Yours to Keep, Shannon Stacey
I bought this book when I was depressed, looking for a light, straightforward contemp romance novel to cheer me up. I'd just read Shelli Stevens' Negligee Behavior and liked it, and similar people recommended this one. Spoilers follow; I can't make the points I need to without discussing the ending.
Let me say that YtK is a good book. The people who love it aren't stupid, they have fine taste, I don't want to imply that they're wrong to enjoy it. I laughed a couple times. But Stacey fails at the one thing a romance absolutely MUST do: she fails to make me believe in the Happily Ever After.
Because YtK is painfully anti-feminist, even though its heroine is feminist. The fundamental tensions in the book all resolve in favor of neo-conservative gender roles. The grandmother who worried about her daughter all alone in a big house is comforted by the presence of a strong, caring man in her granddaughter's life. The business-owning heroine keeps her business, but her husband starts a business of his own, working alongside her--he essentially becomes her "equal" partner, rather than accepting her control.
Over and over again, little details make me scream. The heroine, when she was ten, had a shoebox of wedding-related clippings and a little notebook with how she wanted her perfect wedding to be. That's fine, I know I have to accept gender norms like that in romance. But then the hero looks through the box and MOCKS her for it. The heroine pointing out she was ten doesn't stop him. Of course he later proposes while wearing the desired pink shirt and offering her the desired kind of flowers, but he never apologizes. His mockery is degrading and clearly mobilized as a dominance gesture when he is uncomfortable deciding to commit to the relationship. He bullies her to disguise his self-doubt.
She owns a landscaping business and drives a van to, you know, do her job. The hero will not let her drive her own truck because she "drives like a girl" and he "hates riding shotgun." At one point she drives him somewhere and deliberately speeds to terrify him, but that doesn't help. That is adolescent rebellious behavior, not a mature assertion of an equal right to HATE RIDING SHOTGUN. Which of them is insured on that car is not discussed. Which of them has the better driving record is not discussed. As part of the reconciliatory proposal at the end, he offers to "let" her drive SOMETIMES. No. That is not how it works. Adults do not "let" each other do things unless there is a good reason one of them has authority--and in this case, the vehicle BELONGS TO HER. He has no legal or moral right to deny her the keys. Besides, if he thinks she's a bad driver, not letting her drive will not fix the problem. It will make her a WORSE driver and make her dependent on him for transportation.
I have been in the guy's position here. Part of the reason I'm so uncomfortable with this book is my growing awareness of my own tendency to mock, bully, and degrade. It doesn't do good things to my relationships. I watch other couples fight where one partner completely disregards the potential validity of the others' points and it makes me sick to my stomach. The heroine in Yours to Keep probably thinks she has partially "tamed" a "guy." In two years or less she'll realize all she's done is trapped herself with someone who doesn't value anything she has to say, but is a human being and miserable without her. I don't doubt that this pair love each other. I doubt that they can possibly be happy together. Oh, and their interfering relatives who want them to "have someone" to "look after them" and "start a family" can go to hell, because a lover who makes you feel like shit is far, far worse than no lover at all, EVEN WHEN THERE IS PLENTY OF CHEMISTRY. Chemistry doesn't fix abuse--it just makes it worse.
Let me say that YtK is a good book. The people who love it aren't stupid, they have fine taste, I don't want to imply that they're wrong to enjoy it. I laughed a couple times. But Stacey fails at the one thing a romance absolutely MUST do: she fails to make me believe in the Happily Ever After.
Because YtK is painfully anti-feminist, even though its heroine is feminist. The fundamental tensions in the book all resolve in favor of neo-conservative gender roles. The grandmother who worried about her daughter all alone in a big house is comforted by the presence of a strong, caring man in her granddaughter's life. The business-owning heroine keeps her business, but her husband starts a business of his own, working alongside her--he essentially becomes her "equal" partner, rather than accepting her control.
Over and over again, little details make me scream. The heroine, when she was ten, had a shoebox of wedding-related clippings and a little notebook with how she wanted her perfect wedding to be. That's fine, I know I have to accept gender norms like that in romance. But then the hero looks through the box and MOCKS her for it. The heroine pointing out she was ten doesn't stop him. Of course he later proposes while wearing the desired pink shirt and offering her the desired kind of flowers, but he never apologizes. His mockery is degrading and clearly mobilized as a dominance gesture when he is uncomfortable deciding to commit to the relationship. He bullies her to disguise his self-doubt.
She owns a landscaping business and drives a van to, you know, do her job. The hero will not let her drive her own truck because she "drives like a girl" and he "hates riding shotgun." At one point she drives him somewhere and deliberately speeds to terrify him, but that doesn't help. That is adolescent rebellious behavior, not a mature assertion of an equal right to HATE RIDING SHOTGUN. Which of them is insured on that car is not discussed. Which of them has the better driving record is not discussed. As part of the reconciliatory proposal at the end, he offers to "let" her drive SOMETIMES. No. That is not how it works. Adults do not "let" each other do things unless there is a good reason one of them has authority--and in this case, the vehicle BELONGS TO HER. He has no legal or moral right to deny her the keys. Besides, if he thinks she's a bad driver, not letting her drive will not fix the problem. It will make her a WORSE driver and make her dependent on him for transportation.
I have been in the guy's position here. Part of the reason I'm so uncomfortable with this book is my growing awareness of my own tendency to mock, bully, and degrade. It doesn't do good things to my relationships. I watch other couples fight where one partner completely disregards the potential validity of the others' points and it makes me sick to my stomach. The heroine in Yours to Keep probably thinks she has partially "tamed" a "guy." In two years or less she'll realize all she's done is trapped herself with someone who doesn't value anything she has to say, but is a human being and miserable without her. I don't doubt that this pair love each other. I doubt that they can possibly be happy together. Oh, and their interfering relatives who want them to "have someone" to "look after them" and "start a family" can go to hell, because a lover who makes you feel like shit is far, far worse than no lover at all, EVEN WHEN THERE IS PLENTY OF CHEMISTRY. Chemistry doesn't fix abuse--it just makes it worse.