This book ended up being DNF for me. I had read another one in the series and although I didn't really enjoy the story, I found the writing okay and decided to give this one a try.In this book, the first one in the series, writing seemed a bit uneven. Clumsy sentences here and there, sometimes with unclear meaning or a small plot hole. At other times, the writing flowed quite well, particularly in the romantic scenes.The small problems with the writing would not have bothered me if I had enjoyed the story more, but I found some aspects really frustrating. At times, I could not understand what was going on and why the characters were behaving the way they did.To start with, the heroine, Rachel, is separated from her wagon train because a four year old girl suffering from fever wanders off and Rachel and the girl's parents go looking for her. The wagon train agrees to wait for two days for them to find the child. They don't find the little girl, which is puzzling. How far can a sick four year old walk? The search party sets off with horses and provisions, and when the two days are up, the parents return to join the wagon train and Rachel continues the search on her own.I could not understand why the whole wagon train was not involved in the search. Then it dawned on me that the little girl had not wandered off when they were camped for the night but at some point while the wagon train was still on the move and it took them two hours to realize she was gone. Presumably, they had stopped somewhere two hours earlier and the sick little girl had managed to climb down from the wagon and walk off without anyone noticing.So, the parents and Rachel, who was travelling with the family party, return to that last stopping place. There is no explanation as to why no one else helps, even though many of the men on the wagon train are supposed to have the hots for Rachel.For two days, three people search for this little girl, who wondered off because she was thirsty, which presumably means she would be along the river, but they don't find her. Then the parents return to the wagon train. Because they abandon their search, they are portrayed as cowardly, bad people, even though back at the wagon train they have four other children they need to look after, at least two of them younger than four. Surely, instead of continuing to search for a missing child who by now must be assumed dead, any responsible parent would go back to ensure the safety of the four children who are still alive? Otherwise, those four children would be left alone and defenceless on the prairie after the rest of wagon train pulls off. Or am I missing something here?On the fourth day, Rachel finds the child. There is no explanation as to how, or why they couldn't find her before, or how this sick child has survived alone, without shelter or food on the prairie.Sager, the hero, has been employed by Rachel's father to go and meet the wagon train and escort Rachel to her father's ranch. Sager reaches the wagon train and finds out Rachel is out searching for the child. He persuades the wagon train to stop again and goes to find Rachel, who by now is reunited with the child. It then takes Rachel and Sager and the child a full day of hard riding to reach the wagon train which has been in motion for a day, two at the most. Wagon trains only travel around 10 miles a day. You can ride that in less than an hour.This is just an example of the sort of practical things I found confusing. However, my main source of frustration was Rachel and Sager, who they were and what they wanted. Their lives are shrouded in mystery. There are constant little hints about their past or their intentions, and the reader is left to try to piece it together.For example, Rachel is assumed to be a finely educated lady who was brought up by her uncle and aunt in the East and went to finishing school. Instead, a picture begins to form that she was abused by her uncle and aunt and pretty much used as a slave in their household. There are clues to this, but just fragments, not properly explained, and I just found it frustrating to try to figure out what was going on. In her mind, when Rachel is thinking about the past, she is desperately afraid that she'll be forced to go back. She has escaped her uncle, and it is implied that he has sent people to recapture her. On the other hand, we are told that her father has paid the fee for her join the wagon train, including extra money for the wagon master to give her his protection, and her father has employed Sager to ride out to join the wagon train to provide additional escort.We are told that Rachel's uncle and aunt made her believe her father hated her, but yet she received letters from him. We are told Rachel never had any friends, never received any kindness, but we are also told that the tutor hired for her cousins secretly educated her in the evenings. We are told that since she was fourteen she's had to fight men off, but she's never met any kindness. Are we to believe that all those men were predatory, not single decent one among them? Rachel tells Sager she was occasionally allowed to write back to her father, but she was not sure if her uncle ever posted her letters. Why did she need their permission to write? The tutor gave her lessons in secret - surely she could have written letters in secret and asked the tutor to post them, unless the problem was just money to send the letters.Sager intends to use Rachel for revenge. Rachel is earmarked as a wife for Sager's half brother, and Sager's plan is to seduce her, presumably to present his half brother with a bride who is spoiled goods. He never goes ahead with the plan. It is not really spelled out, but it seems that as he starts to develop feelings for Rachel, he feels unable to use her as a tool for his revenge.However, he is crazed with lust for her. Rachel, to use her own words, is barely surviving her hunger for him. They kiss, they simmer and stew in their mutual attraction. After they separate from the wagon train, they spend their nights sleeping in each other's arms. Rachel plainly tells Sager she is willing to make love with him. And yet, nothing happens between them.I just cannot believe that two people so attracted to each other can stop acting on that attraction. Is Sager so honourable that he refuses to touch her? If so, why did he concoct the revenge plan to start with? It is not a plan of an honourable man. Or would he have been able to take his revenge if he were not attracted to Rachel? Which does not sound heroic at all - feel free to ruin ugly girls but treat pretty ones with respect.Or, now that he is developing feelings for Rachel, and she is very openly throwing herself at him, why does Sager not combine two things - get his revenge and claim Rachel for himself.Sager's past also has mysteries. His father seems to mourn for the loss of Sager's mother, but Sager believes he had her killed. Why would Sager not have confronted his father and sought out the truth earlier? When it starts to become clear that there is something odd about Rachel's life in the East, why doesn't Sager ask her about it? She talks about not having had any friends, about not being allowed to write to her father. Sager and Rachel spend days together on the trail. What do they talk about in the evenings? It is odd they don't discuss any of these things, which would also allow the reader to find out a bit more.I assume the author wanted to maintain tension by having all these secrets gradually unfold, but I found it frustrating to be bombarded with hints about the past without being able to build a proper picture of what had been going on.Also, I did not enjoy the clichéd characterisation. In particular, Sager's stepmother seemed to be a cardboard villainess, a snobbish, manipulative woman without any morality at all. She appeared to do things just for the sake of being evil, even when those things didn't really make sense.Added to that, there were times when I felt the story was not moving forward. They kiss, they lust, they pull back. They kiss, they lust, they pull back. How many times can you rinse and repeat the same cycle before they give in to their attraction, particularly as the lust appears to be supported by budding feelings of love on both sides. After a point, it just got wearisome and did not feel natural.All that said, most other people have enjoyed the book, so once again I find myself in the minority. Rachel Douglas leaves her aunts home to return to her father’s. The journey is long and treacherous, but she is accompanied by her father’s hired gunman, Sager. Rachel feels an immediate attraction to Sager, but she has no idea of his real intentions.Sager knows that Rachel is being summoned home so that she may be married off to his step-brother. He is dead set on revenge and plans to seduce her and ruin her before the marriage can take place. What Sager doesn’t plan on are his feelings toward Rachel.I have been on a historical romance kick lately and when a twitter friend heard this she pointed me in the direction of this author. I am thrilled that she did.I loved this book. From the very first chapter the reader is pulled into the world written by Levine. It reminded me of the romance books that I used to sneak and read when I was a teenager. Rachel and Sager fight their attraction and chemistry with all they have until finally, it all boils over and they can no longer keep their hands off each other.This book definitely has a slow burn between the two of them and at one point I did find myself yelling at my kindle, “Just take her already!” but being that Sager knew that she was intended for another and as usual, he felt that he was no good for her, he fought his attraction. But when they finally do come together, oh yeah, it’s hot.I was thrilled when I learned that this was just the first book of an entire series called Men of Defiance. I will definitely be checking out the next book.
What do You think about Rachel And The Hired Gun (2009)?
A pleasant surprise, this was really a good story.
—ecoLi
