Judith McNaught

This book was awful. What follows is a rant of epic proportions, it was just that bad. The first half of the book is like the two days Kate and Mitchell get to know each other, most of it is the first night even. And nothing even happened! They would make progress and then slide back. Kate is utterly useless. I think she actually surpasses the Bella Swan Stupid level. She was extremely blasé about cheating on her boyfriend of four years, which already started me off hating her. And her show more excuse was she was that thinking of breaking up with him anyway. Okay.

Then, when the epically stupid misunderstanding happens (fueled by way too many coincidences to be believed – even though we know they are), she's too stupid to figure out that this new impression of the guy she was 'OMG so in love' with after 26 hours wasn't wrong and just thinking about it clearly would have given her the right answer (and it was hilarious that she was so in love with him when she didn't know all that much about him because he kept evading most of her questions on anything personal). Then when everything implodes she still agrees to marry the boyfriend she doesn't even love! Cue the cliché´ and pedestrian plot twist (which isn't a surprise at all, two books I've read by McNaught and no one uses a condom to screw someone they just met). Then everything becomes Mitchell's fault for her. She feels bad about herself because of Mitchell. She's inept at running her father's restaurant because of Mitchell. She might not ever love her baby because it's Mitchell's. I usually don't skim, but I started skimming through any part that featured Kate and then started skimming hardcore by the end so I could just finish this mess.

I was hoping that Kate's best friend, Holly, would provide perspective. Usually, they're outside the situation and will say something like, "okay, he checked out of the hotel, you were supposed to be meeting at the wharf. Did you check there first?" Or, "after he was so very blunt with you about where this relationship could and could not go before changing his mind, what makes you think he'd be so cruel as to send you off to break off your four-year relationship and then disappear on you? Come on now." Or, "So, you were breaking your long-term boyfriend's heart and you just believed everything thing he told you about the guy you were leaving him for? You didn't think he could have been lying about any of it?" But, nope, she listened to the story and took it at face value and acts like a raving lunatic along side Kate. They were both entirely useless.

Kate is so wrapped up in herself that when she and Mitchell confronted each other at a fundraiser she didn't actually listen to any of the words he said. Everything he said indicated a guy who had been unceremoniously dumped. Not the "monster" (yes, she kept calling him that, because that's what a monster is . . . yep) she thought he was. And on top of all of that, no matter how gross of an elitist pig her fiancé was she still stayed with him. That is, until he dumped her for not aborting Mitchell's spawn.

Mitchell was the least stupid of the two. I could actually feel bad for him and take his side on most things. It was mostly just his slutty behavior and not doing something basic that could have helped avoid the whole misunderstanding plot line (though his failure there was far less egregious than Kate's). He simply didn't think to leave a note at the hotel for her because he had just found out his brother was dead, she has the depth and intelligence of a thimble. It's amazing how he kept being blamed in the end, even after what Kate did. These characters were horrendous.

What did Kate do? This next part is going to contain a lot of ranting, screaming and profanity. Yes, it got so much worse. I didn't think I could hate Kate more, but apparently the loathsome piece of dirt had more in store.

So she gets evidence that Mitchell wasn't what she assumed him to be. And instead of doing something about it, confronting him, acting like a decent human being she just packs it away. The story jumps two and a half years then. So she has a two year old son WHO DOESN'T KNOW WHO HIS FATHER IS, AND WHOSE FATHER DOESN'T KNOW HE EXISTS. The horrible bitch kept Mitchell's son from him! That is absolutely unforgivable. She is officially worse than trash in my book now. And I have so much fucking rage that if I were reading a physical book and not an ebook I would have thrown it across the room, then lit it on fire.

Her excuse is that he let his first wife divorce him because he didn't want to have kids. It never occurs to her, a fucking social worker, that just because he didn't want to bring one into the world with someone he didn't love (which she knew, because he told her) didn't mean that he wouldn't want to know about a child of his that exists! It also didn't occur to her, the motherfucking social worker, that it would strike a very harmful chord with him that he grew up not knowing his family, isolated and unloved, and now he has a son who doesn't know about him! I JUST CAN'T EVEN WITH HOW TERRIBLE THIS WOMAN AND STORY ARE.

