TEST
What I love about Liz Johnson’s work is the way her flow of words brings you along so effortlessly that suddenly you’re halfway through the book and not quite sure how you got there – but you know you enjoyed every second of the journey. A Dazzle of Diamonds is part of the author’s Georgia Coast Romance series, but you won’t need to read the previous books to enjoy this story. The novel brings readers a contemporary romance with a friends-to-lovers plot, intrigue and love from the past, and a spiritual lesson woven deftly throughout.
Event planner Penelope Jean Hunter is always eager to meet potential clients looking for a wedding venue. However, her latest initial client meeting comes as a shock. The enthusiastic bride-to-be arrives in the company of her fiancé who happens to be Penelope’s ex – the ex who left her at the altar three years earlier. In addition, it quickly becomes glaringly clear that the happy bride-to-be knows nothing about it. Penelope’s first reaction is to usher them both out the door, but she leans on her professionalism to get through her presentation. The couple has other venues to visit; they may not choose hers.
As soon as the meeting is completed, Penelope shares the nerve-wracking experience with her childhood friend, Tucker Westbrook, a man with whom she spends a part of every day. Tucker, a security specialist, faces his own problems. He is running for county sheriff, and his opponent has written a letter for the op-ed newspaper section claiming that Daniel Westbrook, Tucker’s Civil War ancestor, was a traitor to the Southern cause. In Savannah, Georgia, that accusation could lose Tucker the election. Because of the letter, a local matron threatens to cancel her event reservation at Penelope’s venue if Penelope continues to keep company with Tucker. Losing this client and the most prestigious event of the year could cost Penelope her job.
For Penelope, the way forward is clear. First, fix Tucker’s mess. Prove Daniel was not a traitor – which Penelope believes can be accomplished by finding the treasure of gold, jewels, and arms, the cargo Daniel allegedly stole. Second, although it irks her, make sure to seal the wedding deal with her ex and his bride. During the search for evidence to prove Daniel’s innocence, a diary written by Daniel’s daughter turns up, and as Penelope reads the trials Daniel faced during the war, the truth behind his actions is slowly revealed. Penelope does accept the wedding contract, and during subsequent conversations with the couple, she allows the assumption that she and Tucker are more than friends to stand. To her surprise, Tucker suggests that they pretend to date. He could use a date for campaign events, and going along with the idea means Penelope won’t have to correct the (incorrect) assumptions about them made by her ex and his bride-to-be. What follows is a delightful mix of historical intrigue, love stories both past and present, and truths revealed.
The author uses a storyline that places us firmly in the South and gives us a good feel for living in a city steeped in history, sweltering heat, and tradition. The characters are well-drawn and memorable, and their personalities, emotional trials, and faith remained with me for weeks after I finished reading. Throughout both past and present stories, the author threads a consistent spiritual theme – God has a plan for you; it may not be the plan you devised. The main characters all have encounters in life that show them that they must be open to God’s plan and never doubt that following His way will lead to the best path.
The Civil War love story of commitment and betrayal told within the contemporary friends-to-more journey light up the pages with humor and romance. Looking for a feel-good read that you won’t be able to put down? Pick up a copy of A Dazzle of Diamonds
Buy it at: Amazon, Audible, or your local independent retailer
Visit our Amazon Storefront
Grade: A
Book Type: Inspirational Romance
Sensuality: Kisses
Review Date: 20/12/20
Publication Date: 08/2020
Recent Comments …
Yep
This sounds delightful! I’m grabbing it, thanks
excellent book: interesting, funny dialogs, deep understanding of each character, interesting secondary characters, and also sexy.
I don’t think anyone expects you to post UK prices – it’s just a shame that such a great sale…
I’m sorry about that. We don’t have any way to post British prices as an American based site.
I have several of her books on my TBR and after reading this am moving them up the pile.
Award-winning author of Romance with Sweet Intensity. I live by my lists. Fan of sea turtles, jigsaw puzzles, crocheting, the beach, and happy endings.
Related Reviews
Thanks for opening the can of worms, DiscoDollyDeb, and perhaps that was the author’s agenda–to get the can open. As the reviewer, I did raise my eyebrows at the premise. It was a bold move. I live in the American South, too, and my initial reactions were anger and frustration with the matron who threatened the heroine’s livelihood. The threats rang true.
Elaine S, your comment is pertinent: “On the other hand, there is now a culture of expecting modern folk apologise for the actions of distant ancestors which I find unrealistic, unfair and unnecessary.” I also find those expectations unrealistic and unfair, but those expectations are alive and well, so this story plays out how someone under such expectations might try to control the damage — for Penelope, that’s the possible loss of a job, and for Tucker, the loss of an election. Someone has mentioned that this is an “inspirational” romance novel, and there are, indeed, subgenre expectations, just as there are in other subgenres of romance. One is that, in the end, the main characters will ultimately work for the good of humankind, no matter how they might begin the novel. Indeed, there are many mysteries surrounding the ancestor’s actions, but in the end, the common good is served.
