This book could not have been more bland. It has all the elements you would want for a novel, but lacks any of the technical skill or characterization that makes reading enjoyable. It's like if someone cooked you a fancy dinner but didn't add any seasoning to the food. It could have been so good! But instead it's unremarkable and tasteless.
There's absolutely no character depth here. People don't change or grow. Almost no one experiences internal conflict, competing desires, or acts in a way we think of as "human." Good people are good all the way through and, at most, get upset about things but not in any meaningful way. Bad people are bad. That's just the way it is. And the way these people talk to one another! It's not even believable for the time it's set in! It feels like an alien or some artificial intelligence was given a description of how people interact and tried its best to recreate it.
The book is also overly long and actually sort of repetitive. People are continuously described in the same way. It's like, by page 500, I don't need a reminder that people think Mark is handsome and kind. I know that. You've told me that since page 1. Please stop. For being so long, the book is also oddly structured. You can spend whole chapters living through a single weekend, and then suddenly, in the course of one page, skip through two years of the characters' lives. Some judicious editing really would have helped.
Another thing I found annoying is that the author clearly went to great lengths to make this a work of "historical fiction." She has a whole afterword where she goes into detail about all the research she did. I don't discredit that, but there are some pretty obvious historical inaccuracies, even to someone with a casual knowledge of 19th century American history. I know the internet makes it easy to be an armchair historian, so some of the mistakes I'll let slide, but there are others that should have been obvious even then. For one thing, Price makes Christmas a big deal in the novel, having it be celebrated several times. But Americans (and Christians generally) didn't really start celebrating Christmas (especially in the way we think of it) until much later in the 19th century. That's been a known fact for decades. It frankly would have been odd for Mark and the MacKays to make such a big deal of Christmas in the first few decades of the 1800s. In line with that, there's also a part in the novel where Caroline plays "the familiar French carol," "Angels We Have Heard On High." She does this in 1825, which is VERY impressive because "Angels We Have Heard On High" didn't exist until the 1860s. Similarly, there's a part in the book where Eliza reads "Pride and Prejudice" aloud to her children, which is kind of amazing since the first printing of P&P in the United States was in 1832, seven years after "Savannah" ends. I suppose it could have been imported from England or something; it's not impossible she would have it. But it makes it seem like P&P was well known and a big deal in the US at the time when it in fact wasn't. Anyway, I think that historical events directly related to Savannah are probably correct, but it seems like, for the sake of name dropping or love of Christmas or whatever, Price got sloppy with general cultural details. Which was distracting.
Of course, you can't read a book about the antebellum South without touching on slavery, and, as you'd expect from a book written by an old white woman in love with pre-Civil War Savannah, the rosy depiction of slavery is pretty heinous. Slaves are frequently referred to as "servants," which implies that they are being paid for their work/are willingly there, when they weren't. All the slaves in the novel are depicted as being happy with their lot in life and devoted to the people who own them, which is gross. There even seem to be some parts that try to use this familial closeness as a justification for slavery, which is shocking coming from a modern day author. Price also writes their dialogue in a way I assume she thought slaves would speak, and it's pretty offensive. There's some talk about abolitionism, and the main character himself eventually comes out as opposed to owning slaves himself, but the presence of slavery itself is never condemned or really even debated. This, actually, is an example of what I meant by the characters lacking internal conflict or development. Mark is opposed to owning another human, but he refuses to call himself an abolitionist and never speaks poorly about slavery as an institution. He even marries a woman who owns slaves and not once does that concern him or cause him trouble. It seems weird that he's so idealistic that he'd refuse to own slaves himself for moral reasons but then not care if others, including his wife, do. He's basically just like "whatever" about it. I'm sure Price would have replied with something like "that's just how it was then" but I think we know that 1) that's not true and 2) you're writing a novel so you can have characters act however you want. I get that in the 80s when this was published it's depiction of slavery and blacks in the 19th century South probably wasn't offensive to most readers, but it absolutely is now and is hard to stomach.
The biggest indictment of this book is probably that it's the first in a series, but having finished, I have absolutely no desire to read further. Whatever happens to the Brownings/MacKays will remain a mystery to me, though actually I can probably guess that Mark will continue to be handsome and kind. If you're looking for another "Gone With the Wind," or just good historical fiction, look elsewhere.