The part that you mistook was that is was NOT the heroine that was 16, the forced seduction was between two antagonists. (there were three in total) And it most definately WAS a historical.

LOL, Eva; In my slow-witted state, I saw that and thought that they were rivals, not antagonists in the sense of “those who create conflict for the protagonists.” Thanks for clearing that up. It reminds me a whole ‘nother issues about how “bad girls” are portrayed in Romance, though, especially in regard to sex and ambition. Can’t speak for the Holt book, but I do know that the villainnesses are often those who are willing to use sex more freely to get what they want.

In my experience, it was not shame that was the worst effect.
Nor was it fear or degradation.
It was the total, whole and complete subjugation of my being. (But perhaps I should qualify that by adding I was held against my will for a period of time.)
The worst of it to me was the abject control of my rights and wishes, the basic premise of freedom taken from me.

In my experience and others I have known shame was the hardest to deal with. I can see that from your point of view things would be different.

In terms of fictionalization, my post was about what it meant for the heroine to have the hero shoulder her shame. Fiction is not real life and I am willing to allow things to happen in a book I would never even consider likely in real life. It’s about what I choose to believe. Fiction is rife with motif, symbolism and allegory. Under the right circumstances I am willing to put up with rape or forced seduction in a romance novel. Maybe even understand and agree with why it was used. You may not consider any reason good enough and I don’t blame you. Where you draw the line in your reading is entirely up to you.

This is a great reminder — to me, anyway — about how much depends on a reader actually reading each book in question. Because this description absolutely horrified me(!), but I know that if I read the description of To Have and To Hold or CtC without reading the books, they probably would horrify me, as well. I assume that this Holt book is a historical Romance, especially given the age of the heroine? Because all I keep thinking about it how 16 year olds now don’t have the legal capacity to consent to a contract, let alone forced sex! Context is obviously crucial for these books.

Well I didn’t luurve the story, it was ok, and like I said, although I pretty much hate virgins-the one was at least amusing. I did love the hero, although he made a huge mistake, his motivations were great.

The part that you mistook was that is was NOT the heroine that was 16, the forced seduction was between two antagonists. (there were three in total) And it most definately WAS a historical.

One of the most crippling effects of rape is shame. It follows a rape victim for the rest of their lives and is IMO even worse than fear or degredation.

In my experience, it was not shame that was the worst effect.
Nor was it fear or degradation.
It was the total, whole and complete subjugation of my being. (But perhaps I should qualify that by adding I was held against my will for a period of time.)
The worst of it to me was the abject control of my rights and wishes, the basic premise of freedom taken from me.

On that basis, I surmise the hero who rapes can never redeem himself. Particularily if he has isolated, removed (from her comfortable surroundings) or kidnapped ther heroine.
He stole her right to choose, decide or love as a human being, as person. (Yes, I know women were not recognized as persons under the law until the last century.)
IMO, there is no chance for a woman to be truly herself with a man who has taken her sense of importance. And love him in spite of her feelings? Only if he has succeeded in making her a doormat.

I also just read Secret Fantasy by Cheryl Holt which also has a forced seduction between two antagonists. (the girl being 16 and the man being in his 40′s I think?-the hero’s father) She sets it up where the consent is given because she will do anything to be a Countess. So, even though she’s a virgin, 16, and thinks sex is gross he bullys her into being tied and then into having sex because of her desire for the title. (And I’ll have to say, I hate virgins, but there were two in this story and at least they were amusing.) And since Holt is a lawyer, I’m going to assume she knew the balance beam she was walking.

This is a great reminder — to me, anyway — about how much depends on a reader actually reading each book in question. Because this description absolutely horrified me(!), but I know that if I read the description of To Have and To Hold or CtC without reading the books, they probably would horrify me, as well. I assume that this Holt book is a historical Romance, especially given the age of the heroine? Because all I keep thinking about it how 16 year olds now don’t have the legal capacity to consent to a contract, let alone forced sex! Context is obviously crucial for these books.

My comment resembles Robin’s comment about how reforming a rapist may give the heroine power, taking her out of the role of victim. One of the most crippling effects of rape is shame. It follows a rape victim for the rest of their lives and is IMO even worse than fear or degredation. It’s been said what’s written in romance novels might not always be in direct correlation with real life and I agree. Very few rape victims could ever fall in love with a perpetrator. However, in a romace novel with a rape by the hero there is a lack of shame. Obviously the heroine feels shame, her reputation is ruined, she has only a monstrous act of violence to associate with sex. The hero (who hopefully she loved to some degree before the rape) is abject with grief and guilt and they come together in forgiveness and love and she marries him. That shame she would have had to carry especially if she were ever to marry elsewhere can now be transerred to him. It is his shame, because he is the one who commited the act. He knows she didn’t want it and he knows how it happened and would never think her dirty or promiscuous because he knows better. This dynamic would not likely occur in real life, in the context of fiction however, it is certainly viable. In my opinion atleast. In a way, the dynamic can be empowering, maybe even subversive. How likely is it for a perpetrator to take on the shame of a victim.

