I'm a big fan of Daphne du Maurier which is why I read this book and while I thought she finished it fairly well, as would be expected from her, I felt it lost some of the atmosphere created by Quiller-Couch. Quiller-Couch's style, at least in this book, I haven't read anything else by him, reminds me a little of Thomas Hardy, in his descriptions of the English countryside. I think Q-C's descriptions of the country, landmarks and history were a crucial part of this story and not sustained by du Maurier. Q-C made me feel that the land itself was alive with the legend of Tristan and Isolde, he brought me there and made me see and feel it, while at the same time creating a feeling of mystery, whereas du Maurier broke through the mists, breaking branches and exposing everything to the light. I could also clearly tell where du Maurier picked up the story, Chapter 23 I think it was, by my reckoning. Her style was so different and though she seemed to get more comfortable as she wrote, at first it seemed strained and falsly cheerful, and there was a clear demarkation between Q-C's masculine style and her feminine one. She also didn't get Johnny's character right. And while I found du Maurier more 'readable' and breezed through the rest of the book, I preferred Q-C's style. I also thought the nonchalant ending was disappointing, as if to say, well, we're hear at the finish, you know how it ends.
But, we wouldn't have this book if du Maurier didn't agree to finish it and it can't be easy for a successful writer to finish someone else's book. While I'm dissapointed Quiller-Couch couldn't finish it--I would have loved to see how he did it, I do think it's worth the read.