Update 5/1/2025
Somehow this review got flagged after more than a decade on this site. For copyright, no less. Although it's clearly evident this is a review. To the Karen who reported it, suck it. Furthermore, Goodreads directed me to their review guidelines, which I combed over and nowhere on there does it state a limit for quotations that infringe copyright. Nice job, Goodreads.
Update 12/30/12
Readers, please note that this is a negative review and contains negative elements, namely because I despised the book. I have gotten a lot of negative feedback from readers telling me their opinion and what I should or should not write in the review. Please note that I am not going to change a word of this review, and further repetitive comments WILL be deleted, since they all seem to be from the same people, or at least, focused on the same point. I encourage readers who are unhappy with this review to STOP READING, because your telling me what I should or should not write doesn't work -- just as my telling you what to think wouldn't work.
Furthermore, if you don't agree, then please write your own review. There, you can write all your own opinions without having to deal with me.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. WOW.
This book is SO insanely horrible that I had to keep reading, because I couldn't believe that such a horrible book got such a high rating on here and amazon. My list of dislikes and problems with the book kept racking up until at 40% through, I couldn't take it anymore and just had to write a review to get my complaints off my chest. I honestly don't know how this book got such high ratings -- maybe the author has a lot of friends? I mean, there are MEN reading this book, saying they don't read romances and liking this book. WTH?!?
One thing that is for sure: a GIRL who regularly reads Regency romances would have qualms about the realism of this book, much less a man who has never read a romance novel in his life. Therefore, I believe that most of the ratings on here are FAKE and I really despise books and the authors that get their friends to increase ratings.
Why This Book Really Sucked:
(1) It reads like a fanfiction work.
Aside from the cover, I honestly don't know how it got published, because the cover makes the book look professional, AND IT ISN'T.
I understand that this is this author's first book, and as such, I am willing to make allowances. However, not when the rating has been jacked up as to fool honest readers. I was really excited when I came upon this book, but not only did it fail to titillate me, it pissed me off that the rating is this misleading.
The blurb is basically as complicated as the plot gets. The story is just Marianne explaining things to the author about her family, her sibling rivalry with her sister, etc., etc. There are entire chapters where Marianne tells us of her sibling rivalry and her father leaving the family, stories that must be explained more than once.
Furthermore, the scenes where Marianne and Philip have a heart-to-heart conversation and he asks her questions about herself. This would seem romantic if his in-depth questions didn't come out of nowhere, sort of as though the author thought to herself, "okay, enough joking around, now they have to get down to business with some serious soul-sharing." That's about how sudden the conversation shifts from "teasing" to "concern" and then, just as suddenly, to "sudden tears" because "his words pierced her heart so suddenly and so sharply." Exhausting! Not from the in-depth conversations, but just trying to keep track of their sudden emotional changes.
(2) The writing is abysmally juvenile, with inexplicable overreactions to minor things, and endless descriptions.
There are FAR too many descriptions of facial expressions in too little a span of time. We see one scene in which the hero, Philip, has a teasing expression, has a cold and angry expression, is smiling innocently, has a longing look in his eyes -- good grief, can the author stop spelling everything out for the reader? If he longs for the girl, we can understand it from his actions. WE DON'T NEED TO BE PUMMELLED OVER THE HEAD.
The actions of the characters are BIZARRE, as they switch emotions suddenly, as if all the characters have multiple personality syndrome. I don't know if the author was trying to simulate what she thinks was the proper etiquette of the time period, but the scene ends up making no sense at all, with everyone in the scene overreacting to what honestly doesn't seem like much of anything.
Example:
(In one scene at the dinner table on Marianne's first night at Edenbrooke, Philip tricks Marianne into promising to sing for them by suggesting it to his mom. Marianne is terrified because apparently she is a terrible singer and there was some incident at the beginning of the book that has not been explained (and in which I have pretty much lost interest) and her grandmother has also extracted a promise from her never to sing in public.)
This was not a joke, and I was going to humiliate myself in front of all these nice people. It was inevitable. There was a reason Grandmother had warned me not to sing. (But WHAT? WHAT'S THE REASON?? It is never explained.)
