Scan barcode
A review by randomutopias
Mackenzie's Mountain by Linda Howard
2.0
Oof, okay. So, let's get this out of the way: this book was published in 1989, which makes it a far cry from the contemporary romance I'm used to, obviously. You may be even wondering: how in the hell did I find it? I specifically looked for "best single dad romance" and found a Reddit thread where someone was looking for the same thing without the nanny trope. For some reason, this book was mentioned a lot and people kind of raved about it. I then also realised the MMC is part Indigenous* (I believe he is part Comanche) and I must confess myself quite captivated with Indigenous cultures in general, although I'm still quite ignorant about them - all of this together made me feel like this might be the book for me.
This is, however, what makes this review so hard to write. There is a big shift not only in romance as a genre from 1989 (although I was quite surprised with the sexy scenes, despite words like loins being used liberally), but in many other topics that are relevant in this story.
For example, everyone, including the MMC, refers to himself as "half-indian" or "indian" most of the time, sometimes even "half-breed". While, at times, it seems the MMC uses such terms as a self-deprecating manner and in relation to how others view him ("Everyone will hate you if you date a half-indian"), other times it seems it's the actual way he perceives himself. I'm guessing this is related to the fact that decades ago the expression Indian was deemed okay to use when referring to Indigenous people, which is not quite today's vibe.
Other issues include a mention to a character that seems to have some sort of mental and/or developmental disability@, and a character literally replies with "He's not a retard." Yet again, the R word as been subjected to quite a lot more recent criticism, but I'm not sure in 1989 people perceived such word as we do today. While the use of the word shouldn't be normalised anymore and any mention worthy of criticism, it does feel wrong to criticise its use in something that is 35 years old, when some of these conversations weren't even happening. Again, it should be criticised, but it should also be evaluated within the time it was written.
This basically means some people will be able to put these over their shoulders by thinking "this is wrong but it's 1989", others won't be able to move past this. And I'm going to be honest with you, if it was just this I would have given this book the benefit of the doubt and rated it a 3-star.
However, I feel it gets much worse while compiling several somewhat damaging clichés, which made me a bit uncomfortable - namely about the mentally disabled character and the perspective on rape victims.
SPOILERS
The minute this happens, and if you've read thrillers/mystery before, your mind automatically starts trying to find the odd one out. I had two suspects in my mind: the store owner, who the FMC has a slight argument with due to his treatment of the MMC, and... the mentally disabled character, simple because he was the odd one. There was not enough people in the story to have anyone else in mind, especially considering an actual rape of a teenage girl had taken place, meaning it was absolutely a man doing the crimes. I felt like the store owner was a bit of an obvious red herring but when his daughter is attacked... I knew. I kept hoping I was wrong and the author would give me a random cousin or teenage student, but no: in the end it is confirmed, the mentally disabled man is the rapist, who at that point in the story had raped one girl and attacked two others (who were able to escape from him), one of them being the FMC.
I don't think I have to explain how damaging this is to the disabled community. It's a very well used stereotype that the "disabled one" is a danger to society. Not only is this incredibly reductive, but ultimately, wrong. Some disabilities can make people become a danger to others and themselves, but the right help and support can make wonders. People with physical and/or mental disabilities are not broken beings that are inherently wrong and need fixing or to be excluded from "good society" to protect us.
Then again, this book was written in 1989, when these conversations were not happening, which makes it very tricky.
The other thing I should mention is that the FMC is attacked by the criminal in this story and it's a bit... descriptive. I think this only happened because the author knew she was going to interrupt the attack before it went into actual rape. This is not a personal trigger for me, so I moved on. It wasn't nice, I wouldn't recommend putting it into a book, but I kept on reading.
And then... Then, obviously, the FMC had moments where someone would touch her on her shoulder when she thought she was alone, and she would freak out - understandably so. The FMC really hated the idea that the attack was changing how she was responding to others and situations she used to be comfortable in before - which, again, understandable.
But at a certain point, the MMC proposes reenacting part of the attack - she runs, he chases. The idea is to mimic it but ending it in a nice tone, sort of attempting to remove the negative connection. This was very iffy to me straight away but got worse pretty fast when the FMC then basically adds that, since her attacker had rubbed himself against her while pushing her face into the ground, she would also need him to do that to her and "make love to me like that".
The warning bells in my head were so loud I had to pause.
