What do you think?
Rate this book
Open Seat
In a town where information is currency, the safest thing Maddy Caldwell can do is keep her heart out of the negotiation.
Maddy learned the hard way what happens when you let someone into your personal life and your professional one at the same time, and the rule she built from that lesson has carried her all the way to press secretary for the Governor of Missouri. The night before she starts, a stranger rescues her from the ex who taught her that lesson and gives her thirty minutes of conversation that feel dangerously easy before he disappears into the dark.
She tells herself she'll never see him again, and she's wrong in the worst possible way. Because when the legislative session opens, Nate Ridgeway is sitting across the negotiating table as chief of staff to the Speaker of the House. Now the Governor's signature education bill is caught between their two offices and Maddy's career is riding on the outcome.
Nate is direct in a building full of performers. He's the same person in every room and Maddy keeps waiting for him to reveal the calculating operative underneath, because in her experience the ones who seem safest are the ones who cost you the most. But in the Missouri State Capitol, everyone is watching, every alliance has a price, and the higher the bill's stakes climb, the more Maddy has to decide whether the one rule she made for herself is protecting her or just keeping her alone.
In politics, the open seat is the one everyone wants. He only wants the one next to her.
Maddy learned the hard way what happens when you let someone into your personal life and your professional one at the same time, and the rule she built from that lesson has carried her all the way to press secretary for the Governor of Missouri. The night before she starts, a stranger rescues her from the ex who taught her that lesson and gives her thirty minutes of conversation that feel dangerously easy before he disappears into the dark.
She tells herself she'll never see him again, and she's wrong in the worst possible way. Because when the legislative session opens, Nate Ridgeway is sitting across the negotiating table as chief of staff to the Speaker of the House. Now the Governor's signature education bill is caught between their two offices and Maddy's career is riding on the outcome.
Nate is direct in a building full of performers. He's the same person in every room and Maddy keeps waiting for him to reveal the calculating operative underneath, because in her experience the ones who seem safest are the ones who cost you the most. But in the Missouri State Capitol, everyone is watching, every alliance has a price, and the higher the bill's stakes climb, the more Maddy has to decide whether the one rule she made for herself is protecting her or just keeping her alone.
In politics, the open seat is the one everyone wants. He only wants the one next to her.
308 pages, Paperback
Published October 13, 2026
About the author
Erica Choinka
1 book65 followersErica Choinka has spent nearly a decade working in politics and still has a front-row seat to the negotiations, the closed-door conversations, and everything that happens between the headlines. She writes the romance version of the world she knows best, and her books promise sharp banter, slow-burn tension, and love stories where the stakes are just as high as the vote count. She lives in Missouri with her two kids and her husband.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 211 reviews
October 13, 2026
Shockingly bad
I found this author on TikTok as marketed from woman who described herself as a republican who wanted nothing to do with closed minded people who wouldn’t read a book from an author based on political ideologies. I will say that Erica, your book is not bad because you are a republican. Your book is bad because the characters are so unbelievably god damn boring yet somehow annoying at the same time. Do you know how hard you have to work to make a character be both of those things??? If you would like to read the love story about two bland blonde bitches who have never had a hardship in their life and probably never will, this is for you!!!
I found this author on TikTok as marketed from woman who described herself as a republican who wanted nothing to do with closed minded people who wouldn’t read a book from an author based on political ideologies. I will say that Erica, your book is not bad because you are a republican. Your book is bad because the characters are so unbelievably god damn boring yet somehow annoying at the same time. Do you know how hard you have to work to make a character be both of those things??? If you would like to read the love story about two bland blonde bitches who have never had a hardship in their life and probably never will, this is for you!!!
October 18, 2026
Wow.
I read this so you don’t have to. I figured if I’m going to talk ish I should at least know WHAT I’m talking about.
And it was so much worse than I could have imagined…
Not only is it racist (why is the villian the only POC w/ the last name Diaz??), it’s casually fat phobic and sooooo incredibly boring.
It’s also genuinely one of the most poorly written books I’ve ever read.
Nate and Maddy had zero chemistry and it seemed like the author was trying to please the Christian closed door readers while also trying to be sexy? And all it resulted in was a lot of “good girls” and teeth licking. Ick.
I read this so you don’t have to. I figured if I’m going to talk ish I should at least know WHAT I’m talking about.
And it was so much worse than I could have imagined…
Not only is it racist (why is the villian the only POC w/ the last name Diaz??), it’s casually fat phobic and sooooo incredibly boring.
It’s also genuinely one of the most poorly written books I’ve ever read.
Nate and Maddy had zero chemistry and it seemed like the author was trying to please the Christian closed door readers while also trying to be sexy? And all it resulted in was a lot of “good girls” and teeth licking. Ick.
Read
October 13, 2026Horrible , wouldn't recommend
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
Horrible writing. I’ve read better stories on the back of public toilet doors.
October 18, 2026
I don’t know why I have such low tolerance for prose now, but this book frustrated me so much that it was difficult for me to focus on the story. Not because of politics, or republicans or whatever nonsense that happened on social media.
IT’S THE WRITING STYLE.
If you think my review is too long and “you don’t want to read all of that,” keep in mind that 80 percent of this review is the author’s OWN writing. I’m providing examples to demonstrate why I have the opinions I do, which ironically, this book doesn’t really do. It’s not me writing endless paragraphs of stilted dialogue. That’s straight from the novel.
It’s also sinister to frame criticism as not agreeing with the political message of the book and that we’re “bigoted against republicans.”
If I can’t even understand the political message of the book because of confusing paragraphs, HOW WILL THE MESSAGE EVER REACH ME?
Also what I find funny after reading the book twice is that it doesn’t feel as if we’re expected to think critically about anything. It’s clear as day the writing wants us to agree with no pushback. It’s kind of hard to expect readers to be open-minded when the characters are close-minded themselves and don’t take other perspectives into consideration. Maddy literally had to be reminded by Nate that hey other people besides you exist. Maybe factor that in kay thanks. And there’s no growth or character arc. There could have been a compelling one. But going from pushing people away to allowing them in is so cliche and boring to read. You have politics as a premise and you chose that!? Boooo. What was the point of all of that overstuffed political jargon if you weren’t even going to build an arc around it?
Here’s an excerpt from the novel:
“Bethany’s phone buzzed, and with the others distracted, Nate angled his body toward me. “Let’s see. You’re not nervous about the job, you’re confident, and I’m sure plenty capable. Whatever’s got you hesitating, it isn’t nerves,” he observed. “So, Maddy, what’s the part you’re not saying out loud?” “You’ve known me for twenty minutes.” “And I’ve mostly figured you out already. Imagine what I could do to you with a whole hour.”
Please someone explain to me: how is this good writing? Genuinely. It doesn’t read as banter to me because… seriously who talks like this? It doesn’t read as quirky or fun. All I feel is frustration because the writing is treating me like a child who needs to be told EXACTLY what to think. I’m not allowed to have my own interpretation, opinions, or any original thought.
For a book that prides itself on representing republicans in publishing, that’s… certainly a choice.
Another:
“Seth was slumped in his chair at the far end of the conference table, dark circles carved so deep under his eyes they looked permanent. Cindy, seated across from him, had fared slightly better. Her hair was pulled back into what I could only assume at the start of the day was something of an intentional updo but had since surrendered to the circumstances. But the chaotic stack of marked-up drafts fanned out in front of them told the real story. The whiteboard behind them was covered wall to wall in bullet points, crossed-out phrases, and what appeared to be a very aggressive argument between two different colored markers. Even with Governor Sullivan’s final State of the State address only a couple weeks away, it was obvious we were still figuring out what he wanted to say. The bulk of the edits and revisions had fallen on our speechwriting staff, but I’d helped some with the education section to make sure the vision he was casting aligned with our legislative priorities. I’d read through it twice already this morning and both times landed in the same place. It was…fine. Technically accurate, moderately inspiring, the kind of speech that would read well on a teleprompter but mean nothing to anyone actually sitting in a classroom. I pulled the latest draft toward me and started reading it again. William Sullivan has had an impressive career in Missouri politics. He had spent eight years as a state senator from Springfield, then four as lieutenant governor, and the last eight pouring every remaining drop of himself into his job as governor. This speech was supposed to be a celebration of that: Twenty years of public service distilled into forty minutes. But it was also the first time anyone would hear about the education bill he’d spent his entire career building toward and was now running out of time to pass. The thing all of us knew but were too afraid to admit out loud was that if it didn’t happen this session, it wouldn’t happen at all. Not under Governor Sullivan, and probably not under whoever came after him either, because no one else was willing to spend real political capital on something like this. Nothing actually moves in this building unless someone gets paid to push it. There were lobbyists for the teachers’ unions, lobbyists for the school boards, lobbyists for the superintendents, even lobbyists for the charter operators who wanted in, but nobody was paid to fight for the kids themselves. And for that reason, I was afraid of failing. I hadn’t admitted that out loud to anyone, not even my dad that morning. But I was. I was afraid of watching this bill die and having to go back to writing press releases about ribbon cuttings, knowing I’d had a real chance to fix something and it had slipped past me. I was afraid that because of my inability, kids looking for a way out of the system they were stuck in would have to keep waiting for a chance that would never come. I was afraid, specifically, of driving home to Columbia, Missouri someday and sitting across from my dad at our kitchen table to tell him that I’d had the chance he never got and hadn’t been enough to use it right. “Why is the education section still not done? Isn’t that the crowning jewel of the entire speech?” asked Thomas as he entered the room. His black hair was sprinkled with gray, though I would assume those came more from the stress of his job than from age. His eyes were sharp and assessing, and he had a way of scanning a room that made you want to ensure everything was in order before his eyes landed on you.”
Bro seriously. That long ass paragraph.
LET ME THINK FOR MYSELF. I BEG YOU.
I was so frustrated because over and over again I was hit with long paragraphs like this.
AND AGAIN:
“Not a fan? Maddy, he’s been our biggest obstacle for years on this. He’s never supported a school choice bill in his life, not a voucher program to fund private school tuition or even a public school open enrollment bill to let kids simply cross district lines. It doesn’t matter how you dress it up. He votes no every time, and he’s never been quiet about why. His district is about as rural as it gets, and the public schools get nervous when you talk about another option coming in to threaten them. He’s not going to be the guy who gives his own voters a reason to think he doesn’t have their back, and as long as his district stays this rural, that’s not going to change.”
“I know, but we have to loop him in at some point. We don’t plan on going over specifics of the legislation with him quite yet, but the meeting was already scheduled as a routine beginning-of-session check-in. You know, see what he needs from us, talk about a few budget items, then we’ll briefly mention we’re working on some education legislation with Representative McAlly and that we’d like to get his buy-in once the bill is filed,” I said.