So through a stupid storyline the kid gets kidnapped for a huge ransom Kate can't pay. What to do? CALL HIS FATHER, OF COURSE! The father that doesn't know he exists. The father who has lost two years of his child's life. So to find him she calls his friend. This is the end of their conversation:

She'd started to take the phone from her ear when he added, "I'm very sorry about your son."
That snapped Kate from pleading to ire. "Danny isn't just my son; he is also Mitchell's son."

OH, IS HE? IS HE REALLY? ARE YOU KIDDING ME WITH THIS? How can she have the audacity to say something like that? THAT is a perfect example of how unbelievably stupid she is.

Poor Mitchell is livid when he finds out, as any normal person would be.

She didn't have the decency, or the courtesy, to let him know he has a son!
Of course she doesn't have decency or courtesy. Terrible people usually don't.

She is raising his son just as he himself had been raised–without any idea of who his father is!
And I don't even have a degree in psychology. Anyone with half a brain would know that would be the primary issue for him.

I wished that Kate would have run into the street like the moron she is and been run over by a bus and Mitchell lived happily ever after with his son. Of course not. Even though they knew each other for a grand total of three days, three years ago, thought the worst of each other, and then she does the unforgivable OF COURSE they get their HEA. There was barely a discussion about everything that went down between them, no resolution of the lies, or idiocy, or her betrayal, and they're in love again and getting married within two days!

This book was an absolute chore to read. It was slow, boring, and flat in the beginning as their "relationship" was established. Then when the story started moving the main characters were too stupid to deal with. Like I said, I don't usually skim books, but I had to in this case to get beyond Kate's drivel. And to try to finish this book as quickly as possible so I could move on to something that wasn't making me angry. I was reading this to relax during study breaks. Fail. Also, the synopsis of the book, at least on Goodreads, is absolutely wrong. They make it sound like the murder whodunit is the entire plot of the book, especially Mitchell and Kate being wrapped up in it. That's really not true. Literally the first 54 percent of the book is their first two days together. Mitchell was being followed by police, but that's about it. The crux of the whodunit really only lasts a chapter, because he's questioned on something stupid, and had an airtight alibi for the evidence against him that should have been investigated before he was even brought in. They asked Kate like five questions and nothing again because there was no case and it was easy as all get out to figure out who the real killer was. This is another book where the summary needs to be changed, badly.

If you want a good book by McNaught, go read Perfect. Even for all of it's problems in characters and plot, I still gave it four stars because it was extremely enjoyable for me to read and none of those characters reached even the minimum level of idiocy the characters in this book exhibited. show less

One of those rare romance novels I read during my misspent youth that I remember liking, published in 1986. I wish I could say it holds up on a reread. I rather get why I may have once liked this book: I find Whitney herself appealing and sympathetic from the start; she has a difficult relationship with her father, a painful unrequited love, and is the kind of girl that--in Regency England--wears breeches to try riding stunts on horses. I still rather love her, at least in the beginning show more pre-doormat; her dialogue is often witty, and there are endearing secondary characters as well, thus the two and a half stars.

The problem is the "hero," Clayton--he makes me rather appalled I ever liked this book. If there's some aspect of an abusive relationship not illustrated by his character--including rape--I don't know what it would be. And mind you, what I read is the revised edition; I understand that in the original, the rape scene was more brutal--even softened, it still comes across as rape to me though. I wouldn't even say the rape is the most disturbing aspect of the abuse Clayton hands out to Whitney--emotionally the way he treats her again and again is out and out cruel. And she loves him. It makes it all the more pathetic as a drama about abuse, but I can't say it works as a love story for me--but that's what it's written as--romance. I read one review that suggests what might be appealing is the idea of having someone who treated you badly come asking you to take them back. On the other side, I imagine someone who is currently undergoing abuse might want to believe that forgiving time upon time might lead to that happily ever after.

