Plus, her ability to switch from one accent to another is so natural that I only thought about it in retrospect - after I read the book and was allowing the phrasing of this review mix in the 'soup' of my subconscious. I am always amazed at how female narrators are able to recreate a variety of male voices. (Come to think of it, I'd find it smarmy if used by a male character.) But otherwise, the narrator does a beautiful job. I think she should have played those lines straight.

Hearing her description of a man's physical attractions in what I would almost call a 'predatory' tone of voice adds a 'smarminess' which I find at odds to her character. The protagonist is a feminine intellectual with heightened sensitivies. To me, that type of tone is more realistic when used by a male character. But I felt that the way she used her voice when mentioning her prurient interest in the man who becomes the character's lover is overplayed. I know that the modern protagonist is a woman in her 30's, and so have no problem with the mature voice given her. The only thing that bothered me had to do with the narrator. As a writer, I enjoyed her portrayal of the various ways authors can approach their craft. (All while the protagonist is also trying to sort out a tricky familial relationship concerning her lover.) I really love this story. By doing this, they also end up connecting the dots to their own ancestry. The two of them sort out the lost details of the young couple's romance. In addition to her artistic interest she soon finds that, since her father is a history/geneology buff, they can combine interests by sharing information - each researching the same material on opposite sides of the Atlantic. And, since she is a writer, the dreamstates become the source of her new novel. These two timelines connect during the novelist's dreamstates. The historical plot is about a young 18th century woman who has lost her nuclear family and moves in with relatives who live in a castle/manor house close to the same village that features in the modern plot. Her modern-day protagonist is an American novelist with Scottish ancestry who moves to a Scottish village near the sea and falls in love with a 'local'. Kearsley has given us, basically, two novels in one and there is no time-traveling involved. But in my opinion, that is basically where the comparison ends. And it features a beautiful young damsel and handsome Scottish rebel. Yes, it is about the Scottish resistance to the Hanover dynasty, beginning in the 18th century. I agree with this statement, but I also feel it does this book a disservice. I seem to remember reading a review here or there which indicated that people who love Diana Gabaldon's work will love this book too. Please don't compare it to Diana Gabaldon's books

A Desperate Fortune by Susanna Kearsley