
My Take in Brief: I really enjoyed this one. Amazing how different it is in every way from THATH. She’s like Kinsale that way!
Setting: 1890s (Gilded Age) Chicago, during the World’s Fair
Plot: “Biological ethicist” Prof. Winter, a U of Chicago anthropologist, takes in “Ontario Man”, later known as Michael, a man raised in the wild, to study him. Ontario Man develops relationships with Winter’s three children, the most significant being with his daughter Sydney. Michael’s adjustment to life in civilization is the focus.
Heroine and Hero: Sydney Darrow is a young, beautiful, kind-hearted, and intelligent widow, at first intrigued by, and then in love with the wild man her father has brought to live with them. Michael is … hard to describe. See below.
Conflict: Surprisingly, this is not a book that stands out for its conflict. There is very little internal conflict, but some external conflict. Sydney’s aunt is a determined social climber, but Sydney herself isn’t too worried about her social standing. There’s also some external conflict generated by Michael’s potentially criminal actions later in the book, and also a small amount generated by the mystery of his parentage.
Word on the Web:
Flight Into Fantasy, Shannon C., A
AAR, Marianne, B+
Rip My Bodice, negative
Writer Bonnie Dee, loved it, with some qualms
Amazon.com, 4.5 stars after 17 reviews
Fun Factoids:
1. Wild At Heart was Gaffney’s next book ETA: was the second book Gaffney published (thanks Janine) after the controversial To Have and To Hold, and the heroes couldn’t be more different. Was Gaffney pacifying her readers with a gentle hero? Here’s what she said:
So listen, I’ve got a new book coming out in mid-December called Wild at Heart, and I’d just like to say right here and now that the hero is nothing like Sebastian Verlaine. It’s about a ‘lost man,’ discovered in the Canadian wilderness and taken back to civilization to be studied by scientists and anthropologists. “Tarzan in Canada,” I call it, and it’s not like any other historical romance I’ve ever read. Certainly nothing like anything I’ve ever written. I absolutely adore this hero. I didn’t write him as an “antidote” to Sebastian, though–because to tell you the truth, in spite of the heat I took for To Have & To Hold on Sebastian’s behalf, I’m unrepentant. I loved him before and I love him still. And get this: it’s my secret but unabashed hope that, after every book I write, faithful romance readers say the same thing about me!
2. In AAR’s polls for 1997, this book won favorite hero (a 4 way tie), honorable mention for most luscious love story, and favorite American romance.
3. Here’s an interesting essay on Feral Fantasies in fiction at the Internet Review of SciFi, which mentions Wild At Heart.
4. The hero of Wild At Heart is Tumperkin’s second favorite romance hero, after Mick Tremore of Ivory’s The Proposition.
Fun Gossipoid: This book was the subject of a Help A Bitch Out Request at Smart Bitches back in October. Here’s what one commenter, Liz, had to say:
Oh – fun fact – not only is it Wild At Heart, but it was Gaffney totally schooling Alice Hoffman who’d had a much more poorly conceived feral man book the year prior.
Check the SBTB thread for a list of “wild man” romances.
The Racy Romance Review
There is so much I could write about! For one thing, the setting, which is utilized to stupendous effect by Gaffney. Fin de siècle Chicago was an amazing place, even apart from the World’s Fair. The city, the train to get there, the zoo, the whorehouses and bars, the posh hotels — key scenes take place in each location. The World’s Fair alone comprised over 600 acres. The goals of the fair’s directors were “the dreams of unity, the assertion of culture and education, and most importantly the valorization of American technology and commerce”.
Yet, in portraying the hero as unblemished by civilization, as unable to lie, as caring and honest, and in portraying Dr. Winter and his associates as uncaring at best for Michael’s welfare, Gaffney poses serious questions about the supposed “blessings” of modernity, and the alleged superiority of human beings to nonhuman animals.
The tensions between nature/animals and civilization/humans are a major theme in the book, but come to a head in a scene in which Sydney, her siblings, and Michael ride in the ferris wheel. Sydney is terrified. Michael does the only thing he can think of: he climbs out of the car and stops the wheel. It’s a blatant critique of technology, a reminder of Michael’s brute “otherness” and an extremely touching, romantic scene.

Winter’s lack of concern for a human subject made for some heartbreaking scenes in this book, but was quite accurate, historically. After all, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, in which black men from rural Alabama were deprived of known, effective treatments for syphilis by the US Department of Health until Congress stopped them in 1976, are hardly any better.
