I took voice lessons for a brief few months when I was 14 or
15. They didn’t last very long, and now one of the only things I remember from
them was that my voice teacher was overwhelmingly positive . . . to a fault.
She was constantly kind and complimentary, praising me up one side and down
another, so you would have thought my self-esteem would have soared under her
tutelage. But it didn’t. After just a few weeks, I felt like I couldn’t trust
her. I didn’t know which compliments were real and which ones were there
because she was afraid to hurt my feelings. I became so grateful for my piano
teacher who was formidably honest about everything (including the color of my fingernails). But when she gave me a compliment, I glowed with pleasure because
I knew it was the real deal.
I have thought about that contrasting experience many times
over the last three years as I’ve written about and reviewed books on this
blog. When I’m hesitant to share something I didn’t like, I remember my
experience with my two music teachers. I realize that if I only write glowing
reviews, they will soon become meaningless because no one will know if I’m giving
my true opinion or just gently smoothing over the surface, being careful not to
disturb the waters underneath.
You’ve probably guessed from that little introduction that
the review I’m about to write is one that would make my piano teacher proud
because even though it might not be overwhelmingly positive, it will be honest.
Set in England during the Regency Era, Amber Sterlington has
it all: beauty, wealth, and her choice of eligible bachelors. When she enters a
room, other people notice . . . including Thomas Richards, who is in London for
the Season before returning to his country estate in Yorkshire. Thomas is but
the third son of a country lord and knows he doesn’t have a chance of winning
Amber’s attention. But still, her obvious arrogance and condescension towards
him make him burn with humiliation.
This arrogance affects Amber’s other relationships as well,
including those with her mother, sister, and maid. She doesn’t recognize the
damage she has done until she unexpectedly begins to lose her hair. As her
condition worsens, she is shunned from society, and she realizes she doesn’t
have a single friend or family member to turn to for love, comfort and support.
After many months, and as her prospects permanently crumble, Amber’s heart softens,
and she emerges a much kinder and wiser person.
Because of its focus on a rare health disorder, this is far
from your typical Regency romance. I certainly appreciated the author’s
boldness in branching out and tackling a difficult subject. However, there were
times, many times actually, when I felt like the novel was using Amber’s
condition as a crutch. Forming the plot around a unique disease does not
instantly make a deep and touching story, and in the end, the originality
was not enough to carry the rest of the book through some of its other flaws.
· For example, the pacing was very slow. This isn't unusual for a Regency romance, but the conversations and details that happened in the meantime were so uninteresting and repetitive that I had a really difficult time making it through to anything that was actually noteworthy. There was very little interaction between Amber and
Thomas (and what does happen mostly occurs with a wall between them). When they finally see each other and speak face to face at the end, it made me a little uncomfortable, rather than happy. I guess part of the problem was that I just never liked Amber. At first, she was too stuck up and by the end, she was too humble. It wasn't that I felt like her transition was unbelievable, just that I didn't like either result.
·
It also felt really preachy to me. That is an adjective I strive to avoid in my reviews, but in this case, I can't help myself. From Amber’s condition to
messages about inner beauty to even comments about modesty (when Amber walks
into the room in a revealing gown, Thomas chastises himself because he knows
“he [is] the one in keeping of his own thoughts and ought not to blame her
manner of dress for his own weakness”), I just felt like little ideas were
being compartmentalized and forced onto me.
The book did generate some strong emotions from me, which I think says something positive for it. I liked Amber’s maid, Suzanne, and appreciated this thought from her, “I
. . . believe that there are people in every society who would prefer the heart
you have grown, to the beauty you left behind to find it.” (But it would have
been more powerful if I hadn’t read almost the same sentiment several more
times.)
On the flip side, I felt a
strong dislike for Amber’s family, who, instead of rallying around her,
banished her to Yorkshire so they wouldn’t be tainted by her appearance. Her
father’s words especially made me so angry: “That you have to endure such a
thing is unfortunate indeed, but I should think you would not want your family
to suffer along with you. I should think that as a woman of feeling and sound
mind you should want to protect us from such derision, not ask that we share it
with you.”
As I've written this review, I've tried to think about how I would have altered it if I happened to personally know the author. Would I have mentioned the things I didn't like? Would I have focused on the things I did like? For sure, such a relationship would have made this review even more difficult to write, and I don't know what I would have done. However, in the end, I think my reaction to it was far simpler than I've made this review out to be. It wasn't so much like vs. dislike but just plain, old boredom. I guess it just wasn't for me.
I received an advance copy of this book in exchange for an honest review. All opinions are my own.
I'm glad you gave your honest opinion. I, too, don't trust people's opinions when they only post positive reviews of books. It's not fair to readers.
ReplyDeleteI'll be brutally honest: I heartily dislike the whole "A Proper Romance" line of books. I find them exceedingly juvenile in a bad way. They are seriously lacking in historical authenticity; they're badly edited, and horribly preachy. I'm normally not so disparaging of authors and publishers, but that whole line just needs to go away. They're a disservice to the genre.
Yes to historical inauthenticity and poor editing. But I will freely admit to loving Edenbrooke and Blackmoore by Julianne Donaldson. They're both pure fluff but just the kind of fluff I like. :-)
DeleteI'm glad you posted this. My mom was thinking about buying it, but it definitely sounds like it won't be our style :) I really liked Sarah Eden's Friends and Foes- I think you should try that one next time you're in the mood for fluff ;)
ReplyDelete