TEST
Ainslie Paton’s The Love Experiment was last year’s surprise hit. Reading the high praise for it, I was looking forward to reading The Love Coupon. However, for multiple reasons, large and small, I have to say that this book was a disappointment.
The hyperbolic writing style, with multiple metaphors competing for the reader’s attention, takes some getting used to:
If you plugged an amusement park into Flick Dalgetty, you could light up a roller coaster and make cotton candy for days. […] There wasn’t any way electronic-shockagram, disco-light-strobe, tip-you-upside-down-and-shake-you-while-laughing-like-a-horror-show Flick Dalgetty could solve any problem Tom was likely to have.
But once you get accustomed to the writer’s voice, you can start appreciating the characters, the scenery, and the acerbic writing.
One evening, Tom O’Connell and Flick Dalgetty meet at a ‘hacks-and-flacks’ cocktail mixer for advertisers, journalists, marketing folks, and lobbyists. He’s there to connect with a high-flying journalist; she’s there to find a temporary roommate. Flick and Tom are polar opposites. She’s a lobbyist; he’s in marketing. She’s a firebrand go-getter; he’s a quiet, dedicated, corporate ladder-climber. She’s messy and highly-strung; he’s on the straight and narrow.
Tom owns a swanky condo in an upscale part of the big city – it’s not clear which one – in which they both live. Flick has given up her current job in order to move to Washington D.C. for the job of her dreams, so she needs temporary accommodation before she moves. Tom refuses to have Flick live with him as his housemate. Living with Flick Dalgetty would be like being kidnapped and trapped inside a Gravitron. But Flick convinces Tom out of his convictions and moves in. Needless to say, that feeling of living in a Gravitron returns to Tom again and again throughout the story.
Tom was raised by a tight-fisted, anally-retentive father who did not allow him to be even the slightest bit messy. He lived in a hyper-controlled home, which he survived by doing what was expected of him, focusing on his future, and carefully mapping out his way of getting there.
Flick was raised by a father who stole cars and abused her mother. Her friends and sisters were teen mothers and her brothers, hoodlums. She escaped this soul-crushing life by running away at fifteen to live with a man twice her age who provided her with stability, security, and the means to finish her school and go to a decent college. Her eyes are always on the future she wants and plotting her way there.
In that Flick and Tom are alike. They are ambitious and want the top jobs in their careers, but their methods of obtaining their heart’s desire couldn’t be more different.
After Flick moves in with Tom, they’re both wary of each other. Flick tries to adhere to Tom’s many rules, but gradually, her uninhibited nature asserts itself and she starts leaving her stuff around the house and driving Tom up the wall. They share two memorable meals – Tom enjoys cooking and he makes the kind of comfort food that sticks to the ribs. The more they see of each other, the stronger the attraction between them.
The first time they succumb to that attraction has Tom satisfying Flick while refusing to be satisfied himself. Flick feels that Tom is too uptight, too set in his ways, and she wants him to loosen up, to give up some of the tight control he maintains. So Flick gives Tom thirty coupons to no-strings-attached activities, such as a bubble bath, binge-watching a show of his choice, a massage, buying her lingerie, a Kama Sutra position of his choice (sigh – the Kama Sutra is not a sex manual), etc. that will allow him to simply enjoy life and enjoy being with her, and thus encourage him to let down his guard. This takes their casual fling into the realm of a serious relationship that neither is prepared for, nor willing to risk their independence for. And yet, they’re hooked beyond wisdom.
This book has the narrative threads to make it a compelling story of how both characters rise above their circumstances to become individuals they’re proud of and come together into a strong relationship with each other. However, the portrayal of the characters, especially Flick, made for a story that was a turn-off on many levels.
Early on in the story, Flick gets the feeling that Tom is as attracted to her as she is to him, so she wants them to kiss. But he says no. Repeatedly. While he’s attracted to her, he does not want to have sex with her and he refuses. Repeatedly. Yet, she insists and insists till he gives in, kisses her and allows himself to be kissed by her. They dry hump. Then he asks her how he can get her off. She tells him. He does so. Then he gets up and walks away unfulfilled but refusing to take his clothes off and have sex with her. His “no” really was “no,” and it certainly felt like he had to give her that orgasm because she wrested it from him. But he’s finally able to refuse her demand that they take their clothes off and have round two, and this time he manages to hold her off. She goes away annoyed and frustrated with him. The next day morning, while Tom has gone off hiking, in her thoughts we see this:
The apartment was empty in the morning and she looked at it for the first time and didn’t see it as the elegant designer space of her first impression. It was beige and bland, too conservative to have a personality. Like its owner. […] She hoped Tom hiked a hole in his feet.