Who wants to read endless paragraphs where the MC is pushed onto us to say, “See? She’s a good person! SHE CARES ABOUT KIDS AND IS AFRAID.” And there’s hardly any scene settings, very little world-building which I find odd since this is a political book where the majority of readers have never worked as a political staffer. Talking about bills like this is NOT effective world-building. It just leaves everyone confused because we have no idea what is happening and how it works. Plus, it’s a slog to get through. Do you think I like writing 1000+ word reviews? Because I don’t.
It’s so funny how we’re expected to just
know things one moment but then be talked down to and told what to believe in another moment. I don’t think the author did a very good job remembering they have an audience that doesn’t share their exact occupation and mindset. I’ll illustrate this below.
More:
“I smiled at our agreement. Usually, I was better about watching my tongue around new people. But something about Nate’s presence loosened my lips.”
So… you don't watch your tongue because...???? This is what I mean when I say the romance is not believable. Especially for a political staffer!!! Your job is to watch your tongue. 😭
“Actually I’m going to be honest, I disagree with her on pretty much every policy issue she has. The environmental regulations she proposed last year would have forced every corporation out of our state.”
Okay? That's supposed to be a bad thing because…?
See I hate when books do this. They expect me to agree it's bad just because they said so. The character stops feeling like someone we're observing and starts feeling like someone we're being instructed to agree with or else we’re BAD people.
“And don’t get me started on her insane anti-school-choice initiatives. I swear she’d be perfectly fine with every student in this state graduating with a fourth-grade reading level, as long as they did it from a traditional public school,” I added.
Nate’s eyebrows had shot up slightly at my confession. “What anti-school-choice…” He trailed off, unable to finish his questions as the alarm on his phone started sounding.
Had thirty minutes already gone by that quickly? It felt like we had just started talking.“
I understand this is a political novel, but this is a bizarre conversation. Such a lazy way to write, in my opinion. Hide all the exposition as banter! Problem solved. :) Then, when it's about to get interesting, just cut it off. :)
I think this would have been better if Maddy would have shown why SHE’s passionate about what she believes in instead of being vague about political stances she disagrees with. I genuinely have no idea why corporations leaving would be a bad thing if it has to do with the environment. It’s not relevant to the plot, so that’s why I think it’s better to delete it and just focus on Maddy’s beliefs. It’s hard to connect to a character who is just characterized by her dislikes instead of her passions. There can be 7000 reasons why she disagrees. So SHOW ME WHAT SHE BELIEVES IN.
This was the opening:
“Maybe I should get a cat. I mean sure, I sort of hate cats. But I might be able to tolerate the four-legged snob if it were mine.”
The opening made me cringe but I read further. Maybe it’s leading to something:
“God, am I really that desperate not to go home to an empty apartment?
There’s a cheated sense of silence that settles into an empty apartment the night before something big. It’s the kind of quiet that has less to do with the size of the day coming and more to do with the absence of someone to share it with. I’ve learned over the last couple of years that the surest way to outrun that quiet was to go sit somewhere that already had its own noise brewing.”
I had to read this section three times to make sure I wasn’t going crazy. This feels like two different books. The snarky narrator turns into… a literary narrator? And not even a good one. What was the point of using “empty apartment” twice? Cheated silence? Are we owed companionship or something?
Also, why did we need this? Couldn’t we have just started at the bar and have her look at other people and think, “I wish I had that.” It would have been much stronger.
I picked different paragraphs to show how disjointed the narrative feels to read. I have such a big headache, and I haven’t even begun to discuss how I couldn’t connect with Maddy because she has a savior complex. Giving her one doesn’t make her automatically good. It just makes her annoying.
“I care about children.” Do you, Maddy? So why did Nate have to remind you that rural schools closing will harm some children?
See this would have been such a good growth moment for Maddy. As of now, I see her as self-centered, like she only references children to look good and pure. Imagine if she learned how that’s harmful and she needs to work on herself??? How GENUINE empathy is seriously learning about people who are completely different from you and understanding they are not YOU? That YOUR EXPERIENCES AND WHAT HELPED YOU IS NOT UNIVERSAL. Nope. Her growth moment is… pushing Nate away and realizing that it’s wrong. Awesome. But it’s not surprising given how the writing just assumes you are the author. You have to think things are bad because they said so. You must know what political terms are without any context. You must automatically think Maddy is good because she fights for children.
I would have given this book five stars if Maddy would have quit politics because she realizes that she struggles to understand other perspectives, so she’s going back to school to become more open-minded and Nate goes along with her. Two students who want to grow and change as people and love each other. She becomes a teacher like her dad and helps students achieve academic success that way because she realizes it’s harmful to just change children’s lives without consulting them first. So she goes to the root of the problem and helps rebuild from the ground up.
But nah.
Overall, I was disappointed and struggled to get through this slog, the romance was too fast and unbelievable, and if I have to read one more gigantic paragraph of stifled dialogue, I’m drafting a bill to permanently ban all books until we figure out what’s going on.
IT’S THE WRITING STYLE.
If you think my review is too long and “you don’t want to read all of that,” keep in mind that 80 percent of this review is the author’s OWN writing. I’m providing examples to demonstrate why I have the opinions I do, which ironically, this book doesn’t really do. It’s not me writing endless paragraphs of stilted dialogue. That’s straight from the novel.
It’s also sinister to frame criticism as not agreeing with the political message of the book and that we’re “bigoted against republicans.”
If I can’t even understand the political message of the book because of confusing paragraphs, HOW WILL THE MESSAGE EVER REACH ME?
Also what I find funny after reading the book twice is that it doesn’t feel as if we’re expected to think critically about anything. It’s clear as day the writing wants us to agree with no pushback. It’s kind of hard to expect readers to be open-minded when the characters are close-minded themselves and don’t take other perspectives into consideration. Maddy literally had to be reminded by Nate that hey other people besides you exist. Maybe factor that in kay thanks. And there’s no growth or character arc. There could have been a compelling one. But going from pushing people away to allowing them in is so cliche and boring to read. You have politics as a premise and you chose that!? Boooo. What was the point of all of that overstuffed political jargon if you weren’t even going to build an arc around it?
Here’s an excerpt from the novel:
“Bethany’s phone buzzed, and with the others distracted, Nate angled his body toward me. “Let’s see. You’re not nervous about the job, you’re confident, and I’m sure plenty capable. Whatever’s got you hesitating, it isn’t nerves,” he observed. “So, Maddy, what’s the part you’re not saying out loud?” “You’ve known me for twenty minutes.” “And I’ve mostly figured you out already. Imagine what I could do to you with a whole hour.”
Please someone explain to me: how is this good writing? Genuinely. It doesn’t read as banter to me because… seriously who talks like this? It doesn’t read as quirky or fun. All I feel is frustration because the writing is treating me like a child who needs to be told EXACTLY what to think. I’m not allowed to have my own interpretation, opinions, or any original thought.
For a book that prides itself on representing republicans in publishing, that’s… certainly a choice.
Another:
“Seth was slumped in his chair at the far end of the conference table, dark circles carved so deep under his eyes they looked permanent. Cindy, seated across from him, had fared slightly better. Her hair was pulled back into what I could only assume at the start of the day was something of an intentional updo but had since surrendered to the circumstances. But the chaotic stack of marked-up drafts fanned out in front of them told the real story. The whiteboard behind them was covered wall to wall in bullet points, crossed-out phrases, and what appeared to be a very aggressive argument between two different colored markers. Even with Governor Sullivan’s final State of the State address only a couple weeks away, it was obvious we were still figuring out what he wanted to say. The bulk of the edits and revisions had fallen on our speechwriting staff, but I’d helped some with the education section to make sure the vision he was casting aligned with our legislative priorities. I’d read through it twice already this morning and both times landed in the same place. It was…fine. Technically accurate, moderately inspiring, the kind of speech that would read well on a teleprompter but mean nothing to anyone actually sitting in a classroom. I pulled the latest draft toward me and started reading it again. William Sullivan has had an impressive career in Missouri politics. He had spent eight years as a state senator from Springfield, then four as lieutenant governor, and the last eight pouring every remaining drop of himself into his job as governor. This speech was supposed to be a celebration of that: Twenty years of public service distilled into forty minutes. But it was also the first time anyone would hear about the education bill he’d spent his entire career building toward and was now running out of time to pass. The thing all of us knew but were too afraid to admit out loud was that if it didn’t happen this session, it wouldn’t happen at all. Not under Governor Sullivan, and probably not under whoever came after him either, because no one else was willing to spend real political capital on something like this. Nothing actually moves in this building unless someone gets paid to push it. There were lobbyists for the teachers’ unions, lobbyists for the school boards, lobbyists for the superintendents, even lobbyists for the charter operators who wanted in, but nobody was paid to fight for the kids themselves. And for that reason, I was afraid of failing. I hadn’t admitted that out loud to anyone, not even my dad that morning. But I was. I was afraid of watching this bill die and having to go back to writing press releases about ribbon cuttings, knowing I’d had a real chance to fix something and it had slipped past me. I was afraid that because of my inability, kids looking for a way out of the system they were stuck in would have to keep waiting for a chance that would never come. I was afraid, specifically, of driving home to Columbia, Missouri someday and sitting across from my dad at our kitchen table to tell him that I’d had the chance he never got and hadn’t been enough to use it right. “Why is the education section still not done? Isn’t that the crowning jewel of the entire speech?” asked Thomas as he entered the room. His black hair was sprinkled with gray, though I would assume those came more from the stress of his job than from age. His eyes were sharp and assessing, and he had a way of scanning a room that made you want to ensure everything was in order before his eyes landed on you.”
Bro seriously. That long ass paragraph.
LET ME THINK FOR MYSELF. I BEG YOU.
I was so frustrated because over and over again I was hit with long paragraphs like this.
AND AGAIN:
“Not a fan? Maddy, he’s been our biggest obstacle for years on this. He’s never supported a school choice bill in his life, not a voucher program to fund private school tuition or even a public school open enrollment bill to let kids simply cross district lines. It doesn’t matter how you dress it up. He votes no every time, and he’s never been quiet about why. His district is about as rural as it gets, and the public schools get nervous when you talk about another option coming in to threaten them. He’s not going to be the guy who gives his own voters a reason to think he doesn’t have their back, and as long as his district stays this rural, that’s not going to change.”
“I know, but we have to loop him in at some point. We don’t plan on going over specifics of the legislation with him quite yet, but the meeting was already scheduled as a routine beginning-of-session check-in. You know, see what he needs from us, talk about a few budget items, then we’ll briefly mention we’re working on some education legislation with Representative McAlly and that we’d like to get his buy-in once the bill is filed,” I said.
