Dangerous

Title: Dangerous (1993)
Author: Amanda Quick (Bantam)
Period: European Historical-Regencyish
Grade: D

I'm that last romance reader alive who still enjoys Amanda Quick's formulaic not-quite Regencies. So why was Dangerous so bad?

Sebastian, Earl of Anglestone has decided to entertain himself this season by courting "Original" Prudence. "Original" appears to mean a heroine with bad fashion sense. He wants to humiliate her foppish younger brother for reason's that are never made clear other than a deadly case of ennui. She attempts to dissuade him from the false courtship and a potential duel with her brother, however the two become entangaled in an investigation that is either criminal (Sebastian's theory) or spectral (Prudece's theory). They wind up betrothed and married amid the investigation which is a third rate who-cares who-done-it.

He is Quick's standard alpha hero. Brodding. Mysterious. Dangerous. Prue sport the antique name and curious hobby (spectral phenomena) that is the mark of all Quick off-beat heroines, but something is off. She doesn't have Harriet's intelligence, Pheobe's vulnerability, or Emily's determination. She is the kind of heroine who complains the hero won't allow her to rush into dangerous situation because "he doesn't want her to have any fun." Usually when a hero berates the heroine as "a little fool" it feels dated and weird. In Dangerous it feels apt.

Quick's writing lacks the zest and humor that signifies her early work here. In one telling example, Sebastian, an amateur criminal investigator, compares picking a lock to making love to his wife. When her character points out this oddity he offers a bizarre monologue comparing his wife (or perhaps her vajajay) to a lock. Quick offers the kind of lines that would have gotten any guy an elbow to the chops in high school as if they are clever, sexy, and romantic. They aren't. And neither is Dangerous.