Desert Isle Keeper
The Hitman
A romantic comedy with a hitman hero definitely doesn’t follow the norm of mafia romances, which tend to be of the ‘dark romance’ variety. Yet author Katrina Jackson has done a delightful job of combining a lot of humor, sexy scenes, and yes, action too, in The Hitman, the second book in The Family series.
Zahra has just discovered that her husband-to-be, an A-list actor, cheated on her with a stripper and her maid of honor on the night before their wedding, all gleefully exposed via hotel cameras on entertainment reality TV. Furious, embarrassed and hurt, she decides to go to their Italian honeymoon destination solo in order to lick her wounds, courtesy of her now ex’s credit card (stolen by her faithful cousin, Shae.) She’s got a beautiful penthouse suite in a villa in the mountains outside of Milan where she alternately drinks and cries as she tries to pull herself together.
Her junior suite neighbor is Giulio, a hitman for ‘the family’. He’s finally on vacation (though ticked off that the large penthouse suite isn’t available) and hearing his neighbor wailing nightly is getting on his nerves. All he really wants is a warm woman in his bed and some peace and quiet. And the beautiful curvy Black woman he sees lounging outside the pool is a prime target – even if she looks at him with disdain. He’ll have to use his charms if he is to succeed in his mission to fill up on sex before going back to work.
Zahra couldn’t be less interested in the Italian gigolo with the slicked back hair and the tiny speedo and brushes him off. But after a few more encounters, and the realization that they are suite neighbors, Giulio’s lustful appreciation of her turns out to be a balm to her psyche. And yes, a fling with an Italian hottie is just the ticket to get over her ex. But when a date to a local vineyard ends up with a shooting and a murdered man, Zahra realizes she’s getting more than she bargained for. Is it to be a quick return home, or can her romance with Giulio survive the truth?
The ‘jilted bride goes on her honeymoon and meets someone’ trope is one I enjoy, which was why I decided to pick this book up. The addition of a playboy Italian mafia hitman who loves women of all shapes and sizes and wants to help Zahra get over her ex (whom he would gladly ‘take care of’ if Zahra wanted him to) makes for a really fun and enjoyable story, that had me laughing out loud constantly. It’s a very sex positive story, with Zahra getting over her initial first impression of Giulio quickly when he makes it clear that he lusts over her exactly as she is, and there are several steamy scenes that cement their growing friendship. Of course Zahra’s initial plan is to go home at the end of her designated vacation time but then she gets caught up in Giulio’s business when a rival associate tracks Giulio down. And Giulio sums up his job for her thusly:
“I’m a bad man, who works for bad men, and when necessary I kill bad men.”
Giulio wants her to leave Italy immediately, but Zahra believes she’ll be safer if she sticks with Giulio in case someone tracks her down as a witness to the murder. So instead of doing what she should, she ends up on an adventure that takes her across Italy (train sex anyone?) and along the way, she and Giulio deepen their connection. Sharing their life stories bonds them – and that’s how you get an insta-love story between an American public relations expert and a mafia hitman. Giulio wants to be a good man and that means sending Zahra home before she gets any more involved with him but Zahra is ready to choose her own destiny.
There are some other connections between characters, as the first story in the series is a short novella (with an unfinished story) that details an encounter between Zahra’s cousin Shae and Giulio’s boss Salvatore, and I definitely plan to read their eventual HEA. Plus Zahra’s sister Zoe (who had warned Zahra about her ex in the first place) is planning a trip to Italy to find her sister so clearly there is something in the works there. The Hitman is a wholly enjoyable laugh-out-loud romance with two really interesting characters, lots of hot sex, plenty of action, and an Italian setting perfect for an armchair adventure.
Buy it at: Amazon
Visit our Amazon Storefront
Buy The Hitman by Katrina Jackson:
Book Details
| Reviewer: | Maria Rose |
|---|---|
| Review Date: | August 29, 2020 |
| Publication Date: | 08/2020 |
| Grade: | A- |
| Sensuality | Hot |
| Book Type: | Contemporary Romance |
| Review Tags: | AoC | interracial | Italy | mafia | Plus size heroine | PoC | The Family series |
This entire thread has been fascinating and informative. Whether or not the book is worth reading, the discussion it has sparked has been great. This is what I love about community. Thanks.
I agree. I learn so much at AAR from others. <3
Me too. AAR is great about allowing stimulating relevant discussion and debate as long as we treat each other with respect (which we should do anyway). :)
Agreed! I will often read the comments under a book I haven’t read or don’t plan to read because the discussions are so interesting.