The following has been edited so that only Philip's reaction is quoted:
Terror seized me. I looked at Philip in mute appeal. His lips twitched, then quivered, then his shoulders shook. I glared at him as he gave up the fight, leaned back in his chair, and laughed out loud. Odious man!
“What is wrong?” Philip’s voice was low, and his brow knit with concern.
...
Philip was still watching me. Luckily, no one else seemed to be paying attention. “You’re a terrible liar. What is it?”
...
Philip said in a shaky voice, “I’m afraid we have effectively terrified Miss Daventry. She may run away tonight and never come back.”
Lady Caroline’s brow wrinkled in consternation. “Philip, please explain yourself.”
I was surprised at how stern her voice could sound.
...
I glanced at Philip and noticed his jaw was clenched and his cheeks ruddy. How humiliating to be so scolded in front of a guest. A small bloom of compassion unfolded within me.
See this scene? It's bizarre and overloaded with emotions and expression. In one swift scene, Philip is teasing, concerned, shaky (with what? laughter? unease? it's not explained), chagrined, jaw clenched. I don't understand the need for all this excessive emotion (and in a Regency novel!! Inexplicable!) and frankly, Philip comes off seeming like a psychopath to me. Furthermore, was there the need for Lady Caroline to rip into him like that? With people gasping and looking stunned? I mean, it doesn't even rate as a faux pas. There are exactly 5 people at the dinner table, four of which are family members. You might have concluded that somebody had confessed to necrophilia. But it wasn't anything at all! It was a joke! But you would never know it from the narrative.
The book is littered with excessive descriptions that spoil the entire plot. "I frantically looked away," "she tore her gaze away," cringing and swallowing convulsively and sighing -- this is all from the first chapter, fyi, and by the same character, AND accompanying every single statement she contributes to the conversation.
(3) The characters are unlikable.
Frankly, I hate Marianne, but all the other characters are similarly annoying.
Marianne, our heroine, is supposed to be a free spirit and loves the country and loves twirling. We know she loves twirling because this is mentioned in every single chapter, but specifically the first chapter, in which twirling is mentioned every other page. We know she loves twirling because she cannot stand outside without wanting to twirl. We know she can't see a tree without wanting to twirl. We further know she loves twirling because her grandmother had to WARN her under penalty of withdrawing her inheritance NOT to twirl. WHAT is going on. Do we have a heroine who has twirling spasms? I may enjoy twirling on occasion but I DON'T have a problem with spontaneous twirling in public or on tables or in the middle of the road or at funeral processions. Readers understand twirling. What they fail to get is someone who apparently twirls herself into trouble -- literally! Marianne actually FALLS into a river at one point because of her twirling problem!! This is insane and not normal at all!
Furthermore, in the very first chapter, we see a nice (if not particularly prepossessing) individual come to see Marianne, having dedicated a poem to her blue eyes. While on occasion, I think all girls understand being badgered by a male in whom she has no interest, we DON'T want to see a supposedly kind, nice girl make fun of this man in the very first chapter (the first few pages!) and talk about how ridiculous he was and that "of all his repulsive features, it was his mouth that held my horrified fascination. When he spoke, his lips flapped about so as to create a film of saliva that coated the edges of his lips and pooled in the corners of his mouth," and going on to poke fun at his poetry in a way that he didn't understand but which made Marianne laugh secretly. Is this a nice girl? NO, it is not. I would understand and think it a great beginning if Marianne were described to be spiteful (but later she changed) or something of that sort. But she's not! Then her aunt appears, and she describes her aunt as "having more hair than wit." Couldn't we, the reader, figure this out from the actions of the characters rather than be told by the nice person who's supposed to be our heroine??
So in the beginning of the book, she supposedly has a great relationship where she misses her sister, the more beautiful, charming sister who loves town life, Cecily. There is then at around 39% where she recounts the history of her relationship with her sister, beginning with a doll claimed by Cecily because she's the older twin:
So when it was my turn to hold the doll, I claimed that I didn’t want to touch the ugly thing. No matter how much Cecily held and caressed the doll and talked about how pretty it was, I remained stoically insistent that I did not want to touch it. And I never did. Eleven years passed and I never once touched that doll, not even to feel her hair. A maid once put it on my bed by mistake, but even then I did not touch it. I put a handkerchief over my hand and picked up the doll by the foot and flung it onto Cecily’s bed.
