TEST
I’d been missing historical romance, so I decided to try a new-to-me author. I’m not familiar with A. S. Fenichel’s work, but I can see that she has a growing backlist. The Earl Not Taken is first in a new series and frankly, I have to say it’s just not worth my time or yours.
Poppy is one of the Wallflowers of West Lane. And yes, they do refer to themselves by that title – you can almost hear the capitalization and everything. Maybe it’s meant to be the feminine version of one of those secret societies of rakes that seemed to dominate historical romance series for several years. Whatever it is, it felt affected and a tad ridiculous throughout the book.
At any rate, Poppy is a Wallflower and like her fellow Wallflowers, she graduated several years ago from a boarding school where all of them were sent for being just a tad too spirited and reckless. Before being whisked off to school, Poppy briefly met Rhys Draper, brother of one of her classmates and now Earl of Marsden. They were not impressed with each other.
Years later, the two are thrown together as Poppy’s dear friend Bella has been widowed and the horrible circumstances of her marriage have started to come to light. As Bella’s brother, Rhys feels some guilt over what happened to his sister. When it looks like another member of the Wallflowers may soon be married off, Rhys ends up going along with Poppy’s plans to investigate the prospective groom in order to determine his worthiness as a mate. Wacky adventures and romantic attraction ensue.
I have to admit that I honestly found this book tiresome. Poppy is the sort of ‘feisty’ heroine who rushes into all manner of improprieties and dangers without seeming to have many thoughts about them. She has sworn off marriage and reminded me very much of people I knew in college who wanted to talk about being rebels simply for the sake of rebelling. She’s rather immature and somewhat rigid in her thinking, all of which turned me off.
Next to Poppy, Rhys is often a bit bland, though it should be noted that he has almost saintly patience with Poppy. His caring for his sister’s plight makes him somewhat sympathetic, and since he has a little more life experience, he often comes off a bit more mature and balanced than Poppy. Throughout the book, I could believe in his physical attraction to Poppy, but it was hard to see these two as a lifetime HEA. In addition, since Rhys is never anything but respectful toward Poppy, her years-long grudge against him for something he did as a teenager made little sense.
The historical setting of the book felt a bit thin as well. On the one hand, I did enjoy touches such as the introduction of an Egyptian secondary character into the story. Nineteenth century England, particularly London, was not 100% white and I liked seeing that acknowledged. However, other parts of the historical setting simply did not work.
I’m not a reader who particularly notices glitches with title and address, but some of the errors in this book are glaring enough that even I picked up on them. In addition, the fact that all the Wallflowers left their families and moved into Bella’s house to set up house together without anyone’s family seeming to remark on it struck me as unusual to say the least. I guess this setup did allow for Poppy and Rhys to disappear into a stranger’s home for two days on an unchaperoned jaunt, but it did strike me as odd.
Between Poppy’s immaturity and sometimes irrational storming around, the stereotyping of all parents as awful, and the constant harping on the Wallflowers of West Lane throughout the story(always capitalized), I got tremendously tired of this book long before the halfway point. I made it to the end, but there’s no prize for me. I’ll keep trying new-to-me authors, but this is one book I simply cannot recommend.
Buy it at: Amazon or shop at your local independent bookstore
Visit our Amazon Storefront
Grade: D+
Book Type: Historical Romance
Sensuality: Warm
Review Date: 27/03/20
Publication Date: 03/2020
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.
I enjoy spending as much time as I can between the covers of a book, traveling through time and around the world. When I'm not having adventures with fictional characters, I'm an attorney in Virginia and I love just hanging out with my husband, little man, and the cat who rules our house.
Related Reviews
I wouldn’t mind a “wallpaper historical” to read at this time. Sometimes, I just want something fun and light — as long as the characters don’t bug me. As long as we don’t have a Regency character saying “I’m going to nope out of this.” But this one sounds like just too much. Especially as the heroine is feisty. Maybe we can draw a line between “Wallpaper Historicals” and…. I don’t know what to call them… “Giant Wall Decal Historicals”? :)
I do wish there was a way published could distinguish WH historicals from regular historicals. We can’t always trust the cover or the title as better books have been given those silly titles.
