- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
-
Didn't Like This Book
I started reading this book hoping for something that would pull me in, and instead I got a book that made me not interested in the characters at all. Lady Nicole seemed very self-absorbed and only interested in adventures- not caring the consequence. She just seemed shallow. I stopped reading it soon after I started because it bored me and I found I didn't really care what happened to the characters. I have only read one other book by this author- Be My Baby Tonight- and it was vastly better than this book. I'm sure she is a great author but this book just didn't do it for me.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged. -
an engaging tale
In 1816 eighteen-year-old twin sisters Nicole and Lydia Daughtry have come to cold dark London for their first season in the "the year without a summer". Nicole's spunk and beauty catches the eye of many suitors. However, it is a collision with Marquess Lucas Paine that makes her reconsider her position on love as she is very attracted to him.
Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
For his part, he reciprocates, but knows the timing is bad. He has a need for vengeance against the rogue who destroyed his family and so has no room for a perky duke's sister. However, in spite of his efforts to stay away he cannot, which places the woman he is falling in love with in danger from his archenemy and his mission in jeopardy of failure.
The second Daughtry family Regency romance (see HOW TO TEMPT A DUKE) is an engaging tale due to the relationship between the feisty female and the suddenly distracted avenging Marquess. The support cast is solid especially her family and his sorrowful mother. Although the plot device has been used frequently in historicals, Kasey Michaels provides her audience with an engaging tale.
Harriet Klausner -
Anonymous
Posted January 15, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted December 16, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted October 19, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted December 29, 2009
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted December 21, 2009
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted July 25, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted May 29, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted February 23, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted January 11, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted August 21, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted June 19, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted December 22, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted October 6, 2009
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted January 11, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted December 14, 2009
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted May 24, 2011
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted January 13, 2010
No text was provided for this review.
-
Anonymous
Posted October 6, 2011
No text was provided for this review.