My ability to suspend belief varies, I will admit. All fiction requires it on some level, and I tend to shy away from works that make great leaps away from reality as I know it.  I dip my toe back into the pool of paranormal romance once in a while, hoping that perhaps I’ll see what others love so much about it, and it was in this spirit I picked up No Easy Target for review. I’m sorry to report this was not the book to win me over. In fact, it would have been a DNF if I had not been reviewing it.

When I write a review of a book I didn’t enjoy and can’t personally recommend, I try very hard to think of who could enjoy it. If I can think of no one, I give the book a failing grade. In the case of this book, I can only say that perhaps it will appeal to diehard Johansen fans, but that’s about it. If her stuff works for you, I don’t see how this won’t. If you’re among that legion, then I hope you enjoy it. God speed.

I gave it a failing grade anyway, because of about fourteen trigger warnings that should have been issued; chief of which is using violence against women as a plot device, and the hero literally capturing the heroine before they ‘fall in love’. The book summary even says he must “control her to use her as bait”. Nope, y’all. ALL OF THE NOPES. You want me to believe you can build a happily ever after on coercion, manipulation, and lies? I cannot.

Before I continue ranting, let me explain the plot briefly. Or attempt to.

Margaret Douglas can communicate with animals, full on Doctor Doolittle style, and this power/ability makes her pretty valuable to some nasty folks. After an awful childhood, she was kidnapped by a sociopath several years back but escaped. Since that incident, she’s been on the move and alone, attempting to out run anyone who would manipulate her into capture or control again. Which is completely understandable.

John Lassister, a CIA operative desperate to rescue his best friend (who has been kidnapped), breaks into Margaret’s apartment to convince her to work for him. She runs – of course she does, you muppet, what did you think would happen when you broke into her house?! – but he pursues her and eventually kidnaps her himself. The psychotic individual who has his pal is also after Margaret, so this is a win/win for our friend John.

You know how this ends; they fight the bad guy, they win, they live happily ever after. So back to my ranting.

If you want to tell a story about the need to kidnap someone in order to ultimately set them free of their emotional trauma (which I wish to God you wouldn’t), then okay. It would require a deft hand, and a deep understanding of psychosocial development. However, that cannot fundamentally be a romance novel. The only, literally only, requirement for a romance is a believable HEA/HFN between the two protagonists. (Do not @ me about that; I plant my flag in that definition loudly and proudly.) I understand that there are subgenres of erotica/erotic romance that involve kidnapping and that that’s some people’s kink. I get that, and make no judgements. HOWEVER, we differentiate romance and erotica for a reason. We have different expectations of the two. Additionally, I’m of the opinion that if kidnapping exists, it needs to be part of a consensual, negotiated fantasy. If it’s not, then any relationship formed under those conditions is based on Stockholm Syndrome, and that’s not the foundation of a HEA/HFN.

But perhaps Ms. Johansen doesn’t want this to be a romance. I can’t tell from the marketing material, because the plot summary has the cadence of romantic suspense, but let’s say she wants this to be a crime novel. If that is the case, the sex is flat and odd and the central relationship still doesn’t work because of the power differential. I got angrier and angrier as the book went on.

As for the paranormal stuff, I have no idea if it would have felt seamless to me if there were no other problems, but because I was already on edge about most of the other things with John and Margaret, all of the animal communication stuff just pulled me out of the story even more.

In addition to the problems I’ve identified, other elements of the book fell flat as well. I found it to contain a whole lot more telling than showing, with lengthy sections of dialogue that just didn’t work. If some other reviews I’ve read around the web are correct and this is a ‘great example’ of Ms. Johansen’s works, then I will be steering clear from now on. Her work is not for me.