This one is tough, and I should point out that some of my comments may be considered spoilers. As I see it, the whole point of a retelling is to shine a different, usually contemporary, light on a timeless story. So, it’s important to respect the shifts in attitudes, otherwise it’s just a lazy way to avoid coming up with an original plot. This tale was interesting and fairly well told until the halfway mark. Once the sad, abused heroine gets a massive break, instead of jumping at it, she starts to wallow in self-pity and becomes incredibly irritating. I understand that she has been hardened and made cynical by her terrible childhood, but everyone has problems (as we soon discover). One needs to take a chance at happiness, and not be forever defined by the past. I also disliked the suffocating religious overtones. Once a book starts to hint that there is something wrong with two unattached, consenting adults having a sexual relationship, it becomes a huge turn-off for me. Also, too much is made of the age difference, to the point that the hero (at thirty-seven, an athletic man still approaching his prime) is given an improbable dusting of grey hair to emphasize that he’s much older than the mature-beyond-her-years heroine.
Also, I am happy to accept the supernatural elements involving animals, mysterious influences, unexplained gifts, etc., but there should be consistency and some logic within the fabrications. To expect a normal, healthy man to stay at the hand-holding stage for months while the heroine grapples with her insecurities about not being good enough … sorry. I can’t see the man going along with that. What exactly is so great about this woman to justify this ridiculous self-denial? She tells him she’s crazy about him, but now that they have both declared their mutual love, and he’s asked to marry her … nah, let’s wait a few months because … people might talk.
The heroine’s impulsive flight and everything that comes after that is pure nonsense. Suddenly, the tough, street-smart woman becomes a spineless idiot, refusing to let the hero explain. It’s such an overused device. Not sure what the point was, except to introduce a gratuitous shovelful of “conflict”, but it kills the story, and certainly it ended my interest in it. This is where adhering to the plot of the original classic being “retold” gets this author into logistic difficulties she is unable to overcome.
I liked the story up to the fifty percent mark, but the strength of the beginning gets diluted by the mess of the second half. The pace is slow but consistent, while characterization is sketchy. I got the impression that each actor in the drama was being shoehorned into whatever was required to fit the story, instead of allowing for some natural diversity in human nature. As a result, the conclusion, although technically an HEA, is limp and unsatisfying.