I don’t know what agenda the author had. She doesn’t take a stance about the fact that this attitude lingers in today’s world. She presents an answer to a “what if?” What if the characters lived in the American South (specifically Savannah) and something they wanted was threatened in a manner such as this? My questions were, did the author do her job to make the characters’ motivation believable and is there a moral lesson given? I felt the answer was ‘yes’ to both and thought the book well-written and the romance very well-done.
I think it is a shame that we live in a culture where people feel they can threaten others with the “sins of their fathers,” and perhaps that’s what Ms. Johnson had in mind. The entire novel may be a way to point out the unfairness of such threats and show how a person might react without losing their own moral compass.
I can trace my roots to the confederacy and so can my husband. I love the South in many ways, though the politics are a drawback for me. I don’t feel the need to apologize for my ancestors, but I also don’t feel the need to defend them or their choices.
This author made very deliberate choices to write an inspirational romance about defending a Confederate hero. She made those choices within the political climate of today, so it feels like an agenda. She has defined her audience, and I am not part of that audience, which is ok. But my not liking her agenda isn’t me trying to “shame others with the sins of their father.” She could have chosen another way to provide the conflict needed for the story to work, and she would have if she’d wanted a wider audience.
Nicely said, Carrie G. I agree she was directing the book to a specific audience. I’m curious if there were any discussion between her and her editor concerning the set-up. I find it interesting that many readers on Amazon, in writing their impressions of the book, don’t question this particular story set-up, but focus on the romance and the friends-to-lover trope. That’s why I like reviewing for AAR; the reviews and discussions spark ideas about how the romance genre reflects life, and how different readers react to an author’s choice.
Ok, I know I’m opening a can of worms here—and I’d be more than happy to be proved wrong—but, if I’m reading the review correctly, there’s a major subplot in the book about trying to prove that the hero’s ancestor did not “betray” the southern cause during the Civil War? Unless I’m missing something (which is always a possibility) doesn’t that mean proving that he did betray the government of the United States and took up arms against them to ensure white southerners could continue to own slaves?? I would have DNF’d the book there and then. Making “the Glorious Cause” a center point of a book may have worked 90 years ago when Margaret Mitchell was writing GONE WITH THE WIND, but making an attempt to show someone in a “good” light by proving he wanted to fight on the side of slave-owners the key point of a contemporary book simply doesn’t fly.
I hear you. But I also live in the American South and I think there are many who think it’s too broad a brush to say all who fought on the side of the Rebs were evil. I can see that too.
Not to mention a lot of rebels were drafted or got swept into an adolescent patriotic fervor. Is it really so shocking to think that a significant chunk of the young men and boys in the Civil War didn’t give a hoot about “the cause,” regardless of what side they were supposedly on? Then as now, young men are driven to war from a combination of biology (i.e. high testosterone levels that drown out critical thinking), culture, poverty, and propaganda. While I certainly don’t condone crimes soldiers may commit, I also see them as manipulated victims in many cases. There’s certainly something to be said for the accusation that old elite men create wars for young, less fortunate men to fight and die in.
But regardless of the circumstances under which those young men went to war to fight for the Confederacy, why write a book, set in the 21st Century, where a main plot point is proving that someone’s ancestor was “honorable” and did not “betray” the Confederacy? That’s the part that’s baffling to me. This book wasn’t published in the 1950s, it was published a few months ago.
No argument from me!
And actually, the more I think about it, current events would seem to suggest that a politician who could prove his ancestor’s loyalty to the Union might have a better chance of election. I suppose it all depends on the town in question though…
I live in the American South too—and I don’t think “good people on both sides” works when, basically, one side was fighting for the right to continuing owning other people as property. I just can’t wrap my mind around a book, presumably written within the last year or so, where a writer thought, “Hmmmm, you know what would make a good plot point? Trying to save the ‘honor’ of character’s ancestor by proving he fought for the Confederacy.” Smh.
I agree–it seems very tone deaf. But I also think the idea that all those young men were inherently evil is suspect.
I didn’t use the words “inherently evil,” but presumably we can agree that the “cause” of owning slaves as a rallying cry will hardly go down in history as fighting on the side of the angels,
/I knew I was opening a can of worms…lol.
