bad! commits two insurmountable sins:
1) it’s extremely inaccurate. i think it’s one thing to have anachronistic dialogue in standard regency romance (i can deal with that, i got through all of bridgerton)(although this does have some egregious moments, even by that standard), but by evoking pride and prejudice it sets itself up as for the austen weirdos, who have watched the adaptions and read  the books and will be attuned to turns of phrase! i think if you’re going to write/edit a book like this, it’s your solemn duty to do your homework, and adapt your ear to this stuff! it’s not that hard to do, which i know, because i’ve apparently done it, and every odd phrase sounded like an alarm bell in the middle of a sentence. worse than all of that, though, is the misuse of modern slang, and making english characters say americanisms, purely because they would have been so easy to fix, during a just slightly conscious edit. tldr, i wish they’d gotten just one period drama lover, one british person and one 20 year old to read through the book before publishing it. 
2) it’s not even a little bit based on pride and prejudice. the gall, of attempting to elevate ur regency romance above the wide and churning sea of that subgenre, by evoking its urtext in the title, and then not having the story have anything to do with austen, is staggering! the closest it gets is a man does a lake dip, which a reference to mere supplementary material. i think the titling is actually extremely rude to the authors working hard to make their historical fiction stand out with tension and chemistry. although i guess the lie worked, because i read this, and i wouldn’t have otherwise. 

also and this doesnt really bother me, but there’s not much pittsburgh either, so the title is just false advertising from start to eventual finish