Who wants to read endless paragraphs where the MC is pushed onto us to say, “See? She’s a good person! SHE CARES ABOUT KIDS AND IS AFRAID.” And there’s hardly any scene settings, very little world-building which I find odd since this is a political book where the majority of readers have never worked as a political staffer. Talking about bills like this is NOT effective world-building. It just leaves everyone confused because we have no idea what is happening and how it works. Plus, it’s a slog to get through. Do you think I like writing 1000+ word reviews? Because I don’t.
It’s so funny how we’re expected to just
know things one moment but then be talked down to and told what to believe in another moment. I don’t think the author did a very good job remembering they have an audience that doesn’t share their exact occupation and mindset. I’ll illustrate this below.
More:
“I smiled at our agreement. Usually, I was better about watching my tongue around new people. But something about Nate’s presence loosened my lips.”
So… you don't watch your tongue because...???? This is what I mean when I say the romance is not believable. Especially for a political staffer!!! Your job is to watch your tongue. 😭
“Actually I’m going to be honest, I disagree with her on pretty much every policy issue she has. The environmental regulations she proposed last year would have forced every corporation out of our state.”
Okay? That's supposed to be a bad thing because…?
See I hate when books do this. They expect me to agree it's bad just because they said so. The character stops feeling like someone we're observing and starts feeling like someone we're being instructed to agree with or else we’re BAD people.
“And don’t get me started on her insane anti-school-choice initiatives. I swear she’d be perfectly fine with every student in this state graduating with a fourth-grade reading level, as long as they did it from a traditional public school,” I added.
Nate’s eyebrows had shot up slightly at my confession. “What anti-school-choice…” He trailed off, unable to finish his questions as the alarm on his phone started sounding.
Had thirty minutes already gone by that quickly? It felt like we had just started talking.“
I understand this is a political novel, but this is a bizarre conversation. Such a lazy way to write, in my opinion. Hide all the exposition as banter! Problem solved. :) Then, when it's about to get interesting, just cut it off. :)
I think this would have been better if Maddy would have shown why SHE’s passionate about what she believes in instead of being vague about political stances she disagrees with. I genuinely have no idea why corporations leaving would be a bad thing if it has to do with the environment. It’s not relevant to the plot, so that’s why I think it’s better to delete it and just focus on Maddy’s beliefs. It’s hard to connect to a character who is just characterized by her dislikes instead of her passions. There can be 7000 reasons why she disagrees. So SHOW ME WHAT SHE BELIEVES IN.
This was the opening:
“Maybe I should get a cat. I mean sure, I sort of hate cats. But I might be able to tolerate the four-legged snob if it were mine.”
The opening made me cringe but I read further. Maybe it’s leading to something:
“God, am I really that desperate not to go home to an empty apartment?
There’s a cheated sense of silence that settles into an empty apartment the night before something big. It’s the kind of quiet that has less to do with the size of the day coming and more to do with the absence of someone to share it with. I’ve learned over the last couple of years that the surest way to outrun that quiet was to go sit somewhere that already had its own noise brewing.”
I had to read this section three times to make sure I wasn’t going crazy. This feels like two different books. The snarky narrator turns into… a literary narrator? And not even a good one. What was the point of using “empty apartment” twice? Cheated silence? Are we owed companionship or something?
Also, why did we need this? Couldn’t we have just started at the bar and have her look at other people and think, “I wish I had that.” It would have been much stronger.
I picked different paragraphs to show how disjointed the narrative feels to read. I have such a big headache, and I haven’t even begun to discuss how I couldn’t connect with Maddy because she has a savior complex. Giving her one doesn’t make her automatically good. It just makes her annoying.
“I care about children.” Do you, Maddy? So why did Nate have to remind you that rural schools closing will harm some children?
See this would have been such a good growth moment for Maddy. As of now, I see her as self-centered, like she only references children to look good and pure. Imagine if she learned how that’s harmful and she needs to work on herself??? How GENUINE empathy is seriously learning about people who are completely different from you and understanding they are not YOU? That YOUR EXPERIENCES AND WHAT HELPED YOU IS NOT UNIVERSAL. Nope. Her growth moment is… pushing Nate away and realizing that it’s wrong. Awesome. But it’s not surprising given how the writing just assumes you are the author. You have to think things are bad because they said so. You must know what political terms are without any context. You must automatically think Maddy is good because she fights for children.
I would have given this book five stars if Maddy would have quit politics because she realizes that she struggles to understand other perspectives, so she’s going back to school to become more open-minded and Nate goes along with her. Two students who want to grow and change as people and love each other. She becomes a teacher like her dad and helps students achieve academic success that way because she realizes it’s harmful to just change children’s lives without consulting them first. So she goes to the root of the problem and helps rebuild from the ground up.
But nah.
Overall, I was disappointed and struggled to get through this slog, the romance was too fast and unbelievable, and if I have to read one more gigantic paragraph of stifled dialogue, I’m drafting a bill to permanently ban all books until we figure out what’s going on.
October 14, 2026
DNF.
Couldn’t make it past the first chapter. The character’s narration read as juvenile, despite being 27.
The past-tense also kept changing between the simple past, continuous past, and past perfect tenses in ways that weren’t cohesive with the narrative and scene being shown.
Couldn’t make it past the first chapter. The character’s narration read as juvenile, despite being 27.
The past-tense also kept changing between the simple past, continuous past, and past perfect tenses in ways that weren’t cohesive with the narrative and scene being shown.
Review of advance copy received from Author
Pass! It reads like a bigots manual.
August 30, 2026
Thank you to the author Erica Choinka for the ARC!!
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
I found Erica Choinka on TikTok, and I am SO glad I did because Open Seat is GOLD! 🥹❤️
A political romance isn’t usually the first thing I reach for, but this one completely pulled me in. The perfect mix of politics, tension, romance, and two people trying to figure out where they stand when their careers are constantly putting them on opposite sides.
Maddy and Nate’s chemistry was EVERYTHING. I loved watching their relationship develop, especially with all the professional stakes and secrets swirling around them. Nate was such a refreshing character that is direct, genuine, and exactly the kind of man Maddy needed even when she wasn’t ready to admit it.
And can we talk about the fact that this is a DEBUT NOVEL?! 👏🏼 Because Erica Choinka came out swinging! The writing, the characters, the storyline I would never have guessed this was a debut.
I love when TikTok introduces me to an author I might not have found otherwise, and this was absolutely a win. I’m officially invested and cannot wait to see what Erica writes next!
5 HUGE stars! ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Go read this one!! And if you’re a fan of political romance, workplace tension, slow-burn chemistry, and a romance that makes you want to keep turning the pages, add Open Seat to your TBR immediately! 📚💕
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
I found Erica Choinka on TikTok, and I am SO glad I did because Open Seat is GOLD! 🥹❤️
A political romance isn’t usually the first thing I reach for, but this one completely pulled me in. The perfect mix of politics, tension, romance, and two people trying to figure out where they stand when their careers are constantly putting them on opposite sides.
Maddy and Nate’s chemistry was EVERYTHING. I loved watching their relationship develop, especially with all the professional stakes and secrets swirling around them. Nate was such a refreshing character that is direct, genuine, and exactly the kind of man Maddy needed even when she wasn’t ready to admit it.
And can we talk about the fact that this is a DEBUT NOVEL?! 👏🏼 Because Erica Choinka came out swinging! The writing, the characters, the storyline I would never have guessed this was a debut.
I love when TikTok introduces me to an author I might not have found otherwise, and this was absolutely a win. I’m officially invested and cannot wait to see what Erica writes next!
5 HUGE stars! ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️
Go read this one!! And if you’re a fan of political romance, workplace tension, slow-burn chemistry, and a romance that makes you want to keep turning the pages, add Open Seat to your TBR immediately! 📚💕
October 13, 2026
Yikes, where do I even begin with this book? I approached it with an open mind, fully intending to enjoy the story, but unfortunately, the more I read, the more my enthusiasm faded. I had high hopes of experiencing something similar to the captivating dynamics of Fitz and Olivia from the show *Scandal*, but it fell flat for me.
One of the major issues I encountered was the lack of well-developed characters. They felt one-dimensional and unrelatable, making it difficult to invest emotionally in their journeys. Additionally, the dialogue often left me scratching my head. It felt awkward and confusing, failing to add depth to the characters or advance the plot effectively.
The book also has significant chronological issues. Events didn’t flow logically from one to the next, which made it challenging to follow the storyline. Overall, it lacked a sense of empathy and humanity, failing to connect with the reader on any emotional level. Given all these factors, it really seems like the story could benefit from a complete overhaul. I genuinely wish it had been more engaging because I wanted to love it!
One of the major issues I encountered was the lack of well-developed characters. They felt one-dimensional and unrelatable, making it difficult to invest emotionally in their journeys. Additionally, the dialogue often left me scratching my head. It felt awkward and confusing, failing to add depth to the characters or advance the plot effectively.
The book also has significant chronological issues. Events didn’t flow logically from one to the next, which made it challenging to follow the storyline. Overall, it lacked a sense of empathy and humanity, failing to connect with the reader on any emotional level. Given all these factors, it really seems like the story could benefit from a complete overhaul. I genuinely wish it had been more engaging because I wanted to love it!
October 18, 2026
This book sucks. For someone who says that the book is great to read so you can understand both sides, she (Erica) really made her point that Republicans suck.
Open Seat is Racist. Fatphobic. Sexist. Don’t read it if you want to be happy and avoid this slump of depression from how ass this book is.
Open Seat is Racist. Fatphobic. Sexist. Don’t read it if you want to be happy and avoid this slump of depression from how ass this book is.
Review of advance copy received from NetGalley
Was so poorly written & content was about as riveting as something on the walks of a public restroom stall that I didn't make it been far before I gave up. Author needs to find a seat at a different table, preferably one where it's not viewed by an audience
October 14, 2026
Alright, everyone. Let’s sit down and read an essay on systemic stakes versus personal stakes and why not being equipped to handle systemic stakes and conflict can lead to bad writing, in my opinion.
Essay writing in a Goodreads review. Let’s go!
My issue with this novel has nothing to do with the author’s political affiliation. My issue is with how the novel handles systemic change, character motivation, and the emotional stakes of its central conflict.
I think this book demonstrates a common pitfall in storytelling, particularly among debut authors: the assumption that bigger stakes automatically create a more compelling story or give readers a greater reason to root for the protagonist. But bigger stakes don’t necessarily create greater emotional investment. Sometimes they do the opposite, especially when the author doesn’t adequately explore the consequences of the conflict they’ve introduced.
In this book , the central conflict revolves around Maddy’s efforts to advance school choice legislation, which would fundamentally change the education system and affect countless children, families, teachers, and communities. That’s an enormous undertaking for a novel, and it introduces questions that extend far beyond Maddy’s personal journey.
