Regardless, I thanked the reviewer for her (assumed female reader) candor and noted that the book isn’t a sweet, fluffy romance. Because, let’s be frank: Atlas Leonidus is not a nice man. Especially by today’s politically correct standards.
I weave a background for that though. Atlas isn’t a modern man. He’s 1,600 years old and his attitudes remain medieval. After all, modern sensibilities are just that–modern. In the last 30 years I’ve noticed a general softening of traditional masculine attitudes. But what’s 30 years to an immortal who’s already 1,600 years old? That’s like a week to you and me–not terribly influential.
So be it. Atlas is flawed. He cares deeply for his mate whom he drugged, kidnapped, imprisoned,a and coerced into sex; however, he doesn’t know how to show it. His elderly retainers have more modern sensibilities than he he does and try to persuade him to lighten up. But Atlas isn’t all bad either; he’s not a one-dimensional character. He works for law enforcement, catches violent criminals, protects the most innocent of citizens.
Then we come to Dmitry, the tiger shifting hunter Atlas employs to hunt down Chloe after she escapes. He’s not exactly a young metrosexual either. He’s 800 years old and also subject to the chauvinistic attitudes of his first formative decades.
Then we have the conundrum: man or beast? By the time Atlas catches up with reluctant mate (and, yes, she’s reluctant for damned good reason), there’s very little “man” left. Both Atlas and Dmitry are strongly influenced by their beasts and animals know no social correctness as understood by human society.
Ah, well, the two reviews received may be karma coming back to me. Or they may be entirely justified and will prevent further sales.
For what it’s worth, the typos and grammar errors mentioned in that 1-star review have been corrected. I’m not perfect, but when someone points out errors like that–which I (obviously) missed in the self-editing process–I do go back to correct them.