Also, I haven’t read the book in question and what I’ve stated here is not a reflection of its dynamics.

I have a forced seduction in a novella being published too, and this post made me think about the specific points I had to write so that the reader would know that the heroine did desire the hero in that scenario. Mostly the scene was about her inner turmoil.

Alot of interesing responses to consider.

I also just read Secret Fantasy by Cheryl Holt which also has a forced seduction between two antagonists. (the girl being 16 and the man being in his 40′s I think?-the hero’s father) She sets it up where the consent is given because she will do anything to be a Countess. So, even though she’s a virgin, 16, and thinks sex is gross he bullys her into being tied and then into having sex because of her desire for the title. (And I’ll have to say, I hate virgins, but there were two in this story and at least they were amusing.) And since Holt is a lawyer, I’m going to assume she knew the balance beam she was walking.

So after reading these posts, and then finishing that book I had a lot of food for thought. My personal conclusion came from the BDSM train of thought, that yes, those scenarios can be a part of a safe fantasy and that is what forced scenario authors are tapping into.

There are a lot of books on the market that hinge on the idea of a forced seduction. Rosemary Rogers was doing it decades ago. I think it’s “Wicked, Loving Lies” where the heroine starts off getting seduced against her will after she stowed away on the hero’s ship. She loves it. The entire book is one forced-seduction scene after another. She ends up happily married with the hero. Of course. I believe this premise was Rosemary’s stock and trade. “The Story of O” does it, a book that could easily be argued to be other than romance, but still. “A Journey around a Darker Sun,” does it, and it couldn’t be categorized as anything but romance.

I would argue that what makes these stories different than “redeemed-rape-in-romance” stories is her mind set. Not his mind set. Hers. In real life if a girl says no, he’d damned well better stop. But these stories are fantasies. He can read her mind. He knows. She might be saying no, but she means yes. She’s wet and ready. If he walked away like she was asking for (begging for), she would be disappointed in the book.

A fantasy like this has nothing in common with actual rape scenes as seen in books like “Into the Cut” and “She’s Come Undone.”

I am not advocating mind-reading men for real life. In real life, if the girl says no, no is meant. Otherwise it’s a recipe for date rape, and it doesn’t take an English major or a shrink or a victim to see that. I’m going to guess (and speak surely for myself) that date rape or any other kind of rape isn’t what romance authors are going for when we use forced seduction contructs.

It’s a fantasy. Anyone who’s been tied up by their SO and enjoyed it, knew they were safe, but maybe when they closed their eyes, they were pretending they weren’t. Maybe they were pretending they were the newest edition to the harem or the most sought after sex slave. It’s an edgy concept. It’s not a fantasy for everyone. But it is a common enough fantasy to have been working it’s way into true romances such as those by Rosemary Rogers. I can’t imagine how many handcuffs are sold in places like Good Vibrations and other adult stores, but it’s measurable, and I don’t think the majority or people who use them are hurting other people (or getting hurt).

I don’t know if forced seduction is what Campbell did, or was trying to do. I know it’s what I was trying to do in “My Captor” in my NIGHT SPELL anthology. (Jane called her review of that book a “Maybe Related Post,” which is why I bring this up.) In that novella, the heroine is tied up and seduced and spanked. She has no choice in the matter and she loves it. And while I can agree that this scenario isn’t to everyone’s taste (like Jane, my mother wonders what’s wrong with me!), three major publishing houses tried to buy that novella. Three. Some people enjoy that edge.

As I wrote that story, my heroine was wanting it and loving it. If she’d been repulsed by her captor, it would not have worked for me (nor for the three editors that tried to buy the book, I imagine). I’d go even farther. If my heroine hadn’t been turned on by her captor, he wouldn’t have had any fun either. He would have walked away.

And lest you all think all of my novels are this twisted, I can assure you they’re not! My novella “The Bet” in PURE SEX just won the Gayle Wilson Award for Excellence for published authors, and MOON SHADOW earned a 4-star review from RT, which would not be possible if the heroines were tied up against her will!