Definitely!
For me, a realistic hired killer is like Bronn in A Song of Ice and Fire. His employer says, “tell me, Bronn, if I ordered you to kill an infant, a baby girl in her mother’s arms, would you do it without question?”
“Without question? No.” Bronn rubs his thumb and forefinger together. “I’d ask how much.”
No excuses or justifications that the only people he kills are bad people (and who gets to define badness?). He has a job, so as long as the reward outweighs the risk, he does his job. Of course, even in the gritty world of ASoIaF, people recognize him as an amoral murderer. But I prefer him to a contract killer who I’m supposed to find heroic.
Here’s a thing about Bronn–he was able to be developed over thousands of pages. I find morally iffy characters much more interesting that one note villains. (I’m currently watching A Place to Call Home and the villain on that show, Regina, is so cartoonishly and often inexplicably evil that it’s dull.) But I like to understand those gray zone characters and usually, do that, I need to be able to spend time with them. Most romances are just too short for me to be able to develop empathy for those who do very bad things.
Keep watching. Regina becomes more nuanced as the show goes on, although Sir Richard remains a one-note villain (although maybe not so unrealistic when I think of the way powerful men in Real Life view themselves as entitled). Despite flaws such as this, I thought “A Place to Call Home” was one of the best miniseries I’d seen in a long time.
We will. We just watched a very depressing episode where Regina and George marry. I really do loathe her and Sir Richard. But we love the show.
Bronn is a great character and GRRM has a way of making a reader examine uncomfortable ideas. For instance, why is it OK for the “great knights” to ruthlessly kill on behalf of their houses (ultimately to gain wealth and power) but Bronn, who is largely self made is looked down on for “killing for money” and is seen as without honor.
GRRM’s best work is delving into all those grey areas. Jaime Lannister for instance.
Those of you who point out the questionable–at best–values that endorsed sexism, racism, and prejudice and the conformity of so many past movies are so right. However, when I watch TV and movies, I am struck by our violence and our vulgarity. Might is a cheap answer too often. Of course, no culture is just one thing, and our culture and beliefs are hardly unified. I love old movies for lots of reasons, among which is a humanity in the best of them that I find missing in our big hits.
I used to have no problem in romances with men of violence. As a matter of fact, I attempted to reread a novel I liked a lot four years ago. The hero strangles the pickpocket who knocked the heroine off her feet and in real life, would have given her a concussion. Interestingly, the author tossed off the hero’s murder in one sentence. Its brevity showed its lack of importance to her. I stopped rereading.
Maybe my change in tastes just reflects my getting older, but I think it’s bigger than that.
“However, when I watch TV and movies, I am struck by our violence and our vulgarity…Of course, no culture is just one thing, and our culture and beliefs are hardly unified.”
Absolutely. There were certainly nice elements of culture then and not-so-nice elements of culture now. As for old movies, there are quite a few I enjoy. But overall, I’m glad we live in the post-Hayes code, internet age. At least we have access to old films on DVD, BluRay, and streaming services if we want to take a trip into an era of less vulgar fare. And those of us who want the sex, violence, drugs, and whatever else have options too.
As for violence and vulgarity in media today, that’s definitely true. I saw an old Dick Cavett interview of Groucho Marx the other day from the 1970s where Marx expressed his disappointment with the explicit direction films were moving. He predicted- incorrectly so far- that people would get tired of seeing unabashed smut on screen and clamor for a return to more wholesome fare. Of course, a lot of YouTube commenters were quick to jump on him for hypocrisy, saying a lot of his material was suggestive. But I get the point good old Groucho was making. His jokes were sometimes naughty, but they were nothing compared to the outright sexual content he was criticizing.
And me? I tend to be both picky and wildly eclectic in my media tastes. I’m just as likely to watch the sweet and wholesome movie Miss Potter (it really is lovely, check it out if you haven’t already!) as I am to watch the rather sad and sordid Midnight Cowboy. It makes me glad I live in a time and place where I have the freedom to watch and enjoy both, even if one or the other doesn’t suit someone else’s taste.
Yes, “Miss Potter” was delightful. In turn, have you seen the wonderful ”
Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day ?
No, I haven’t heard of it. Thanks for the rec. :)
Miss Pettigrew is an absolute delight and romantic in the best way.
