TEST
The best way to make me devour a book is to have characters that absolutely pine for each other. Even better if they have some kind of history between them that means they’re hiding their feelings, afraid to get hurt, or have been secretly in love for years. The Earl I Ruined checked all my boxes and them some, and made me lose sleep more than one night to stay up reading.
Peckham’s début, The Duke I Tempted, was very different to other historical romances I’ve read recently because the hero had a submissive side he exercised through visiting a sex club. From reviews I’ve seen, this didn’t work for some readers because the issue of whipping put people off, and there were also concerns as to whether the hero was being faithful to the heroine by pursuing those proclivities with someone other than her. I hope those readers might give the author another shot because The Earl I Ruined is very different to its predecessor, while still having the wallop of emotion and lush writing that Peckham displayed in that first book. If you loved The Duke I Tempted, I think you’ll be delighted with this second installment as well.
If you’re used to ladies getting their reputation ruined and being forced to marry, Lady Constance Stonewell turns that trope on its head. She writes a scathing poem about the Earl of Apthorp, revealing his Wednesday visits to the Charlotte Street sex club. Now that she’s gained the stodgy earl the nickname Arsethorp, she sets out to save his reputation by offering to marry him. Or at least, to fake an engagement.
Julian Haywood, Earl of Apthorp has loved Constance for years, but has hidden it behind a veil of disapproval for her outrageous demeanor. However, by telling his sexual secrets to the world and jeopardizing the Charlotte Street club and all involved, she has gone a step too far. He would have loved to marry her before, but her offer of a hasty engagement now only makes him angry and hurt.
Still, they agree to convince society that they’re hopelessly in love for a short time, then break it off before the wedding. For Constance, being tied to a man she calls Lord Bore and who constantly looks down on her won’t be easy. For Julian, the hurt of the sham engagement to a woman he wanted to marry is often too much. The more time they spend together feigning romance however, the more they come to understand each other and what hides behind each of their outward façades,
I adored Constance more than I ever would have expected from her appearance in The Duke I Tempted. She seems to be someone who loves attention and drama, but once we get to see the weight of the insecurity she conceals, I found myself relating to her. She is so worried that the world wants her only for fun and parties, and that she doesn’t have any true friends. That makes her particularly defensive towards Julian, who doesn’t seem to care at all about frivolity. It’s as though she thinks she has one weapon in her arsenal, and he’s immune. Little does she know, the earl is far more than he seems, and once they started to get to know each other, and Julian lets her see his wild side, these two set off sparks like a bonfire.
The sex club has a really small role in this book, besides being part of the impetus for Julian and Constance’s connection, which worked for me. I’m not big on sex clubs in books, to be honest, so I liked that The Earl I Ruined was more about how Julian was affected by people’s knowledge of his proclivities, than about him really visiting there. That said, the scenes between Julian and Constance are hot! She’s so innocent, which I normally don’t love, but in this case it let Julian step out of his ‘Lord Bore’ shell and take control.
Far and away, though, the best part of this book is how rich the history is between Constance and Julian. That’s what tugged at my heart and kept me turning (digital) page after page. I really believed that they had years of knowing each other behind them, including times of attraction and missteps and friendship. That foundation added something to the story that you don’t get from the average meet-cute scenario, and I fawned over both of these poor little damaged characters and how much they struggled to see what was in front of them.
I’ve been completely impressed by both The Duke I Tempted and The Earl I Ruined; Scarlett Peckham is so strong right out of the gate with this fabulous series. I have no clue if there will be more but I’ve already heard buzz of a new series from her and I can’t wait to see what she comes up with. Truly, she’s got a fabulous talent for emotional writing and I’m excited to read what comes next.
Buy it at: Amazon/Apple Books/Barnes & Noble/Kobo
Visit our Amazon Storefront
Grade: A
Book Type: Historical Romance
Sensuality: Warm
Review Date: 10/12/18
Publication Date: 12/2018
Recent Comments …
Yep
This sounds delightful! I’m grabbing it, thanks
excellent book: interesting, funny dialogs, deep understanding of each character, interesting secondary characters, and also sexy.