Happy reading,
Lucinda

I feel that artists (and I include romance authors in this category) need to be given the free reign to portray the fantasies or nightmares that call to their imaginations. The end results can then be judged by readers.

Artists, journalists, authors, reviewers and readers the world over are sure to agree. It is our right to express and explore, no matter the discomfort it might induce.

Maybe other readers find it compelling to read about a man who is so in love with/obsessed with one woman that he will do anything in his power to have her. Maybe they can see that as him paying her a supreme compliment.

Laura, the way I read CtC, I always saw Justin’s behavior as whacko, not as romantic or sexy. Generally, I have a VERY high sensitivity to violence and sexual violence in Romance, which is why I was surprised by my positive reaction to CtC. But I didn’t find it personally romantic — more, I think, I felt I understood the psychological dynamics between Justin and Verity — that they were both really split, psychologically and emotionally, and that they had been drawn to one another from the start (even before their year-long affair). It worked for me logically, even if you couldn’t pay me enough to find a guy like that appealing in real life.

When he comes to realize the real effects of what he’s done, he begins to change and heal, as well, and he and Verity really do that together. Whether that’s realistic — well, how much redemption of anyone is real in Romance?

Robin has a point. Anything is possible…Shakespeare knew it. Hamlet Act I, Sc. 5. “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

Still in all, repellant behavior in the extreme of hero rape and the subsequent fallout are not my idea of romance.

Janine made a good point, as well.

I feel that artists (and I include romance authors in this category) need to be given the free reign to portray the fantasies or nightmares that call to their imaginations. The end results can then be judged by readers.

Artists, journalists, authors, reviewers and readers the world over are sure to agree. It is our right to express and explore, no matter the discomfort it might induce.

Thanks for explaining this in more detail, Robin. In the interview she gave to Nalini Singh and the one at Redwyne she was focussing on the sexiness of the ultra-alpha hero. I still can’t get my head around that because in the romances I’ve read in which the hero rapes the heroine I’ve been so upset by it that even if the heroine can forgive him, I can’t forget what he’s done and, therefore, I can’t find him sexy. I’m still scared of him.

Maybe other readers find it compelling to read about a man who is so in love with/obsessed with one woman that he will do anything in his power to have her. Maybe they can see that as him paying her a supreme compliment. So on an intellectual level, I think I can just about understand the attraction of an extreme alpha. But as a reader, emotionally, I just can’t ‘get’ it at all. And I can’t suspend disbelief and think of this as mostly a fantasy, because for me these sorts of behaviours make me think about stalking and domestic violence. But again, that’s got a lot to do with my reading behaviour. I don’t relate to the books as though they were about fantasies (though obviously I know they’re not real ;-) ) rather, I evaluate the characters and their actions in terms of how I would feel about them if I met them, because I feel like they’re real within the context of the story. I can step back and make a more intellectual/detached assessment of the story later, but not while I’m reading it for the first time.

From what she’s saying, Anne Campbell seems to be thinking of this hero as a sexy alpha who ‘makes some bad decisions’. Seems to me that that’s a very mild way of describing a rapist and abductor.

I don’t think she’s dismissing or belittling Justin’s actions toward Verity at all (in fact, after my review posted, Campbell thanked me for saying that the book wasn’t condoning rape as a means to love — and I hope she doesn’t mind me revealing that). I DO, though, think that she writes him as a character who changes, who absolutely sees the wrongness of what he did, and who does not, after a certain point in the book, mistreat or disrespect Verity in any way. And what’s interesting — to me, at least — about Campbell’s book is that Justin, for all his horrible ways during part of it, doesn’t EVER want a passive, conventional, easily bendable woman. He’s inviting the battle, really, craving it, which makes sense to me because of where he came from and what he endured as a child. As bad as he is — for ONE portion of the book — he doesn’t, IMO, fit the profile of a batterer, either, and the dynamic between him and Verity, even as he has her prisoner, is not at all one in which he wants her to a) be consistently afraid of him, b) be completely supplicant to him, c) acknowledge him as her master or d) see himself as superior to her. It’s like he wants to *force* her to be *herself* — that is, the unified person he sees in her. Which is part of his *dis-unification* as a person, his own psychological and emotional split. When he comes to realize the real effects of what he’s done, he begins to change and heal, as well, and he and Verity really do that together. Whether that’s realistic — well, how much redemption of anyone is real in Romance? How much of what goes on in general is “realistic” by objective real-life standards?

