In trying to decipher why this book was such a slow read, I realized it was the lack of conflict. It was not so bad that I had a hard time finishing it, but it seemed I was reading it forever without a real sense of wanting to turn the pages. Even so, I enjoyed it.
My review will not be a synopsis, it will be a technical evaluation. These aspects are often what reviewers miss yet what bother readers to the point of finding the book worth fewer stars.
The story arc was complete, with a few side stories that were realistically tied to the main story line. The intention of the plot was a good one, fresh and interesting, but where the story failed was in drama that comes from conflict. The only conflict came from introspection as the characters changed, and that was not enough. The initial narrative was engaging, but by the end, it was the same old thing over again. This boredom led to the sense of a slow pace, even though there was nothing technical to show for any delays in the story's rate of development. That is not to say it is a bad story line. It was just slow due to low angst.
Language was well done, keeping the reader engaged due to use of a good Regency tone. A few non-Regency words were used, but the number of them and even the selection was within the norm for a book of this length. They included bored, obsession, trousseau, chuckled, heading, normal, "wedding breakfast," reaction, mesmerised, intervention, and staff. In terms of British language, "write" was used where "write to" would have been appropriate, as well as "I will" and "we will" where the English would have said "I shall" and "we shall."
I noted a case of a filter word that could easily have been changed: "felt" to "was." There were additional filter words that could have helped the book become more of a deep read if corrected.
In terms of point of view, for the most part, the book was in third person, alternating, but there were cases of head-hopping when the author was clearly too deeply into the characters' points of view to be speaking on behalf of an omniscient narrator.
A canon error was having the Gardiner children be Elinor 7, and Edward 8, when Austen is clear that there are two older girls of 6 and 8 and two younger boys. We have a spelling issue with Elinor and Eleanor for the same character.
A Regency error is the concept of "compromising" which is a modern Regency romance concept. In the Regency, the word "compromise" meant "to settle a dispute by mutual concessions." In addition, the mention of "ten courses" and "five courses" was excessive for the Regency. Two courses was the norm for a lavish Regency meal, since a single course was already enough to stuff the most hungry eater. In addition, the author uses the word "courses" when she means "refreshments."
A modern phrase was used: "what have you done with my..." and this is quite off-putting.
Characterization is consistent, if unusual. Darcy is more brooding than we are accustomed to, in fact, his continual self-recrimination is a bit of a downer that isn't typical of Austen's Darcy. However, the author does a good job of showing his character development, so the change makes it worthwhile. New characters are well-drafted and fit the story well.
Lilian always includes some lovely scene-setting to perk up the senses in her books, and this one is no exception.
The cover is a good one, in that it's different enough to stand out when set against all those other JAFF covers that look the same. It tells the story of the book inside as well. The choice of silhouettes saves me criticizing the book for the blow-dried Darcy!
In sum, this is a long book with a lack of traditional conflict, so be prepared for the low-boil angst of introspection instead of heavy drama. It's a worthwhile read with a fresh story concept, though.
Disclaimer: I'm a JAFF author, and some might say that this review is a conflict of interest. However, I was a reader first, and my reviews are honest and impartial. I write them for the benefit of both the reader and the author.