I am going to get something off my chest right now that relates more to the novel synopsis than to the actual story.
What is with our use of the term "heroine"? When in actuality did the term "hero" become masculine? I feel like I never used to see this before, now it's everywhere and it really bugs me. Why must gender come before everything? I also feel that Leni (Lenorah?) doesn't quite fit the description that the book summary has given her. She is definitely a strong character, but doesn't exactly do much worth of heroism (or is it heroinism) besides strength and persistence, and having a good heart. Or is that really all it takes to be a hero? Okay, rant over.
This is a decent book for people who like popcorn entertainment and romantic fluff with fragments of authenticity. I really enjoyed the Alaskan atmosphere; it was described very well and I felt myself get drawn into the lifestyle, and even some of the characters at times. Are you some kind of enjoyed the part with the abusive father; I don't know much about abusive relationships but I will get the offer credit about how well it was depicted, especially with how the father's unpredictable tendencies and the mother is ongoing difficulties to leave. It was probably one of the most realistic stories of abuse there are. But all the other elements are just so formulaic. The characters hardly catch my interest, the writing and dialogue routine. There is a Romeo and Juliet plot at one point (facepalm) and they make the main "heroine" look just as vulnerable as she's supposed to be. Leni/Lenorah is definitely not a weak character, but the routine narration and dialogue makes it difficult to truly invest in her. And that goes for pretty much all the characters.
I gave this book 3 stars due to all the potential I feel it had. And despite all my complaints it was an enjoyable read, and I was absorbed into a good part of it. But if you're like me and you dislike cliches and overrused tropes, I wouldn't recommend it for anyone seeking authenticity.