For all the furor over Campbell’s book, I still find some of Linda Howard’s books, for example, tougher to take emotionally, because her autocratic heroes stay pretty autocratic and bullying. To me, the guy who never is relieved of that emotional bullying is tougher on me than anything in Campbell’s book, in part because I never get the sense that Howard’s heroes are being chastized for their autocratic personalities. Yes their appearance might be more civilized, but I still find Dream Man, for example, a very disturbing book to read in how IMO Dane bullies and manipulates Marlie throughout the book. There’s one point in the book where he throws her on the bed and takes her from behind “with battering force” — I still cringe when I read that line, especially given Marlie’s past as a torture and rape victim. And yet, there are people who love, love, love that book and see Dane as the most wonderful hero ever.

The discussion was getting a bit heated and I went into panic mode.

Glad to know it’s only book tossing.

But I feel like we’re teetering on the edge of the book banning debate.

I don’t believe there has been a hint of book banning. Some book tossing, perhaps. These are simply viewpoints to the posed question, “Romance readers are not so blind, are we, to repellant behavior that we actually excuse it to make it palatable?” Some think it can be explored in romance, some not. And some have come up with possibilities for a plausible HEA. A very lively discussion, most enjoyable!

I’m not sure I understand. No one is saying the book shouldn’t have been written, published or even read. That’s completely up the individuals. However, the issues involved are up for discussion. And since anyone who has read the book is welcome to come forward and clarify points, what’s the problem?

As to any backlash, it’s been my experience that those only tend to give publicity to things more, so no harm there.

I haven’t read the book, so I don’t know the reason’s/motivations for Justin’s insanity / mental illness. Neither do I know Verity’s reasons for wanting to remain with him. It might be that if I did read the book I would find the explanations offered by the author acceptable.

I think it would be very easy for an internet backlash to occur as I’ve seen in the past, by people who haven’t actually read the book.

I’m not suggesting that reviewers shouldn’t comment, or that people who find such subjects hard to deal with should read the book. But I feel like we’re teetering on the edge of the book banning debate.

Is rape romantic – No.

But neither do I think it’s a subject that shouldn’t be dealt with.

I’ve only actually read one “romance” in all my years of reading them that actually made me think it quailified. The Shiek’s Revenge by Emma Darcy was a doozy and, as far as I’ve been able to determine, atypical for even that author. I still have the book. Not because I liked it but as a reminder of just how evil something can feel when it’s so “well-written” that’s it’s absolutely mesmerizing to read and yet you still know it’s wrong. All wrong. It is so not about romance. It’s not even about sex. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. The attitudes are just wrong. Twisted. Sometimes subtly twisted, maybe, and sometimes blatantly, but twisted all the same. And maybe that’s part of the fascination but they’re still wrong.

However, I will also admit that everyone one has to make that judgement on their own. They have to find their own compass to steer by. And that’s part of the reason I haven’t gotten rid of that book. I actively decided I wanted to keep it because I never wanted to forget the “feeling” of actually falling even slightly under the spell of that psychosis and then realizing as I finished it how disgusted I was that anyone would call it romance.

When I started reading the descriptions of this new book, I immediately started thinking of that older one. And not because of the rape. What I found interesting was that no one else had mentioned the other element until the AAR review came up. Fascinating.

One more thing, I could imagine a someone truly holding someone captive and managing to brainwash them that way could also be well spoken, too, which is why the “well-written” argument doesn’t hold a lot of weight with me any more, either. After the above experience, there are simply certain acts by certain characters that I simply refuse to read past and telling me the author is good at the “redeeming” the character only makes me more leery of reading further. Not less.

For good reason, I tend to think.

But that’s just me.

Verity develops Stockholm syndrome. She starts identifying with her captor. And looking back, the language that Anna Campbell uses is so clear that it seems to me that she must have intended it.

This is a book about how excessively screwed-up people-a woman who has essentially split her personality to survive, and a man who is dangerously insane, and obsessed-find love. It’s not a book about the redemptive power of love. In my mind, Justin is never redeemed.

Anna Campbell has said that:

It’s a compelling story of love and courage and ultimate redemption [...] The book charts his redemption and the growth in his self-awareness until he’s a fit partner to the woman who is his other half. Yes, he’s an alpha, perhaps even an ultra alpha. I’m not apologizing for that. He makes some bad decisions but he will suffer extremes of emotional pain as a consequence. And after all his suffering, he emerges from the fire a better man.

From what she’s saying, Anne Campbell seems to be thinking of this hero as a sexy alpha who ‘makes some bad decisions’. Seems to me that that’s a very mild way of describing a rapist and abductor.