(I did have some theoretical problems with the portrayal of Winter’s research program. He says, late in the book, that Michael’s altruism flies in the face of Darwin’s theories. But at the time Winter was doing his studies, Darwinism was not thought to require selfishness at the level of the individual, not even by the infamous father of “Social Darinwism”, Herbert Spencer. I also don’t share the view of Gaffney and the characters that civilization is corrupting.)
This is really Michael’s story, and if it succeeded slightly less well for me that To Have and To Hold, it’s because in THATH, both the heroine and hero were so damaged and distinctive, and their characters climbed so far out of the depths. In Wild At Heart, Sydney has a relatively short distance to go: she has to reject the agenda set for her by her aunt and embrace her feelings for Michael. It’s to Gaffney’s immense credit that this Aunt is three dimensional (“Duty was her passion. She was easy to respect, a lot harder to love.”), not a stock evil stepmother.
Michael isn’t completely wild, although his companions for the past 8 years have been nonhuman animals. We find out early on that he had human contact and has the ability to speak and write, if in a rudimentary fashion. The realistic and lyrical way Gaffney charts his progress was amazing to me. At first, he is such an outsider to the civilized human world that he has to keep making comparisons and references to his former life to make sense of what is happening. The heroine has red hair, and he compares her to a fox, for example. He ascribes animal motivations to the humans around him to understand them.
But Michael is no cypher. He is an intelligent man and an astute social critic. There’s the obvious: his horrified view of how humans treat nonhuman animals. But he also wonders why people always explain things in words that they already know. The social element of language has been completely lost to him.
When Sydney teaches Michael to write, already half in love with her, he has a plan. This is his first homework assignment:
Sydneys dress was green blue this day like her eys. She has smal feet and flotes when she walcks. She lafs like music.
Sigh.
I guess Michael is a “beta” hero. I found this essay on betas, by Michele R. Bardsley, and looked at the traits that define this type of hero. Michael has many of them: he’s kind, responsible, decent, helpful, doesn’t savor confrontation but will do it if necessary, can be an introvert, and is thoughtful. But he has his impulsive and even violent moments, his grand gestures, and can be alpha when necessary, which, according to this essay by Claire Ashgrove, is acceptable for a beta.
There’s not a ton of sexual tension in this book, but when the hero and heroine do consummate their relationship, it’s incredibly lovely and sweet. Michael, of course, is a virgin while Sydney, having been married, is not. (As Tumperkin wrote, “FINALLY, A DECENT EXCUSE FOR BEING A VIRGIN!!”).
Jayne Ann Krentz apparently has gone on record saying that the reader doesn’t want a beta hero, ever, and some of the reviewers of this book (see above) clearly hold that opinion. This is really too bad, because they might miss out on one of the most remarkable heroes I have encountered in romance, and one of the sweetest love stories.
Related posts:
- Review: To Have and to Hold, Patricia Gaffney Cover comment: This one (from the 2003 rerelease) is pretty bland. You already know how I feel about the older...
- Review: Jacob, by Jacquelyn Frank My Take in Brief: A promising premise, but the central relationship was not compelling. I won’t be continuing with this...
- Review: Taking Chase, by Lauren Dane My Take In Brief: A good book which made me wonder why Lisa Kleypas got all the credit for writing...
- Review: Seize The Fire, Laura Kinsale Wherein Kinsale makes me cry. Again. My take in brief: Another great from the great. In intensity and sense of...
- Review: Beyond His Control, by Stephanie Tyler My Take in Brief: I succumb to man titty, and the results are not horrible. Her and Heroine: Justin and...
- Review: Demon Bound, Meljean Brook Cover comments: What do you think of the trend towards hero only covers? Those are some long arms, and his...




#1 by Shannon C. on March 27, 2009 - 8:40 pm
Oh yes! Yes yes yes! I’m so glad you liked this book. And Michael is my favorite kind of beta hero. I loved the ferris wheel bit, and his writing assignments about Sydney, and how real all the characters were.
#2 by willaful on March 27, 2009 - 9:12 pm
Hmm. Even if I thought JAK wrote worth a damn, I wouldn’t care about her opinion on that point.
Haven’t read this one yet, but I really must.
#3 by Phyl on March 27, 2009 - 9:27 pm
I found this at my library after seeing the HaBO at SB’s. I loved it. I especially enjoyed the fact that it was so different from most other romances available, and different from other stuff I’ve read by Gaffney. You’re right in pointing out she’s like Kinsale in that regard. Very nice review and I agree with what you’ve said here.
