Good Girl Gone Plaid by Shelli Stevens
Series: The McLaughlins #1
Published by Samhain Publishing on June 11, 2013
Genres: Contemporary, Romance
Falling for the bad boy is even more dangerous the second time around.
In high school Sarah fell for her best friend’s older brother—one of the sexy, Scottish McLaughlin boys. But a painful betrayal showed her she’d been a fool to give her heart to a bad boy. At least it made it easier to leave him and move halfway around the world when her Navy dad got stationed in Japan.
Eleven years later, the death of her grandmother has forced Sarah back to Whidbey Island for a month. It’s the length of time she must stay in her inherited house before she’s allowed to sell it, take the money and run. But when she sees Ian, bad as ever and still looking like sin on a stick, she can’t keep her mouth from watering.
One look at Sarah stirs up the regret lingering in Ian’s heart—and never-forgotten desire lingering in his body. He should walk away, especially since divorced single mothers aren’t his style. But when she starts showing up at his family’s pub, he can’t resist a little casual seduction for old time’s sake.
One thing quickly becomes clear, though. The heat between them is causing an avalanche of secrets and betrayal and nothing will ever be the same.
A bad-boy hero who’s good with his hands, a heroine who’s trying to be good. Contains liberal consumption of Scotch whisky, a Highland Games competition, men in kilts wielding large poles, and a potential Sarah McLaughlin of the non-musical kind.
I…don’t know what to say about this one.
It is not my favorite.
The writing is fine – good, even. The characterizations, etc all worked well. I can’t say that I met a lot of cut-out characters….
But come the fuck on. There’s suspension of disbelief and then there’s taking disbelief into the back shed and shooting it.
Good Girl Gone Plaid has two of my hated tropes: a secret baby and revisionist history. Revisionist history is technically “the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event.” What I mean in this specific situation is that the text takes events that are known by all parties and then changes the understanding of that history based on newly received information. Work with me here…
When Good Girl Gone Plaid started I was enjoying myself, for the most part. I could tell the author wanted to take me on a more angsty ride than I was looking for but the angst made me roll my eyes more than get the feels. So I kept reading. As I read I kept thinking…these two people are really tripping considering that they were only dating a short period of time. As the book continued and I learned why the couple broke up (in high school), I still thought they were taking their issues farther than expected. Then the View Spoiler »secret baby showed up. « Hide Spoiler And I rolled my eyes.
View Spoiler »I hate secret babies because I do not feel that there is any real justification for keeping a parent and child separate. I mean, life and safety are the only real reasons to do so…and the heroine in this book did NOT have those reasons. « Hide Spoiler So it pissed me off something fierce.
The revisionist history threw me for a loop as well. In Good Girl Gone Plaid there are specific reasons why the heroine and hero stayed apart for so long – but in the author’s quest to redeem her hero she removed all of the reasons why the couple were apart. I can understand the desire for hero redemption – but removing all reasons for a split (or blaming it on an outside person) just…means the couple were apart due to a lack of communication. And that’s a crappy reason. And I know that the previous sentence(s) don’t make a lot of sense out of context. I’m sitting on top of a spoiler so let’s just say…inconsistent characterization of people and events makes the story completely unrealistic.