Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

This is my second Annette Blair book, and I have to ask myself - "Why?" Why did I read another one? Probably because it was free and it looked interesting. My first Annette Blair was "Undeniable Rogue." I'd almost forgotten how painful to get through that was, and that I was yelling at the idiot characters halfway through the book. This one wasn't quite that bad. But I have to wonder about the author's attitudes about people and how they should interact. Evidently never with a great deal of honesty. There were some fun moments in this book, but most of it was all too predictable. And the heroine was 24, going on 16, if you judge by her actions and ability to deal with people. Other reviewers have mentioned a lot of the silliness of the characters in this book: the over-the-top behavior of "the girls" - who really just all seemed too stupid to be alive. As for the grammar and editing - I heartily agree with the reviewer's comment "The commas, dear God, the commas." Hard to get past. But my biggest complaints are some of the "facts" and situations which made absolutely no sense. Starting with the prologue: the vicar's son, thrown into some stable with the other 3 soon-to-be-heroes of their own story, is described as ten years younger than the oldest in the group. They also mention that they are at some academy for unruly boys. So how old are these boys that they are still in school? Can't believe they'd be at some "school" they couldn't leave after they hit their majority - so can't be older than 20, can they? So is the youngest one 10 years old? So what was a 10-year-old boy doing compromising the neighbor girl to the point that the girl's mother had him sent away? Was he really that precocious? And ya know, when the Marquess of Andover was describing various events in his life later in the book, talking about all the terrible events that had shaped his life, there was no mention of some disgusting school or the time away from his brother that would have forced. **** Warning - may be some spoilers below ***** Speaking of events which shaped their lives, later in the book, when the hero and his father talk about why the hero's mother deserted them, the father says as soon as Mom got her inheritance at the age of 25 she ran away with her true love. In two other scenes, hero has said he was ten and his brother eight when she left. Dad says he didn't consummate the marriage for a full year after the wedding. Takes another 9 months (at least) to make a baby after that first consummation. I can do math. Was Mom THIRTEEN when she got married? I know they married young in those days, but give me a break! Gee, no wonder she wasn't really ready for motherhood. Here's a few more things that drove me nuts: 1) Aunt Harriette says she fell in love when she first waltzed with heroine's father - heroine is 24 in 1822. This happened before heroine was born, so waltzing and falling in love no later than 1797. Sorry, society ladies did NOT waltz then. Minuet, maybe. 2) As others have mentioned, they must have used a magic carpet, for their drive to Gretna Green (a distance of over 300 miles - with horses that would be lucky to have spurts of 10 to 15 mph), as well as their drive to Brighton after the wedding and their little visit to Aunt Harriet in Arundel (60+ miles). Especially since they returned to London from Arundel starting some time after 4pm (since they hadn't arrived until at least 3:30pm). I really felt bad for their poor coachman, who must never have been allowed to sleep and must have had infrared eyes that see in the dark. 3) Now for my irritation about the Marquess's title. In the prologue, he was called the Marquess of Andover - while he was in this wretched school, perhaps somewhere between 10 and 20 years old (see above). Yet he later says he was given his title for service to the Crown. Really? How old was he when he served the Crown? Evidently, he was as precocious as the vicar's son. And was his father a duke? Patience mentions it once, but no one ever says it again. If his father is a duke, Grant would have had some (courtesy) title of his own anyway. And his brother would have had the courtesy title of Lord Shane. Maybe Annette just doesn't know anything about the peerage. And for Patience to be "Lady" Patience, her father had to have been an Earl or above; as would her grandparents, for her aunt to be "Lady" Harriette. Yet she didn't know anything about society or the peerage? Maybe, but quite a stretch. Her Aunt, at least, should have been familiar with the surname of the Marquess and/or Duke. Come on, there weren't that many dukes - everybody knew their surnames. 4) Here's a few more - they are installed in the house owned by the Marquess, formerly belonging to his grandmother, and none of the society gossip-mongers wonders about this? And her mother's old friend, Lady Caroline, offers to get them vouchers for Almacks? Not if she isn't a patroness she won't. And what is the deal with a bunch of men suddenly paying visits to the 5 women in their home? Without ever being introduced, since they had not yet been into society? I don't think so. Just as they would have had a hard time being invited to the Duchess of Dorset's ball without having been properly introduced and vetted for their acceptability into society first. 5) What Season were they in when they were in London? They boarded ship in August, and would have gotten to London in September - October. What Season was that? The Little Season in autumn maybe, but there wasn't a lot going on in London at that time of year. But, oh well, that's a minor nit. 6) I wondered what kind of a sea captain the hero really was, since he did seem to get his ship into a lot of trouble that the heroine had to help him get out of. I also got the impression that the author didn't have a full grasp of what she was trying to convey as the life aboard ship, since so much of it seemed sketchy and inconsistent, not to mention downright silly. The author had a "Note to Reader" at the beginning of the book, discussing what years are properly called the Regency years. I have to give her points for that, since so many authors seem to think that anything in the 1800's qualifies as "regency." Guess those authors have never heard of Queen Victoria. However, just knowing the years that constituted the Regency, and sticking a date at the beginning of the book that qualifies it as such, does not a regency make. The situations, conversations, dialogue, attitudes just didn't really qualify as regency backdrop. Just because they wear long skirts and worry about society, doesn't put me in the regency frame of mind. Okay, I've just got to end with one more note for those who have read the book: The heroine tells the hero "Show me what it looks like"? As I said, 24, going on 16.