Top critical review
7 people found this helpful
Not historical Not romantic
on 22 March 2010
I recently took this book on holiday with me after reading the 5 star reviews posted on Amazon and all I can say is WHY? HOW? and oh how bored and disappointed I was. Hoping to be transported to an aqe of danger, conflict and intrigue that must have been post Norman conquest England; anyone would have been hard pressed to know what country this was set in never mind what century. No one expects Eleventh century language but authors must avoid obvious 20th/21st century and American idioms. At first I laughed at the trite, repetative dialogue(tried to chill out being on holiday) but it became so tedious and so WRONG, WRONG, WRONG that the book was thrown down in exasperation!
The last straw was when the female character said, "AT LEAST HE HAD HIS PANTS ON" Firstly, in England "Pants" mean "underpants", "knickers" "underwear" and I don't think the author meant he was standing there in his "briefs". "Pants" only means "trousers" in American English. Secondly the Normans did not wear trousers, no-one did for about seven hundred years! He should have been standing there in his "Hose". Surely more sexy than "Pants".
Perhaps more importantly I found there to be a total lack of suspence, no sense of real danger, and I never felt the characters were in any peril. Neither could I care whether the very annoying Nicolaaaaa and the totally forgetable Norman knight would eventually be in full accord, she a totally unsympathetic twit and he a cardboard cut-out. Infact there was not one real person among the whole lot of them.
For those of you who want a reasonably researched medieval romance but most of all a passionate, heartstoppingly exciting book full of wonderful characters who you will route for, cry over, laugh with and fall in love with, read Judith McNaught's "A KINGDOM OF DREAMS". If you ever go back to Julie Garwood afterwards I shall eat my copy of "The Prize" Oh wait I can't I left it in my hotel room.