This book was presented to me in an email from an online company who recommends books according to your tastes. I had signed up for historical fiction and a few other genres, but NOT romance. So when this book was recommended, I wrongly assumed it fit one of those categories. I should have double checked on Amazon before ordering, I guess because it is a historical ROMANCE. I don't generally like romance. And, to be fair, I guess by the reviews a lot of people do like this book.
I was very excited to read it because the premise was promising. Plenty of room for drama and deeply developed characters. However, the characters were like paper dolls instead of real people. Perhaps the book was too short to fully develop four women, I don't know. These women were sad caracatures of females and it actually offended me more than a little. It reminded me of how men portrayed women in the 1950's on TV. Hello, Donna Reed! Even the woman who had an affair was portrayed so fakey I couldn't believe her at all. And June? How could a female author portray a woman as so extremely dense and shallow? I mean, come on. She is blindfolded and taken to her new house. When she sees it and is standing alone with her husband, who has loads of money, she has NO IDEA what was going on?
Throughout the book the women's main dialog was "(Insert husband's name)?" Simply his name. Over and over. Like they needed verification from "their man" for every thought that MIGHT occur in their feeble female brain. Additionally, all June thought or cared about was being with her husband. Shopping? No. OH, wait...maybe we can have lunch with my husband. Yes, okay, I"ll go.
The name thing was overused in the dialog in general. In real life people don't generally say the other person's name that they are talking to in almost every sentence. That reads like one of those old Ed McMann (I don't know how he spelled his name) Reader's Digest prize letters.
I got the feeling that this book was like a very thinly developed Harlequin Romance. Surprise! I looked later and found that the author did write for Harlequin. Now, I know there are a lot of women who do (or used to) read those. But, truly, in this day and age, don't they expect the women in those stories to be a little more intelligent, a little more their own person? We burned bras for this???
Oh, and if you are going to list a book as "historical" please know history. Pantyhose did not exist. Women from England did not speak like American women the minute they got off the ship.
I very, very seldom leave a one star review. I hate to do that. I kept reading, praying it would get better. I thought about not reviewing it. However, as a reader AND A WOMAN and I just couldn't stand by and not protest females being portrayed as so silly, shallow, and dense, especially by a female author! Even back in that time period, women DID have brains.
However, if you enjoy romances that are a quick read with no sex and the usual plot, this book fits that bill. If you like sitcoms from the 1950's you will like it even more. There are plenty of people who do, I guess, so this review should actually encourage them to give the book a read.
The cover is also beautiful.