That’s okay, DiscoDollyDeb. I’ve opened more than my fair share of worm cans in my life. :)
I think the issue is far more complicated than the standard narrative of “The North = Anti-Slavery,” “The South = Pro-Slavery.” I’m certainly not saying slavery wasn’t a motivating factor but there were others as well as strong whiffs of hypocrisy to boot. Especially when you consider that the Fugitive Slave Laws were enforced in the north, General Grant owned slaves until he was legally forced to free them, and General Lee freed his slaves three years before the war ended, among other conflicting factors. Abraham Lincoln was quite adamant when writing to a friend that he didn’t give two wits about the slavery issue- he would gladly free all, none, or only some of the slaves- in order to preserve the Union. The fact the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to states in open rebellion against the Union is quite telling.
Interestingly enough, I recall the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison was in favor of secession on the grounds it would nullify the Fugitive Slave Act. Maybe also northern bankers and businessmen would no longer be engaging with plantation owners financially, essentially wiping them out (i.e. bankrupting them). It’s impossible to say if that would have happened. We don’t have a time machine to find out. What I do think is a bit odd is the idea posited in alternative history books that a Southern victory would have meant plantation-style slavery in the 21st century… Riiight…
Here’s another point which may help explain why a book of this nature was published today rather than 1950: To this day, there are many who believe that an unsuccessful secession set a bad precedent in the sense that a state admitted to the Union can never leave- no matter how abusive or crazy the centralized government becomes. Now and then, you hear rumors and rumblings about citizens wanting their states to secede from the Union (such as Texas becoming an independent nation again), only to be accused of being racists- just like those Confederates who tried to leave to protect slavery! Secession is a touchy subject, then and now. So, I’m not terribly surprised about a character feeling a family member was noble to resist centralization- even if it was for an immoral reason.
I really don’t have a dog in this fight, so I’ll conclude my rambling thoughts here. To paraphrase the late great Dr. Walter Williams, when it comes to the sinners of the past, we’ll just have to sort that out in heaven or hell.
Oh dear – yes a can of wriggling worms but worth considering in calmness and honest contemplation. This is an emotive subject for sure and bound to make some potential readers quite disgusted; I can see that. On the other hand, there is now a culture of expecting modern folk apologise for the actions of distant ancestors which I find unrealistic, unfair and unnecessary. Of course we should recognise what has happened in the past and learn from it and, hopefully, refrain from making the same mistakes but should I be responsible for what an ancestor in the 18th or 19th century did? No, I don’t think so – how far do we go? My ancestors were victims of the later Highland Clearances so who do I blame as there were many factors involved. And, you make an interesting point about secession, Nan de Plume, as there is a very distant connection to Brexit when the UK voters felt they could no longer tolerate the goals of the EU (especially political union) when the initial idea (which was working just fine) was an economic free trade area. It was ever thus I suppose when people feel that their government is oppressing them or is in some way unacceptably unfair. Just how far back should we look? This is one of the most perplexing questions of our times and something I think about a lot though I don’t ever expect to find an answer.
I’m not saying anyone should be apologizing for the individual actions of their specific ancestors (as opposed to a federal-level acknowledgment of how institutionalized racism/ misogyny/colonialism/homophobia has had—and continues to have—negative impacts on the populations that were victims of it), what I’m saying is that an authorial choice to make as a central plot point of her book the rehabilitation of the reputation of a Civil War era figure by PROVING he was part of that institutionalized system of oppression is bizarre to me. Why choose that particular element? I’m in agreement with Carrie G: I do think this author has an agenda—and if it involves making heroic people who supported slavery, I want no part of it.
“On the other hand, there is now a culture of expecting modern folk apologise for the actions of distant ancestors which I find unrealistic, unfair and unnecessary”
I’m 100% with you on this. I’ve never believed in the sins of the father theory. Interestingly enough, as a high school student, I had the privilege of meeting a Holocaust survivor- a very sweet man by the name of Alter Wiener (I’m sorry to say he was killed two years ago in a bus accident). What amazed me more than anything besides his unwavering love, kindness, and ability to find happiness despite his understandably horrible PTSD was his total rejection of blaming or shaming descendants of Nazis. This was a staunch position of his because he would occasionally have the children and grandchildren of Nazis come up to him and apologize- and he wouldn’t have it on the grounds they had nothing to apologize for. He would always tell them, “But why are you sorry? You are not your Grandfather. You didn’t even exist then!”
He also had an extremely nuanced attitude toward Germans living under the Third Reich, recognizing that many people didn’t have a choice to be Nazis or not (you would be killed if you were anything but a Nazi, so you at least had to pretend to be one to stay alive), there were a significant number of Germans who helped Jews- including him-, and he condemned Allied atrocities almost as harshly as those committed by the Nazis (he was disgusted by the idea of German civilians being looted, raped, and thrown out of their homes in revenge post-war).