I don’t think anyone expects you to post UK prices – it’s just a shame that such a great sale…
I’m sorry about that. We don’t have any way to post British prices as an American based site.
I have several of her books on my TBR and after reading this am moving them up the pile.
Haley K is a librarian-of-all-trades, book reviewer, writer, perpetual student, as well as a pretty crafty chick. She lives in Texas with too many pets and too little sleep.
Related Reviews
I did love learning about this, however.
https://historycooperative.org/the-history-of-hardwickes-marriage-act-and-the-beginning-of-the-wedding-industry/
I wish that we could abandon the notion that all romance novels must be appealing to all readers. The readership is huge and diverse along all possible axes of diversity; why can’t the books reflect that diversity instead of having to conform to some weird abstract notion of what everyone will accept? I mean I get it, publishers want as much money as possible and therefore figure that the way to do that is to produce books that aim for some sort of common denominator. But I hate that this is how it works.
We talk a lot about the diversity problem in romance, but usually only along very concrete axes: race, ethnicity, setting, weight, sexual orientation, gender, maybe age. All of that is extremely important, and the fact that more and more conversations are happening about these things is very good! But there are other kinds of diversity too. You can see this clearly in the way that more diverse books still present the same overall tropes. There’s room, if people were willing to make it, for more kinds of stories to be told.
People who don’t conform to the standard model not only exist, but often read romance novels. Like… me, for instance. While it is not the case that every single romance novel I read has to reflect me exactly — if it did, I’d have to quit the genre, and anyway that would be boring — I would still like to occasionally see myself reflected, instead of virtually never. I’m a real person too. I’d like to read about someone like me finding love, particularly because I think it’s likely that I myself never will.
I believe romance is moving, albeit slowly, to stories about all kinds of people. And I think that’s great. One can state something true–most romance readers prefer monogamy–and also believe that romance–and the world–is a better place with diverse stories.
I haven’t read Scarlet Peckham yet but I do want to as I have been intrigued by the conversations and reviews of her work. She seems to be attracting a sizeable readership and perhaps largely because she is writing outside of conventional appeal or even just conventions. I think too that many romance writers decide to go indie and self publish for the very problems you cite, and I’ve noticed in recent years that I read more self-published writers than ever before.
Excellent points, anon!
Yess, I sensed this was going to be wonderful and I’m glad it was; I love Ms. Peckham and what she does with the written word!
Wow, this discussion is fascinating! Ideally, there would be room for a variety of sexual perspectives (D/s, polyamory, open marriage) in mainstream historical romance and it was encouraging to see the critical response to Scarlett Peckham’s debut. I’m all for inclusivity, an open mind, and reading a sensitive portrayal of love & sex unlike my personal history so I optimistically bought “The Duke I Tempted”. And I’ll admit, I still haven’t read it for all the same reasons – sex club, male submission, etc. – that have been mentioned here. I wonder about that gulf between what I want to EXIST theoretically and what I READ in reality. Perhaps if there are more romances like this series, these stories wouldn’t feel so intimidatingly “other”?
I think about that a lot and I have to say that I think the issue isn’t that they seem other but rather that non-trad romances don’t reflect the fantasies of traditional romance readers. I’m totally open in real life to relationships of any making but, for me, when I read romance, I want to read about people whose relational lives mirror my own.
I don’t hold all fiction to this standard but because romance is wish-fulfillment for me, I’m happier when the relationships in it mirror the kind I want for me.
I was of two minds about that book for much the same reasons you describe but I’m so glad I read it. First of all Ms. Peckham is an extraordinary writer who writes beautiful prose with wit and depth. She did a great job with the subject material, so much so that I auto bought her next book the minute it was released. The submission and sex club are not the main focus of the book or the relationship and although it’s not my particular catnip (the hero from this book is far more to my tastes) she wrote such an intriguing, complex hero that I read it in one sitting. My favorite part about her books is they are NOT formulaic. You read through to the very end. Anyways, give her first book a try. It was outside my general tastes but I devoured it.
