So, the third book I've read from this author had some of the similar problems in Book 2,but still, I enjoyed the book and would have enjoyed it moreSo, the third book I've read from this author had some of the similar problems in Book 2,but still, I enjoyed the book and would have enjoyed it more if it had been standalone.
Arianne Chambers is not in either of the first two books, just referenced as traveling. I wonder how they could afford to let her travel in high style when the purpose of the second book is that William is so broke, he takes the first American heiress who'll have him. She's so absent from the first two books that there's no way anyone would pick this up, eager to learn more about her. So there's that.
Second, again with the dropped plot threads. The backstory with the Baron is good and adds to her character, but there's a scene before they leave London, where the Baron shows up with his new fiancee trying to tell Arianne that it's not his fault, it wasn't his choice. He seems genuinely unnerved, but it's never discussed again. The reader is then told the Baron probably just wanted to sleep with her and discard her, so it's a little disjointed.
I also have issues when an author can't decided how to refer to her characters. Michael Rafferty is rarely Michael, but he's usually Rafferty, and then even Rafe, and the character uses all three, even if his point of view. Pick one and stick to it.
That being said, here's what works. The setting of Washington, D.C. is intriguing. I've found so few really good historical romances set in the United States (with reason, I suppose) and they're usually Westerns, and even they're a scarce resource. I really liked reading the political intrigue, and using the assassination of Garfield was quite good. I liked the relationship between Arianne and Michael, and hope that Phineas gets his own book, I don't know yet if he does. I liked the use of William, as well. The story was quite good, if a little lacking. I think there needed to be a bit more development in Michael's background, connecting the villain to him. I understand he killed Michael's family, but I'm not sold on it.
It's a good, solid book whose flaws do not detract from overall quality too much. I just hope the author gets it together with her continuity and character/plot development. ...more
I liked the characters and set up of this book, but there always a few plot threads not really fleshed out that distract you. There is a lot to be madI liked the characters and set up of this book, but there always a few plot threads not really fleshed out that distract you. There is a lot to be made about Franny's dislike of crowds, but she never confides in this to her husband, so he's left think she's got amazing regal duchess bearing. William's first wife, who is barely referenced if at all in the first book, receives almost no attention. He never explains to Franny why he's so suspicious of her pregnancy, when he could have told her his wife gave him reasons for doubt. So Franny overlooking his really quite boorish behavior on this topic and forgiving him was quite confusing and left me with a bad taste in my mouth.
The first book did nothing to set up the horribleness of the father. The previous Duke is a bit of an idiot, and not fond of his second son's art,but he's really a drunken buffoon. The elevation to terrifying abuser in this seems not so well-thought out in that respect, as if the author wasn't sure what the next plot would be.
Still, the book was rather good and the plot works. The author just has to learn how not to drop major pieces of the character's make-up and plan trilogies accordingly. Character continuity is essential. ...more
Most of this book is wonderful, but it falls down in a few areas:
-- the use of Scottish accent is distracting at times, and is so thick one can almostMost of this book is wonderful, but it falls down in a few areas:
-- the use of Scottish accent is distracting at times, and is so thick one can almost not concentrate on what's being said because the reader is trying to translate. Establish he's speaking in a thick brogue, but don't over do it. It feels like a cliche after a time.
-- the setting of the stable fire is solved in the last few pages and never really properly addressed nor discussed. The reader is left to infer the reasoning for the fire.
Despite that, the characters are lively and engaging, the plot interesting and keeps on turning the pages. Worth picking up. Not perfect, but not far off. ...more
I'm quite torn on this book because I read it from start to finish in one sitting, I smiled through most of it, and I even laughed outloud. And yet...I'm quite torn on this book because I read it from start to finish in one sitting, I smiled through most of it, and I even laughed outloud. And yet...
There's quality here. The author knows what she's doing in the actual writing. The characters are great. So, what's the problem? The scenes are choppy, with transitions that feel out of place. The villain is one-dimensional and almost cartoonish and at times, it felt as through Ms. Bright hadn't quite sat down to plot through from start to finish and winged it. The dialogue was very American and modern, quite out of place for London 1810.
Still, a messy plot doesn't detract from the entertainment value. I've read books with better plots and cardboard characters I didn't like and didn't like as much as I liked this book. So, Ms. Bright, I'm paying attention. If she cleaned up her plotting, took a little more time to set the scene and adjusted her dialogue just a little, I think she'd be quite smashing. ...more
For the majority of the book, I was relatively happy. I genuinely liked the leads, Trevor and Grace, though Grace seemed a little too perfect at timesFor the majority of the book, I was relatively happy. I genuinely liked the leads, Trevor and Grace, though Grace seemed a little too perfect at times. That being said, until the last quarter of the book, it just plodded along. The best thing about this series was the excitement -- the first four books, even the fifth, was the adventure and action. That was entirely missing from this book -- until the ending. At because the final quarter of the book simply didn't match the pacing, I was dissatisfied.
I reviewed the fifth book, My Scandalous Viscount, stating that as the book was designed to serve as a bridge to Trevor and Nick's stories, I thought it had done a good job. It did. This book did not live up to it. It feels as if Ms. Foley had no idea where to go after eliminating the threat in Books 1-4 and wrapping up loose ends in Book 5. Even the set up for the final book, Nick's story, was an afterthought, a plug in the epilogue that tore the reader out of the moment. I was just unhappy. Some series should end. And this one ought to have ended with Book 5....more
I loved this book. The only drawback is my own fault -- I've read so many of her books that I begin to notice that she's been recycling old storylinesI loved this book. The only drawback is my own fault -- I've read so many of her books that I begin to notice that she's been recycling old storylines. The old family treasure causing murders and mayhen in the here and now? It's the Calhoun series. Her last trilogy about brothers rehabbing an inn? Rehash of the MacKade. They're satisfying and I loved the murder mystery, but in the back of my head I kept picturing the previous series. ...more