A very boring 2 stars.
This year I made a pact to go through my to-read list and try to find books that I've wanted to read for years. While doing so I came across this that I've wanted to read since 2014. I read the summary and got so confused I re-read it to see if I could make any more sense of it. I could not follow what was being said, already got lost with all the names that were dumped out. When I can't understand a summary, I know there must be something wrong with the book. If you can't find a way to describe the book without confusing people then the book must be really hard to understand. I've never read the Cynsters series but by seeing "Cynster #21" I could tell it was a long, ongoing series with a slew of characters to keep track of, as the summary indicated, and a big family like other books I've read. I had no idea how this book got on my to-read list in the first place and wasn't sure I even hit to-read. When I read Claire was a widow I was turned off. I hate widows, can't stand when a character has been married before. It's really off-putting.
I opened the book and was met with 3 "Cast of Characters" pages. If you have to put a list of all of the characters with descriptions of them, then that's too many characters. I know books like that, you have to keep flipping back to the front to remind yourself who it is you're reading about. And every description of a character led to at least one other character. It was like going around in ever-looping circles. I'd read a character, who would lead to someone they were related to, then I'd have to go back and look at who they were. I'd read another character and would have to look up the person they were related to. It was like doing a research project.
I found the nicknames to be really modern and just weird. Scandal. Devil. Demon. Vane. Flick. Lucifer. Medy. Mad Manachan.
It was incredibly modern that Claire described Daniel as having an athlete's body. In a time where there weren't any such things as an athlete-it was not a profession-how can you think to use that phrase?
I hate when the character is the help, but I've never read a romance where they both are. It's exceedingly boring. Having the cool kids be at the head table and having all the help discuss what to do to entertain the kids was awful in comparison. Claire asking about the "younger lot," and Melinda saying the older girls are a "close-knit clique." Claire asked what sort of greenery, where to get it, and how much they needed to decorate. Snooze fest. I was like what the heck am I reading? It smacked of the 21st century and was oh so boring.
The author didn't seem to know how improper it is to have a female child say "riding hell-for-leather." Hell is akin to cussing.
The touch of the supernatural was just too much. Lucille had a touch of the Vale, just like her mom, the Lady of the Vale, meaning she gets premonitions. The man she's with or the male head of the family is the Guardian of the Lady. It was weird.
I liked the tradition of putting the Yule log in on Christmas Eve and burning a fire until the New Year. The face of Cailleach, the spirit of winter, was carved into the log.
They made sunburst shortbread, cakes that were shaped like a ring, with a hole in the middle and lines on the top to represent the sun's rays, to call the sun back into their lives. It evolved into round pieces of shortbread with a circle in the middle and rays drawn out from it.
I hate when they have things for convenience, esp involving using kids to throw two adults together. Louisa asks for a gentleman to come with them, because at 14 she's figured out the boughs might be out of reach or too heavy, and the sled will be too heavy with all of the boughs in it. How mature a thought..And to have all of the adults admire her matchmaking skills, talking about a future romance, was annoying. Was it rly proper to discuss another couple's romance like that? It went on to become even more bothersome. Louisa wanted to get mistletoe and Therese immediately caught on as to why, and them all of the girls were taking about playing Cupid to them. Let me tell you that as someone who was a kid more recently than the author was, no child would notice two adults who do nothing more than occasionally glance at each other like each other, much less hatch a plan to put them together. It's so unrealistic to the point of stupid.
The predicaments authors get their characters in all in the name of throwing them together are so ridiculous. Louisa was using the saw to cut down a branch and Claire was holding the branch. The saw stuck and Louisa got Daniel to finish. It was one thing after another. He had to get into the boughs, Claire had to bend the branch, then let go once the saw was out, then turn away from his hatchet which caused her shoulder to be into his back somehow, then hold onto the branch to steady it, then they were both stuck on the branches. Daniel deduced that they had to go out together or they would get stuck. They had to lift the limb and her go out first and then and him follow. Whatever you say.
It was sweet how he told her she might have some interest in him being offered a new position as Alasdair's assistant once Jason went off to Eton. It provided a stipend, enough for a wife and family.
I came to realize that she's one of those authors who go into every little, minor, minute, trivial, unimportant detail. Every single tiny action that a character could possibly make in an instance is described in the most mind-numbing detail that it practically bores tears out of your eyes. I kept screaming MOVE THE FREAK ON. Every. Little. Thing.
Idk if the author realizes how wrong and historically inaccurate it was to have the kids-these are well-bred kids of the nobility-know how to patch up a cabin. How would they have any experience using tools at all much less to help construct a home? They're gently bred; they would never encounter manual labor like a servant. Don't even get me started on 17 year old Lucilla going to assist a childbirth and having been trained in midwifing. Having her siblings and cousins in the house while a birth took place was so inappropriate. And there again, a noble girl helping to deliver a baby. I didn't know what world this was. And also, why would Daniel suggest that Carter receive art lessons? Weren't artists considered to be low class at this time? That would never be an acceptable profession for these people.