AnnieB – I think you’re where I was. I think Peckham is a very talented writer and I’ve loved both of her books so far for NOT being the standard, you can find them everywhere romances. I know a lot of other readers found Constance unlikable, and as I said in my review I related to her in that way. I don’t think I’m particularly likable a lot of the time. But it was a nice change from the milquetoast heroines I’ve read in most of the big name regencies who seem like they don’t have a life, except maybe picking up a quirky hobby, until the hero comes along.
I did not find Constance unlikeable. She and Julian are both wonderful characters and I completely believed in their love for one another. Peckham did a beautiful job of showing what it means to love someone as he or she really is. For me, that is the strongest part of the book.
I’m with Micaela on Constance. I’m totally fine with a heroine who’s complicated and even unlikeable some of the time, but she just didn’t evolve as much as I’d hoped she would and kept repeating her mistakes while arrogantly presuming she was in the right. Yes she had a bit of growth and some reasons for acting out, but much of it was too little, too late. I too loved Julian and my heart broke for him so many times in the book as he realized how/what the heroine had/does do to him.
This trend towards non-traditional European Historical romances is polarizing. Yesterday, on Twitter, a very successful author of Regency romances, wrote that she would like to see the genre move away from monogamy. I found this truly surprising. I wonder how that would play if she actually did that in her books.
Given that the vast majority of romance readers won’t tolerate even a whiff of infidelity in their romance novels, I should think she’d quickly find herself a lot less successful!
The romance genre is focused on the two-person HEA – which is, let’s face it, the way most RL relationships work. I’m not saying that’s right or wrong – just that it’s the general mindset and as such is unlikely to change anytime soon. If whoever this is wants to go that way, good luck to her… I just can’t see her making the best-seller lists.
(Who was it, btw?)
Wow. I’ve no idea who that author is, but her readers must be pretty adventurous.
This is not to say there aren’t people who like polyamory stories, or that some authors wouldn’t love to write them, of course. What did she mean by ‘move away from monogamy’? Like, a committed threesome/foursome, or a wide-open relationship with a changing cast of lovers? Any committed relationship, regardless of number of people involved, could be a HEA, but if it’s a serial parade of partners, well, that’s kind of lost the “ever after” part, hasn’t it? It doesn’t make it a bad story, but the HEA is one of the main tenets of romance.
It was on Twitter so it had no explanation but I think she meant that HEAs don’t have to be between two people. But I really don’t know.
I wonder what this “very successful” Regency writer would consider could be attractive to the millions who read romance which, as Caz says is a genre focused on the 2 person HEA. I recall some years ago that Mary Balogh’s “Secret Pearl” got criticism because there were three people involved in a rather sad triangle situation. Personally, it’s one of my all time favourite Regency romances and my favourite MB book. However, I would not have thought it was very shocking in a “non-traditional” sort of way and ultimately, there was a 2 person HEA. And I’d like to know who it was too!
I’d be 100 percent here for a poly regency romance (K.J. Charles does this concept well), but rife infidelity very much feels much an anti-romance choice.
As I said, I’m all for everyone finding the romances that work for them. But I hazard that for many many readers, monogamy is still where it’s at.
Indeed!
You lost me at sex club. Don’t like those types of books.h
You might give this a try then. It’s pretty much nowhere in the story. But skip the first for sure. Although…even in that story, it isn’t like “sex clubs” you’ve read in other books and the narrative is tightly focused on the heroand his experience & no one else. It’s excellent.
They never go to a sex club at all in this book. It plays a sort of ancillary role in the plot.
I didn’t enjoyed it as much as you did. I didn’t like Constance, I think she was immature and I didn’t like that she couldn’t accept that she was wrong, when she was!.
She ruined the book for me because I loved Julian :/
I’m happy Ms. Peckham earned another A & that you enjoyed the story Haley!
I too loved the first book in this series and (maybe I’m in the minority) I liked/loved the unusual premise that sets up the series (Charlotte Street and its secrets). Charlotte Street is a salvation for the hero in the first book; I didn’t find his visits titillating or feel that Ms. Peckham exploited his need to submit in order to advance the series. Everything worked and made sense. I also know that for many readers D/s relationships and/or sex clubs (regardless of their membership base) are a major turnoff. I think those readers are missing out on a great story – but I understood their reasons for skipping it.
