Caine's Reckoning by Sarah McCarthy

When I was a little girl, there were three channels on British TV, and for some reason, one of 'em always seemed to be playing an old Western movie.

My dad loved Westerns. John Wayne, Henry Fonda. Clint Eastwood is, like, his idol.

Yes, it seemed like there was always a bleedin' Western on in the background.

I hated them. All that shoot shoot shoot - hide behind rock - shoot shoot shoot. And the bar room brawls with the unaccountable whooping. And the women: madams in brothels in garish taffeta and respectable heroines in tea-towel gingham.

It was all my husband could do to get me to go and see Ride With the Devil by Ang Lee. (Loved it but that's another story).

All of which is longish way of saying that I approached this book, Caine's Reckoning, with trepidation. Or rather, resistance. I'd already decided I didn't like Western romances without even reading one. But Lisabea kept going on about it and then others jumped on the bandwagon and in a weak moment, I found myself ordering it.

Even then, it languished on the TBR pile for months. And then one day I was in the middle of three books, none of which were really working for me. So I picked it up, and began to read.

And (I'm guessing this bit won't surprise you what with the whole lead-in to this) I really liked it. I finished it in a weekend. It was compelling. It had a decent story and pretty good characters. Big angsty backstory for the heroine (and you know how much I love that. As they said to that poor girl in Roissy, first we have to make the tears flow).

Desi was a good heroine - feisty and vulnerable at once. As for Caine - well, more on that later - but I did love his laconic voice. I was getting Sam Elliot on the voice.

So - prolly a B for me - and I would recommend it to others. Which - in a nutshell - is my review of the book, such as it is.

Beyond that, what interested me about the book, was its whole BDSM subtext. I say subtext but it wasn't exactly subtle or anything. On the face of it, it was a mainstream romance, with no master/slave, beatings/restraint etc. But it had a distinct BDSM flavour alright. Caine (the big ole protective cowboy) was very much in charge and Desi had to learn to obey him. And whilst he was very kind about how he trained her, train her he most assuredly did. He was the teacher, she was the pupil, and the watchwords were: protection and trust.

I'll be honest: to me, Caine was just overbearing. He irritated me a bit. I mean, Desi couldn't even take a bath in peace. And never never was she allowed to have an orgasm when she wanted (Come for me, Desi). (Jeez, I hate that whole Come for me thing!)

Now don't get me wrong - it wasn't enough to spoil my enjoyment of the book. It just wasn't my 'thing'; wasn't one of those romance mechanisms that 'get me'.

The thing was that it made me start wondering about what the whole attraction of that 'trust and protect' thing is for (certain) romance readers. It's clearly something that resonates powerfully with some readers.

Is it perhaps something about the powerful alpha male? That there's an attraction for some readers in just submitting completely to that? Or is it that there's something desirable about letting someone else take care of everything?

Or is that it enables us to deal with certain desires in an acceptable way? Do people prefer to talk about these sort of sexual predilections in terms of 'nice' words like trust rather than being frank about what it's really all about?

Regular readers of this blog will be aware that I highly rate Kristina Lloyd, a not-very-prolific erotic writer. One of things I love about her books is that they are very honest about what the characters like and want sexually. In a blog post on Lust Bites Lloyd said:

".... it’s that sense of dreamy, egoless relief that arises in the tension between pleasure and unpleasure. Subspace, to use the jargon. A lot of my characters (jeez, I can’t think who they’re based on) get off on being treated badly, on being distressed, reduced, shamed and scared. They’re not screwballs, nihilists, emotional masochists or lacking in self-worth. It’s a sex thang. They can still function...."

Am I the only one that finds that attitude refreshing?

Here's another interesting justification of the BDSM lifestyle, specifically for Christians. I'm still not sure whether the website is for real or not.