#4 by Janine on March 28, 2009 - 2:59 am
I love this book and am so glad you do too!!! It’s my second favorite Gaffney (after THATH) and I can’t wait to finish reading your review of it. But first I wanted to correct your “fun factoid”:
Actually, it wasn’t. Gaffney’s next book after To Have and to Hold was Forever and Ever, the third book in Gaffney’s Wyckerley trilogy. Although Forever and Ever isn’t her strongest book IMO it is still worth reading, though probably best read after To Love and to Cherish and To Have and to Hold. There is a three-book arc for William Holyoake, a character who plays a significant role in each of the three Wyckerley books.
And now, I’m going to read the rest of your post….
#5 by Ana on March 28, 2009 - 5:05 am
Hummmm I never read any of her books, this one sounds like a good place to start: I love me some Beta Heroes and I think we do have a genre’s obsession with Alphas (I like them of course, but Betas are so cool too)
OK, I am sold. Getting this one and doing a Smugglers Read the Classics . Let’s see how it goes. Since the Windflower I haven’t ventured further than 2007 in my romance reading.
: D
#6 by KristieJ on March 28, 2009 - 7:59 am
I adore – just adore this book and I’ve read it numerous times. I love every character, even the aunt. Well, maybe not Charles or the guard
I had read all her other books before I read this one and was amazed at how different the hero was from many of her other heroes. He was probably one of the first beta heroes I read and fell for.
One thing I really enjoyed about Michael was how he could laugh at himself. I loved the whole scene with the ‘gift’ he gave Sydney.
Now you have me wanting to read this one again. Good thing I know exactly where it is – on the bookshelf in the living room along with many of my other special books.
#7 by Victoria Janssen on March 28, 2009 - 8:23 am
This sounds delicious! It’s been in my TBR boxes for a while…maybe I should move it closer to the top!
The so-called “beta hero” is my favorite kind.
Sounds like it would make an interesting comparison to the Anna Clare’s FLOOD, a Black Lace book with werewolves in which the male werewolf is being exhibited.
#8 by Tumperkin on March 28, 2009 - 1:37 pm
Oh I ADORE this book. As you’ve said, the way Gaffney shows how Michael assimilates his new world is just extraordinary and shows how utterly immersed she is in her characters. I think this is the one of the things I like best about Gaffney: that deep intuition she seems to have about her characters.
Have you read Sweet Everlasting by Gaffney yet? The heroine of that one is also a sort of wild innocent.
I generally find the terms ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’ off-putting when talking about heroes but now I’m going to follow your links above and no doubt change my mind.
#9 by Jill Sorenson on March 28, 2009 - 5:35 pm
I just reread this! It was lovely, like you said. What a fantastic, heart-wrenching hero. Big sigh.
#10 by Jessica on March 29, 2009 - 5:40 am
KristieJ wrote:
I loved this scene too. There were so many scenes I could have written about. It was like a collection of gems.
Tumperkin wrote:
I do, too, and I half regret using them in this review. The rank ordering really bothers me, as if beta are “less” masculine or less good (although I guess you could argue that alphas are leaders, thus “first”). Is a beta who shows alpha qualities really a beta? Do we call any hero a beta who diverges from the stereotypical romance hero mold?
Phyl wrote:
I agree 100%. After reading romances for two years I have come to appreciate uniqueness.
Shannon C. wrote:
He is awesome. I’m thinking in the movie version, Morgan Spurlock should play him.
Kidding!!
Jill Sorenson wrote:
Does anybody write heartwrenching like Gaffney? the scene when Michael goes into the water to save Sam about killed me.
@ Victoria Janssen:
@ Ana:
@ willaful:
Go forth and read it!
#11 by Meriam on March 29, 2009 - 3:29 pm
I love this book and am so glad you do too!!! It’s my second favorite Gaffney (after THATH) …
Janine, that’s exactly what I was going to say. Sweet Everlasting and Lily come in third and fourth. (I have an awful fascination with Lily; I don’t understand it).
Jessica, I would love to hear your take on Lily if you ever pick it up.
#12 by Janine on March 30, 2009 - 4:36 pm
Meriam, for me third and fourth are probably Crooked Hearts and To Love and to Cherish. Gaffney’s novella “Second Chance” which appeared in an anthology called A Victorian Christmas also deserves a mention in there. I would probably place Sweet Everlasting after those.
Lily didn’t do much for me (I probably like even Another Eden and Thief of Hearts better myself) but my friend and often reading twin Jennie loves it. So you are not the only one whose imagination was captured by that book.
