First, I'd like to say that this book--all three books in this series, actually--have the most beautiful covers I've seen recently in paperbacks: clean, elegant, simple & artfully drawn. They really stand out and I hope they will start a trend.
The contents of the books, however, while entertaining, don't have any of the attributes of the covers, and that's a shame. The first two books (my firsts by this author) were moderately entertaining as fiction & stretched probability about as far as they could go & still be based in the Regency period.
This last book, the one which I expected to be the best, somehow missed. I'm having a hard time figuring out why I found it almost embarrasing to read.
Was it the naive assumption that someone as "bad" as the hero was, in reality, a far better & truer person than most? (Maybe I have to start looking at Hugh Hefner in a totally different light?)
Was it the assumption that those who appear to be good and follow the rules of society and their faith, are actually all hypocrites, have an agenda or are, at best, fools?
Are we to believe that they only true way to happiness is to break away from all previous retraints, reject what you previously believed & reinvent yourself as your polar opposite?
Are we to believe that all this change that took place is a matter of weeks is deep and sincere & will actually last, (not just lust at first sight) & that neither main character will later regret it & revert to form?
I couldn't buy it, in spite of all the modern psycho-babble spouted by the other widows, I think both these people have made a major mistake & that the author forced square pegs into round holes just to make the story end the way she wanted it to.