The MMC does ask her if she's sure she wants that and what he wants her to do if it becomes too much (he does seem a bit troubled by this part), at which point she says "Don't stop".
The chase itself ends up seeming a bit harmless, because it literally feels to them at first as if they are playing catch like children do. But obviously, eventually, she starts recalling her attack and when he grabs her and lays on top of her (similarly to her attacker) she asks him to stop... and he doesn't. Because she previously told him to not stop (?!).
As a friend of mine said, they really should have known about safe words beforehand.
The entire scene is quite odd and iffy and icky to me, because I have serious doubts this could actually be therapeutic. Obviously, the FMC eventually realizes he's him, the love of her life, not her attacker - someone that would never hurt her, someone she can trust, and she relaxes "into him". It is ONLY THEN that they have sex, I will give the MMC this, but the entire thing seems to be taken out of a very weird concept of therapy for rape victims which I'm not sure is that realistic.
All of this, I must confess, made it a bit hard for me to see past the problems. I do not want to be a presentist (is that even the right word for someone who is not an historian? Not sure), these novels could very well have been the height of romance at that time - and, again, the last three decades brought a lot of significant changes in these sort of narratives that I'm not sure someone could predict -, but the person I am today, the stereotypes and clichés I've been aware of, the damage some of these things can create in certain communities or peoples makes me feel quite conflicted about this book, which eventually led to the 2 star rating.
I don't think this is a terrible romance (I actually like both MC), and I can understand why someone would love this story, especially if they read it many, many years ago, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to other people unless you can grasp the very strong fact that this was written 30+ years ago.
* I am aware of the discussion of which term to use (Indigenous, Indian vs Indian from India, Native American, Aboriginal, etc.) but I must confess I am not very well versed in the differences between them all. It is my impression "Indian" is not well accepted today, even though it was at some point. But Indigenous can refer to several Peoples around the world and Native can literally translate to someone originating from a place, not necessarily a tribe or ethnicity (as in, the Queen of England is a Native - of England, that is). I make this note, so that if anyone coming into contact with my review feels I am purposefully trying to discriminate someone, to explain that I am not, I am simply really not well versed in the differences and I'm currently trying to educate myself more about it. I apologise in advance for any mistake on my part and thank you for your understanding.
@ I am also not always sure about the best non-ableist terms and I am working hard on educating myself. If I use any ableist words please understand that is not my intention, it's my ignorance speaking. I apologise in advance for any mistake on my part and thank you for your understanding.
This is, however, what makes this review so hard to write. There is a big shift not only in romance as a genre from 1989 (although I was quite surprised with the sexy scenes, despite words like loins being used liberally), but in many other topics that are relevant in this story.
For example, everyone, including the MMC, refers to himself as "half-indian" or "indian" most of the time, sometimes even "half-breed". While, at times, it seems the MMC uses such terms as a self-deprecating manner and in relation to how others view him ("Everyone will hate you if you date a half-indian"), other times it seems it's the actual way he perceives himself. I'm guessing this is related to the fact that decades ago the expression Indian was deemed okay to use when referring to Indigenous people, which is not quite today's vibe.
Other issues include a mention to a character that seems to have some sort of mental and/or developmental disability@, and a character literally replies with "He's not a retard." Yet again, the R word as been subjected to quite a lot more recent criticism, but I'm not sure in 1989 people perceived such word as we do today. While the use of the word shouldn't be normalised anymore and any mention worthy of criticism, it does feel wrong to criticise its use in something that is 35 years old, when some of these conversations weren't even happening. Again, it should be criticised, but it should also be evaluated within the time it was written.
This basically means some people will be able to put these over their shoulders by thinking "this is wrong but it's 1989", others won't be able to move past this. And I'm going to be honest with you, if it was just this I would have given this book the benefit of the doubt and rated it a 3-star.
However, I feel it gets much worse while compiling several somewhat damaging clichés, which made me a bit uncomfortable - namely about the mentally disabled character and the perspective on rape victims.
