Review: Nothing Regency about this book.
Rating: 2 out of 5
Date: 06 29, 2013
Boy, do I feel duped by all the 5 star reviews for this book. I read the sample and found the writing to be a little stilted, but the characters all seemed likable and the premise for the story sounded interesting so I allowed the reviews to woo me into buying this book.  It's not terrible, but disappointments are stronger when expectations are set so high.The Good:  excellent character development, interesting storyline (though nothing new), characters were very likable, good editingThe Bad: somewhat stilted dialogue, lacking witty banterThe Ugly:  behavior is too forward, speech is too direct.  Very American. Very Modern. NOT Regency England.When Brianna kisses a complete stranger (Richard) at a ball in order to get him to stop talking and so she can hide from her mother, I thought it was unusual behavior for the 1800's, but shrugged my shoulders and assumed this was an example of the heroine's "wild" behavior.  Then when she instructs her footman to track down Richard, he locates Richard at his men's club where she promptly rushes out to meet him, at night.  This should have given Richard a disgust for her. I don't think even modern day men want to be stalked and pursued. I gritted my teeth and kept reading, allowing that maybe Richard feels flattered by her enthusiastic attachment to him. But I really became disappointed in this book when Brianna attends a house party at Richard's home and searches bed chambers until she finds Richard getting out of his bath and then begins undressing herself so she can throw herself at him. She had planned to seduce Richard to convince him to marry her, and she decides to do this before she even knows his last name.  Would you consider marrying someone whose last name you don't know?  During the Regency time period, introductions are crucial.  People even wrote each other letters of introduction to smooth the way for relationships in business, friendship, etc...  Brianna may be wild, but she's not stupid. She's not going to marry a man without some information about his connections and place in the world. And the author wants us to believe this "gentleman" is going to want to marry her after she throws herself at him?  This might be acceptable in a 1900's scenario, but not 1800's.I cared enough about the characters to want to know how this book ended, so I trudged on. Even to the end, I didn't feel the author had a grasp of writing about this time period. Richard forbids Brianna to go outside of the house without his escort.  I found it really hard to believe they wouldn't have reached a compromise that she could walk the grounds with a companion or maid and a footman for protection. Brianna was raised in London - she never would have gone anywhere alone and this type of requirement would not be unusual for her. Again, I think they would have reached a compromise without dragging it out to crisis proportions. The author was trying to create a conflict that would allow Richard and Brianna to realize how much they love each other, but this conflict was too big of a stretch. There are so many other ways they could have come to this realization by Brianna succeeding in her role as both a hostess (which she did) and a painter and Richard admiring her and being a loving husband without such a pointless conflict.Overall, the book lacked the subtlety of conversation and manners which are expected in a Regency (or even Victorian) romance. The scenarios and behaviors in this book may be more successful set during the 1920's, similar to Downton Abbey rather than the 1800's.  I don't read modern romances, and this book certainly falls in that category!