The one major complaint I had was that there were a number of individuals from previous books who had small screen time and I had a difficult time keeping track of people.

This was my first Jo Goodman book, and when all of Restell’s siblings were introduced, I just knew that they’d already had their own books. I kind of wanted asterisks or footnotes after each name with the titles of those books just to confirm my suspicion.

I’m with Meriam and Janine about Goodman’s writing, at least in this book. It was long, and all those paragraphs of dialogue started getting on my nerves. All the talking just decreased the intensity of the suspense for me. I’ve never considered myself a plot person (in the sense of being someone who reads mainly for plot development instead of another attribute, although considering my reaction to this and The Luxe, maybe I am), but the book just felt too long for the plot. I kept waiting for more. As for the characters, Emma and Restell were admirable, but too—I don’t know, self-possessed, maybe? They may have made for a compelling character study individually, but the shared focus—both in terms of the book being about the two of them and the suspense subplot—ultimately made both less interesting to me, particularly with the amount of action that goes on (or not) in this story.

I do so hate to say that, because there’s so much I like and admire about Goodman’s writing, including the intelligent, subtly shaded characters, the warm frienships and sibling relationships, and the witty, sublime dialogue.

I can’t help but feel, though, that her descriptions need pruning, and I am a reader who generally likes descriptions. I often end up feeling, when I read Goodman, that there’s a beautiful book in there somewhere, buried like a crystal inside a larger rock, and that it needs to be brought out to the sunlight where it can sparkle.

She has all the potential in the world to be one of the greats of the romance genre, but for me, she’s just not there yet and she won’t be until she tightens up her writing. I would so love to see some bright editor turn her into a writer of lean, streamlined, bowl-me-over-with-its-elegance prose. She has it in her, I know she does.

But. So far (with the books I’ve tried) it hasn’t happened, and instead of getting an Arabian of a book, I sometimes get a horse that stops to eat every flower in the field.

Maybe I’m just an impatient reader. I didn’t used to think so. I can point to several slow-paced books that I’ve loved, so I don’t think it’s solely a pacing issue, although it is partly that. But it is also an issue of Michaelangelo not chiseling the figure completely out of the stone. She needs to chisel more. That’s the best way I can articulate it.

Sorry to ramble for so long…

Jane, the problem that I had with OFE is that it showed the weaknesses in Goodman’s leisurely writing style. In general, I love that her h/h take their time getting to the HEA. That they are normal adults falling in love and struggling with it. OFE, however, felt drawn out, not measured; the h/h were so prosaic about their relationship, I wasn’t even sure how much they were interested in their romance. I enjoyed them, I thought Cybelline especially was very realistic. But their story overall lacked spark. Having said that, I agree with sybil’s B grade. I’ve read it twice, and I’m sure I’ll read it again. Goodman’s stories are lovely comfort reads.

sybil, there is no question I’ll read IHKiW. Just wanted to be prepared, tho.:) Re: Goodman’s worst. I loathed the last in the Thorne brothers trilogy, With All My Heart. H/H didn’t make sense, story was irritating, and the reunion b/w the brothers was not as good as it should’ve been. But I also LOVE Only in My Heart, Mary the nun’s story. One of my favorites.

Janine, thank you! This is a great site. You all do a wonderful job.