Originally when I read the synopsis for the book and read an excerpt I thought I had found an author who combined humor and romance as well as Sarah MacLean or Jill Shalvis. I was very very excited. However somewhere between the two leads :ahem: embracing their attraction and admitteding their feelings I got really really annoyed.

I think this was a case of too soon--their first time having sex, their wedding, the first time Cecily decides that pushing Lucas away while still sleeping with him is a good idea--it all happens in what seems rapid succession. There's no real sense of 'time' in this book; the characters go from Ball to musicale to dinner back to a Ball with very little mentioned how much time has passed. Vague things like 'We haven't known each other that long' and 'we only just met' seem to fill the time management bracket.

The strength was in the conflict between the characters, not so much their denial or affirmation of their attraction to one and other, but moreso in their opposing motivations in their investigation. Until about the last quarter the evidence against Cecily's father was practically enough to have him found guilty on the spot (especially given his inability to speak). Which is fine and good, but as Cecily and Lucas uncover evidence finding him innocent so many holes emerge that I lost track.

Notably are these however:
- So Cecily's father and godmother appear to be having an affair while on their travels. Okay. Its mentioned ONCE, with Cecily thunderstruck...but its never brought up again. Cecily doesn't confront her godmother about this nor seems overly concerned after the initial feelings of betrayal. considering she believed her father to be at least moderately in love with her stepmama, Violet, I found that odd.

- Cecily's scapegrace ex-fiancee knew about the arrangement between her father and Lucas' brother William. He had evidence that supported Hurston NOT being guilty of William's murder. Yet he doesn't think to say anything? To anyone? Until Lucas all but browbeats him into it? If Hurston hadn't been invalid would he have let the man hang to keep his reputation?

- No one found it at all odd that one of their members, who supposedly was best friends with Hurston, was urging everyone to basically compromise Cecily to keep her mouth shut? Actually strike that, no one found it odd that this member basically wanted some guy to take her intelligence (which many of the members respected), curiousity and independence so she'd stop looking into the matter? (note: some members objected, but apparently not Cecily's godmother who didn't mention it at all and only one fellow who only spoke up because he's interested in Cecily's cousin).

There's other inconsistences I couldn't wrap my brain around as well, but that's enough for me up there.

As for the characters I greatly liked Lucas--a bit of an ogre at times, but to give him credit he tried to reason with Cecily before resorting to things like seduction. And he was extremely reasonable. Cecily by contrast was the most obstinate, headstrong, blind fool to ever grace the page of a romance novel. That its actually the woman this time who basically thinks a marriage of convenience is necessary to stay 'aloof' amused me. Lucas is arguing that 'hey passion!' and she's like 'meh headache' even while thinking explicit thoughts.

I liked that Collins had both Cecily and Lucas point out (at various times) justifiable concerns such as how did Cecily know Lucas wouldn't just lock her away in the countryside? Or how did Lucas know she wouldn't turn into a cold fish and make him regret ever clapping eyes on her? Neither seemed without common sense, though Lucas definitely was the more rational of the two, but the plot didn't often support such interesting characters.

Instead of having Lucas and Cecily discuss his fears about her reckless endangerment policy in regards to her life, Cecily pleads a headache and refuses to so much as kiss him. Instead of Cecily listening and assuaging Lucas' fears about her reckless endangerment policy she does the EXACT OPPOSITE of reassurance and gets herself shot (superficially). His insistence that she can trust him not to abandon her verges on the ridiculous especially as she refuses to listen to reason and all but says to his face 'I don't believe you'.

In the end while I enjoyed a good part of this book, the inconsistences and repetitive nature of Cecily's idiocy began to wear thin on me. ( )

Would have preferred that this be all the way adventure or all the way saccharine book about the ton. As a combo of the two it didn't really grab me as a reader. ( )

Cecily is a blue stocking trying to find her father's journals to exonerate him. Lucas is trying to uncover what happened to his brother on Cecily's father's expedition. They spark off each other at first until they decide to work together to solve the mystery. For being a smart woman, I didn't like her foolish scheme to try to marry to help her get what she wants and other plans that were clearly problematic.
( )

boring and predictable ( )

3.5* A cute historical romance with a mystery plot. ( )