14 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
The heroine is unappealing, December 30, 2005
I understand the need for romance writers to make their heroines more appealing to the 21st century reader, but it's a mistake for them to do so. Too many times, romance writers make their heroines promiscuous, and it is just not believeable in an historical time frame. Meg is supposed to have been raised in a strict society home and life, and yet she has had many affairs while still being an unmarried young woman. It turned me off. I enjoy the chase and seduction theme as much as the next person, but I need the plot to remain true to the historical context as much as possible. This just didn't do that. And, to top it off, Bonaparte himself is a character in the novel. Ridiculous. Don't bother with Feather's latest book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
14 of 15 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
So help me, I wasted my money; I hate it, January 12, 2006
This is Jane Feather's worst book ever. I am more than halfway through it, and I can already see where this is going.
Meg Barratt is a relatively well-off young spinster living in Folkstone, England. Gradually the reader is expected to gather that she is somewhat intelligent, well-read, unconventional, and "free-thinking." At least that is what we are supposed to think. She comes across as short-sighted and thoughtless to me when she is suddenly brouhgt aboard a privateer's ship when she is accidentally knocked unconscious one night. She just kind of allows herself to be sweet-talked into staying on board with the good-looking but shifty captain, Cosimo.
From moment one, I didn't like this guy. It doesn't help that he is an assassin and spy for England during their war with France, under Napoleon's rule. He comes across as arrogant and just kind of selfishly drags Meg into the life of a spy to replace his former lover, Ana. Meg should have known better. Good sex doesn't excuse flaws like working as an assassin, lying, and holding her on a boat against her will. This isn't love. It's Stockholm Syndrome.
I agree with a couple of the other readers on this site that her seeming sensuality and sexual proclivity toward being loose is uncharacteristic of the time, and does nothing to enhance the story. Sometimes, the best things about historical romances are "deflowerings," and the build-up toward the heroine "becoming a woman." That should happen when the heroine decides to fall in love with the hero. It shouldn't just happen because the heroine is "just along for the ride," literally and figuratively.
Cosimo is passive-aggressive; all throughout the book he plays games with Meg, acts hostile when he doesn't get his way, and he never apologizes to her when he is in the wrong. I HATE that.
The only likable character in the story was Cosimo's macaw, Gus. That's sad.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Absolute Worst Jane Feather Book., January 28, 2006
I can't believe the hero fell for the heroine. I thought Ana sounded like a real heroine by all the comparisons made by Cosimo. The idea that a woman during the time period was only supportive of killing a man that was a monster to her country out of love, vs. a woman that hated the tyranny Napolean represented was a joke. I felt that all the comparison's made between Ana and Meg were supposed to make us see that Meg was a better person for the hero, except they only made me see Meg as a shallow and self-absorbed woman by comparison and made me wish the hero to have Ana. Meg has got to be one of the most unlikable heroines I've ever seen in a historical romance. I was digusted by how it was foreplay when Meg flirted with other men in front of Cosimo.
I am sorry I wasted the money on the book, it was a terrible disappointment. The author has written a number of books that I've liked, but she is hit or miss. And this is definitely a miss on her part.
The hero puts England second to his "love", until she tells him a little late that he should continue. What a joke.
This was very lazy writing, poor history, modern cliches, and just plain awful.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