Just put a hold on it at the library; looking forward to it. :)
It used to be that movies, tv, and even novels reinforced values that were good for society. Then, the antihero came into fashion and we’ve seen–and viewed with sympathy, understanding, and even approval–psychopaths who torture and kill people. “The Hit Man” is just one more example, excused by “I kill only bad people.” Who defines “bad people”? This excuse (“Bad people”) has been used for centuries to kill witches, uppity Negroes (called then), “scolds,” Jews. Just substitute whoever the enemy is.
And Dabney, your friends’ “reframing” the murder of Floyd, taken one step further, means that my kneeling on your neck and causing you to stop breathing doesn’t count because hey, we are all going to die anyway. What difference is it, if you die now, or in five minutes, or in fifty years? You were going to die anyway.
“It used to be that movies, tv, and even novels reinforced values that were good for society.”
I see what you’re saying, Lynda X, but quite a few of those “values” wouldn’t pass muster today. Take for example, your average Western- of which there were an incredible number. Manifest destiny is often the “value” portrayed; a viewer on a steady diet of John Wayne and his cohorts would never know that about 25% of cowboys were black; and American Indians were almost always cast somewhere between “noble savages” and “hostile enemies.”
Or look at 1950s movies and TV shows that steered female characters to the hearth and home, often portraying homemaking as the only or ultimate option for respectable women. Certainly nothing wrong with homemaking and housewifery, but also not the only work of value.
What about media that touted the supposed glories of young men marching off to wars they had no part in creating? I could go on and on.
The antihero, I believe, rose in opposition to values that could be just as damaging for society. Unfortunately, it was a case of the pendulum swinging from one extreme to the other.
That seems on point to me.
I’m not sure TV or movies were ever good places to find moral value, but I do think it’s murkier than ever. This is what I mean by getting desensitized. I’ve gone back and rewatched the police procedurals that have been so popular through the past 20 years,and I am now appalled at the vigilante-ism present in so many, even the humorous shows. The viewers are asked to “wink-wink, nod-nod” at our heroes abusing suspects and doing illegal things for the “right” reason. Bending rules because “the scumbag needed to be taken off the street” looks righteous, until you can’t trust the people making these decisions. But this has been the meat and bread of TV and movies, and I think we as a country have some to forget that there are laws for a reason a and police are NOT judge and jury. I used to love these shows, now I can’t watch them without feeling a little ill.
“I’m not sure TV or movies were ever good places to find moral value, but I do think it’s murkier than ever.”
I think murky morals in media come and go in waves according to what’s going on in the culture at large. Look at pre-code cinema from 1929 to 1934, for example. A lot of those movies are surprisingly dark, sexually frank, and all but root for the bank robbers and gangsters. Antiheroes are nothing new, and appealed to a lot of people on the down and out during the Great Depression.
Contrast this with the often nauseatingly squeaky clean films of the 1950s and early 1960s, which were made in a more financially stable time. Yes, the Hayes Code and McCarthyism/Communism scares shaped most of the plots, but I bet a large number of viewers approved of the comfortable don’t-rock-the-boat/keep-the-status-quo narrative after two depressions and two world wars lingering in not-so-distant memory.
Then you have the 60s and 70s where a lot of political liberation movements popped up at once coupled with the Vietnam War and a recession. Suddenly, antiheroes looked attractive again because people got sick and tired of the status quo and getting sent off to die in a damn fool war in droves.
Incidentally, I think the 1970s as a decade had some of the best films ever made in terms of storytelling and overall entertainment value. With the Hayes Code abolished in 1968, and PC culture not really a thing yet, filmmakers were able to explore a variety of topics, subcultures, beliefs, and narratives without a censor board breathing down their necks or special interest groups rallying for them to be silenced. (Not saying it didn’t happen, but there was definitely a newfound freedom in storytelling that’s sadly missing today.) Although many of these films were chockfull of vigilantes, sympathetic gangsters, and dirty cops, there was a raw, artistic, unapologetic energy to them. I’ve noticed that a lot of 1970s films didn’t look like they were trying to ram a point down viewer’s throats or pander to the easily offended. Filmmakers seemed to know their job was to tell riveting stories rather than push a message, at least overtly. There are so many entries from that decade that I look at today and say, “Holy cow. You could not have made that movie today.” And what a pity. Because I think a story should be allowed to be just a story without having to impart some moral message.
