This book crystallised a critique about the spicy side of the romance genre which I've had for a while.
This was a collection of four novella length historical romances. In each of them, a boy and girl fall passionately in love, but they are parted for Reasons. He goes away to war or to India and returns years later with a glowup - and a cashup. The two of them dance around each other, fall into bed, confess their love and live happily ever after.
Two of the stories were really atrocious, although having been written more than 20 years ago they may not be a good representation of the current state of the genre.
In the first story, the couple marry young, fight, he goes off to war and is presumed dead, then comes back the very night she's considering a proposal from someone else. This was probably the best story, mostly because it was genuinely funny as the second male lead is a good sport with a dry wit who narrates some of the story and even ends up mending the rift between the two lovers. But also because as an already-married couple, the pair are not risking the fml's future by falling into bed together, however inadvisably.
In the second story, the mml proposes to the fml shortly after her parents die and in such a manner that she believes he's only proposing out of duty. He goes away to war, then returns when he inherits the family estate, and his irrepressible grandmother drags her along to a house party with the intention of shoving them together again. This one was also pleasantly farcical, but any enjoyment I might have felt disappeared when the mml deals with his complicated feelings by, initially, forcing a kiss on the heroine, and then getting her "consent" to sex by dint of barging into her room in the dead of night and then telling her he's incapable of controlling himself if she tells him to stop. Wow, romantic.
In the third story, the pair are arrested on their way to Gretna Green and she's forced to marry some old pantaloon in order to hush up the scandal. Years later he comes back from India where he has amassed a fortune (no mention of any ethical problems inherent in colonisation) and finds her a widow plotting her second marriage. He has as much trouble keeping his hands off her this time too. While this one lacked much of the sparkle of the previous two, I did appreciate one thing about this story - namely, the mml of this one realises that he's obligated the fml to marry him by having sex with her, and he realises that this is going to poison their whole future together because he's taken away any choice of her own. He "fixes" this, not by giving her a choice, but by getting the second male lead to back out of the contest so that she loses the illusion of having a choice at all - or as the narration puts it, so she won't have to spend the rest of her life wondering what might have been. Yay?
In the fourth story, she marries an old pantaloon because she fancies being a lady, he goes to India, when he gets back she's a widow desperately trying to keep her birth family solvent, he picks a fight with her rubbish brother, she comes to trade her honour for his, they spend the night working through each other and their past. I found this one atrocious too, particularly with the narration telling us several times that thanks to his time in India the mml is used to "taking what he wants" which is a frightful way to approach either someone else's country or someone else's body. Also, what is with the romance novel trope where the heroine needs to have the worst man who has ever lived as her brother?
These stories underlined the trouble with historical romance tropes, at least as the genre stood in 2004. First, toxic masculinity is very much celebrated in these stories. The heroines do stand up to their heroes in various ways, and some character growth is achieved, but when every last mml is a coloniser or army martinet whose desirability is measured by musculature, passion, power and wealth, we aren't getting a different paradigm, merely the justification of this one. Second, the point of all these stories is the sex, even when it's obviously the stupidest, most destructive thing to do in this situation. It's Eloisa James who actually calls this out, but not to the extent of letting her characters do the right and smart thing. Instead, the genre expectations of spicy romance are elevated above character and theme.
Reading these stories made me really appreciate Mimi Matthews, whose books celebrate a very different paradigm of masculinity. Her heroes are not paragons, but they are capable of self-restraint and are not obliged to be the most powerful man in the room. The fact that her books are closed-door also empowers her to include sex only where it would make sense for the characters and themes. Including explicit scenes in romance is a selling point; readers will be dissatisfied if it isn't there, and so you wind up in a place where market demands may be at odds with characterisation.
Again, I'm vaguely conscious the romance genre as a whole must be moving in a much healthier direction these days, but I feel that the worst tropes are still alive and well and filtering into other genres, too.