Review: Not realistic, but still fun to read
Rating: 3 out of 5
Date: 08 12, 2013
First of all, the writing in this book is good.  The author created an engaging and sometimes exciting story that I'm happy to have read.  Will others like it?  That depends.People who may want to skip this book include:Anyone who requires a realistic plot. The set-up here is far-fetched at best.  You must be willing to enjoy the story as is, almost like a fairy tale.Anyone who abhors babytalk.  Every time the heroine called the grown man "sweetums" or patted him on the head or otherwise treated him like a baby for no reason I wanted to reach my hand into the book and shake her.Anyone offended by the assumption that all scientists are atheists.  The heroine makes this assumption early on and runs with it.  She also goes from suspecting a guy might be a Muslim to suspecting he might be a terroist alarmingly fast.People who may want to read this book include:Anyone who likes the physical attraction part of a romance.  That's the focus here.  The hero has relatively few lines in this story while readers are repeatedly treated to descriptions of how attractive the main character finds him.  (Somewhat ironic considering the title.)Anyone who likes a little mystery with the romance.  I figured it out early on, but I'm not sure if I was a good guesser or if the author intentionally provided enough clues for the reader to be "in on it."  There was even a bit of action as the mystery was wrapped up at the end.Anyone who likes an original love story.  Even though I didn't believe most of the plot, I still appreciated that it was unlike any love story I've read before (and I've read more than a few).My overall opinion of this book was positive.  I'd have given it four stars except that I had some issues with the ending, which I can't explain without spoilers.  I'll keep an eye out for more books by Ms. Mires.A note on the editing:  I've read a few badly edited books recently so I want to point out that this one had decent proofreading.  I spotted only a handful of typos and that wasn't enough to bother me.  (Though the author should make a note somewhere that the past tense of lie is lay, not laid.)