1819, Scotland

Despite the reviews, I did enjoy this third book in the Cynster Series. It is much like the first two books in the plot and I enjoyed the characters. The beginning is interesting enough to keep your interest, though I thought it slowed somewhat in the middle and as in most romance novels, it ended happily. I will continue reading the series.

Aside from all the supernatural jargon and historical misses, the story started out well enough and I did manage to read the book to the end although not consecutively and certainly not enthusiastically. I just wasn't able to get into it as deeply as I would have liked. The problem was not so much the characters as it was the plot. I mean, a witch in those days being able to live so openly and so socially accepted that she could lead her own flock ... come on. "Witches" back in those days had to practice their science secretly. Those who were bold enough to be as open about their beliefs as Catriona was about hers were burnt at the stake. I understand the author intended to portray Richard as the one who would protect her from such a fate, but even so, that would have proven to be a formidable feat. He would, after all, be one man and a few followers against the masses.

Secondly, this matter about Richard's birth and upbringing. In regency England, society was very stringent about maintaining the bloodlines of a peer. Please recall that Sebastian was a duke for heaven's sake. Richard, being a bastard and the son of a scotswoman, would not have enjoyed the wide social acceptance he received, irregardless of the Cynsters influence. I understand an author's entitlement to artistic freedom, but a story becomes boring and uninteresting when it is written out of context. It's like reading about 21st century characters living and loving in the 21st century yet behaving like they're living in the 18th century. You know how sometimes we look at the Amish and shake our heads? You sort of get the same feeling when you read this book. It just doesn't add up.

And finally, I will say it again, I don't think anyone would deny Stephanie Lauren's entitlement to some level of artistic freedom, but I can not abide by either party, man or woman, in a relationship, having to ask the other's permission to speak. While this sort of dominance in a female will no doubt have a certain appeal to some women, not only is it farfetched and ludicrous for that time, it's a downright insult to any self-respecting and learned neo-feminist who reads the book. Marriage should be about partnership, teamplay and personal freedoms. Empowering a woman with the same chauvinistic liberties as those who (try to) oppress her is simply a disgrace to women everywhere. We all know what they say about an eye for an eye. Stephanie Laurens forgets not only herself but also her audience when she pens a story of this nature.

Not only does Richard not live up to his character but it also brings to mind the thought that if nothing is wrong with a strong, dominant female what's wrong with a strong, dominant male? They might knock heads, yes, but which meaning of the word equality are we using here? If it's the one according to the Cambridge english dictionary and most other dictionaries I've come across for that matter, it just doesn't seem right to ask for something that one is not willing to give.

I know this review may seem a bit harsh, but I give credit where credit is due. Stephanie Laurens is a good author, she can do much better than this. I've been reading her novels for years and have enjoyed a vast number of them. But in her attempt to create something fresh, she creates a shell of a book and makes waste of characters who had such great potential. It is sad.

I would say that if she's going to twist the lines of history to suit her plot, I'd recommend doing as Lisa Kleypass does and leave her readers a note that explains this and the reasons behind her choices. Then I'm sure many would be a lot more understanding and tolerant of these misses instead of having to wonder if their favourite authors are just trying to insult people's intelligence.

If you agree with anything that was written above, don't bother with this one. I'd recommend reading All About Passion instead and anything by the phenomenal Laura Kinsale and Penelope Williamson. Here are two novelists who are so versed at their art that you'll never come across the same misses as you did here.

What happened with Scandal's story? I can appreciate that Stephanie Laurens was probably trying to be different after the similar plot of the first two books, but why the Lady of the Vale story?

Of all the heroines in the Bar Cynster novels, I am not sure which one I like the least - Catriona or Patience. Richard deserves better. And I certainly don't believe that Helena and Devil would have bought the whole Lady of the Vale concept either. In fact, I don't think that any of the Cynsters would have bought it at all and act as if it were all normal.

Sure the love scenes are hot, but the only thing that really saved this for me was the extended appearance of Devil and Honoria and the other members of the family. It was just hilarious when they started appearing at Catriona's doorstep. I actually didn't want them to leave. For that part alone, this book is worth reading.

After reading the part after the will and all that jargon about her being a witch!? Why Richard why?? This was the worst book that I have every read! Witches and gentlemen do not mix!!!!!!!! I was so disappointed. I could not believe what I was reading. I hoping and hoping that he would leave her and find someone BETTER at the ton. A story needs to be rewritten about Richard with someone else as his wife. :(

Is amazingly easy to do. In spite of the stretching Miss Laurens had to do to make this plot work and in spite of the 'mysticism' inherent in the 'Lady of the Vale' aspect, this is one of my favorite Cynster novels. Richard is everything good that Devil is without the unwillingness to bend. I found him so much warmer and more human with his doubts, so much less arrogant in his posture. He is strong and protective and possessive without ever crossing the line into overbearing. Yes, there are places where I argue with the plot development, with the characterization, even with the pacing. And I found the handling of Algaria idiotic. To echo another reviewer, no way would this man, as protective as he is, allow this woman, whose violent nature has already manifested once, to be nursemaid to his children. Still, of the nine Cynster novels I've read, this hero and Lucifer turned out to be my favorites of all the Cynster males thus far. For total enjoyment it's necessary to be able to feel for AND WITH the character. I ask myself whether I'd marry him and answer 'yes'. I couldn't say the same thing for Devil. And then I reverse and ask myself if I'd marry HER if I were in his position. No. Sigh. My own recalcitrance at being manipulated would prevent me. To me manipulation is unacceptable, a complete turn-off either in books or in real life. It's a good way for a book to find its way into my trashcan. Although it was a close thing with Devil, none of Miss Lauren's books have landed there. Hooray for Stephanie.