Michelle read and liked Svetlana Kovalkova-McKenna's review of Familiar Scars:

"Great Prologue! It shows that author has promise. Burn everything else and start over!

The first thing I want to say is that the book does not live up to its cover and description. You are promised a dark Victorian novel, maybe even a horr...more Great Prologue! It shows that author has promise. Burn everything else and start over!

The first thing I want to say is that the book does not live up to its cover and description. You are promised a dark Victorian novel, maybe even a horror story. However, as you dive into the book, after a brilliant prologue, the promise of a “Sweeny Todd”-like atmosphere turns to roses-and-doves. With horror, I found myself in the cheesiest failed historical romance novel. I say failed, because Victorian romance novels, even 176 page ones, require either a lot of research or deep knowledge of Victorian times. The author has neither.
The infamous f*** word was not used during Victorian times, performers were not invited to mingle with guests as equals and were not considered marriage material, Victorian LADIES did not wear dresses that opened their nipples for the world to see, and the word “self-esteem” was not something women during Victorian times repeated to themselves over and over again.
Yes, the are some historical exceptions to that, but does every bad novel have to have a rags to riches story without the benefit of being well plotted and written down without countless typos and grammatical mistakes? Also, I do not think a surgery to correct a harelip on an infant existed until the 20th century. And so on…
A well written Victorian novel leaves you a bit more educated about history, and a well written book keeps you on your toes until the end. This book failed on both ends. Shortly after the girls move in with Mr.Satine (chapter 2), it is obvious how everything is going to end unless you are 11 and never read a romance novel in you life. Remember Mom’s advice: the boy who pulls your braids is in love with you (Mr.Satine- Orabella); the boy who smiles at you is either gay or a long lost brother (Mr.Satine – Rosalyn).
Ok. Let’s set aside the historical inaccuracies and total predictability of the book. The plot has some serious problems with brother recognizing sister immediately, but sister, who still has nightmares about her brother’s “death,” is clueless when she meets him. The kind of wounds the children had should have killed them without any medical care, not only because of the bleeding for hours in the dirty river (infection and etc…), but also because being in the water stops the blood from clotting (bathtub suicides), and you die. Why did Peter have to be maimed in order to join the happily ever after? Did Orabella’s baby have to be born with a harelip to truly belong?
Let’s go back to the prologue once again. The book’s prologue was the only reason it is going to get three stars out of me instead of one. The prologue was great; it had promise and whispered to me that the author has it in her to write something amazing. She would have to burn everything past the prologue and start over. Keep the cover, use it as an inspiration (I think illustrator’s and author’s names are aliases of the same person), and get the book edited for constant typos, grammatical mistakes. and misusage of verbs – it is like eating a soup with worms. I read the book for the group read; otherwise it would be goodbye after the first chapter.
Oh, and because all of the main characters have some kind of disfigurement, the whole book reminded me of a famous Mother Goose rhyme:

There was a crooked man
and he walked a crooked mile,
he found a crooked sixpence
upon a crooked stile,
he bought a crooked cat
which caught a crooked mouse,
and they all lived together
in a little crooked house,
and he walked a crooked mile,
he found a crooked sixpence
upon a crooked stile,
he bought a crooked cat
which caught a crooked mouse,
and they all lived together
in a little crooked house

If only all of us could say it as well as Mother Goose could
(less) "