I was so surprised she had Helena mentioned the "gods." Wasn't polytheism considered pagan? Weren't people Christian or a similar branch that worshipped one God?
Things got more interesting as a visitor and his dog came into the cabin suddenly. His gaze stopped and was arrested on Lucilla. He looked at her again and held her eyes and I liked that he addressed her first. When she came out from behind the sheet, attending to the pregnant woman, he immediately looked at her as if he wanted to see her as soon as she came out. That's the kind of tension this book needed. And it took a 17 year old girl and a 19 year old boy to bring it out. Of all the stupidity. At least it was more exciting than boring prim and proper Claire and Daniel. Those two put me to sleep like no one else ever has.
He started to stand up when she came out, when none of the other guys did. He asked about the woman, because he really cared, and no one else did. It was weird how she kept having him thank Lucilla though. For things that didn't require a thank-you at all. His eyes were questioning her on why they were there, she explained what happened and he half bowed and said thank you. Then later he asked what was wrong with Lottie and she said it was a breech birth and he said than you. Like are you really thanking her for answering a question? Jeez. What kind of etiquette is this?
And don't even get me started on how turned off I was at all these young boys and girls in the same cabin as a birth was happening. Where had the Christmas spirit gone? What plot was there to be had, don't know what to do with your characters? Have a side character have a problematic birth, at Christmas, instead of be with their families and celebrate the holiday; it's more exciting that way. Ugh.
Turned her life and future on its head.
I hate that Thomas was staying on with the couple and then going back to his home. I wanted Lucilla to invite him over to spend Christmas with them. What a waste. This couple dominated too much of the story. MOVE ON.
It was sweet that Thomas offered to saddle her horse, and he stood waiting with it at a log for her to use to mount it. I liked the moment that they were leaving and she turned and looked and he was still there watching her.
I was surprised when she had Devil undress and get in bed with his wife, Honoria. Mention of breeches coming off. Couldn't believe that a couple having sex was even hinted at, because this is so tame it's pure white.
This author was so annoyingly consumed with the who, why, what, where, when and how. Literally every stupid detail of any stupid thing was hashed out to excruciatingly minor detail. Catriona asked the kids to tell the story when they got back, and instead of starting to tell the stupid story, or, better yet, the author just writing something like "they stood the story as they ate" so we wouldn't have to sit through the torture of hearing them talk about the scene we had just witnessed firsthand for way too long. You do know we know what happened, right? We were there with the kids the whole time.
Sebastian, the oldest, he one who's always in charge, suggested they pass the baton--would that be a reference to track and field at the Olympics??. He'll start, then whoever wants to cut in can do, that way their audience will be amused and they'll all get to eat the warm food. She felt it was important to have Lucilla point out that her and Prudence will talk about the birth and the boys will talk about fixing the shutter, since they don't know what happened. It would work better if they shared the telling instead of just one person. Did that really need to be said?
So we know what they're doing, and who's doing it, and how they're doing it, and why they're doing it that way...in case you really cared about any of that. It's so interesting.
I had recently seen a kid's book called Good King Wenceslas as I volunteered at the book shop, so it was so cool when Sebastian said Thomas came like Good Kind Wenceslas, complete with his hound. It was cute when Lucilla compared their situation to the nativity. A poor couple and their baby, a ramshackle cottage, the three wise men and angels.
To go from the tension and excitement of Lucilla and Thomas to the utter dullness of Claire and Daniel that was akin to watching paint dry was almost torture. Somehow dumb Claire that acts like an untried schoolgirl convinced herself that Daniel might not love her, despite him asking her to marry him. Apparently people ask someone to marry them because they hate them. Like what kind of an idiot are you? You're 27, you've been married before, and you really have to find out how he feels about you? You're really wondering if he loves you? How can someone so old be so stupid?
The author has a terrible way of describing things, so prim and proper, with words I've never heard of and have no idea how to pronounce. "..her unnervingly perspicacious grandmother.." It was most painful when it came to Claire and Daniel, the most boring couple I've had the bad luck to read. "And she sensed--felt--an answering response, the reality of a reciprocal commitment that was already there.." By the time you've read that and understood what was said, you're just like agh, no romance. It's drier than the desert. I'll never understand why people use these scholarly descriptions when writing romance. You're not writing a research paper where you need to wow your teacher with your expanded vocabulary. Yule tryig to make readers feel something, preferably some heat or angst towards the characters, so we believe the attraction. I'm so bored to tears I can't even muster a bit of caring for these two.