Jessica, I would argue there is another internal conlict you haven’t mentioned, which is that Sydney (and with her, the reader) only gradually comes to see Michael as a romantic prospect. That is a pretty major obstacle actually.
#13 by Meriam on March 30, 2009 - 5:56 pm
Okay, I’d forgotten about those. Let me amend:
3. Sweet Everlasting, 4. Thief of Hearts, then 5. Lily and 6. Crooked Hearts. All of them fabulous, but in that order.
Do you like on-form Gaffney better than Kinsale? Or vice-versa?
#14 by Jessica on March 30, 2009 - 6:18 pm
@ Meriam:
Since I already own Crooked Hearts I’ll read that next.
Janine wrote:
I guess I saw that as lack of conflict. Maybe I do not know what conflict is. To me, an internal conflict would be “I adore him but I want a stable life and I could never marry someone with no connections or money.” I recall very little of that, but my short term memory is not the best.
But merely not thinking of him as a potential suitor, you say, is a conflict? Just Michael not showing up for her as mate material was a conflict? Hm. Will ponder.
#15 by Janine on March 30, 2009 - 7:33 pm
@ Meriam:
No To Love and to Cherish? Wow. Although it’s not my personal favorite, I am very surprised, since so many people consider that Gaffney’s finest book bar none. And even though it’s not my personal fave, I do think it shows excellent craftsmanship in the creation of Wyckerley (both as a place and as a community of characters) and the main characters (Christy especially is a sublime hero). I also love the literary device of Anne’s journal entries.
That’s a very tough question for me since I adore them both. I would say that I lovee To Have and to Hold more than any other book in genre, even any by Kinsale. Really, no other books even come close to that one for me. But I would probably place The Shadow and the Star (the Kinsale I find most romantic), For My Lady’s Heart (from a literary standpoint, Kinsale’s most perfect book IMO) and The Dream Hunter (Oh, how I love that book) all ahead of Wild at Heart in my personal book love rankings. And Flowers from the Storm and Seize the Fire are pretty darn great too. So I guess I would say that for me, Kinsale is the more consistent author of the two. She gets to me emotionally more often. But To Have and to Hold has yet to be eclipsed by another romance for me. At the top of her form, there’s no beating Gaffney.
#16 by Janine on March 30, 2009 - 7:51 pm
@ Jessica:
Oh dear, I screwed up the formatting of my last post. That’s my reply to Meriam in the second quote. Can you fix it?
Well, I’m sure different people have different definitions for these terms. And if you look at conflict in the sense of “conflicted feelings” you are right.
But from a writerly standpoint, I look at conflict as the engine that drives the book, without which there is no story. Characters have to face obstacles, otherwise there is no journey to the ending. So in a romance, I see the conflict or conflicts as anything which is an obstacle to the happy union of the hero and the heroine. An internal conflict is a conflict or obstacle which comes from within a protagonist’s heart and/or mind, while an external conflict is one which comes from a source other than one of the main characters.
I’ve noticed though that some readers have the impression that an internal conflict is a conflict between the hero and the heroine, one that is internal to the relationship, rather than to the character’s mind and/or emotions. I have yet to see a single book on writing which defines conflict this way, but I think this impression has become common enough that when some readers say that they don’t like books with internal conflicts I take that to mean that they don’t like books where the hero and heroine fight a lot.
But actually under the first definition of internal conflict (the one I do see in books on writing), there are plenty of quiet books with an internal conflict; Pride and Prejudice is a good example.
#17 by Jessica on April 3, 2009 - 11:31 am
Janine wrote:
Those people are in error. Enlighten them, we must.
Janine wrote:
That’s my understanding, too. So we agree on what an internal conflict is, but we don’t agree whether one is present for the heroine in this book. Or rather, you think it’s more pronounced than I do.
#18 by willaful on May 14, 2009 - 2:20 pm
I’m reading this one now and concurrently reading one of Lora Leigh’s Breed books which is possibly why it just hit me that in this book, Gaffney is not writing a “beta” hero, she’s completely re-writing the whole idea of “alpha.” By his standards, Michaels is alpha: he thinks about people in terms of pack and what it means to be the alpha a number of times and it’s a whole other animal, pun intended, from the Romancelandia definition. Leigh, conversely, went the traditional route with it, to the max.
#19 by Jessica on May 16, 2009 - 7:31 am
willaful wrote:
That’s a very interesting theory!! It sounds plausible on the face of it. Need to think more on it…