Tom returns home injured, and then he apologizes to her while castigating himself, and she rips up at him.
“I’m a total shit for how I reacted last night.”
“Before or after you let me rub one out on you and made me feel like a greedy whore?”
This is classic Old Skool Romance forced seduction AKA rape with a role reversal, where the heroine is the aggressor. While I am thankful that heroines these days are empowered and own their sexuality, sexual progressiveness does not have to tip over into predatory behavior.
She’d gone from feeling sexy to feeling like a predator.
This is not a positive emancipated trait for any person to have.
And there’s a pattern. In the opening pages of the book, when Tom first meets Flick, he repeatedly refuses to have her stay with him. He is not attracted to her; in fact, he despises what he sees as her hyperactive, destructive presence. He consistently and in various ways says “no” to her wanting to rent his spare bedroom. And yet, she pushes and pushes and gets her way.
The third time they have sex, she compels and propels him out of his comfort zone into the kind of sex she’s determined will set him free from his narrow outlook on life. If she wanted a reaction she’d have to push him harder. And he protests again and again against the intimacy, but she’s insistent, and when they’re done and it’s amazing, she’s triumphant and he’s grateful. But he hadn’t wanted to do it at the outset and had said so – and she had paid no heed to him.
Flick always getting her way is so important to her that Tom’s feelings and wishes don’t seem to matter much. This is not a HEA I can get behind. Thus, despite the occasional sharp humor and deft turns of phrase that make for enjoyable reading, the heroine’s treatment of the hero pretty much ruined the book for me. The author goes to great lengths to make the reader understand how Flick’s background makes her into a hard, bright diamond with a “take no prisoners” attitude, but her persistence and coercion are unacceptable. There is no way she could be redeemed after that, despite the author trying successfully throughout the book to show Flick’s growth into a person of maturity and compassion and Tom’s growth into a person of confidence and surety with the ability to enjoy life as it is. Every reader has their deal-breaker, and I simply cannot recommend this story.
Buy it at: Amazon/Barnes & Noble/iBooks/Kobo
Grade: D
Book Type: Contemporary Romance
Sensuality: Warm
Review Date: 25/04/18
Publication Date: 04/2018
Recent Comments …
Yep
This sounds delightful! I’m grabbing it, thanks
excellent book: interesting, funny dialogs, deep understanding of each character, interesting secondary characters, and also sexy.
I don’t think anyone expects you to post UK prices – it’s just a shame that such a great sale…
I’m sorry about that. We don’t have any way to post British prices as an American based site.
I have several of her books on my TBR and after reading this am moving them up the pile.
I’m an amateur student of medieval manuscripts, an editor and proofreader, a choral singer, a lapsed engineer, and passionate about sunshine and beaches. In addition to reviewing books for All About Romance, I write for USA TODAY Happy Ever After and my blog Cogitations & Meditations. Keira Soleore is a pseudonym.
Related Reviews
Books that ignore consent or privacy issues when it’s the heroine behaving badly drive me up the wall. (Miracle on 5th Avenue is another example.)
That’s it precisely. I understand that her heart was in the light place. She wanted him to enjoy life more rather than being so rule-bound and hidebound. But her way of going about felt wrong to me. She runs roughshod over him and does not respect his wishes.
What a shame this one was subpar; I’ve been looking forward to it – and as an introverted extrovert I was wincing at the author’s choices here frequently.
Me, too. I had been looking forward to it as well since the first one was so well-received. But I simply could not get past the fact that she didn’t make an effort to understand him and where he is coming from and why. What she wanted for him was more important than what he wanted or was willing to do/have.
By the way, Lucy Parker’s Artistic License (aka Elle Pierson) is one of the best books about introverts. Spot on understanding!! It’s not Lucy Parker’s best book but it’s good and it features an introverted heroine who insists that the hero educate himself on introverts before they commit. Introverts really cannot change for someone, which is another reason why the HEA in The Love Coupon is highly unbelievable.
I completely agree with you about Lucy Parker’s Artistic Lisence. I reviewed it here, and I loved how she portrayed the two characters. It’s nuanced and shows a deep understanding of introverts.
