5 of 8 people found the following review helpful
- Published on Amazon.com
While I didn't utterly loathe this novel, I found little to recommend in it. I read the occasional Romance Novel for diversion, and they almost always disappoint on several levels. Since this one is in the "inspirational" genre, I was hoping for a nice romance with the entertainment value of a historical drama, some romantic tension, and no sleazy sex scenes. What I got was 1) no drama, 2) no tension, and no "sex" at all... not even a stolen kiss. Somebody please buy this author a copy of "What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew...", and then perhaps her ensuing endeavors will have even a smidgen of historical flavour. The characters walk around slinging 20th century slang like "hi", "hello", and "OK" (well, the last one appeared in 1838 in reference to Pres. Van Buren, "Old Knickerbocker", but it wasn't in common usage as an affirmative until WW1). The female lead is referred to as having her hair "down her back": what?! Is she five years old?! Is she a prostitute?! Believe it or not, this is supposed to be 1839, but I wouldn't have known without reading the blurb on the back of the book. At one point another female character, who is only a few months pregnant, asks her husband, "Am I starting to show?" Excuse me? This is '39, waistlines are only just starting to come down from just under the bustline and are still very high, surmounting voluminous skirts. Think Little Bo Peep: very Dickens. Unless she's a "loose woman", she should be wearing stays (a corset), too. She's not going to "show" until about month eight, at which point she just won't go out in public. But enough on the historical gaffes.
Did I mention no sexual tension? Sorry, but I call "no way". I'm a Christian, Bible thumping believer myself, but I still have hormones. I don't care how chaste a person is, he or she is still going to have some serious "feelings" when meeting the significant other of their dreams. I'm glad the leads didn't jump on each other ten minutes after meeting, but does it have to be such a yawn festival? Does the author think nobody had "the hots" in the 19th century?The leads are so tortuously boring that there isn't even a kiss of any kind until after the wedding! Look, people "made out" in the 19th century, ok? It was done in private (unlike today), but people is people.
Perhaps the author thinks that it's "Christians" or "Believers" (as she terms us) who are free from sexual temptation. You'd think so, judging from the pompous, stuffed-shirt goody-two-shoes Christians populating this story. We can't go more than a page or so without the entire transcript of somebody's heartfelt prayer or sermonizing to either a fellow believer or seeker. Only a few pages into the first chapter, I was already irritated with the over preachyness of the writing. It's like reading a novelization of a Chick tract, complete with 20th century "Church speak" guaranteed to befuddle or exasperate anybody outside the "Christian ghetto". Which begs the question of the target audience for this book. If it's for believers, why all the preaching and salvation messages? If it's for a wider audience, with the hope of presenting the gospel to random readers, the Evangelistic jargon needs to be revised and explained. When somebody says "I'm saved by the blood!" it probably sounds like a Vampire moment to the uninitiated.
A few years ago I read an outstanding "Christian" romance (sort of) named "Pascal's Wager". I highly recommend it and would read anything by that author. Lori Wick can't hold a candle to it (pun intended).