Much to my dismay, the author (or her publisher) seems to have listened to the naysayers (and/or historical readers who refused to read the first novel based on the series premise), and she basically abandons the Charlotte Street story line! Our hero is connected to the club but it takes a long time for Ms. Peckham to reveal why he was…and then when it comes out, it’s completely underwhelming & not in keeping with the backstory of the club and its membership. I absolutely hate this redirection of the series and the sanctimonious moralizing littered throughout the narrative. If you’re committed to your premise Ms. Peckham, COMMIT TO IT. I’m sorry some readers were turned off by the premise – that’s life. PLEASE don’t vent your frustrations behind thinly veiled lectures on how we SHOULD feel about what consenting adults get up to in their private lives. I was with you! You’re the one that abandoned the premise of your series. I didn’t need the lecture.
I agree, the heroine was (surprisingly) lovely but her story lacked substance, and I felt Lord Bore WAS a bore. I hoped for more insight into his life at Charlotte Street (since IT IS the premise for the series), and instead his role was teased and then mentioned as a mere afterthought to advance the plot. These characters are ahead of their time and place and the heaping on of difficulties followed by the ridiculous runaway scene at the end added up to a book #2 disappointment for me.
I like the writing and I loved the original premise. I didn’t like the re-direction of the series or our BORING hero. This was a miss for me.
I’ve been following reviews of Peckham’s books and am interested in giving her a try. Of the two reviews I’ve read here, the first book sounds more interesting to me and I don’t have any preconceived problems with the premise of alternative sexual proclivities, including sex clubs.
However, I absolutely detest heavy handed lecturing and moralizing in any book. Authors need to approach issues they tackle with a lighter touch and avoid telling rather than showing. I think didacticism is probably one of my biggest turnoffs when reading any fiction and so that is a big deterrent for me for potentially reading this second book.
The hero’s involvement with Charlotte Street is established right away. Just what he did/does there is kept secret for the majority of the novel. When the truth is finally revealed, it does seem like something that would happen at the club – but his exposure and the salacious depiction of his role wasn’t in keeping with her descriptions of the club in the first novel. Charlotte Street is portrayed as this remote oasis for its members…in this book it’s feels more like your stereotypical brothel. In the first novel, the two (Charlotte Street and a brothel) are miles apart; not this time.
Re: the moralizing & lecturing. Nearly EVERY TIME Lord Bore and Constance have a conversation, he chastises her for her narrow view of sex and sexuality, and inability (because of her limited experience) to understand how or why consenting adults might choose to frequent a place like Charlotte Street – and/or pursue their pleasures in whatever what they like in the privacy of their own spaces.
He talks down to her, “helps her,” she gets ‘enlightened,’ and we’re all supposed to say “a ha, he’s right!” His sanctimonious sermonizing quickly grew tedious and took me out of the story, as did the teases about his role at Charlotte Street. i’m not sure I understand why it was kept secret FOR SO LONG. The truth was an underwhelming surprise.
I don’t think this book is terrible. It isn’t. But in tone and substance it’s very different from the first book. Which I loved.
I think I wasn’t bothered by his “moralizing” as you’ve called it because Constance doesn’t just disapprove of the club, she states her disapproval and goes so far as to ruin Julian’s reputation and risk the club by exposing it to the gossip papers. So she’s very naive and has formed quick opinions but then makes a rash decision that those are correct and she should act on them. I think she’d earned a correction from him. She was acting bratty.
I haven’t read book one and I enjoyed this one for the first half of it. But then it just sort of fell apart for me–I felt as though Constance and Julian were so obviously in love that the push and pull of their story seemed silly. I also found–just as I did with the premise of the Leigh book–that the HEA between society and the lovers by the book’s end seemed too unlikely for me. This has nothing to do with thinking that those with Julian’s past don’t deserve love but rather that I, personally as a reader, didn’t feel that the society Peckham created would act in the way she has it doing by the end. I’m willing to accept lots of implausible things in romance but here I felt as if the author couldn’t commit to the world she’d built.
May we ask who the author is?
You mean the one who disclaimed the HEA? I honestly can’t remember!
Sorry must have replied on wrong comment I meant the one on twitter?