When I read it decades ago, I might have liked the idea of redemption and forgiveness. But on reread I just can't see a character arc with Clayton that makes him forgivable or redeemable. And given how he acted, the author really needs to pull out all the stops--apology, demonstrations he trusts Whitney, etc. I don't think that Clayton ever gets-a-clue he did damage beyond a moment of remorseful tenderness, or takes steps to show real change. show less

I swear that "Whitney, My Love" could be taught in college about gas lighting, physical and verbal abuse. I know this book is considered a romance favorite in romance land, but it wasn't until I was in my 20s and coming out of a terrible relationship, that I went back and re-read this book and realized why even though I loved it in my teens, I still felt like something was off with this.

"Whitney, My Love" is about the romance (I saw with a sigh) between Whitney Stone and Clayton show more Westmoreland, the Duke of Claymore. Clayton decides he wants Whitney, and goes about obtaining her. Whitney, rightfully so, pushes back against her father and Clayton trying to decide her future for her.

The walls come tumbling down when Clayton does something vicious to Whitney. And Whitney, who should hate Clayton for the rest of her days decides he did what he did cause he loved her. She goes about making him want her again and in a painful scene that I still hate to this day, makes her go/beg him to take her back. You would think things would be great, well you would be wrong. Because Clayton finds a note, refuses to speak to Whitney about it, judges and punishes her and she rightfully runs away from his terrible ass. Clayton of course suffers and figures out where she is and somehow Whitney apologizes to him again! I can't with this book.

We have Clayton beating Whitney, raping her at one point, and just being terrible to her anytime he thinks she did wrong. Whitney I liked at first since she fights back against Clayton, but then she totally changes when she "gets" him and they get married. I missed the fiery Whitney we were shown in the first part of the book.

I have two versions of "Whitney, My Love". The older version without the softening of the pivotal scene between Clayton and Whitney and original ending. The second version has the changed scenes between them as well as a new ending which has Whitney giving birth to her and Clayton's son and reading a letter from Jennifer Westmoreland, the first Duke of Claymore's wife.

At the time when I read this (in my teens) I think I was all starry eyed over this book. Reading it in my 20s made me go hmm and now in my 30s I am just straight up appalled. I love romance books, but this one right here makes me want to scream. I ended up re-reading one of my favorite Julie Garwood books after this one to wipe the taste out of my mouth. I think the reason why I always loved Garwood's historical romances, she didn't have rape happening between the hero and heroines in her books. Or not the ones I read at least. The women were fierce and could fight just as well as the men and often saved themselves "The Lion's Lady" "Gentle Warrior" "Guardian Angel", "The Gift", and "Castles" to just name a few of them. show less

“The groom always smiles proudly because he's convinced he's accomplished something quite wonderful. The bride smiles because she's been able to convince him of it.”

Characters are wonderfully fleshed and out and complex for this genre type. Jennifer is bold and daring, loyal and open-hearted. She's not so steel-spined that she's unrealistic, and I enjoyed being in her head for this storyline after I got over her annoying loyalty to a clan that didn't necessarily deserve it. The "hero" show more Royce was likable enough, even if I wanted to throttle him sometimes for his stubbornness. I enjoyed the small gang that accompanied everyone, from the brother-mother-drama to the loyal compadres standing by the side. Without the side characters, Kingdom of Dreams wouldn't have fared nearly as well.

Instead of a simple let's mesh them together and mold them into a romantic couple, the storyline holds layers to keep it interesting and more complex than the norm. Besides family drama on the side of the hero, there is the background of cruelty Jennifer faced and why she ended up in this situation in the first place.

Most historical romances stand above the rest if they have humor, which this one introduced through fun dialogue and banter between the mains and others. Sure there's some cheesy stuff, but the genuine chemistry between the two keeps the flames smoldering enough to overlook that.

If you're a fan of Historical Romance, you should dig this once since it stays interesting through the storyline, holds up the pacing, has sarcastic and humorous main characters who feel genuine enough to carry their story, complimentary side characters, a castle (yays) and satisfying ending.

Look forward to checking out more of this author. show less