Let’s talk about this book.

Dan Parrish makes his “real romance by a real man” a collection of moments in a narrative which he manages to:

- Extoll a “both sides” political take that undeniably is centrist at best and right wing at worst, with thinly veiled praise for Trump’s presidency

- Subtly racist in his weird portrayals of “the left”

- Very transphobic including use of slurs, and managing to chastise the audience in thinking so because the trans character also agrees people are just “so sensitive”

- Try and convince you to visit his website for tips and how easy you can be a millionaire if you become a real estate agent

I also have some minor nitpicks about:

- Claiming Daniel is a gay man in the blurb, despite himself sort of identifying as bisexual later in the chapters and having sex with women

- Never interrogating Daniel’s dislike of femme men, despite being willing to objectify and have sex with them

- A story which claims to be “real” and yet has some of the most skewed, unrealistic depictions of some events that I have seen

I’ll focus on my big issues.

Daniel is a Christian man. I have no problem with queer characters being religious and often find it refreshing when they have a positive relationship with religion and spirituality, because queer theology and religious communities are important. However, the church within this novel represents a literal podium for Daniel to give his views, and I have to imagine a metaphorical one for Dan. (Your names are already so similar, I imagine this is a self-insert.) Essentially, Daniel goes on in a speech about how while “The President” (he isn’t ever named but it’s very clear he’s referencing to Trump) may be considered brash and vulgar, he also is responsible for unemployment going down, etcetera. Essentially a list of facts meant to convince you that sure even if he is undeniably a right wing white supremacist with literal Nazis who back him, Trump is actually a good guy for the economy.

He also makes a cute little comment that he liked the president because he too is a bit to-the-point and not “politically correct” so he feels camaraderie with him.

After his speech, the pastor tells us that God commands we love everyone, including the president, we are told people in this Christian church dramatically walk out.

Now, are there progressive churches? Of course. Do I believe for a second that the average church in Illinois is so politically progressive that people would storm out during a service over that? No, not really. It is known for a fact that conservatism and Christianity go hand-in-hand in the United States. Throw in an understanding of social decorum within American society, I just don’t imagine this happening.

It doesn’t end there, though. Then a protest (not within the same day) happens at the church! I don’t know if it’s ever specified if it’s only parishioners or just random ass people who care what this church is doing. They’re holding signs such as “No Politics in Pews”, “Separate Church and State” and the one which makes no sense: “Make Love, Not War”.

Okay. So let’s put my heavy disbelief that a smaller church will be getting a large crowd of protestors which devolve into violence (we will get there) aside. The only signage that makes sense here is the first. I would imagine that from any “side” of the political debate, quite frankly. Separate church and state however doesn’t make much sense to me — this usually is a comment referring to abortion bans, funding going to religious organizations, places of worship not being taxed, book bans, and a number of other political issues where it’s specifically about churches injecting “Christian values” into actionable policy. That has nothing to do with yet another white Christian man going on about how Trump is good for the country.

The one that makes me laugh the most though is “Make Love, Not War”. I don’t remember Daniel sponsoring the Vietnam War, or any mention of Israel’s current ethnic cleansing of Palestine. What is this even about? Why would someone bring that signage? I can tell by how the author wrote them he thinks progressives are unintelligent and snowflakes, but the least he could do is try to be realistic in his “REAL story”.

The cherry on top of this shit shake is the escalation to violence. So, at some point, when the pastor is outside of the church viewing the gathering crowd either a rock (or something) was thrown or otherwise collided with his face. He is coughing up blood, it’s a whole thing. Who runs forward, supposed to put a face of representation to these violent protestors? A larger black woman.

Just sit with it for a moment. Why is it that the first black character given some plot relevance in this book is a woman who is on the side of those “violent, unreasonable protestors” and portrayed as being both obtuse and naive Parrish’s choice? She apologizes for the escalation, but Daniel sure lets her have it and makes basically a “and I thought you were supposed to be the good ones” type of comment, as if to shed light on how leftists secretly hate people or whatever. Don’t worry though, he won’t use racial slurs.

… But the same basic human decency can’t be extended towards trans people, I guess. Now, I saw the blurb. “Transgenders.” That already gave me a red flag that this was gonna be handled poorly. If you’re not aware, Parrish, referring to a marginalized group of people as a group of [noun]s in such a way is usually contextually inappropriate and manages to be dehumanizing. You may not agree with this grammatically, but the fact of the matter is that connotation exists and this is the normalized understanding of using that type of expression except in specific contexts. The context you used it in was not one where it is understandable.

Mary is the transgender woman in this book (see? I did read it). For her brief chapter, Parrish manages to: use the t-slur three times, uses terms like

Spoiler

shemale

and “a trans” more than once, and continually point to the parts Daniel views as masculine in Mary while also having her say that PC culture is bad actually and she isn’t offended by being called a slur or being denied her womanhood because she hasn’t had bottom surgery, so Daniel claims she isn’t really transgender anyway. Every interaction and description of her inevitably focuses on what Parrish believes to be a “wrongness” of her femininity — her height, her voice, the size of her feet, her movement. It’s the first thing the character remarks about her, clocking her immediately for being transgender just by her height alone!

Don’t worry though, he does have sex with her anyway because he would “let himself be seduced by a trans”. That is a direct quote.

There is some rich irony in him saying he doesn’t know what to call transgender people, and if he messes up people “look at me as if I’ve said the n-word.” What, not brave enough to use a different slur? Too scared about being called the obvious racist you are, but it’s okay to be transphobic and use slurs since Trump openly hates trans people too?

It takes so little effort to not use a slur, even if you don’t think you’re up-to-date on accurate ways to refer to trans people that don’t dehumanize them. Instead, you manage to write a side character who props up Daniel (and I imagine, Parrish’s own beliefs) about trans people being too sensitive when people don’t respect them.

Now let’s talk about the author’s note and prologue. This section will be shorter because it speaks for itself: Parrish goes on to tell you how he is a millionaire, his partner and family members are millionaires, and you can be too! All you have to do is get into real estate (in a housing market that isn’t doing well at all right now, requiring self-funded licensure that can be expensive) and you’ll become a millionaire so easily! Read his weird fucking book to find out, but actually, you could also just visit his website and find out.

So, I’ll bite. I went to it. Hm, so he’s a real estate investor and entrepreneur. He’s sold millions of dollars worth of furniture (?) but his passion is real estate. He’s a land lord who has owned over two hundred homes and apartments in two states. Yes, he’s also an older white man, just in case anyone accused me of pointing fingers where there’s no evidence.

I have no problem with his actual career and his family, whatever. I have a moral issue with landlords in general but it’s not going to be some bigger discussion on capitalism here. However, there were no tips. Guess it’s good he’s not trying to sell a course? I do find it weird though that he’s doing some weird type of “inspiring” or recruitment (?) via queer romance.

Also, you might wanna ask: so hey, is this actually a romance?

Yes, but not in a way MM readers will probably enjoy or are used to. It’s told in chapters that are essentially self-contained “novellas” (he says this himself), where he has sex with multiple men and women in almost each chapter. The murder aspect, I really don’t care about but it’s not a compelling mystery/thriller romance either. There is a suggestion of who is “end game”, but it ends on a cliffhanger as there will be 3-4 more books if I remember correctly from his website. In terms of sex, it is descriptive enough that it isn’t fade to black but certainly isn’t written to titillate.

Anyway. Don’t buy this. It’s okay, Parrish is a millionaire, he won’t be suffering without your eight dollars.