I've really enjoyed the historical romances by Tessa Dare that I've read recently, so thought I'd try something else in the same vein, by a different author. What a disappointment. The "hero", and I use the term loosely, is an awful person. Cruel, irresponsible, hypocritical, and deeply, profoundly selfish... that the heroine, who initially seemed to have some actual gumption, fell for him so easily and overlooked everything he'd ever done to her - well, I thought less of her because of it. I don't care how much he whinges about his unhappy childhood, he's horrible. I really hate that Julia argues that she is equally responsible for their problems come the end, because it wasn't her that abandoned her sixteen year old bride for eight years, and had she not acted she would have been out-of-sight, out-of-mind for the rest of her life, trapped in an abusive marriage (because that's what this is), increasingly impoverished, and increasingly vulnerable. This is absolutely brushed over within the text.

In my quest to read more romance this year, I've come across the awful factor quite a lot. (Not in Tessa Dare, fortunately, who in my experience - granted, I've only read two books of hers - takes the astonishingly radical step of having actually likeable protagonists.) I get that there are restrictions in the genre, that the structure of romance means that obstacles to the happy ending must be created and overcome, but why, in my admittedly limited exposure to romance, are so many of these obstacles down to the hero or heroine being genuinely awful people? I don't care if awful people are happy! And Nick, the "hero" here, is awful.