in this one our characters basically dawdled and pretended to be finding out something - the things they were finding out could have actually just taken a chapter in the next book. In the first book the problem is established, in the last book it will surely be solved. Angel Arias, however, felt like a very poor way of bridging the gap between book one and book three.

If my theory is correct, when the third book arrives it will probably be the exciting conclusion to the first book that the fans were hoping for. I think this is a trilogy because trilogies are so in vogue right now (either that or it's a moneymaking scheme). I just don't think she had enough material to do so, and I don't mean in a bad way, I mean in a way that sometimes two books are exactly what is needed to tell the story that needs to be told perfectly.

Another matter that I've already mentioned to a couple of GR friends is a theory I have about the author's decision to write a trilogy. I think part of this book's problem is that it is not set in Ixion, and let's be honest, that's where all the fun happens. There's a general mood in Burn Bright that the author very cleverly builds up throughout, it's a mood that emphasises the dark, dingy world of the novel, but also creates a very sexual feel too. Though it wasn't what I'd call dreadful, it just held none of the stuff that made the first book so exciting, dark, gritty and sexy. This second installment was a very disappointing sequel to an excellent and unique series opening in Burn Bright.

Angel Arias by Marianne de Pierres