SPOILERS
Spoiler
There is a bit of a thriller/mystery in this story. Our MMC was wrongly accused of murder years before and, in our story, someone starts attacking women in the town - one character is actually raped (off page, I should add) - which makes him a suspect again.The minute this happens, and if you've read thrillers/mystery before, your mind automatically starts trying to find the odd one out. I had two suspects in my mind: the store owner, who the FMC has a slight argument with due to his treatment of the MMC, and... the mentally disabled character, simple because he was the odd one. There was not enough people in the story to have anyone else in mind, especially considering an actual rape of a teenage girl had taken place, meaning it was absolutely a man doing the crimes. I felt like the store owner was a bit of an obvious red herring but when his daughter is attacked... I knew. I kept hoping I was wrong and the author would give me a random cousin or teenage student, but no: in the end it is confirmed, the mentally disabled man is the rapist, who at that point in the story had raped one girl and attacked two others (who were able to escape from him), one of them being the FMC.
I don't think I have to explain how damaging this is to the disabled community. It's a very well used stereotype that the "disabled one" is a danger to society. Not only is this incredibly reductive, but ultimately, wrong. Some disabilities can make people become a danger to others and themselves, but the right help and support can make wonders. People with physical and/or mental disabilities are not broken beings that are inherently wrong and need fixing or to be excluded from "good society" to protect us.
Then again, this book was written in 1989, when these conversations were not happening, which makes it very tricky.
The other thing I should mention is that the FMC is attacked by the criminal in this story and it's a bit... descriptive. I think this only happened because the author knew she was going to interrupt the attack before it went into actual rape. This is not a personal trigger for me, so I moved on. It wasn't nice, I wouldn't recommend putting it into a book, but I kept on reading.
And then... Then, obviously, the FMC had moments where someone would touch her on her shoulder when she thought she was alone, and she would freak out - understandably so. The FMC really hated the idea that the attack was changing how she was responding to others and situations she used to be comfortable in before - which, again, understandable.
But at a certain point, the MMC proposes reenacting part of the attack - she runs, he chases. The idea is to mimic it but ending it in a nice tone, sort of attempting to remove the negative connection. This was very iffy to me straight away but got worse pretty fast when the FMC then basically adds that, since her attacker had rubbed himself against her while pushing her face into the ground, she would also need him to do that to her and "make love to me like that".
The warning bells in my head were so loud I had to pause.
The MMC does ask her if she's sure she wants that and what he wants her to do if it becomes too much (he does seem a bit troubled by this part), at which point she says "Don't stop".
The chase itself ends up seeming a bit harmless, because it literally feels to them at first as if they are playing catch like children do. But obviously, eventually, she starts recalling her attack and when he grabs her and lays on top of her (similarly to her attacker) she asks him to stop... and he doesn't. Because she previously told him to not stop (?!).
As a friend of mine said, they really should have known about safe words beforehand.
The entire scene is quite odd and iffy and icky to me, because I have serious doubts this could actually be therapeutic. Obviously, the FMC eventually realizes he's him, the love of her life, not her attacker - someone that would never hurt her, someone she can trust, and she relaxes "into him". It is ONLY THEN that they have sex, I will give the MMC this, but the entire thing seems to be taken out of a very weird concept of therapy for rape victims which I'm not sure is that realistic.
All of this, I must confess, made it a bit hard for me to see past the problems. I do not want to be a presentist (is that even the right word for someone who is not an historian? Not sure), these novels could very well have been the height of romance at that time - and, again, the last three decades brought a lot of significant changes in these sort of narratives that I'm not sure someone could predict -, but the person I am today, the stereotypes and clichés I've been aware of, the damage some of these things can create in certain communities or peoples makes me feel quite conflicted about this book, which eventually led to the 2 star rating.
I don't think this is a terrible romance (I actually like both MC), and I can understand why someone would love this story, especially if they read it many, many years ago, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it to other people unless you can grasp the very strong fact that this was written 30+ years ago.
* I am aware of the discussion of which term to use (Indigenous, Indian vs Indian from India, Native American, Aboriginal, etc.) but I must confess I am not very well versed in the differences between them all. It is my impression "Indian" is not well accepted today, even though it was at some point. But Indigenous can refer to several Peoples around the world and Native can literally translate to someone originating from a place, not necessarily a tribe or ethnicity (as in, the Queen of England is a Native - of England, that is). I make this note, so that if anyone coming into contact with my review feels I am purposefully trying to discriminate someone, to explain that I am not, I am simply really not well versed in the differences and I'm currently trying to educate myself more about it. I apologise in advance for any mistake on my part and thank you for your understanding.
@ I am also not always sure about the best non-ableist terms and I am working hard on educating myself. If I use any ableist words please understand that is not my intention, it's my ignorance speaking. I apologise in advance for any mistake on my part and thank you for your understanding.