If you are interested, he wrote a memoir called From a Name to a Number. I bought a signed copy at the time but never read it after listening to his harrowing lecture. When I came up afterward and cried, he gave me the biggest hug and said, “Aw, I don’t want to make anybody cry.” :’-)
As for Brexit, that’s a good, modern-day analogy to the secession I described. Personally, I think Europe would be better off with a system closer to Switzerland’s where there’s freedom of trade and travel with neighboring nations, but you keep your own laws and currency to prevent any one nation or group from politically dominating the others. For the United States, I think a confederation of states with total freedom of travel and trade would potentially work better than the fractured system we have now. Adding more states would be better still to help keep urban and rural populations of physically large states from bullying each other at the ballot box. I think it would be like those divorced couples you meet who get along as friends now but couldn’t stand being married to each other. Because, as it is now, America is just way too diverse politically and culturally to keep it forcibly glued together the way it is.
“On the other hand, there is now a culture of expecting modern folk apologise for the actions of distant ancestors which I find unrealistic, unfair and unnecessary.”
True, but writing a book where the ancestor of the hero was a confederate and it’s considered a positive thing in the plot of the book is the opposite of apologizing.
There were over 9 million souls in the Confederacy. Were they all horrific?
No one is saying they were all horrific—but the system of slavery certainly was horrific and the people who fought for the Confederacy were fighting to preserve that horrific system. Again, my initial comment was questioning why an author in the 21st century would write a subplot involving proving that someone was “honorable” by showing that he was NOT disloyal to the Confederacy. Since this thread has already been “Godwin-ed,” as it were, I’ll come right out and say that using the Confederacy as a standard of honor in a book published in 2020 makes about as much sense as using the Nazis in a similar scenario.
Again, I agree with you.
“I’ll come right out and say that using the Confederacy as a standard of honor in a book published in 2020 makes about as much sense as using the Nazis in a similar scenario.”
Yes, it’s as simple as that. My negative reaction to the plot has nothing to do with thinking everyone was evil or that individuals need to apologize for their ancestor’s sins. My aversion to this book is all about an author choosing to make saving the reputation of a Confederate hero a pivotal plot point in an inspirational romance published in 2020, That reeks of an agenda I wouldn’t touch with a 39 and 1/2 foot pole.
Just want to say I appreciate you bringing this issue up and standing firm on it. (Unrepentant) Confederate heroes in romance novels, whether set in that time period, or in this case where it’s someone’s ancestor, are gross. Full stop. Chattel slavery and the culture that fought to uphold that system is America’s great historical shame, despite some people’s efforts to excuse/downplay it.
Did I say they were horrific? They fought for a horrific cause, that’s for sure.
Thank you for bringing this up. I thought the same thing when I read the review,and didn’t have the fortitude to ask. Setting aside the arguments of ‘Not everyone,” why would anyone wanting to have a wide readership of her book use such a potentially divisive plot point? It makes me feel the author has an agenda I don’t want to be a part of. This is reinforced by the fact this books seems like it might be an inspirational romance to some extent. (That’s not a bad thing, but feels uncomfortable to me in this case when coupled with the Confederacy plot line.)
I just did some research on the publisher, and you are correct. Revell, a subsidiary of Baker Publishing Group, is a Christian publisher. According to their mission statement: “Baker Publishing Group publishes high-quality writings that represent historic Christianity and serve the diverse interests and concerns of evangelical readers.”
So I think it’s safe to assume the author is targeting a niche rather than mainstream audience.
As for me, Inspirationals aren’t my cup of tea- Civil War controversies or not.
I can’t comment on the rest of the discussion, but the book type is *inspirational” so yes, it’s got a religious component.
Only based on the review, I thought the plot was about clearing his honor of the charge of stealing army funds.
That was my initial thought as well, Lieselotte. He may even have thought of stealing army funds to help slaves escape north; who knows as it’s not really clear in the review exactly what the accusation was and it would be a plot spoiler so I don’t really want to know. Stealing money during war time is not unusual anyway and there are many, many examples.
Yeah, while reading the review I was expecting there to be something like “But Tucker is proud his ancestor refused to fight for the pro-slavery cause and Penelope admires him for that!” and then I read “Prove Daniel was not a traitor – which Penelope believes can be accomplished by finding the treasure of gold, jewels, and arms, the cargo Daniel allegedly stole.” and was like…ok, yeah, this book would have been an F from me for that alone. Over at Smart Bitches, Trashy Books I feel like reviewers are more likely to rate a book harshly based on the politics of the plot (for example, the infamous “For Such a Time” where a Jewish woman falls for a Nazi. They tore that one to bits, as it deserved). Personally, I agree that a book written in the 21st century that has a plot point like this is tone-deaf at best and, well, racist at worst. It’s a no-go for me. But inspies are always tricky in that way. Most have the sense to not be implicitly pro-Confederate though.