Miss Darby's Debut

Rating:
Summary: A uniquely-plotted story with two very strong characters
Review: Miss Tessa Darby is not your typical Regency heroine who comes to London for the Season and to snag a husband. Miss Darby is bright, intelligent and single-minded. She is the perfect match for the high-born, principled Lord Penwyck, who can't figure out how to control such a strong-willed and independent young lady. Miss Darby's spectacle-making antics and escapades keep this very proper Regency gentleman hopping. Another page-turner from this first-rate Regency author!

Rating:
Summary: A great read! An enchanting love story.
Review: Ms. Clay has once again written a lively, entertaining love story, this time with two strong characters who loath one another on sight, but during the course of the story learn to respect and admire one another's differences. As a writer myself, I both admire and respect the deft manner in which this author slowly and believably turns the strong conflict between Miss Darby and Lord Penwyk into a strong and abiding love, a love based not on physical attraction but on admirable qualities portrayed by these characters. Ms. Clay's attention to the smallest details in her stories always brings Regency England alive. I felt I was viewing Lord Elgin's marbles, visiting the Tower of London and attending the lavish soirees and balls right along with the hero and heroine. Bravo! Marilyn Clay's attention to accuracy and detail is what makes her newsletter, THE REGENCY PLUME so very popular with Regency fans the world over. Thank you for writing and for giving those of us who love this period in history another wonderful story to enjoy again and again!

Rating:
Summary: Inaccurate and Dull
Review: One of the joys of reading historical fiction is the sense of place: the environment, language, actions, and attitudes of the characters are true to the historical period. Ms. Clay publishes a newsletter on the Regency period. How, then, can we understand the poor historical research and out of context characters that the author attempts to foist off on the reader? The historical inaccuracy begins on the first page: in May of 1816 the heroine arrives in a "huge clipper ship" (the first transatlantic clipper was launched in 1845). From there, the author moves on to a constant stream of inaccuracies: she does not understand the difference between a "draught" and a "dram" of brandy (and had females drinking brandy); thinks that letters are "dusted with powder" rather than sanded; has a Lord serving as a Member of Parliament rather than in the House of Lords (and does not understand the differences in business between these two houses); claims that Thomas Jefferson authored the Constitution (he was ambassador to France at the time); does not understand how votes were taken in Parliament; and more. The worst part, though, was how the author developed her main characters. In 1816 the Suffregettes were still far off, yet the author has her heroine handing out leaflets in Hyde Park espousing "reform" and doing other outrageous acts that clearly are more characteristic of the 1890's than 1816. In 1816 "reform" referred to parlaimentary reform, but Ms. Clay thinks that it refers to the social reform that came to the fore thirty years later in the Victorian era. The result is a very confused book. All that is very well if the book had been well written and interesting. However, the best that can be said is that the book is -- dull. The author gives us no reasons to care for her characters, there is no real conflict, and it is hard to sympathize with the heroine when her antics come across as sophmoric and immature. If you'd like a good regency, try Nadine Miller's The Barbarian Earl -- you can find the time to read it by passing up this one.

Rating:
Summary: Inaccurate and Dull
Review: One of the joys of reading historical fiction is the sense of place: the environment, language, actions, and attitudes of the characters are true to the historical period. Ms. Clay publishes a newsletter on the Regency period. How, then, can we understand the poor historical research and out of context characters that the author attempts to foist off on the reader? The historical inaccuracy begins on the first page: in May of 1816 the heroine arrives in a "huge clipper ship" (the first transatlantic clipper was launched in 1845). From there, the author moves on to a constant stream of inaccuracies: she does not understand the difference between a "draught" and a "dram" of brandy (and had females drinking brandy); thinks that letters are "dusted with powder" rather than sanded; has a Lord serving as a Member of Parliament rather than in the House of Lords (and does not understand the differences in business between these two houses); claims that Thomas Jefferson authored the Constitution (he was ambassador to France at the time); does not understand how votes were taken in Parliament; and more. The worst part, though, was how the author developed her main characters. In 1816 the Suffregettes were still far off, yet the author has her heroine handing out leaflets in Hyde Park espousing "reform" and doing other outrageous acts that clearly are more characteristic of the 1890's than 1816. In 1816 "reform" referred to parlaimentary reform, but Ms. Clay thinks that it refers to the social reform that came to the fore thirty years later in the Victorian era. The result is a very confused book. All that is very well if the book had been well written and interesting. However, the best that can be said is that the book is -- dull. The author gives us no reasons to care for her characters, there is no real conflict, and it is hard to sympathize with the heroine when her antics come across as sophmoric and immature. If you'd like a good regency, try Nadine Miller's The Barbarian Earl -- you can find the time to read it by passing up this one.