Started Reading: August 25, 2007
Finished Reading: August 25, 2007

I’m not always reading historical romances as of late, but when the title says, “by Amanda Quick,” it has got to be a must. I’ve read most of her books to say that Amanda Quick had been overusing the phrase, “fresh out of the schoolroom,” but it doesn’t overshadow the quality that I like most from her books: humor and wit.

It isn’t surprising, therefore, that Louisa Bryce is as clever and witty as her predecessors. I absolutely love her and Anthony Stalbridge’s lines (when she’s being so artlessly innocent and Stalbridge so cynical). Foregoing the fact that all men in historical romance novels seems to know how to have sex and Amanda Quick always has distinct similarities of her heroes and heroines in the story (i.e. recycling of characters), Stalbridge’s dry humor and his lack of a too-angsty nature still makes him a character that amuses. I didn’t mind that his talent with locks came too handy.

Though, despite all these, I still wish that relationships in these books aren’t initially based on lust and attraction. I understand that yes, it is a factor, but I’d really rather see more interaction between the characters first before realizations on their physical magnetism. But, anyway, all the banters and funny moments they have together makes up for it anyhow. It was just so amusing to find Louisa sticking her nose into all kinds of things and Anthony not being against everything. I can’t help but admire Louisa’s luck in her connections, actually. She’s got people of wealth on her left and people of information on her right. o_o

Overall, I liked the book almost as much as the first that pulled me into all the Amanda Quick novels, I Thee Wed. It’s really not much to learn, and Amanda Quick usually has a repetition of style, but I’m glad I read it nevertheless considering it’s one of the few books that actually make me LOL.

Started Reading: April 10, 2007
Finished Reading: April 10, 2007

I’ve always loved Amanda Quick’s novels and characters, though I’ve yet to see an Amanda Quick hero who isn’t cold, distant, and holds a low esteem of women. While Julian Richard Sinclair, Earl of Ravenwood, was not a very unique character, I liked Sophy Dorring. She wasn’t a reputed beauty (although a lot of men still vied for her attention in the book, she wasn’t exactly a diamond of the first water - as they’d call the walking paragons of beauty). She also knows her bounds and limits, though she loves herself enough to have demands of her own. Sophy wasn’t too stubborn and daring, and I was very amused with her notions of honor and determination to be treated equally, at least in a sense, as a man.

I also admired her when she did not push through with revenge when Julian asked her to go back to Ravenwood. I was glad she had the sense and the selflessness not to have her own way to protect Julian. =) Like most of Amanda Quick’s heroines, I liked Sophy very much. I just don’t understand why these historical romance authors couldn’t make their heroes different when their heroines pretty much are in each novel. Though they have the usual streak of stubbornness and determination (I think this is why I like Fanny Price of Mansfield Park. She’s such a passive character and she’s very different from these historical romance women but she still manages to have a happy ending. I’ve yet to see a historical romance author make a story out of such a character!), they have their certain flaws and unique traits. Meanwhile, the men are always titled rakes (and for them all I have to say is, “Same old, same old.”).