It was a nice book, but it wasn't FUN. I didn't laugh out loud like I did with the first one and, occasionally, with the second one. It was just smile-in-my-face fun. 
 I do not understand the structure and the meaning behind it. I liked how the first two were loosely based in JA books, maybe this one would've been better if it had been, too? But what's the point in starting the book in 2013 and then going back some months, and then catching up with the diaries? When books do that thing of anticipating the climax of the novel and then going back to the past, is to make the reader want to read it, but that's not the case... Because there was no climax! Her own commentaries in her old diaries spoiled the fun for me as well. It was weird how sometimes she was as Bridget-y clumsy as always but then she was also a bit, I don't know, preachy? 
 From the first time Mr. Wallaker appears it is clear that he is her love interest. However, it is given SO much importance to Roxster... (I obviously would have preferred if Darcy hadn't died--I don't think it was necessary for her to have a new romance for the book to be interesting--but I was not completely opposed to the idea... If it had been worth it.) I suppose the whole point of Roxster was to make her overcome her grief (that was done really well, though unfortunately, IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE COMEDYYY, WHY WOULD YOU MAKE ME CRY?), but it takes half of the novel. Honestly, EVEN THE TITLE is about how she feels about Roxster! And I liked Mr. Wallaker (just discovered he's based in a real person, OH MY GOD THAT'S SO BAD, HOW EMBARRASSING) but I did not feel the tension or the love at all. Also, the epilogue in the end? How far into the future is she speaking from?!?! The book ends in December 2013 (so, now), is she speaking from next year? Or when she's 80? Why? Too preachy, I say. 
 What I liked the most, hands down, were Billy and Mabel... LOVED THEM.