“I do wish there was a way published could distinguish WH historicals from regular historicals. We can’t always trust the cover or the title as better books have been given those silly titles.” Yep, *this.* Because, like you, I think there is definitely room for both WH and HR.
I think that anyone who reads the genre regularly will know which authors pen WHs and which don’t. I won’t make a list here, but if you want some ideas, feel free to email me – caz963@hotmail.co.uk
Afraid this sounds like crappy chic-lit dressed up in Regency cozzies. Bella? Yes.
Poppy? Doubtful. Can’t see any reason to waste even 1p on this.
Thanks for slogging through this mess, Ms. Spencer, so I didn’t have to.
“Poppy is one of the Wallflowers of West Lane. And yes, they do refer to themselves by that title – you can almost hear the capitalization and everything.” LOL!
As for the names Bella and Poppy in a Regency? Possible, but I’d say that’s pushing it…
This is not self-published, by the way, in case anyone is wondering. Lyrical Press is an imprint of Kensington, last time I checked.
Most of the self-pubbing authors I know – which is admittedly a fairly small number – put out books that are more tightly-plotted, more strongly characterised, better developed and better edited and proof-read than many of the “professionally” published titles I read. (And yes, Lyrical is an imprint of Kensington).
Sadly, the crappy historical is not just the province of the self-published; the vast majority of them are traditionally published.
Oh, yes. I am certain there are lots of high quality self-published and independently published works out there. I just mentioned this one is not self-published as a kind of friendly PSA for what you were saying. As a self-published author myself, I do sometimes get perturbed when I remember the not-so-old stigma that self-published = bad quality vanity projects versus traditionally published = good quality because of gatekeepers. Thankfully, I think that stereotype is diminishing.
As for crappy historicals, I really think there needs to be an industry standard category for “Wallpaper Historicals” or “WH” for authors and readers who like historical settings as a backdrop for their dollhouse/Sims type fantasies, versus HR which should be reserved for well researched plausible work. Anybody else agree?
I somehow think a lot (probably most) of the authors who write them – and some of them are really big names – would object to that, as “wallpaper historicals” is not a complimentary term. It says “this author either has no idea or just doesn’t care about the actual historical part of historical romance” – and by that I don’t mean they don’t know the exact location of Wellington at the Battle of Waterloo or the exact time it finished; I mean they pay little or no attention to the conventions of behaviour that were important at the time, have no idea how to use aristocratic titles or the laws of inheritance properly or write characters who don’t speak and act as though they’ve stepped out of a contemporary romance novel. Oh, and no idea that there are no sidewalks/fawcets/blocks/stores etc. in Britain and that the slang for the thing we sit on is arse and not “ass”. Labelling something a WH would, for someone like me, be akin to putting a bigger label on it saying “Stay. Away.”
“‘wallpaper historicals’ is not a complimentary term.” Yeah, it kind of has the same smack as “bodice ripper,” doesn’t it? I still think there needs to be some distinguishing category though for fanciful historical tales for authors and readers who just want fancy ballgowns and don’t care much about accuracy. I realize that sounds weird, but I would rather have those books segregated from well researched HR to avoid giving readers unwanted surprises- and inadvertently making authors look bad. By which I mean, an author who branded herself as a WH writer might have a bit of stigma among the staunch HR crowd, but there would be no question about her goals and intentions while writing. It would be far less disingenuous anyway. And she might even gain a following the way some authors who write time travel stories or paranormals do.
Like you, something labeled WH would also warn me to stay away (unless it was an obvious parody), but there’s obviously a market for books with far more historical fantasy than historical fiction. The fact these books get published and sell proves it. At least WH- or whatever someone decided to ultimately name it- could carve out its own niche by being completely honest about what it is.
I knew there was a good reason I only read one book by this author…
Morbid curiosity compels me to ask: is “just a tad too spirited and reckless” very diplomatic code for “every single one of these women is “feisty””?
LOL! I wouldn’t say all four of them are “feisty”, but the lead in this book most definitely is. She was like a throwback to the worst of 90s historical heroines (as opposed to the classics).