      • Finding tags, part two
    • AAR’s Top 100 Romances List
    • Annual Reader Poll
    • Special Titles Listing
  • the [email protected]
  • ABOUT AAR
    • Welcome to AAR
    • Support AAR
      • Donate via PayPalMe
      • Shop our Zazzle store!
      • Shop at AAR’s Amazon store
    • Commenting at AAR
    • Advertise with AAR
    • Sensuality Ratings
    • Contact
  • HOME
  • REVIEWS
    • New Reviews
    • Power Search
  • BLOG
    • The Blog at AAR
      • the [email protected]
    • Vintage AAR
    • BRIDGERTON on NETFLIX
  • VOX POPULI
    • Steals & Deals
    • Using tags to find books you love
      • Finding tags, part two
    • AAR’s Top 100 Romances List
    • Annual Reader Poll
    • Special Titles Listing
  • the [email protected]
  • ABOUT AAR
    • Welcome to AAR
    • Support AAR
      • Donate via PayPalMe
      • Shop our Zazzle store!
      • Shop at AAR’s Amazon store
    • Commenting at AAR
    • Advertise with AAR
    • Sensuality Ratings
    • Contact
<< BACK

A Rogue of One's Own

Evie Dunmore

Buy This Book

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:

Show spoiler

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:

Buy from Amazon.com     

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

Recent Comments

  • Susan/DC  on One Thing Leads to a Lover by Susanna Craig
  • Lisa Fernandes  on Hunted by Megan Spooner
  • Lisa Fernandes  on One Thing Leads to a Lover by Susanna Craig
  • Dabney Grinnan  on Second First Impressions by Sally Thorne
  • Lisa Fernandes  on The Social Graces by Renée Rosen
  • Cathy  on Second First Impressions by Sally Thorne
  • Caz Owens  on One Thing Leads to a Lover by Susanna Craig
  • Rowan  on Hunted by Megan Spooner
  • Evelyn North  on The Social Graces by Renée Rosen
  • Dabney Grinnan  on One Thing Leads to a Lover by Susanna Craig
Login
guest
guest
72 Comments
newest
oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Shash
Shash
Guest
09/01/2020 6:26 pm

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
.

11
Reply
Bunny Planet Babe
Bunny Planet Babe
Guest
Reply to  Shash
09/02/2020 11:45 am

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.

9
Reply
Dabney Grinnan
Dabney Grinnan
Member
Reply to  Bunny Planet Babe
09/02/2020 12:02 pm

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.

5
Reply
Ellie M
Ellie M
Guest
Reply to  Dabney Grinnan
09/02/2020 1:04 pm

Yeah, except it’s really not. And for more reasons than a “cutting tone.”

9
Reply
Nah
Nah
Guest
Reply to  Shash
09/03/2020 1:18 am

Have fun at Smart Bitches, whose site moderators censor comments calling out their reviewer’s blatant biphobia.

6
Reply
Cece
Cece
Guest
08/31/2020 9:04 pm

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!!

2
Reply
Nan De Plume
Nan De Plume
Guest
Reply to  Cece
08/31/2020 9:12 pm

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.

0
Reply
Cece
Cece
Guest
Reply to  Nan De Plume
08/31/2020 11:51 pm

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.

6
Reply
Caz Owens
Caz Owens
Author
Reply to  Cece
09/01/2020 5:56 am

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.

Last edited 7 months ago by Caz Owens
4
Reply
Cece
Cece
Guest
Reply to  Caz Owens
09/01/2020 12:42 pm

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.

7
Reply
Nan De Plume
Nan De Plume
Guest
Reply to  Cece
09/01/2020 1:16 pm

“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!)

Last edited 7 months ago by Nan De Plume
4
Reply
Cece
Cece
Guest
Reply to  Nan De Plume
09/01/2020 2:06 pm

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.

7
Reply
Nan De Plume
Nan De Plume
Guest
Reply to  Cece
09/01/2020 2:44 pm

“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. :)

0
Reply
Cece
Cece
Guest
Reply to  Nan De Plume
09/01/2020 3:25 pm

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.

1
Reply
Nan De Plume
Nan De Plume
Guest
Reply to  Cece
09/01/2020 5:07 pm

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.

0
Reply
Caz Owens
Caz Owens
Author
Reply to  Cece
09/01/2020 1:47 pm

I didn’t think you were implying that, Cece, so no worries :)

0
Reply
Cece
Cece
Guest
Reply to  Caz Owens
09/01/2020 3:29 pm

Okay, phew! For the last two years, your reviews have played a huge role in pointing me towards historical romances I’ve enjoyed. :)

0
Reply
Caz Owens
Caz Owens
Author
Reply to  Cece
09/01/2020 4:29 pm

Thank you :) And honestly, this is a good book and worth reading, in spite of the reservations I expressed.

0
Reply
Marian Perera
Marian Perera
Guest
Reply to  Cece
09/02/2020 3:59 pm

“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.

5
Reply
Dabney Grinnan
Dabney Grinnan
Member
Reply to  Nan De Plume
09/01/2020 6:43 am

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 »

Last edited 7 months ago by Dabney Grinnan
5
Reply
Nan De Plume
Nan De Plume
Guest
Reply to  Dabney Grinnan
09/01/2020 10:48 am

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…

0
Reply
Chrisreader
Chrisreader
Guest
Reply to  Nan De Plume
09/01/2020 12:19 pm

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.

6
Reply
Dabney Grinnan
Dabney Grinnan
Member
Reply to  Chrisreader
09/01/2020 1:12 pm

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.

5
Reply
Chrisreader
Chrisreader
Guest
Reply to  Dabney Grinnan
09/01/2020 2:34 pm

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.

3
Reply
EMILY WITTMANN
EMILY WITTMANN
Guest
Reply to  Dabney Grinnan
09/01/2020 11:11 am

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).

1
Reply
EMILY WITTMANN