My problem is that the novel seems to want readers to view this legislation as an unquestionable good simply because Maddy believes in it. We’re supposed to root for her success because she wants to help children, but the book doesn’t do enough to demonstrate why that success should be celebrated by everyone affected. that’s where the characterization begins to fall apart for me.
Maddy’s motivation for supporting school choice comes from her childhood experiences with severe bullying. Attending private school helped her, and her father worked at that school. She also doesn’t want to disappoint him. These are perfectly understandable personal motivations, but they don’t automatically justify changing an entire education system. What helped Maddy isn’t necessarily what will help every child.
What about children who experience bullying in private schools? What about children whose public schools might close? What about families who don’t have access to the same opportunities Maddy had? What about children who would be negatively affected by this legislation? Where are their voices? It’s really hard to connect to characters that are talking for them. That creates an agency and autonomy issue.
This was probably my biggest frustration with the novel. The children themselves often feel more like props in Maddy’s characterization than actual people whose lives matter independently of her ambitions.
We’re repeatedly told that Maddy cares about children and wants to help them. But saying you care about children isn’t the same as demonstrating that you understand their different needs and circumstances.
If Maddy’s entire political motivation revolves around helping children, I wanted to see her engage with the children and families who would be affected, including those who might disagree with her proposed solution. I wanted to see her acknowledge that her personal experience isn’t universal.
Instead, it often feels like Maddy believes she’s right because of what happened to her, and the narrative expects readers to accept that conviction as evidence of her goodness.
One scene in particular really bothered me: Nate has to remind Maddy that the legislation could result in rural schools closing.
Yes, the novel acknowledges this potential consequence, and the characters work toward addressing it. But the problem is that Maddy, the person advocating for this enormous systemic change, apparently hadn’t adequately considered it herself. That immediately made me question her judgment and be like wtf.
If she overlooked something as significant as school closures, what else has she overlooked? What other children might be negatively affected? What other consequences haven’t been considered?
Once those questions entered my mind, resolving the rural school issue wasn’t enough to make them disappear.
The novel also establishes that school choice faces political opposition, including from the lieutenant governor, and Nate himself raises concerns. So the story acknowledges that this is a contested issue. Yet it doesn’t meaningfully explore the full range of reasons people might oppose the legislation.
I’m not saying the author needed to make school choice look bad or convince readers to oppose it. I’m saying that if you’re going to make systemic change the central conflict of your novel, you need to adequately explore the system you’re changing and the people affected by that change.
Otherwise, you’re asking readers to celebrate an outcome without giving them sufficient narrative reasons to believe it’s a positive one. This also creates an interesting problem with Maddy’s characterization.
I read a lot. I’m accustomed to stories in which characters with traumatic childhoods develop deeply personal convictions and eventually attempt to impose those convictions on the wider world. That’s frequently the foundation of a villain’s arc.
Think about characters like Voldemort or Snape in Harry Potter. Their painful experiences help explain their motivations and behavior, but those experiences don’t automatically excuse the harm they cause others. Their personal suffering doesn’t give them the right to disregard other people’s autonomy or experiences.
I’m obviously not saying Maddy is equivalent to Voldemort or Snape. I’m saying that fiction has conditioned readers to question characters who use their personal suffering to justify decisions that affect other people’s lives.
So when Maddy’s political ambitions are rooted in her childhood trauma and her desire not to disappoint her father, but she seems insufficiently aware of how her decisions might harm other children, I don’t automatically see her as heroic. I start to find her unsettling, like “I don’t know if I fully root for you.” that’s the opposite of what I believe the author intended.
The more the narrative tells me Maddy is helping children without adequately showing me the perspectives of those children, the harder it becomes to connect with her. Eventually, I found myself rooting against her, not because she’s Republican or because I necessarily oppose her political goals, but because I wasn’t convinced she understood the consequences of what she was advocating.
A tragic backstory explains a character’s motivation. It doesn’t automatically establish that their actions are good.
This is also why I generally prefer stories where systemic change emerges from a personal journey rather than serving as the central objective. Take Monsters, Inc., for example.
Sulley’s primary objective isn’t to reform Monstropolis or fundamentally change its energy system. He just wants to get Boo home safely. That’s it. It’s a deeply personal goal with immediate emotional stakes. We want him to succeed because we care about Boo and because we see how protecting her changes him.
Through that personal journey, Sulley discovers that the system he has participated in is harmful and built on false assumptions. His experiences ultimately contribute to changing that system for the better.
But the reason we’re emotionally invested isn’t that we’re waiting to see whether Monstropolis reforms its energy infrastructure. We’re invested because we want Boo to get home. when systemic change happens, the movie has already shown us why it’s beneficial. We’ve seen the harm caused by the old system, and we’ve seen the alternative.
The same principle applies to The Lord of the Rings. Frodo’s objective is to destroy the Ring. It’s a personal journey with enormous consequences, but the narrative clearly establishes why the Ring and Sauron’s power are destructive. We understand what’s at stake, and the larger transformation follows from a journey we’re already emotionally invested in.
In both stories, systemic change is a consequence of the protagonist’s personal journey, rather than the primary reason we’re supposed to root for them. An important distinction.
In Open Seat, advancing systemic change is the central conflict. Without the school choice legislation, much of the novel’s conflict disappears. And because the policy itself is contested, the reader has to evaluate its implications to understand whether Maddy’s success is actually a good thing. This becomes particularly problematic because this is a romance.
Romance promises readers a happy ending, or at least a happy-for-now ending. But when the protagonist’s political victory is presented as part of that happy ending, the author has to consider whether readers will actually experience it as such.
Maddy gets what she wants. The legislation advances. We’re supposed to celebrate. I couldn’t.
I was still thinking about the children whose lives might be negatively affected, the schools that could close, the families who might not benefit, and the people who opposed the legislation for reasons the novel hadn’t adequately explored. Maddy might have gotten her happy ending, but what about everyone else?
That’s the problem with making systemic change the central conflict without sufficiently addressing its consequences. The protagonist’s victory doesn’t necessarily resolve the reader’s concerns.
The story may consider the conflict finished, but the reader is left wondering whether that victory has created new problems for people whose perspectives were never meaningfully represented.
That uncertainty undermines the emotional satisfaction of the ending.
I genuinely think this novel would have worked better if it had focused on Maddy’s personal journey as a Republican navigating a predominantly Democratic political environment.
There is plenty of room for compelling conflict there: professional ambition, ideological disagreements, social isolation, romantic tension, questions of belonging, and the struggle to be understood by people who don’t share your beliefs.
Those are personal stakes that could have allowed readers to connect more intimately with Maddy without requiring them to evaluate the consequences of sweeping educational reform. I think authors sometimes underestimate the power of those smaller conflicts. Smaller stakes do not mean a story is less complex, less meaningful, or less emotionally compelling and I know others agree. See the critcism against Marvel.
A deeply personal conflict can be extraordinarily nuanced. Conversely, a conflict affecting millions of people can feel surprisingly shallow if the author doesn’t meaningfully engage with its implications. Bigger stakes simply create more narrative responsibilities.
I don’t believe authors should avoid writing about systemic change. Some of my favorite stories involve systemic transformation. But systemic change requires a different narrative approach from a personal journey, particularly when the proposed change is controversial and the story itself acknowledges legitimate concerns.
An author needs to understand the questions their premise will raise in readers’ minds and do enough narrative work to make the resolution satisfying. Otherwise, the scale of the conflict can become a liability rather than a strength.
Ultimately, that’s why Open Seat didn’t work for me. I didn’t need Maddy to be perfect, and I didn’t need everyone to agree with her. I needed the novel to demonstrate that she understood the people whose lives she was trying to change, including those whose experiences differed from her own. I needed to see more than her conviction that she was doing the right thing.
Because wanting to help people and understanding how your actions will affect them are not the same thing. When a novel makes changing millions of lives its central conflict, that distinction matters enormously.
My problem isn’t that Maddy is a Republican. It’s that the novel asks me to celebrate her political victory without adequately earning that celebration.
For me, the systemic stakes overwhelmed the personal journey, weakened my connection to the protagonist, and ultimately made what was supposed to be a happy ending feel hollow.
Thank you for reading, everyone. Here’s to hoping it helped other writers understand why stakes don’t always need to be huge. Smaller stakes people can relate can be compelling even if it’s simple.
Essay writing in a Goodreads review. Let’s go!
My issue with this novel has nothing to do with the author’s political affiliation. My issue is with how the novel handles systemic change, character motivation, and the emotional stakes of its central conflict.
I think this book demonstrates a common pitfall in storytelling, particularly among debut authors: the assumption that bigger stakes automatically create a more compelling story or give readers a greater reason to root for the protagonist. But bigger stakes don’t necessarily create greater emotional investment. Sometimes they do the opposite, especially when the author doesn’t adequately explore the consequences of the conflict they’ve introduced.
In this book , the central conflict revolves around Maddy’s efforts to advance school choice legislation, which would fundamentally change the education system and affect countless children, families, teachers, and communities. That’s an enormous undertaking for a novel, and it introduces questions that extend far beyond Maddy’s personal journey.
My problem is that the novel seems to want readers to view this legislation as an unquestionable good simply because Maddy believes in it. We’re supposed to root for her success because she wants to help children, but the book doesn’t do enough to demonstrate why that success should be celebrated by everyone affected. that’s where the characterization begins to fall apart for me.
Maddy’s motivation for supporting school choice comes from her childhood experiences with severe bullying. Attending private school helped her, and her father worked at that school. She also doesn’t want to disappoint him. These are perfectly understandable personal motivations, but they don’t automatically justify changing an entire education system. What helped Maddy isn’t necessarily what will help every child.
What about children who experience bullying in private schools? What about children whose public schools might close? What about families who don’t have access to the same opportunities Maddy had? What about children who would be negatively affected by this legislation? Where are their voices? It’s really hard to connect to characters that are talking for them. That creates an agency and autonomy issue.
This was probably my biggest frustration with the novel. The children themselves often feel more like props in Maddy’s characterization than actual people whose lives matter independently of her ambitions.
We’re repeatedly told that Maddy cares about children and wants to help them. But saying you care about children isn’t the same as demonstrating that you understand their different needs and circumstances.
If Maddy’s entire political motivation revolves around helping children, I wanted to see her engage with the children and families who would be affected, including those who might disagree with her proposed solution. I wanted to see her acknowledge that her personal experience isn’t universal.
Instead, it often feels like Maddy believes she’s right because of what happened to her, and the narrative expects readers to accept that conviction as evidence of her goodness.
One scene in particular really bothered me: Nate has to remind Maddy that the legislation could result in rural schools closing.