And, of course, anything that offends us, we don’t have to watch (or read, as the case may be). :)
Thank you for the film history lesson! You delved much deeper and obviously much more knowledgeably into film/TV history than i could. On a much more superficial level, I was recounting anecdotal evidence from my own viewing. With the current climate I am definitely not comfortable vigilante-ism in a person, fictional character or otherwise. Obviously, this is a personal opinion. But it has less to do with history as it does with the very jarring present.
You’re welcome! I’m kind of a nerd like that. :)
I definitely get what you’re saying about current goings-on though.
I would like to add the idea that it may not be as terrible as it seems to have morally wrong or ambiguous characters so prominently displayed, as it serves (or should, anyway) as a reminder that monsters aren’t real, but humans are and they can and do awful, monstrous things.
That’s an interesting perspective, never thought of it that way.
For another interesting note, I remember Leslie McFarlane, who wrote about 20 of the original Hardy Boys mysteries back in the 1930s, said that in adventure magazines villains always got to have more fun than the tight-laced heroes because of stringent moral codes of the time. Sure, he conceded that the villain had to get his comeuppance, but at least he got to drink, smoke, rabble rouse, have sex, and kick the hero in the balls first whereas the hero had to be an insufferable Puritan who couldn’t do any better in a fight than a right cross. :)
That’s certainly less true today, but traces of it linger. I think a big part of the appeal regarding antiheroes is they get to be unabashed bad boys, which can make for a fun ride. But in fiction only, if you please. :)
OK. Here goes.
Recently, several conservative friends of mine posted that because George Floyd had high levels of fentanyl in his system, his death wasn’t murder because the fentanyl might have/would have killed him. (And yes, I do have conservative friends on Facebook. There, as here, I’m interested in the perspectives of those who see the world differently than I do.)
I find this argument morally bankrupt. If I encounter you in a park and feel threatened by you and you are sitting on a park bench jammed to the gills with opiates and if I’d just walked by you you’d have died on your own, but I shoot you I not the opiates have morally and actually caused your death.
The whole hitman argument–I kill bad people–is too ethically iffy for me to buy. The hero in the latest Maria Vale is an ex-hitman and I’m finding it really hard to not see that as a flaw I, in my personal preferences a a reader, can’t get past.
What’s interesting to me is that I didn’t used to feel this way. I love Carolyn Crane’s Associates series and that whole lot are killers. And I still can accept killers whose acts save the world–if the bad guy is, for example, about to set off a nuclear bomb for fun (this is the wish of one of Crane’s villains), you need to be taken out.
But someone whose career is murder, I can no longer find them heroic.
This is just me and I don’t condemn anyone who enjoys these stories. I’m happily able to read forced seduction tropes without being morally affronted, something that many of our readers can no longer do. This is not a rant. It’s something I am genuinely curious about.
Do those who love these heroes believe that, at heart, they are good? Forgivable? It doesn’t matter because the stories are interesting?
Agree with you, Dabney. It’s a step too far far me to accept a contract killer as a romance hero. I find it a tad tasteless.
It’s an interesting thing–for me it’s not tasteless, it’s just not something that works for me at this point in my life. I’ve found, as I age, I value life intrinsically more than I did when I was younger. Secret baby plots didn’t bother me at all when I was younger–now they are almost always problematic for me because I think the dad has a right to know.
I think what calls to us changes and that’s just fine!
I remember enjoying Agnes and the Hitman years ago,although I don’t remember the story. I also enjoyed the non-funny Death Angel by Linda Howard. That one sees a reforming hitman, so I think it was a little easier to go with it. But generally I am not comfortable with making sympathetic characters out of such a souless occupation.
I think we also have to look closely at so many alpha male characters who stay just right of the law, such as Anne Stuart’s heroes in the ICE series, and so many more. These characters are often the legal or acceptable version of hitmen, and they bother me just as much, even when I’ve enjoyed the books. I decided years ago to stay away from this particular moral ambiguity and no longer read books with these types of heroes. I’m not comfortable with myself when I do, and while I don’t mind being challenged in my reading, I don’t want to be desensitized.
I guess I’d say each reader has to do and read what give them joy. If Anne Stuart’s heroes give you joy, that’s lovely. If they make you uncomfortable, that’s fine too.
I haven’t reread the ICE books in a long time and I used to reread them regularly. I now prefer her historicals.
Of course people should read what brings them joy. I was developing on your original post about the moral ambiguity of hitmen as heroes, noting that my own tastes have changed over the past 10 years. I eschew violence and horror in movies and books because I do not find it enjoyable, no matter how good the story. My husband and oldest daughter have different tastes. It’s just a different comfort zone.