The way Claire spoke was so freaking annoying. Like a little hesitant girl. "I..." (...) "I need to know--" She used too much of "..." and "--" in every one of their conversations. SPIT IT OUT. HOW ARE YOU 27 AND EXPERIENCED AND YOU DONT KNOW WHAT THE FREAK TO SAY TO A MAN? How can you be so bad at talking? It defies logic. Everything she said was stop and start and trail away, unfinished. Then there we always some stupid interruption. I HATE interruptions. Biggest freaking annoyance and copout. Don't start something you're not ready to finish; it's intensely aggravating to think characters are going to finally get somewhere and hash something out, only for stupid contrivance to break them apart, knowing they'll just have to go through it all over again.
Claire swept up her skirts, "modesty be damned," and I wondered how the author could have her characters curse. It's a cuss word today, so you can bet it was awful for a female to use such language back then. "Blast" was considered a cuss word and it was only acceptable for men to use it, so why in tarnation are the females in here cussing with modern curses like it ain't no thing?
The big interruption to account for why Claire and Daniel couldn't have their conversation was a group of kids falling into the stream. What I totally couldn't wrap my head around was that when Raven arrived on the scene he had a "question in his eyes" and Daniel stood there lucidly talking, no teeth chattering or anything, as he stood in literally ice-cold water. First, why didn't Raven immediately jump into the stream to help Daniel with the last kid? Second, why would Daniel ever suggest that someone stay in the river longer, because there was "no sense anyone else getting soaked?" That literally makes no sense. Everyone knows exposure is the killer; the longer you're exposed the more danger you have of hypothermia and frostbite. So what in the name of everything that is holy was the author thinking to have Daniel stay in the river longer and risk death to save the third kid instead of swapping places with a fresh body, one who could handle it? What. The. Heck?
Of course it took a group of children almost drowning for Claire to get a clue and realize her own feelings. That didn't mean she got her thoughts out any more clearly tho. For some reason the author thinks the only reaction a woman can have to a man kissing her is firm lips. Both times Claire's lips firmed. Ew. A better way to describe that is needed ASAP. And it got capped off by this little gem: "The kiss . . . this kiss was a plighting of their troth." Whoa, you better cool me down. They just had a plighting of their troth! The heat level is through the roof!
The heat level capped off at a solid 2 if I'm being generous.
I never understand how authors can throw propriety out the window. If it was indecent to show a lady's calf in front of a man or feel a man's hand without wearing a glove, then how in the world would it be okay for Claire to escort Daniel to his room alone? And the other servants knew about it! Are you kidding me? Not only that, but she mentioned making his bed! You would never, ever tell a man that you had made up his bed. What the heck could you be thinking? I read in total amazement as Claire and Daniel went to his room like it was nothing, and she offered to tell him a story there when he asked if she cared for him as much as her husband.
Wonder of all wonders, he watched her "derrière" and hips as she walked upstairs, and then commented on following her lead when they got to his room. Idk if it was just me, but I thought so much less of him that he would expect to have sex with her and would be willing to have sex with her when they weren't married. He shouldn't use her like that, and she shouldn't be willing to.
This doesn't happen to me often, but I was majorly turned off as I read the sex scene. I thought the entire time, since I first read the synopsis, that this would be an author who didn't write out the sex. Everything after that indicated that it wouldn't be happening. All they did was look at each other, he held her hand to help her sit down, and her lips curved in a smile. They kissed twice and it was so tame and devoid of detail they might as well not have. So you can imagine my shock as I realized the author was actually going to go there.
Claire sat on his bed and I'm thinking what kind of floozy are you? No self-respecting woman would do that. It was so out of character and I couldn't get past it. He went on to touch her between her legs, and when the mention of nipple came up I almost lost it. I, who can't stand a book without sex in it, was so turned off I didn't even want to read. And you know why? Because the author didn't set it up. They were not set up even once to sleep together. This was as white as snow. So I was scandalized as Claire handled his erection and when the mention of touching the head came up I was grossed out. To have these two boring people have sex felt as gross as watching two elderly people on TV. Ew.
This was all after discovering that Claire's husband married her for her money, because he was in debt, and of course she didn't really love him. It was only an infatuation. Of. Course. What a freaking copout. I liked it better when she loved her husband and didn't want to remarry. But that would be sacrilege for a woman to have experienced love before the hero. We can't have that. How sickeningly sweet.
It's annoying that Lucilla's time with Thomas isn't yet. She kept saying it, not "yet." Now I'm wondering if Thomas will go out and get some experience, or if he already has some.
The historically inaccurate phrases drove me insane. Idk what authors are thinking to use such modern phrases from a book centuries ago.
Wracking his brains.
In a nutshell.
Thrown them together.
Obvious conclusion had stared him in the face.
Put his luck to the test.
A widow to boot
Freak storm
Making a mental note
"Cuz" for cousin
Nip in the bud.
Cronies
Train of thought.
Getting a grip
Read too much into it.
Shoe on the other foot.
See it in that light
Take the bull by the horn
sell yourself short.
Bottom of our hearts
Walking on eggshells
Nothing ventured, nothing gained
Without a penny to her name. Penniless.