Yes, the novel acknowledges this potential consequence, and the characters work toward addressing it. But the problem is that Maddy, the person advocating for this enormous systemic change, apparently hadn’t adequately considered it herself. That immediately made me question her judgment and be like wtf.
If she overlooked something as significant as school closures, what else has she overlooked? What other children might be negatively affected? What other consequences haven’t been considered?
Once those questions entered my mind, resolving the rural school issue wasn’t enough to make them disappear.
The novel also establishes that school choice faces political opposition, including from the lieutenant governor, and Nate himself raises concerns. So the story acknowledges that this is a contested issue. Yet it doesn’t meaningfully explore the full range of reasons people might oppose the legislation.
I’m not saying the author needed to make school choice look bad or convince readers to oppose it. I’m saying that if you’re going to make systemic change the central conflict of your novel, you need to adequately explore the system you’re changing and the people affected by that change.
Otherwise, you’re asking readers to celebrate an outcome without giving them sufficient narrative reasons to believe it’s a positive one. This also creates an interesting problem with Maddy’s characterization.
I read a lot. I’m accustomed to stories in which characters with traumatic childhoods develop deeply personal convictions and eventually attempt to impose those convictions on the wider world. That’s frequently the foundation of a villain’s arc.
Think about characters like Voldemort or Snape in Harry Potter. Their painful experiences help explain their motivations and behavior, but those experiences don’t automatically excuse the harm they cause others. Their personal suffering doesn’t give them the right to disregard other people’s autonomy or experiences.
I’m obviously not saying Maddy is equivalent to Voldemort or Snape. I’m saying that fiction has conditioned readers to question characters who use their personal suffering to justify decisions that affect other people’s lives.
So when Maddy’s political ambitions are rooted in her childhood trauma and her desire not to disappoint her father, but she seems insufficiently aware of how her decisions might harm other children, I don’t automatically see her as heroic. I start to find her unsettling, like “I don’t know if I fully root for you.” that’s the opposite of what I believe the author intended.
The more the narrative tells me Maddy is helping children without adequately showing me the perspectives of those children, the harder it becomes to connect with her. Eventually, I found myself rooting against her, not because she’s Republican or because I necessarily oppose her political goals, but because I wasn’t convinced she understood the consequences of what she was advocating.
A tragic backstory explains a character’s motivation. It doesn’t automatically establish that their actions are good.
This is also why I generally prefer stories where systemic change emerges from a personal journey rather than serving as the central objective. Take Monsters, Inc., for example.
Sulley’s primary objective isn’t to reform Monstropolis or fundamentally change its energy system. He just wants to get Boo home safely. That’s it. It’s a deeply personal goal with immediate emotional stakes. We want him to succeed because we care about Boo and because we see how protecting her changes him.
Through that personal journey, Sulley discovers that the system he has participated in is harmful and built on false assumptions. His experiences ultimately contribute to changing that system for the better.
But the reason we’re emotionally invested isn’t that we’re waiting to see whether Monstropolis reforms its energy infrastructure. We’re invested because we want Boo to get home. when systemic change happens, the movie has already shown us why it’s beneficial. We’ve seen the harm caused by the old system, and we’ve seen the alternative.
The same principle applies to The Lord of the Rings. Frodo’s objective is to destroy the Ring. It’s a personal journey with enormous consequences, but the narrative clearly establishes why the Ring and Sauron’s power are destructive. We understand what’s at stake, and the larger transformation follows from a journey we’re already emotionally invested in.
In both stories, systemic change is a consequence of the protagonist’s personal journey, rather than the primary reason we’re supposed to root for them. An important distinction.
In Open Seat, advancing systemic change is the central conflict. Without the school choice legislation, much of the novel’s conflict disappears. And because the policy itself is contested, the reader has to evaluate its implications to understand whether Maddy’s success is actually a good thing. This becomes particularly problematic because this is a romance.
Romance promises readers a happy ending, or at least a happy-for-now ending. But when the protagonist’s political victory is presented as part of that happy ending, the author has to consider whether readers will actually experience it as such.
Maddy gets what she wants. The legislation advances. We’re supposed to celebrate. I couldn’t.
I was still thinking about the children whose lives might be negatively affected, the schools that could close, the families who might not benefit, and the people who opposed the legislation for reasons the novel hadn’t adequately explored. Maddy might have gotten her happy ending, but what about everyone else?
That’s the problem with making systemic change the central conflict without sufficiently addressing its consequences. The protagonist’s victory doesn’t necessarily resolve the reader’s concerns.
The story may consider the conflict finished, but the reader is left wondering whether that victory has created new problems for people whose perspectives were never meaningfully represented.
That uncertainty undermines the emotional satisfaction of the ending.
I genuinely think this novel would have worked better if it had focused on Maddy’s personal journey as a Republican navigating a predominantly Democratic political environment.
There is plenty of room for compelling conflict there: professional ambition, ideological disagreements, social isolation, romantic tension, questions of belonging, and the struggle to be understood by people who don’t share your beliefs.
Those are personal stakes that could have allowed readers to connect more intimately with Maddy without requiring them to evaluate the consequences of sweeping educational reform. I think authors sometimes underestimate the power of those smaller conflicts. Smaller stakes do not mean a story is less complex, less meaningful, or less emotionally compelling and I know others agree. See the critcism against Marvel.
A deeply personal conflict can be extraordinarily nuanced. Conversely, a conflict affecting millions of people can feel surprisingly shallow if the author doesn’t meaningfully engage with its implications. Bigger stakes simply create more narrative responsibilities.
I don’t believe authors should avoid writing about systemic change. Some of my favorite stories involve systemic transformation. But systemic change requires a different narrative approach from a personal journey, particularly when the proposed change is controversial and the story itself acknowledges legitimate concerns.
An author needs to understand the questions their premise will raise in readers’ minds and do enough narrative work to make the resolution satisfying. Otherwise, the scale of the conflict can become a liability rather than a strength.
Ultimately, that’s why Open Seat didn’t work for me. I didn’t need Maddy to be perfect, and I didn’t need everyone to agree with her. I needed the novel to demonstrate that she understood the people whose lives she was trying to change, including those whose experiences differed from her own. I needed to see more than her conviction that she was doing the right thing.
Because wanting to help people and understanding how your actions will affect them are not the same thing. When a novel makes changing millions of lives its central conflict, that distinction matters enormously.
My problem isn’t that Maddy is a Republican. It’s that the novel asks me to celebrate her political victory without adequately earning that celebration.
For me, the systemic stakes overwhelmed the personal journey, weakened my connection to the protagonist, and ultimately made what was supposed to be a happy ending feel hollow.
Thank you for reading, everyone. Here’s to hoping it helped other writers understand why stakes don’t always need to be huge. Smaller stakes people can relate can be compelling even if it’s simple.
September 1, 2026
review of advance copy received from the author - views are my own:
there are a lot of things to like about this book. i spent a bit of time in republican politics in my own state, so i was excited about where this would go. i really appreciated the political content, the talks and negotiations, and i loved how the author made it personal for the characters. i was really pleased with the amount of character development in our two main characters. there were strong characters, a compelling story, and i loved the variety in types of scenes and locations of scenes.
that being said, i have to give a heads up about the content maturity. going into being an ARC reader i was informed that the book had some sexual references and it was described as having “spice, not smut”. it’s also being marketed as closed door. everyone is going to have different personal standards for what they choose to read and not read, but its difficult because some of these words like spice, smut, open vs closed door have different meanings to different people and there isn’t a consistent standard.
i went in thinking this was probably going to be a tad more sexual content than what i normally read but that it wouldn’t cross into open door scenes or smut. i assumed it was a few references to sexual encounters that happen off page and some high tension scenes between characters. i was kinda of shocked that from the beginning the characters are immediately giving us very descriptive thoughts about each other, using very strong language in a vulgar, sexual context, and alluding to specific body parts and their wishes with such. the sexual encounters between characters technically fade to black, but in my personal opinion, it borders very heavily on being slightly open door or being heavily suggestive of smut. it’s also heavily ingrained into nearly every encounter between the two main characters and their thoughts about each other, so it’s not like “hey there were a couple random inuendos and one page to skim over if you don’t want to read that kind of material”. i wanted to offer clarity about the actual level of spicier content for anyone who might be confused about the way that it’s marketed and is trying to decide based on their own personal standards whether or not they feel comfortable picking this book up. there are a lot of things i really loved about this book, and had it not been for the direction a lot of the vulgarity and sexual content went, i would have instantly rated it much higher. i just personally would not feel comfortable recommending this book to anyone myself.
another small note on the way the book is being marketed - it’s not a slow burn. there is instant hot and heavy chemistry between the two main characters and every single interaction they have from the moment of meeting reflects that. i would describe it more as “love at first sight” with complicated outworkings.
the author did an incredible job in so many aspects of the book and if the adult content was more toned down and tasteful (although having spent time in politics i know that level of degeneracy and language is completely accurate), i would rate it much higher and probably even recommend it. ultimately, it just wasn’t fully for me, but i do want to honor the amazing parts of the authors work that i can appreciate and celebrate.
there are a lot of things to like about this book. i spent a bit of time in republican politics in my own state, so i was excited about where this would go. i really appreciated the political content, the talks and negotiations, and i loved how the author made it personal for the characters. i was really pleased with the amount of character development in our two main characters. there were strong characters, a compelling story, and i loved the variety in types of scenes and locations of scenes.
that being said, i have to give a heads up about the content maturity. going into being an ARC reader i was informed that the book had some sexual references and it was described as having “spice, not smut”. it’s also being marketed as closed door. everyone is going to have different personal standards for what they choose to read and not read, but its difficult because some of these words like spice, smut, open vs closed door have different meanings to different people and there isn’t a consistent standard.
i went in thinking this was probably going to be a tad more sexual content than what i normally read but that it wouldn’t cross into open door scenes or smut. i assumed it was a few references to sexual encounters that happen off page and some high tension scenes between characters. i was kinda of shocked that from the beginning the characters are immediately giving us very descriptive thoughts about each other, using very strong language in a vulgar, sexual context, and alluding to specific body parts and their wishes with such. the sexual encounters between characters technically fade to black, but in my personal opinion, it borders very heavily on being slightly open door or being heavily suggestive of smut. it’s also heavily ingrained into nearly every encounter between the two main characters and their thoughts about each other, so it’s not like “hey there were a couple random inuendos and one page to skim over if you don’t want to read that kind of material”. i wanted to offer clarity about the actual level of spicier content for anyone who might be confused about the way that it’s marketed and is trying to decide based on their own personal standards whether or not they feel comfortable picking this book up. there are a lot of things i really loved about this book, and had it not been for the direction a lot of the vulgarity and sexual content went, i would have instantly rated it much higher. i just personally would not feel comfortable recommending this book to anyone myself.
another small note on the way the book is being marketed - it’s not a slow burn. there is instant hot and heavy chemistry between the two main characters and every single interaction they have from the moment of meeting reflects that. i would describe it more as “love at first sight” with complicated outworkings.
the author did an incredible job in so many aspects of the book and if the adult content was more toned down and tasteful (although having spent time in politics i know that level of degeneracy and language is completely accurate), i would rate it much higher and probably even recommend it. ultimately, it just wasn’t fully for me, but i do want to honor the amazing parts of the authors work that i can appreciate and celebrate.
