I wrote to LLB this morning; she contacted the reviewer who agreed to make a slight editorial change to the review.

Here’s the part where someone figures out the difference between being in love/loving.

Oh boy, she’s used that one so many times in her books that I know it by heart. She soemtimes lifts entire passages from one book and paste it into another–I believe this happened in Simply Inforgettable: she took some stuff from slightly Dangerous; not to mention that the hero was just a washed down version of Bewcastle. And it doesn’t help that I don’t agree with that particular ‘philosophy’ of hers either. For me the In Love part is just as important as the Love part. But that’s jsut me.

Is it wrong and illogical of me to say that I agree with the review although I haven’t read the book–and I’m not planning on reading it either? I’ve read enough books by Balogh to understand how this one goes and that’s enough to tell me I won’t like that one. *sigh* at least that’ll save me $22.

I agree with you about Balogh knowing the regency era. Has she ever written a book that didn’t have either a Regency or a Georgian era setting? I guess she just figures she’s going to write what she knows. That’s a great point about Susanna wearing the same dress and fits with a school teacher’s salary.

There’s also the fact that I think there’s now a “sameness” to Mary Balogh’s style. The same elements keep appearing in each book. Here’s the part where someone figures out the difference between being in love/loving. There’s a lot of philosophy (Barbara B. asked if she’s switched to inspirationals–LOL, it can feel that way). Here’s the part where there’s the first sexual encounter that leaves someone feeling angry/guilty/some negative emotion. Look out, there goes the Duke of Bewcastle looking adoringly at his wife while never smiling (how do you do that?). And here’s the final chapter. Must be time for the wedding.

On the other side of the coin, there are things that I think Mary Balogh still does very well. The Regency period is not window dressing or wall paper for her. She respects it and so as a reader I trust that the characters are acting appropriately for their era. Susannah, for example, wears the same dress to all three balls she attends. There are little details and descriptions that I do still enjoy reading.

But all in all, it just fell short yet again.

BTW Jayne, I appreciate your review. I read the AAR review yesterday and was surprised to see a couple of elements in it that I consider spoilers.

Danielle, at first I just thought his mother would be a controlling, but nice, woman who wants the best for her son and is used to running things at the old homestead. But she really took a turn for the worse at the end. I think Balogh probably gave her a better end than she deserved and one in keeping with what Peter tends to do.

Keishon, if it wasn’t a free arc, I wouldn’t have read it.

Lin, you HAVE BEEN WARNED. ;)

But then that’s what makes reading so exciting…different opinions!!!!!!!!!

I think there’s more emotion packed into Dark Angel then into the whole “Simply” series so far.

While many other writers are trying to spice their books up if just a little, Balogh seems to be heading in a different direction. The last book of hers I read, Simply Love was incredibly boring. Balogh has never been a ball of fire but Simply Love was hugely disappointing. I never really minded Balogh’s formula until I struggled through her last two books. I don’t read many historicals these days and I guess I’ll be reading even fewer in the future. Has she switched to inspirationals and nobody told me?