So Marianne NEVER touched the doll for 11 years, just because Cecily claimed it first? Cecily claimed the doll when they were 6, so, until the age of 17, she refused to pick up the doll? That's a bit extreme right? And furthermore, why would the doll matter anymore to a GROWN PERSON? And this is the only reason she didn't want to be an elegant lady?
And that's not getting into the grandmother, who writes a lovely letter, saying:
Dear Marianne,
I imagine you have already started scampering around the countryside like some farmer’s brat, so I am writing to remind you of the conditions of your visit. You are to learn all you can from the Wyndhams about how to behave like an elegant young lady. Write to me and tell me what you are learning. ... Do not disappoint me.
First of all, what an endearing letter to receive from a beloved grandmother. And how reasonable the request is, to send someone away (not to a school, but to a stranger's household!) and expect them to return an elegant young lady. And how was she supposed to learn this from the household, when THERE ARE NO YOUNG LADIES IN ATTENDANCE??? There is Philip's mom, a widow, his aunt -- and that's it!
Philip is so overset with emotional descriptions that he comes off, again, as a psychopath.
(4) The characters are dumb and their actions are, again, bizarre and irrational. The author makes the assumption that the reader cannot infer things from small descriptions alone.
At the beginning of the book, Marianne is attacked on the way to Edenbrooke by a highway robber (basically the only exciting thing to happen in the first half of the book). When she and her maid manages to get to a nearby inn, she tries to solicit help from Philip, who doesn't want to help. The next day, Philip has done a total about-face, probably because she denounced his lack of gentlemanly essence (this comment is one that apparently must be apologized over and discussed at length in following chapters) and asks to help with the shot coachman. She refuses his help, naturally. They introduce themselves (well, she does). He mysteriously refuses to say who he is. In fact, when she makes further inquiries, she happens to find that NOBODY will tell her who he is, even the nurse that happens to show up the next day to care for the coachman. Marianne has NO IDEA who could have hired the nurse and cannot figure it out, even though [HINT!] she ARGUED with a man named Philip the night before about his wanting to help. She thinks about this at LONG and HARD LENGTH because the nurse won't say who hired her, so she is absolutely befuddled about this mysterious benefactor -- who? who could it be? could it be the gentleman she insulted to the degree that she offended his honor? But no, she can't figure it out at ALL. Then a new coach with a coachman shows up to drive Marianne and her maid to their destination, this coachman with instructions, apparently to ABDUCT Marianne forcefully into the coach if she were to refuse this sudden charity. The coachman also does not reveal who hires him, so Marianne STILL does not know. But she fumes a bit and then gets into the carriage (WHY? WHY would you do such a thing if you don't know who hired the coachman??? You were just ROBBED last night, you fool!!).
Eventually, they make their way to Edenbrooke, and she wants to explore the place right away, so goes out and falls into the river twice (because of the twirling, see?) and then encounters Philip, who is, surprise, surprise, in residence.
But see, there is no REASON for Philip to dissemble about his identity! Nothing huge happens between her getting robbed and the next day arriving at Edenbrooke that would even justify him withholding his identity! It makes no SENSE, you see?
(5) There's no history or scene setting to let people know of the relevant time period.
As far as the story reads, it feels like the author saw (and maybe read) Pride and Prejudice and...that's it. Or she might have just read a blurb about Pride and Prejudice. Or she might have seen the DVD cover of the movie version.
I know that most historical fiction (set in the Regency period) are fairly inaccurate and take a lot of license with dialogue, clothing, etc. But you expect it from bodice-ripper books. Not one that's supposedly hailed as being so authentic.
The man calls her Marianne right from the beginning! How's that for accuracy? And they take meals together, alone?? And he goes and fetches the food by himself? Isn't this supposed to be a huge estate? Where are the servants?
See how much I can complain about even though I have only gotten as far as 40% in? Imagine how much I can say if I made it all the way through! That's if I do -- maybe I will, in order to complain some more.
Review 11/20/12