Oh, thanks for that info, Keira. I’m going to go look up that review now :)
I’m sorry this book was such a bad experience for you. I found it flawed but not repellent, hence my B-. I think your reading of Flick and Tom is on the harshest end of fair, and others may also feel that way, but I didn’t and others may be with me. You can all see my review for more detailed thoughts
I hope this does not turn people off of trying this author – even you, Keira. The issues expressed here are largely with the character types, and she changes it up book to book.
I think that is a fair assessment, Caroline. This book is very different from the first book in the series, and so I’m not ruling out reading the third book when it comes out. I had a visceral reaction to this book though, and I really do think I attribute my negative feelings largely to the fact that as an introvert I did not feel as if the author really understood us :) Too many stereotypes here too. The book really sides with the extroverts of the world and so extroverts may respond more favorably to Flick’s way of living. I also really dislike the premise where one character has to change substantially for a relationship to work, and given that Tom was such a decent guy, I never felt he needed to change.
Not being a great reader of CR, I hadn’t planned on reading this (although I do have the previous book on my TBR). But ditzy, pushy, “I’m such a free spirit that I never feel the need to tidy up after myself” heroines are pretty much the opposite of catnip for me; I tend to be organised and don’t do well with chaos, so that character type tends to repel me. I’m with Blackjack – if I were Tom, I’d have avoided Flick like the plague!
Tom was repelled by her right from the beginning and wanted absolutely nothing to do with her. But as we see in the book, what he wants and what he gets are very different things, and most of them are opposites.
Ulp, well, I guess I’ll be passing on this one — thanks for the warning! I’ve really liked the few things I’ve read of Paton’s, so this is very disappointing. I’ve been in situations where consent was manipulated out of me; I can’t read that as a positive.
Also I am really tired of this stupid conflation of how extroverted you are and how sexually liberated you are. Heroes are allowed a bit more range on this than heroines, but only to a point, as this review shows, and for heroines, sexual confidence, experience, and “wildness” always seem to be directly correlated with how outgoing and “free-spirited” you are. It is completely possible to be both extremely introverted and also a sex fiend even if you are a woman! TRUST ME ON THIS.
You’re funny, and you make a very good point. Why is sex synonymous with showiness and attention-getting? Sex can be intensely private between two people and non-competitive. And the quiet ones don’t always need to be the repressed ones.
(I’m sorry you’ve been in coercive situations in your personal life.)
Thanks for the honest review. Doesn’t sound like my cup of tea either.
Pity really. The first one was so well-touted, too.
This is at least a dynamic you don’t see very often, so I suppose you could give the author points for originality, but it sounds like the book wouldn’t appeal to me either. As for the writing style, I tried a sample of a Paton book a while ago and and no trouble passing on purchasing it. I couldn’t get past the clunkiness of the prose.
The alpha being a woman was refreshing, but unfortunately, the author saddled her with all the unfortunate tendencies of an alpha: domineering, aggressive, being right, manipulative.
I too disliked this book, and it was especially disappointing because I did like the first book in the series, The Love Experiment. Here though I was quite uncomfortable with the premise that the controlled introvert needed to change, and I never stopped wondering why. I liked Tom and if he was a little too neat and controlled, Flick was over-the-top gregarious, messy, and careless. I’m a controlled, neat introvert though and so Tom made sense to me. If I were Tom, I would have avoided Flick with every fiber of my being :) I felt manipulated by the story as it tries very hard to convince readers that Flick’s way of living is the way to go. I never bought into it, and it annoyed me that Tom barely changed Flick at all, whereas he has to do all the changing. I did not buy into their HEA either.
I too was uncomfortable with Flick’s aggressive sexuality, especially early in the book. She does eventually back off and respect Tom’s wishes when he puts an end to their friends with benefits relationship, but I still did not like that she initially kept pushing when he said no. Some of the gender discussions in the book related to women being overlooked for promotions and having undue expectations regarding attire and behavior in the public sphere were spot on and interesting, but constructing a sexually free woman who pressures a sexually reserved man into bed repeatedly and against his better judgment was not appropriate, much less romantic.
I was looking forward to this book and now am not at all sure I will continue with the series.
I agree with you: Why does the controlled introvert need to be transformed by a wild extrovert. And why is that conversion such a favor to him? I would’ve preferred that she respected him and accepted him the way he is. I disliked the implication that an extrovert is the desired goal; an introvert is just not good enough. She really was the dominant in this relationship, so much so, that he is apologetic to her constantly and grateful to her. This was not romantic to me.
I will not be continuing on with this author.