<< 1 >>
Rating:  Summary: This was more like ashes than fire Review: I like many of Sutcliffe's novels, but when she writes a bad one, it is "very, very, bad." This novel is one of those. Where shall I begin? Shall I start with the annoying heroine or discuss the completely unrealistic plot details. I guess it doesn't matter: 1) It is not even remotely feasible that Bonny would be so ungrateful and bratty. She's an impovershiped, sickly (near death), workhouse occupant who runs away and is kindly sheltered by the our wealthy, titled hero. Any NORMAL person would be grateful not only to be sheltered and protected from the bad guys at the workhouse, but also immensely grateful for the clothing, shelter, and kindness she receives from her host. However, Bonny is a brat from the beginning. Not only does she not show gratitude, but she actually is spiteful (purposely throws and breaks things) and disdainful of the hero. Unbelievable! I wanted to slap her myself. 2) Why would the hero be even remotely interested in her? I can almost understand why he would lust after her (even though that was difficult to grasp because he did have another beautiful, willing woman at his disposal who he notes is the "best he's ever had" in bed), but why in heavens name does he fall in love with her so quickly? What's there to love? Sutcliffe does a poor job of showing readers what's so lovable about Bonnie. 3) It is completely unbelievable that the class-conscious English ton of that time would have welcomed an penniless, lower-class woman into their midst. Come on! She was actually being courted by gentlemen and invited to teas by the Duchess of Marlborough. Katherine, give readers a little credit! 4) It is even more unbelievable that when she's so obviously pregnant (she's showing) and so obviously UNmarried (even though she's engaged) that she would traipse around Hyde Park at midday with Damien's family and attend all other social functions as if nothing is different. Hello? We're talking about the Victorian era here. There's no way that an unmarried pregnant woman would gad about so openly and there's no way that the society in which she's circulating would accept her.I know romance novels are not realistic in that the hero is always too good to be true. However, readers do like the other aspects of the novel to be realistic so that when we're escaping into the story we at least can maintain that illusion for a while without stumbling across so many blatantly obvious blunders. ...P>This is definitely not one of Sutcliffe's finer efforts.
Rating:  Summary: This was more like ashes than fire Review: Sorry. I don't see what all the excitement is. I tried, I honestly tried to read this book. I tried to get into the characters. But I could see nothing appealing in Bonnie... yes, the author tried to make one sympathetic to her circumstances, but she was spiteful, vicious, dishonest, and frankly, all her anger against the "hero" made no sense at all. It's difficult to believe a gentleman would be attracted to her. You may account for lust, with a vivid stretch of the imagination, but it's a real stretch. Maybe they were a match, after all; as a hero, Damien came up short. His reactions to other the characters are not consistant... one moment he's tolerant, the next he flies off the handle. Furthermore, and all the brooding just gets boring. Perhaps it gets better. I don't know. There's only so much I could force myself to read before I gave up and put the book away. I think I made it to Part 2, but it was an effort. My advice to anyone looking for a good read? Judith McNaught. Julia Quinn. Kathleen Woodiwiss. Shirley Busbee. Johanna Lindsey. Nora Roberts. Jennifer Crusie. Teresa Medeiros. Susan Sizemore. Ah, but my list could go on and on, and that's not my purpose here. The only thing this book lacks is compelling characters, interesting dialogue, honest emotion, and a storyline.
Rating:  Summary: YAWN! Review: Sorry. I don't see what all the excitement is. I tried, I honestly tried to read this book. I tried to get into the characters. But I could see nothing appealing in Bonnie... yes, the author tried to make one sympathetic to her circumstances, but she was spiteful, vicious, dishonest, and frankly, all her anger against the "hero" made no sense at all. It's difficult to believe a gentleman would be attracted to her. You may account for lust, with a vivid stretch of the imagination, but it's a real stretch. Maybe they were a match, after all; as a hero, Damien came up short. His reactions to other the characters are not consistant... one moment he's tolerant, the next he flies off the handle. Furthermore, and all the brooding just gets boring. Perhaps it gets better. I don't know. There's only so much I could force myself to read before I gave up and put the book away. I think I made it to Part 2, but it was an effort. My advice to anyone looking for a good read? Judith McNaught. Julia Quinn. Kathleen Woodiwiss. Shirley Busbee. Johanna Lindsey. Nora Roberts. Jennifer Crusie. Teresa Medeiros. Susan Sizemore. Ah, but my list could go on and on, and that's not my purpose here. The only thing this book lacks is compelling characters, interesting dialogue, honest emotion, and a storyline.
Rating:  Summary: Drama, Passion & Courage Review: The BEST book I have amongst my hundred collections of Diana Palmer, D. Macomber, J. Lindey, I. Johansen etc. This is absolutely fantastic. Page turning with moments of drama that will make your heart twist. You will never ever regret having this book. Its a definite MUST HAVE! My first romance book was Barbara Cartland when I was in Grade 3. There will be a time that you'll be so exhausted reading the same old plot of. J. Lindsey, J. McNaught, J. Krentz, Nora Roberts, R. Rogers, K. Woodiwiss etc. After a while, you'll you'll get more adventurous to try books of Harold Robbins, J. Krantz or even, take an adventure with Sheldon, Anne Rice, L. Deighton or even Agatha Christie (one of my old time fave). Apropos, Your romantic heart will be looking for romance in a new paradigm. THIS IS THE BOOK!. This is a BEST SELLER. Count on the experts.
<< 1 >>
|