October 18, 2026
Tried to be "open minded" about this romance however this book is just poorly written propaganda. Not even worth a laugh, the whole thing was cringey and distasteful
September 7, 2026
This book hooked me from the beginning! Maddie has a rule to not date anyone she works with because she had been betrayed before and it broke her heart. She met Nate when he had came to her defense with her ex. Nate is not like most. The next day Maddie sees the man who she met the night before was working in the same place she was…
This book is funny and also very heartwarming. Maddie has trust issues and Nate wants to prove she can trust him…
There are also text messages! I loved that!!
I def 10/10 recommend this!!
This book is funny and also very heartwarming. Maddie has trust issues and Nate wants to prove she can trust him…
There are also text messages! I loved that!!
I def 10/10 recommend this!!
Review of advance copy received from Author
I was lucky enough to read this book as an ARC, and I really enjoyed it. Thank you to the author for trusting me with an early copy.
The characters felt very relatable, especially Maddy and her situation at work. I think a lot of people will be able to see themselves in what she was dealing with in regard to her workplace dating rule. Nate is truly the perfect man written by a woman. I really liked his character, even more than Maddy!
I also really enjoyed the way the author made me trust certain characters and dislike others. I found myself getting so invested in their lives that their problems started to feel like my own. There were definitely moments where I laughed, cried, and had my jaw hit the floor.
Something else that stood out to me was the political aspect of the story. Honestly, it was refreshing to read a book that could touch on an important issue without making me feel like I was being preached at. The discussion surrounding educational opportunities and growth for students was interesting and, at times, genuinely eye-opening. I thought it added another meaningful layer to the story while still allowing the book to be a romance.
The spice level was lower than what I usually read, but I didn’t feel like the story needed more. The political process, relationships and character development kept me interested.
By the end, I found myself wanting follow-up books about some of the other characters, which is always a good sign. I would definitely be interested in reading more about them.
Overall, this was a really enjoyable read. I’m glad I had the opportunity to read it early as an ARC, and I’m looking forward to seeing what the author does next.
The characters felt very relatable, especially Maddy and her situation at work. I think a lot of people will be able to see themselves in what she was dealing with in regard to her workplace dating rule. Nate is truly the perfect man written by a woman. I really liked his character, even more than Maddy!
I also really enjoyed the way the author made me trust certain characters and dislike others. I found myself getting so invested in their lives that their problems started to feel like my own. There were definitely moments where I laughed, cried, and had my jaw hit the floor.
Something else that stood out to me was the political aspect of the story. Honestly, it was refreshing to read a book that could touch on an important issue without making me feel like I was being preached at. The discussion surrounding educational opportunities and growth for students was interesting and, at times, genuinely eye-opening. I thought it added another meaningful layer to the story while still allowing the book to be a romance.
The spice level was lower than what I usually read, but I didn’t feel like the story needed more. The political process, relationships and character development kept me interested.
By the end, I found myself wanting follow-up books about some of the other characters, which is always a good sign. I would definitely be interested in reading more about them.
Overall, this was a really enjoyable read. I’m glad I had the opportunity to read it early as an ARC, and I’m looking forward to seeing what the author does next.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
September 27, 2026
Can politics and romance coexist?! HECK YEAH! Love the story of Nate and Maddy as they navigate their feelings during a high stakes session to get an education bill approved. Nate is just what Maddy needed and you have to read to see if she finally allows someone like him into her life!
Review of advance copy received from Author
I'm an ARC reader and this was my first political romance, and Open Seat by Erica Choinka is not your typical romance novel. While the romance is absolutely present- the yearning, the slow burn, and that steady possessiveness/protectiveness that never tips into over the top territory, this book digs into so much more.
Maddy’s growth, both personally and professionally, is genuinely inspiring. Watching her past shape her and then seeing her step into her own is one of the strongest parts of the story in my opinion. Nate’s confident, assured presence is just as compelling. He’s the kind of steady character you root for without the story having to oversell it.
What really stood out to me is the insider look at politics. The book makes it clear that elected officials are only a small piece of how legislation actually gets written, debated, and passed. Staffers, lobbyists, and the day to day grind of the process get real attention, and it feels authentic. Knowing the author works in Missouri politics (exactly where the story is set) makes that behind the scenes view even more interesting and credible.
At its heart, though, this is still a romance. The bigger point the book landed for me, is how a relationship is built: trust as the foundation, and the necessity of growing yourself in order to make that relationship work.
If you’re looking for a political romance that balances slow-burn chemistry with a thoughtful look at the world of state politics and personal growth, this one is worth picking up.
Maddy’s growth, both personally and professionally, is genuinely inspiring. Watching her past shape her and then seeing her step into her own is one of the strongest parts of the story in my opinion. Nate’s confident, assured presence is just as compelling. He’s the kind of steady character you root for without the story having to oversell it.
What really stood out to me is the insider look at politics. The book makes it clear that elected officials are only a small piece of how legislation actually gets written, debated, and passed. Staffers, lobbyists, and the day to day grind of the process get real attention, and it feels authentic. Knowing the author works in Missouri politics (exactly where the story is set) makes that behind the scenes view even more interesting and credible.
At its heart, though, this is still a romance. The bigger point the book landed for me, is how a relationship is built: trust as the foundation, and the necessity of growing yourself in order to make that relationship work.
If you’re looking for a political romance that balances slow-burn chemistry with a thoughtful look at the world of state politics and personal growth, this one is worth picking up.
Review of advance copy received from Author
I received an ARC of this book. This was my first time ever getting to do this. I was so excited to be a part of it.
I heard about this book from the author's tiktok page and heard the word politics and thought thats definitely not something I'd be interested in. But then, as I listened to the summary of the book, and the ARC opportunity was presented, I thought you know, I have never read anything like this. I want to give it a try.
Then, found out I was chosen to read it early. I dove right in the day I got the email. From chapter 1, I was hooked into the story. As the characters were introduced, I already loved them and was excited to see where the story went. Easy, quick read.
As far as the actual political aspect of the story, it was very minor in my opinion. More about how the government system works versus political stance. I liked that alot. Because no matter your viewpoint on politics, I think you would enjoy this book. I think the author did an incredible job incorporating the political environment into this story.
The romance part was just so good. I devoured it. Closed door spice. The entire theme of love as I read this made me think of Emily Ann Roberts song Easy Does It. And I just loved it.
I would gladly read from this author again. I thought she did an awesome job on this story and look forward to more from her in the future.
I heard about this book from the author's tiktok page and heard the word politics and thought thats definitely not something I'd be interested in. But then, as I listened to the summary of the book, and the ARC opportunity was presented, I thought you know, I have never read anything like this. I want to give it a try.
Then, found out I was chosen to read it early. I dove right in the day I got the email. From chapter 1, I was hooked into the story. As the characters were introduced, I already loved them and was excited to see where the story went. Easy, quick read.
As far as the actual political aspect of the story, it was very minor in my opinion. More about how the government system works versus political stance. I liked that alot. Because no matter your viewpoint on politics, I think you would enjoy this book. I think the author did an incredible job incorporating the political environment into this story.
The romance part was just so good. I devoured it. Closed door spice. The entire theme of love as I read this made me think of Emily Ann Roberts song Easy Does It. And I just loved it.
I would gladly read from this author again. I thought she did an awesome job on this story and look forward to more from her in the future.
Review of advance copy received from Author
Open Seat by Erica Choinka
I received this book as an ARC from Erica Choinka from Tik Tok
Thank you Erica! I really enjoyed the book!
Political Romantic Drama
Set in Missouri
Open Seat was an enjoyable slow-burn romance with great rivals-to-lovers dynamic. I liked the workplace setting and the political backdrop, which gave the story something different from the usual romance. I felt the protagonist, “Maddy/Madison”, was intelligent, driven, ambitious, and hard working. I felt at times the love interest, “Nate/Ridgeway/Nathaniel Ridgeway”, was a bit on the calculating, manipulative, side. There was a little bit of influence from 50 Shades of Grey (the spice part); however, there were some good lines of romance/sweetness that Nate showed. The chemistry between the characters kept me reading, and the dual POV made it easy to connect with both sides of the story. A fun read for anyone who enjoys workplace romance, political intrigue, and a little tension along the way. A HEA ending. Open Seat
I received this book as an ARC from Erica Choinka from Tik Tok
Thank you Erica! I really enjoyed the book!
Political Romantic Drama
Set in Missouri
Open Seat was an enjoyable slow-burn romance with great rivals-to-lovers dynamic. I liked the workplace setting and the political backdrop, which gave the story something different from the usual romance. I felt the protagonist, “Maddy/Madison”, was intelligent, driven, ambitious, and hard working. I felt at times the love interest, “Nate/Ridgeway/Nathaniel Ridgeway”, was a bit on the calculating, manipulative, side. There was a little bit of influence from 50 Shades of Grey (the spice part); however, there were some good lines of romance/sweetness that Nate showed. The chemistry between the characters kept me reading, and the dual POV made it easy to connect with both sides of the story. A fun read for anyone who enjoys workplace romance, political intrigue, and a little tension along the way. A HEA ending. Open Seat
October 13, 2026
This book is a perfect representation of why you can never truly separate the art from the artist. That’s not inherently a bad thing (and I have no idea why people think it is). It’s simply a fact of life. If you like Ender’s Game, you have to recognize that consuming the book doesn’t erase the author’s homophobia. I think it’s better to let artists OWN their art and have full control over it. I just dislike it when people insist on separating the two.
For example, it’s clear that this author is conservative, and I find it incredibly disingenuous when other readers try to paint the book as politically neutral by saying things like, “I wouldn’t even know Maddy’s politics!”
Then you have poor reading comprehension. I’m not sorry for saying that.
Um, for those making that claim, explain this to me:
“I wrinkled my nose at the sound of Lydia Diaz’s name. She was the highest-ranking Democrat in the state, which made her my boss’s political enemy by default.”
And this:
“Actually I’m going to be honest, I disagree with her on pretty much every policy issue she has. The environmental regulations she proposed last year would have forced every corporation out of our state. And don’t get me started on her insane anti-school-choice initiatives.”
