Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by ab18
The Husband Trap by Tracy Anne Warren
2.0
I couldn’t enjoy the book due to all the silly mistakes/decisions by the author.
Having the story begin at the wedding ceremony is a bold choice that, unfortunately, didn’t work out well for me. I want to know my characters enough to cheer for them before being thrown headfirst into the conflict. And honestly, the heavy exposition through character conversation sounded unnatural.
The author didn’t really make me feel like Violet had any right to do what she did. She says she wants to marry the man she loves for as long as it lasts and wants to be able to save the family from scandal.
This makes zero sense. If you love someone you want to start off on the right foot. Fooling an innocent person from day one, just so you can be near them, seems like a remarkably selfish thing to do. That means she knew the marriage probably wouldn’t last but was willing to risk HIS happiness and reputation just to be near him for however long.
And if she was worried about the scandal of leaving him at the altar without a bride she could have offered a last minute switch. The gossip from such an unorthodox happening seems far less problematic than the future discovery that she was living in sin with her “husband”, had lied to him for ages and that her children were illegitimate (yes, I know she signed the marriage papers with her real name and that probably saved the marriage in a legal sense but SHE didn’t know that). Honestly, this made Violet sound like an absolute airhead. She was ready to erase her entire existence on the chance that Adrian, who barely noticed her before, would make her happy. She keeps doing idiotic things up until the end of the novel for no discernible reason, not even love. Why did she take Jeanette up on her offer of a second switch? I wish Adrian had throttled her.
The conversations are all pretty boring, nothing clever or entertaining in the phraseology or content. We get gems like “I will try to make you proud, brother” as the extent of conversation between two men. We also get “You only ate two bites of soup.” Huh? Heyer, it’s not.
But that wasn’t the only thing that confused me. We’re told Violet is incredibly blind without glasses. She can see nothing close OR far without them. The author keeps stressing this, even letting us know that she could hardly sign the marriage papers because she couldn’t figure out where her signature went. She can’t see cards that are in front of her face. But then she’s able to see multiple interactions across a crowded room down to people’s expressions. She can also see the hair on her husband’s feet across a wide bedroom in the dark of night. And seagulls over the channel, and someone waving on a horse a ways off… The inconsistencies kept pulling me out of the story. As a glasses wearer myself, I was finding it hard to believe she wasn’t going absolutely crazy without proper vision and that she miraculously avoided a splitting headache.
The trope of the heroine being a blue stocking with spectacles, bad fashion and a wispy personality was just too much. Of course she also loves animals (and children, I assume). She's well-read but knows nothing of the male anatomy (eye roll). I like a sweet innocent heroine but don’t overdo it. Of course she’s also possessed of a beautiful face and figure but no one notices that because she reads BOOKS … even though she has an identical twin who’s the queen bee…even though her sister is a narcissistic shallow witch with NO redeeming qualities. Because that’s what human beings are totally like.
The anachronistic names and words for the Regency period were also pulling me out of the book. Research, people! If you can look up the minute details of a bonnet, you can look up a dang name. Christabel? Jeanette? Those names didn’t appear for years. And the word gooey is American and from the 1890s.
And out of curiosity, why spend multiple paragraphs describing the physicality of the heroine but leave your reader mostly clueless on what the hero looks like?
Having the story begin at the wedding ceremony is a bold choice that, unfortunately, didn’t work out well for me. I want to know my characters enough to cheer for them before being thrown headfirst into the conflict. And honestly, the heavy exposition through character conversation sounded unnatural.
The author didn’t really make me feel like Violet had any right to do what she did. She says she wants to marry the man she loves for as long as it lasts and wants to be able to save the family from scandal.
This makes zero sense. If you love someone you want to start off on the right foot. Fooling an innocent person from day one, just so you can be near them, seems like a remarkably selfish thing to do. That means she knew the marriage probably wouldn’t last but was willing to risk HIS happiness and reputation just to be near him for however long.
And if she was worried about the scandal of leaving him at the altar without a bride she could have offered a last minute switch. The gossip from such an unorthodox happening seems far less problematic than the future discovery that she was living in sin with her “husband”, had lied to him for ages and that her children were illegitimate (yes, I know she signed the marriage papers with her real name and that probably saved the marriage in a legal sense but SHE didn’t know that). Honestly, this made Violet sound like an absolute airhead. She was ready to erase her entire existence on the chance that Adrian, who barely noticed her before, would make her happy. She keeps doing idiotic things up until the end of the novel for no discernible reason, not even love. Why did she take Jeanette up on her offer of a second switch? I wish Adrian had throttled her.
The conversations are all pretty boring, nothing clever or entertaining in the phraseology or content. We get gems like “I will try to make you proud, brother” as the extent of conversation between two men. We also get “You only ate two bites of soup.” Huh? Heyer, it’s not.
But that wasn’t the only thing that confused me. We’re told Violet is incredibly blind without glasses. She can see nothing close OR far without them. The author keeps stressing this, even letting us know that she could hardly sign the marriage papers because she couldn’t figure out where her signature went. She can’t see cards that are in front of her face. But then she’s able to see multiple interactions across a crowded room down to people’s expressions. She can also see the hair on her husband’s feet across a wide bedroom in the dark of night. And seagulls over the channel, and someone waving on a horse a ways off… The inconsistencies kept pulling me out of the story. As a glasses wearer myself, I was finding it hard to believe she wasn’t going absolutely crazy without proper vision and that she miraculously avoided a splitting headache.
The trope of the heroine being a blue stocking with spectacles, bad fashion and a wispy personality was just too much. Of course she also loves animals (and children, I assume). She's well-read but knows nothing of the male anatomy (eye roll). I like a sweet innocent heroine but don’t overdo it. Of course she’s also possessed of a beautiful face and figure but no one notices that because she reads BOOKS … even though she has an identical twin who’s the queen bee…even though her sister is a narcissistic shallow witch with NO redeeming qualities. Because that’s what human beings are totally like.
The anachronistic names and words for the Regency period were also pulling me out of the book. Research, people! If you can look up the minute details of a bonnet, you can look up a dang name. Christabel? Jeanette? Those names didn’t appear for years. And the word gooey is American and from the 1890s.
And out of curiosity, why spend multiple paragraphs describing the physicality of the heroine but leave your reader mostly clueless on what the hero looks like?