Beautiful Things by Emily Rath
Series: Second Son's book 1 of 3
on April 8, 2025
Published by Kensington Books Genres: Fantasy Fiction, Fiction / Romance / Polyamory, Fiction / Women
Format: ARC
Pages: 480 
Goodreads
Buy on Amazon
Source: NetGalley and the PublisherThank you to NetGalley and the publisher for the advanced copy in exchange for my honest review.
Before I begin, I want to say this: I rarely leave negative reviews. If you’ve been with me a while, you know how deeply I respect the writing craft and the creative vulnerability it takes to birth a book into the world. That said, I made a promise when I began this venture to be honest, (even when it’s uncomfortable), and that means calling it like I see it. And this one? This one was hard, not because it wasn’t steamy or engaging in moments, but because of the misleading setup that left me feeling disappointed, confused, and honestly a little duped.
Let’s start at the top. The publisher’s synopsis tells us this is a “slow burn, very sexy, definitely not your mother’s historical romance.” Sounds intriguing enough. But right from the first chapter, it’s clear that “slow burn” is a very generous stretch. We are thrown almost immediately into situations and interactions that are not only overtly sexual, but downright raunchy, without the buildup or emotional depth that defines a true slow burn.
Then comes the author’s note.
And this, dearest gentle reader, is where things start to truly unravel...
Rath opens by acknowledging that lovers of Austen or fans of Bridgerton might be picking this up with high hopes. She promises prolonged eye contact, hand touches, and that infamous Darcy hand flex. She calls this a “Regency-era polyamorous romance,” and then states that "this story is first and foremost a Regency Romance." Even going so far as to claim that the multiple suitors in this story would be "Austen approved."
With all due respect... No.
If Jane Austen ever caught wind of this book, I think she’d be much more inclined to ghostwrite a scathing rebuttal than give it her blessing. This is not a Regency romance. It is not historical fiction. It’s not even close to Bridgerton. Which, by the way, takes plenty of historical liberties, but still manages to stay emotionally and thematically true to the era it reflects. This? This was fanfic flavored smut in a hastily borrowed waistcoat.
We open on Rosalie, a brash, beautiful, and wildly modern FMC who jumps out of a broken carriage, walks alone into an inn, punches a drunk in the face, and rides off on horseback with a stranger who, while she’s in front of him on the saddle, internally comments on her backside consistently rubbing against his... groin. Again, within the first chapter. So much for a slow burn.
Rosalie ends up under the patronage of the duchess who was friends with her late mother. She’s brought in as a sort of undercover social spy, tasked with observing eligible ladies at a house party to help the duchess choose a fitting bride for her son, the Duke. The setup could have worked. But the execution feels more like a fantasy harem romance playing historical dress up.
The men are written like current day “book boyfriends”, tattooed, broody, hypersexual, all emotionally available in ways that simply would not have existed in that time period. One character even has tattoos, revealed in an oddly placed scene that felt like pure BookTok bait. In a pirate romance or supernatural fantasy? Love it. But in a novel claiming to be “Regency approved”? It lands with a deafening thud.
There’s also a moment where Lady Olivia, one of the noblewomen, and potential bride to the duke, openly belittles and humiliates a man (an officer no less) in public, at a dinner... Again, not something any woman of aristocracy in the Regency era would ever get away with. Social order, propriety, reputation, these weren’t just ideas; they were law. The stakes for women in this era were life altering, and this book tosses that reality right out the window entirely.
And It’s not the sex that’s the problem. It’s the context. Polyamory? Fine. Smut? Please, go for it. But don’t wrap it in a ribbon marked “Regency” and invoke the spirits of Austen and Winston Graham to sell it.
That’s what breaks reader trust. That’s what hurts. I didn’t race to pick this book up looking for a pearl clutching Austen homage, just to leave with a reverse harem ménage à trois in period cosplay.
If this had been labeled correctly, as a historical fantasy or spicy alt Regency romance, I’d still probably raise an eyebrow at the execution, but at least I’d know what I was walking into. The marketing, the author’s note, and the genre classification all send the wrong signals, and the result is a breach of reader expectation that’s hard to forgive.
Final Rating: 2 ⭐
Spice Rating: 2.5 - 3🌶️ (That's speaks volumes in itself)One star for the bold, if historically inaccurate, FMC whose confidence might appeal to modern romantasy fans. One star for the potential this book could have had if marketed as a fantasy historical fusion.
But ultimately, this was a bait and switch.
Don’t sell me Darcy and deliver Duke DTF...
As always, this review is mine and mine alone. I don’t believe in tearing down authors, and I hope this is taken in the spirit it’s given: not as an attack, but as a devout Austen fan and dedicated avid reader’s honest reaction to a story that just didn’t deliver what it promised.
We read. We feel. We don’t hate. But we do tell the truth.
🫶🏼 - Ali
This post contains affiliate links you can use to purchase the book. If you buy the book using that link, I will receive a small commission from the sale.
| Rating Report | |
|---|---|
| Plot |  |
| Characters |  |
| Writing | |
| Pacing | |
| World Building | |
| Overall: | |
