('Scuse me whilst I ramble.) This book was quite a lot easier to get through than my last first-reads win, but it was also... fluffier. The first chapter or two had me nearly weeping with its/their fierce, fierce cliché. Happy couple, multiple kids, husband dies, widow experiences strife, multiple suitors, marries again, new happy couple, kids have good new dad. Yay! However, I will give the author some benefit of the doubt, as it's likely that some of the cliché seen here is cliché because that's how things were in the 1830s, when this novel was set.
I liked the characters, particularly Molly, though I do feel they were all fairly lacking in dynamics. A large part of the reason I like Molly is because she weaves. On a loom. I think I might like to weave. On a loom. Other than that, she's a lot like a lot of other historical-fiction lady-characters: Spunky; determined; gets called a "spitfire" by someone (often a suitor, though how much she likes said suitor varies) at some point; pretty enough to have more than one of said suitor knocking on her door, but unaware of her good looks; self-reliant but unsure that she can handle all the ordeals thrown at her.... I like spunky, determined, and self-reliant females when I read, especially when they're in novels where spunky, determined, and self-reliant weren't considered "appropriate" things for a female to be; I want to be a spunky, determined, self-reliant female, and the self-doubt they often experience makes them feel more relatable (learn to spell, GoodReads). However, females such as this are kind of the template for historical fiction, particularly in novels that are set between the Revolutionary War and the advent of the car in America. At least, they're the template in the applicable novels that I've read when said females are the protagonist.
In addition to this, all of our other characters have very little character development. This is probably because there isn't a lot of development for our main character. Oh, sure, I can describe Molly's personality pretty well, but she doesn't really develop much. "Oh, goodness, I did the same thing Future Husband did; I must apologise (seriously, GoodReads) to him, because I was wrong and mean." People just don't always see the error of their ways so quickly. And this is one of, oh, three instances where Molly grows, as a person and character. She becomes more capable, yes, but she doesn't grow. (I apologise if I sound like a nut-job.)
For other characters without development, let's take a look:
Arthur: Matt's wife's uncle. Helped raise Matt's wife. Awesome. (HOW is he so awesome, but he's married to mean ol' biddy Ruth?)
Brody: Brother to Samuel (deceased). Meanie-head. (Why is he so mean?) Stole Samuel's (you can't even recognise a possessive, GoodReads? Or "recognise"?) stuff from Molly.
Matt: Molly's brother. Wife and four kids. Preacher.
Mr. Wolcott: Conductor on the UR
Patience: Brody's crazy, mean wife. (WHY is she crazy and mean?)
Reuben: Betsy's love interest. She thinks he's yummy.
Ruth: Matt's wife's aunt. Raised Matt's wife. Mean old biddy. (WHY is she a biddy?)
What motivates these people? Why are they the way they are? I could talk about all of Molly's suitors, but I'm starting to get tired of my rant. I think I've made my point. And while I understand that some characters, by the nature of books, are going to remain static, those closest to our main character, such as Matt, or most involved in causing her troubles, such as Brody and Ruth, should be more than "Preacher" and "Meanie-Head" and "Mean Ol' Biddy." It doesn't have to be a lot. One little anecdote for each, say. What directed Matt toward preacher-hood? What was the straw that broke the camel's back – or, in this case, Brody and Samuel's sibling bond? Is Ruth such a biddy because her mother was a biddy? Or was there some key event that caused the biddiness? What prompted Karl to become a doctor? What's the whole story with that Lydia character? That kind of stuff is kind of important to making a character likable. And memorable. I hate when I can't keep characters' names straight because they have no story. (Luckily, that didn't happen this time, but they still had no story.)
All that said, rant wound down, I still found this novel enjoyable. Not particularly intellectual or even involving, but enjoyable. If you're just looking to get lost for a few evenings, and finish up with a "happy ending," this is an excellent novel to turn to. I was in the mood for a lack of character development and a clean historical romance template. (That's an important point; no raunchy sex scenes. Or glossed over sex scenes. The widow remained pure. Go her!) And because this is what I was in the mood for, I liked it more than any hoity-toity lit critic would give it credit for. But since we aren't all hoity-toity lit critics, it might be worth the week of evenings.
I received a free copy through FirstReads in exchange for an honest review.