The novel doesn’t explicitly have to say “Maddy is conservative!” to show she’s conservative. Seriously. Maddy is literally articulating her own political beliefs. This is political characterization through dialogue. The author is SHOWING you what Maddy believes.
Don’t be dense just to paint conservatives as “reasonable and neutral” while portraying left-leaning people as crazy. All you’re doing is demonstrating that you don’t understand the story you’re reading.
Worse, you’re trying to defend the author by denying something she deliberately wrote into her own book.
The author chose Maddy’s political beliefs, established Diaz as a Democrat, and constructed the conflict around those ideological differences. So when you insist that Maddy’s politics are indiscernible, what exactly are you implying? That the author failed to communicate her own characterization?
You’re not making her look better. You’re making her look like she doesn’t know how to communicate the very ideas she’s writing about.
And if you genuinely believe the author’s political positions are reasonable and defensible, why is political neutrality being presented as evidence of the book’s quality? You can like Maddy as a conservative protagonist. You can agree with her politics. But pretending those politics don’t exist isn’t defending the author. It’s undermining her writing.
Someone in the reviews below mine even claimed they never saw the word “Democrat” in the story. Be so serious right now. The word is literally in the quotation above.
If you have to LIE about what’s in this book to defend it, what does that say about both the writing and your interpretation of it?
It’s okay to acknowledge that this book is extremely biased. Political bias isn’t automatically a literary flaw. What bothers me is when readers recognize that the positions being advocated for are questionable and, rather than defending them, attempt to obscure or deny them altogether.
And that brings me back to my original point: let artists OWN their art. If you’re going to support an author’s work, at least be willing to acknowledge what she actually wrote.
Beyond that, I agree with the numerous reviewers who say the plot is practically nonexistent and the book is a boring read. Ironically, there’s too much politics for a political novel.
The political messaging is so overwhelming that readers are skimming through the book (just look at these reviews), which makes it harder for the author to communicate her point effectively. When readers are only absorbing bits and pieces of the story, of course they’re going to make inaccurate claims about what happens in it.
If your political messaging is so heavy-handed that readers start skimming past it, you’ve undermined your own ability to communicate the very ideas you wanted them to engage with.
For example, it’s clear that this author is conservative, and I find it incredibly disingenuous when other readers try to paint the book as politically neutral by saying things like, “I wouldn’t even know Maddy’s politics!”
Then you have poor reading comprehension. I’m not sorry for saying that.
Um, for those making that claim, explain this to me:
“I wrinkled my nose at the sound of Lydia Diaz’s name. She was the highest-ranking Democrat in the state, which made her my boss’s political enemy by default.”
And this:
“Actually I’m going to be honest, I disagree with her on pretty much every policy issue she has. The environmental regulations she proposed last year would have forced every corporation out of our state. And don’t get me started on her insane anti-school-choice initiatives.”
The novel doesn’t explicitly have to say “Maddy is conservative!” to show she’s conservative. Seriously. Maddy is literally articulating her own political beliefs. This is political characterization through dialogue. The author is SHOWING you what Maddy believes.
Don’t be dense just to paint conservatives as “reasonable and neutral” while portraying left-leaning people as crazy. All you’re doing is demonstrating that you don’t understand the story you’re reading.
Worse, you’re trying to defend the author by denying something she deliberately wrote into her own book.
The author chose Maddy’s political beliefs, established Diaz as a Democrat, and constructed the conflict around those ideological differences. So when you insist that Maddy’s politics are indiscernible, what exactly are you implying? That the author failed to communicate her own characterization?
You’re not making her look better. You’re making her look like she doesn’t know how to communicate the very ideas she’s writing about.
And if you genuinely believe the author’s political positions are reasonable and defensible, why is political neutrality being presented as evidence of the book’s quality? You can like Maddy as a conservative protagonist. You can agree with her politics. But pretending those politics don’t exist isn’t defending the author. It’s undermining her writing.
Someone in the reviews below mine even claimed they never saw the word “Democrat” in the story. Be so serious right now. The word is literally in the quotation above.
If you have to LIE about what’s in this book to defend it, what does that say about both the writing and your interpretation of it?
It’s okay to acknowledge that this book is extremely biased. Political bias isn’t automatically a literary flaw. What bothers me is when readers recognize that the positions being advocated for are questionable and, rather than defending them, attempt to obscure or deny them altogether.
And that brings me back to my original point: let artists OWN their art. If you’re going to support an author’s work, at least be willing to acknowledge what she actually wrote.
Beyond that, I agree with the numerous reviewers who say the plot is practically nonexistent and the book is a boring read. Ironically, there’s too much politics for a political novel.
The political messaging is so overwhelming that readers are skimming through the book (just look at these reviews), which makes it harder for the author to communicate her point effectively. When readers are only absorbing bits and pieces of the story, of course they’re going to make inaccurate claims about what happens in it.
If your political messaging is so heavy-handed that readers start skimming past it, you’ve undermined your own ability to communicate the very ideas you wanted them to engage with.
October 15, 2026
The worst crime a book can commit is not provoking any emotion, be so boring that there's no redeeiming qualities or moments. This book was that.
The characters were not developed at all and seemed as puppets the author moved at will to achieve the plot points she needed them to.
The romance was insta lust at it's finest. They are deeply attracted to each other since the first time they meet and it's rushed from that. They also had the chemistry of a wet paper bag.
The sections about politics took so much time from developing the characters and their relationship. It dragged, was confusing and was clearly what the author wanted to focus about, not the romance.
This also was confusing in the writing, which didn't flow well and used tenses that didn't match gramatically. Events didn't flow naturally.
This book desperately needed beta reading and sustanciable professional edits, maybe even scraping it all together.
The characters were not developed at all and seemed as puppets the author moved at will to achieve the plot points she needed them to.
The romance was insta lust at it's finest. They are deeply attracted to each other since the first time they meet and it's rushed from that. They also had the chemistry of a wet paper bag.
The sections about politics took so much time from developing the characters and their relationship. It dragged, was confusing and was clearly what the author wanted to focus about, not the romance.
This also was confusing in the writing, which didn't flow well and used tenses that didn't match gramatically. Events didn't flow naturally.
This book desperately needed beta reading and sustanciable professional edits, maybe even scraping it all together.
Review of advance copy received from Author
Thank you so much for having me on your ARC team!
I never thought a book would make me want to get a job in politics! 😅 I absolutely loved the story I loved the characters and the character development throughout the book. Maddie and Nate's banter was one of my favorite things! The way Nate talks to her is so genuine, kind, and sexy all at the same time. I don't even know how that's possible but he makes it possible!
Erica did an awesome job with her writing to pull you in and keep you wanting more! I loved being able to see the behind the scenes of the capital building and what negotiations are like!
I will say this book is definitely more on the closed door side but there are definitely a lot of innuendos and a little more descriptive than some people may like. But overall it is definitely closed door! I also would say it's not really a slow burn they are into each other from the start, it just took a while for them to get together. But the spark was not a slow burn!
I absolutely loved this book and I cannot wait to read more by Erica and I cannot believe this is a debut novel! I enjoyed your writing and story telling! It was a very easy read and I definitely recommend it! 💕
I never thought a book would make me want to get a job in politics! 😅 I absolutely loved the story I loved the characters and the character development throughout the book. Maddie and Nate's banter was one of my favorite things! The way Nate talks to her is so genuine, kind, and sexy all at the same time. I don't even know how that's possible but he makes it possible!
Erica did an awesome job with her writing to pull you in and keep you wanting more! I loved being able to see the behind the scenes of the capital building and what negotiations are like!
I will say this book is definitely more on the closed door side but there are definitely a lot of innuendos and a little more descriptive than some people may like. But overall it is definitely closed door! I also would say it's not really a slow burn they are into each other from the start, it just took a while for them to get together. But the spark was not a slow burn!
I absolutely loved this book and I cannot wait to read more by Erica and I cannot believe this is a debut novel! I enjoyed your writing and story telling! It was a very easy read and I definitely recommend it! 💕
October 17, 2026
I could tell the book either didn’t go through any editing or it didn’t have enough rounds of editing.
This is from Nate’s POV:
“I’d seen the attendee list come through with her name on it, and I’d told myself it wasn’t going to be a problem. Turns out that assessment wasn’t as true as I thought. She was smart. That was the part I kept coming back to, the part that was genuinely inconvenient, because I’d walked into that room already knowing I wanted her. And then I watched her work and realized the problem was significantly larger than thirty minutes in a bar had suggested. She’d read Mitchell in the first five minutes and calibrated accordingly. She’d let Sullivan do the talking when it needed to come from him and stepped in to redirect when the conversation started heading somewhere prematurely. And she’d done it cleanly enough that it hadn’t read as a redirect to anyone who wasn’t paying attention as well as I was. She was good. She was really good.”
Instant DNF for me. What’s the point of reading a romance if I’m just going to be TOLD the MMC likes the FMC because she was smart (which hasn’t even been demonstrated in the scene. Notice how we’re just told all this happened) instead of shown?
What did Mitchell say? What did she notice about him? What was Sullivan doing? What was the conversation about? What did she say to redirect it? Why was her intervention impressive?
The passage gives us Nate's conclusions about her performance without giving us enough of the performance itself to independently appreciate her intelligence.
I might as well read a Wikipedia summary at this point and save my time and money.
It’s very uncomfortable because readers are expected to be open-minded and read something that has different political ideologies than they might have. But that’s just not a good enough reason to get people to purchase your book. In fact, I personally think it’s a weak one. Story over everything. Plot over everything. Writing over everything. That’s my personal opinion.
But for this book… what am I exactly supposed to do now? I read it. I disliked it. I was not persuaded by any arguments. In fact, I’m even more opposed to school choice than I was before. So, thanks, I guess? The author keeps saying readers are closed-minded on social media, that she shouldn’t have to hide she’s a republican.
Yeah, but you have to understand that your writing should convince people. It’s just not convincing. Not even the romance is, which is the reason a majority of the readers picked up the book in the first place.
Being open-minded means being willing to consider an argument. It doesn't mean rewarding an argument for merely existing.
This is from Nate’s POV:
“I’d seen the attendee list come through with her name on it, and I’d told myself it wasn’t going to be a problem. Turns out that assessment wasn’t as true as I thought. She was smart. That was the part I kept coming back to, the part that was genuinely inconvenient, because I’d walked into that room already knowing I wanted her. And then I watched her work and realized the problem was significantly larger than thirty minutes in a bar had suggested. She’d read Mitchell in the first five minutes and calibrated accordingly. She’d let Sullivan do the talking when it needed to come from him and stepped in to redirect when the conversation started heading somewhere prematurely. And she’d done it cleanly enough that it hadn’t read as a redirect to anyone who wasn’t paying attention as well as I was. She was good. She was really good.”