I tend to be a lot more forgiving when it comes to erotica starring antiheroes than romances, maybe because erotica promises a different kind of fantasy than romance. To me, romance should feel, well, romantic. Characters need to have a believable HEA, which I think would be difficult (to say the least) marrying into a crime family.
With erotica, on the other hand, I am a lot more open to bad guys getting it on- whether with each other or some savvy miss. Gangsters have sex, so let them screw their way through the pages of their depraved life. I’d just rather not see them as hero material in something explicitly marketed as a romance. I’m also okay with gangsters as main characters in gangster books (kind of a given) and certain types of thrillers (a la Elmore Leonard or Quentin Tarantino). But romance? No thank you.
On a side note, I’ve noticed that black women with Italian men is a popular niche pairing right now. I’m not sure why, but thought it was an interesting tidbit to bring up. Mafia romances and erotica in general are also popular. I’ve also seen an increase in bratva (Russian mafia) works. The trends are certainly interesting to watch.
I think it’s interesting that the idea of Italian Mafia is so entrenched even though in news and life we rarely if ever hear about it any more, particularly the “Five Families” since Gotti’s rise and fall.
Since “The Godfather” in book and films romanticized the idea of the Italian Mafia (with Scorsese elaborating on the legacy and the Sopranos bringing it back into popularity) it’s culturally acceptable to write an “Italian hit man” as a romance hero in a way a Colombian Cartel hit man surely wouldn’t be.
I also think it’s interesting that in a time of utter awareness about being politically correct and avoiding stereotypes about most ethnicities, it’s still fine for the heroine to assume the hero is an “Italian gigolo” and for him to turn out to be a mafia hitman. Talk about stereotypes!
Nan- last year’s movie “The Kitchen” set in Hell’s Kitchen of the late 70’s and dealing with the Italian and Irish Mobs there had Tiffany Haddish cast as the wife of a leader of the Irish Mob. Maybe it inspired some romance writers?
You nailed it. Yes to all of this. I’ve noted before that Italians are one of the last ethnic groups that people can get away with stereotyping so negatively without significant backlash. One reason for this, I believe, is because Italians got lumped in with Anglo-Saxons and other “white” ethnic groups and therefore can’t make convincing claims about being persecuted by the media. Apparently, I’m not the only person to come to this conclusion. This article by Dr. Christopher Binetti is quite interesting on the subject: https://www.smerconish.com/news/2019/5/23/how-italian-americans-can-be-considered-people-of-color. I forget who it was who said something like, “Italians: brown enough to kick around, white enough to pretend you’re not being racist while doing it.” Sounds about right.
There are certainly modern-day prejudices as well. For example, I enjoy listening to trends forecaster Gerald Celente (okay, so he’s a professional doom and gloomer and a bit wild, but a lot of fun). He wrote a nice memoir about his sweet and sassy relationship with his “Zizi” (auntie), entitled What Zizi Gave Honeyboy. In addition to a whole chapter about how hurt Zizi and her family felt back in the 1950s when Italians were the bad guys in every dang show, Gerald recalled an incident in the 2010s when a friend of his went to a posh country club, only to get pulled aside by one of the members who basically said, “Oh, you’ll love our country club. One of the best things about it is there are no Italians.” In the 2010s. Think about that. Courtney Milan thinks she has grievances based on a book published more than 20 years ago? Give me a break.
As for Martin Scorsese, I remember he got asked once at an interview what he would say if someone accused him of perpetuating these Italian gangster stereotypes in his films. And he basically said (paraphrase from memory), “Look, I grew up in a different time period where Italian gangsters really did run the town where I grew up. I tell those stories because they were an interesting aspect of my childhood. But of course most Italians were decent people who had nothing to do with it. Even so, the gangsters were there as part of the cultural landscape.”
Also interesting are the mixed attitudes toward Italian gangster stories in Italy. The classics like The Godfather have been dubbed a couple of times, and the films play on their television stations occasionally. The Czech-produced Mafia II, considered an excellent story-based open world video game, had harsh criticism in Italy but also big fans. There are several long-running popular network and cable TV mafia series in Italy as well that actually come from the country.
Having said all this, I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with entertaining, stereotypical stories. In that same vein, equal opportunity offenders often make the best comedians. But if the left is going to cry racism, they should at least be consistent abou