I really wanted to like this book, it's right in my wheelhouse. I love historical fiction. I'm especially partial to Imperial Russia as a historical center point thanks to the brilliance of Tolstoy, Pushkin, Lermontov, Gogol, Turgenev, and Massie's two non-fiction tomes, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great. The fact that it had good ratings and was a series only sweetened the pot. I dove into this excitedly (but as I've learned through the years, with no glowing expectation). Boy did this fall flat. Flat, flat, flat. Like soda pop left out of the fridge too long. Was it bad? No. Was it good? No. Why? Because there was no real discernible plot. It was simply a 'slice of life' piece that spanned a few years in time. It still could have been good. Slice of life books can be character driven and excellent. Was this book character driven and/or excellent? No. Why? Because there was nothing interesting about it. The 'plot': Two young girls from different backgrounds, a princess and her peasant-stock maid, become friends as they go from 16 year old children, to 18 year old young women--with a brief battle tossed in where the 3 men in their lives go to fight and all 3 come back without a hitch. That's it. Honestly, that's it. There's the cliche 'love affair' (for lack of a better term, because it's more like two people who like the same books and think the other one is nice...so they get engaged). The maid and the princess's brother, the princely heir going against convention (well they haven't gone against anything yet, they've only said they want to get married after spending approximately an hour in one another's company (no joke). There's another cliche 'love affair' (yes, another tepid romance) whereas the princess is in love with her older brother's dashing best friend who only sees her as a child. The character arcs are completely missing save for the princess who goes from petulant, spoiled brat to mature, deep woman in the space of a single page. The characters were likable enough (aka: boring), the story was inoffensive (aka: uninteresting), and the pacing, plot, and conflict were weak as tea with a thrice used teabag (aka: I'm being nice, they were actually nonexistent). I am going to assume that the writer is writing for the series rather than as a stand alone book. Even if that's true (aka: I'll never know, it's one and done for me), there has to be some conflict, something compelling that draws in the reader and makes them want to read the next book in the series. The Crown and the Crucible just doesn't engage the reader (in my humble opinion, of course). So much so that it took me 3 months to read 400+ pages (and I usually read a 600+ page book every 2 weeks, 3 weeks if it's a meh read). I cannot recommend this book to anyone. Perhaps the series on the whole is a good one, a great one even. Unfortunately, if the first book doesn't grab the reader it's pretty much a no go. The Crown and the Crucible can be summed up in a few words: boring, cliche, tepid, and uninteresting, with no conflict, character arcs, or compelling storyline (okay more than a few). Not nearly the worst book I've ever read. Just an empty one. A sandwich with no meat, no lettuce and tomato, no condiments....just a single piece of processed white cheese on Wonderbread. You can eat it and it's ok. Only why would you want to eat that when there are so many tasty, flavorful sandwiches with crusty French bread, sharp cheddar, butter lettuce, heirloom tomatoes, Dijon, aioli, and freshly carved meat for you non vegetarians out there (yeah, it's lunchtime and I'm hungry!). As for actual bad books, there have been a few doozies this past year that would've made TCATC read like a Man-Booker Prize recipient (The Beautiful American comes to mind. Now there's a Very Bad Book for ya). There are just too many great books out there to spend time on a milquetoast one. PASS!!!