Instant DNF for me. What’s the point of reading a romance if I’m just going to be TOLD the MMC likes the FMC because she was smart (which hasn’t even been demonstrated in the scene. Notice how we’re just told all this happened) instead of shown?
What did Mitchell say? What did she notice about him? What was Sullivan doing? What was the conversation about? What did she say to redirect it? Why was her intervention impressive?
The passage gives us Nate's conclusions about her performance without giving us enough of the performance itself to independently appreciate her intelligence.
I might as well read a Wikipedia summary at this point and save my time and money.
It’s very uncomfortable because readers are expected to be open-minded and read something that has different political ideologies than they might have. But that’s just not a good enough reason to get people to purchase your book. In fact, I personally think it’s a weak one. Story over everything. Plot over everything. Writing over everything. That’s my personal opinion.
But for this book… what am I exactly supposed to do now? I read it. I disliked it. I was not persuaded by any arguments. In fact, I’m even more opposed to school choice than I was before. So, thanks, I guess? The author keeps saying readers are closed-minded on social media, that she shouldn’t have to hide she’s a republican.
Yeah, but you have to understand that your writing should convince people. It’s just not convincing. Not even the romance is, which is the reason a majority of the readers picked up the book in the first place.
Being open-minded means being willing to consider an argument. It doesn't mean rewarding an argument for merely existing.
Review of advance copy received from Author
Thank you to the author Erica Choinka for the ARC of Open Seat!
I love romance stories, but have been feeling like I’m in a bit of a rut, so having a chance to pick up something that was a bit different was a welcome change, and Open Seat did not disappoint. The story held my attention and the tension between Maddy and Nate was so good.
And can I say how refreshing it was that the conflict from these two was not from one of them doing something so stupid you’re yelling at the book/kindle?!? Both Maddie and Nate are smart and competent & the issue was trust, but not a blatant miscommunication that could have been avoided.
I definitely would classify this as closed door, and it had some spice, but most of the heat was off page.
Congratulations to the author - I found her on TikTok and was intrigued, for a first book, it was well written and was well detailed and well paced. I would have loved a little less politics/procedure and gotten to peek a little more about the relationships both Maddy and Nate had with their friends & colleagues. But perhaps that sets things up for another book about both of their friends! 😃
I love romance stories, but have been feeling like I’m in a bit of a rut, so having a chance to pick up something that was a bit different was a welcome change, and Open Seat did not disappoint. The story held my attention and the tension between Maddy and Nate was so good.
And can I say how refreshing it was that the conflict from these two was not from one of them doing something so stupid you’re yelling at the book/kindle?!? Both Maddie and Nate are smart and competent & the issue was trust, but not a blatant miscommunication that could have been avoided.
I definitely would classify this as closed door, and it had some spice, but most of the heat was off page.
Congratulations to the author - I found her on TikTok and was intrigued, for a first book, it was well written and was well detailed and well paced. I would have loved a little less politics/procedure and gotten to peek a little more about the relationships both Maddy and Nate had with their friends & colleagues. But perhaps that sets things up for another book about both of their friends! 😃
Review of advance copy received from Author
Review of advance copy received from Author.
I happened to come across Erica’s TikTok when she was looking for ARC readers, and I’m SO glad her name kept popping up because it led me to Open Seat!
For a debut novel, this book was SO good. I honestly can’t believe this was Erica’s first novel, and I already can’t wait to see what she writes next!
Open Seat has such a fun mix of Missouri politics, romance, and character development. Being a Missouri resident AND married to a teacher in a “rural” school district, a lot of this story hit surprisingly close to home for me. I loved getting a little glimpse into Missouri’s political world while also watching Maddy and Nate’s relationship unfold.
And Maddy and Nate? You can’t help but root for them.
Nate was protective of Maddy in a way that felt genuine. He cared about her, respected her, and supported her without giving off the creepy/stalker vibes that can sometimes happen with the “protective love interest". I really loved that about him.
But Maddy’s character development was probably one of my favorite parts of the book. She starts out as a woman trying to heal from some deep hurt, and watching her grow into this strong, confident, feminine political powerhouse who knows what she wants and isn’t afraid to go after it was SO satisfying.
Erica did such a great job keeping me invested in both the romance AND the political storyline. Once I started reading, I seriously did not want to put it down.
And again… THIS WAS A DEBUT?!
I’m impressed. I’m hooked. I need more.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 5 stars all the way!
I happened to come across Erica’s TikTok when she was looking for ARC readers, and I’m SO glad her name kept popping up because it led me to Open Seat!
For a debut novel, this book was SO good. I honestly can’t believe this was Erica’s first novel, and I already can’t wait to see what she writes next!
Open Seat has such a fun mix of Missouri politics, romance, and character development. Being a Missouri resident AND married to a teacher in a “rural” school district, a lot of this story hit surprisingly close to home for me. I loved getting a little glimpse into Missouri’s political world while also watching Maddy and Nate’s relationship unfold.
And Maddy and Nate? You can’t help but root for them.
Nate was protective of Maddy in a way that felt genuine. He cared about her, respected her, and supported her without giving off the creepy/stalker vibes that can sometimes happen with the “protective love interest". I really loved that about him.
But Maddy’s character development was probably one of my favorite parts of the book. She starts out as a woman trying to heal from some deep hurt, and watching her grow into this strong, confident, feminine political powerhouse who knows what she wants and isn’t afraid to go after it was SO satisfying.
Erica did such a great job keeping me invested in both the romance AND the political storyline. Once I started reading, I seriously did not want to put it down.
And again… THIS WAS A DEBUT?!
I’m impressed. I’m hooked. I need more.
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ 5 stars all the way!
August 28, 2026
This was the first time I got to be an ARC reader. I don’t normally even read contemporary romance, but this was a fun ride. I was expecting a heavy political agenda and I loved that the setting was politics, but nothing was pushed down your throat. It was such a fun read that had me smiling and giggling, and it was easy to get lost in the world created! I don’t even read fast but I finished this in less than a day, I couldn’t put it down! Whether you’re looking for a palette cleanser from your normal genre or are normally a contemporary romance reader, this was a well written, non-cringy, fun dual-POV, romance book that had you rooting for both MCs!
September 9, 2026
Thank you Erica Choinka for the ARC of this book!!! This is the first political romance book I’ve read and i throughly enjoyed it! I rate it a 4.75/5 ⭐️’s. I love the chemistry between Nate & Maddy right from the get go! Nate knew the moment he first saw her that he was going to have her! I love how this book is based on Republicans, but even with being on the same political party sides, people still have different views and standpoints! But somehow they worked together to make this the perfect bill to pass! All of Maddy’s wins will be celebrated with the perfect man by her side!
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 31, 2026
This was my first time reading political romance, it was amazing!
Review of advance copy received from Author
I was chosen to be an ARC reader for the book Open Seat by Erica Choinka. I want to start out by saying thank you for allowing me to be an ARC reader for you! ❤️ I really enjoyed the book from start to finish.
Madison Caldwell is a Missouri (Yay!)Press Secretary for Governor Sullivan and she is lead on a bill for education. She meets Nathaniel Ridgeway, who is Speaker Mitchell's Chief of Staff at a bar, not yet knowing who each other really were and what they actually stood for.
For me, politics are complicated to understand. Not saying I cannot understand them, but it takes a lot of research for me to comprehend something when talking politics. With Open Seat, I found it easier to understand with how well written it was. The story had a graceful flow of the importance of the education bill and what someone's hard work and dedication will do for a bill they believe in. All while building a love between two people who, are both stubborn in their own way.
The banter between the two main characters flowed really well and kept me wanting to find out more! Maddy had such a bad experience with her ex-boyfriend, it made her keep every future possible romantic relationship at an arms length since. Nate recognized that in the first 30 minutes and made it his mission to show her that not everyone will hurt you. The way their chemistry flowed, you could really feel it!
I also enjoyed learning about their "whys" on why the education bill was so important to each other and their political party's. I love that teachers were represented in this story as I have close people in my life who work in school districts. Maddy's why, being bullied to the point of wanting to end it all was heart crushing 💔 Then the heartwarming way she spoke about her dad (a retired teacher) and how he positively affected the kids he taught and how because he taught at a private school, she was able to start fresh.
Then Nates story of how his small town (and others like it) RAN on Friday night high school football. How the community got together for these games no matter what. The school consolidation section on the education bill could affect the small town schools so badly, the towns could die off.
Maddy and Nate are trying to find that sweet spot that doesn't harm what either group is wanting for their districts, all while trying to navigate their building relationship.
There were a few times where I wanted to shake the FMC a few time because, girl 🙃 But over all, the story kept me engaged and curious on how the bill would turn out and if Maddy could let her guard down long enough for love.
I don't normally read a lot of books with politics, but this book may have changed my mind a bit! I look forward to reading more from Erica Choinka! Happy reading fellow book nerds! 📚
Madison Caldwell is a Missouri (Yay!)Press Secretary for Governor Sullivan and she is lead on a bill for education. She meets Nathaniel Ridgeway, who is Speaker Mitchell's Chief of Staff at a bar, not yet knowing who each other really were and what they actually stood for.
For me, politics are complicated to understand. Not saying I cannot understand them, but it takes a lot of research for me to comprehend something when talking politics. With Open Seat, I found it easier to understand with how well written it was. The story had a graceful flow of the importance of the education bill and what someone's hard work and dedication will do for a bill they believe in. All while building a love between two people who, are both stubborn in their own way.
The banter between the two main characters flowed really well and kept me wanting to find out more! Maddy had such a bad experience with her ex-boyfriend, it made her keep every future possible romantic relationship at an arms length since. Nate recognized that in the first 30 minutes and made it his mission to show her that not everyone will hurt you. The way their chemistry flowed, you could really feel it!
I also enjoyed learning about their "whys" on why the education bill was so important to each other and their political party's. I love that teachers were represented in this story as I have close people in my life who work in school districts. Maddy's why, being bullied to the point of wanting to end it all was heart crushing 💔 Then the heartwarming way she spoke about her dad (a retired teacher) and how he positively affected the kids he taught and how because he taught at a private school, she was able to start fresh.
Then Nates story of how his small town (and others like it) RAN on Friday night high school football. How the community got together for these games no matter what. The school consolidation section on the education bill could affect the small town schools so badly, the towns could die off.
Maddy and Nate are trying to find that sweet spot that doesn't harm what either group is wanting for their districts, all while trying to navigate their building relationship.
There were a few times where I wanted to shake the FMC a few time because, girl 🙃 But over all, the story kept me engaged and curious on how the bill would turn out and if Maddy could let her guard down long enough for love.
I don't normally read a lot of books with politics, but this book may have changed my mind a bit! I look forward to reading more from Erica Choinka! Happy reading fellow book nerds! 📚
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 211 reviews