TEST
Marie Force is a very well-known and popular writer of romantic suspense and contemporary romance novels, and is now turning her hand to writing historical romance. Based on this first foray into the genre, I’m afraid I have to say that she should stick to writing what she knows best, because Duchess by Deception is simply awful; it’s based on a flawed premise and is full of more really tired clichés than you can shake a bundle of sticks at.
Derek, Duke of Westwood, came into his title at the tender age of six following the death of his parents in a carriage accident. He has grown into his role and is a dedicated young man who manages his responsibilities admirably and is genuinely concerned for the welfare of all those who depend on him – even moreso as his thirtieth birthday approaches. Because, you see, some ancestor or other put a stipulation in his will that the holders of the title MUST be married by the age of thirty, or they will forfeit it and the dukedom will pass to the next heir. And Derek, with just a week or so go to before his thirtieth birthday, hasn’t yet found a woman he wants to marry. The new crop of debutantes each Season are more vacuous than the last, (and don’t get me started on the sexism inherent in statements like this – “Is there one among them who cares about anything other than her hair or her gown or her slippers?”) – and while he isn’t necessarily holding out for a love match, he does want a wife with whom he can hold intelligent conversations and share affectionate companionship.
Okay, so now let’s rewind. Derek must marry by his thirtieth birthday or abdicate his title. Er, nope. British inheritance law doesn’t work like that. It does not allow for a peer to make any stipulations of this sort as to how his title progresses; a title is not a possession and thus is not something that can be bequeathed or have conditions attached to it. For instance, the Queen doesn’t have a say in who succeeds her (although in very, very exceptional circumstances, I daresay she could, which would involve all sorts of constitutional upheaval and acts of Parliament) and as far as I know, this goes for the peerage as well. So the novel’s plot is based on a completely erroneous premise, which, in my book, is enough to sink it without trace.
Moving on.
Derek, being the conscientious young man he is, is determined to do his duty and find a wife by his birthday, especially as his current heir is his father’s brother – Derek’s uncle – who is a grasping, dastardly individual who has always wanted the title for himself (he and Derek’s father were twins and Anthony was born second) because he deserved it. It was he who engineered the accident that killed Derek’s parents (this isn’t a spoiler, as it’s revealed in the first chapter) and he still chafes that Derek wasn’t with them, as he was supposed to have been – and so his evil plot to become the Duke was foiled. Can I get a ‘MUAHAHAHAHA’? And just in case we aren’t clear about Anthony’s ambitions, his mistress is there to hit readers over the head with a tea-tray:
“You ponder the fate of your nephew and the duchy you covet.”
Anthony raised an imperious brow. “It is rather impertinent for (of?) you to speak so boldly of things that are none of your concern.”
Seriously? I wonder if Ms. Force has read any historical romance since the 1980s.
Anyway. While travelling back to his estate, Derek comes across a filthy boy in shoddy clothing digging in a field. Wondering why there is a filthy boy in shoddy clothing digging in one of his fields, Derek stops to ask questions, the boy bolts, Derek catches him, the boy passes out – but not before his cap falls off to reveal long dark tresses… and lo! ‘tis the heroine in disguise. Arrived at his ancestral pile, Derek’s protective instincts are on high alert, and even though the young woman is dirty and smelly, he unaccountably wants to care for her, crawl into bed next to her and “hold her until the fever broke…” So he does. (After she’s had a bath, natch.)
When she awakens and is told she’s at the Duke of Westwood’s estate, the young woman – Catherine – is immediately fearful and makes clear her dislike of peers of the realm, so Derek decides not to tell her he’s a duke, but instead introduces himself as the estate manager because he wants to know more about her. But that has to be put on hold while they get back into bed for spurious reasons and cuddling and flirting ensues. She’s just woken from a fever, they don’t know each other, they’ve barely said two words to each other and yet she comes up with things like:
“How do you expect me to sleep with a big, rutting beast in my bed?”
To which he responds:
“Have no fear, my dear lady. Your shrewishness has caused my ‘thing’ to wither and die… I can assure you that you’re entirely safe from my fornicating tendencies”
And then she wonders – what, exactly, was that tingle between her legs?
Jesus H. Christ on a cracker. We’re 11% into the book by this point, by the way.
In a nutshell. Catherine is running from the slobbery old bloke she’s supposed to marry and doesn’t want anything to do with the aristocracy. Two days after their first meeting, she and Derek are sucking face and then shagging (and joy of joys, she gets to say “It will never fit!”) and at the 30% mark, they’re running off to Gretna Green to get married, presumably so he can marry her without revealing his true identity, which is dumb, but no dumber than the other dumb stuff in this dumb book.
No prizes for guessing what happens next.
The writing is stilted and often unintentionally funny (see quotes above) – not what I’d expect from an experienced author – and the characters are barely two dimensional. Given Ms. Force is known for writing steamy sex scenes, the ones in this book are dull and there is zero chemistry between the leads. There’s a secondary romance that also takes off like a rocket, between Derek’s cousin (Anthony’s son) and Catherine’s younger sister, and to call the villainous Anthony ‘cartoonish’ is, frankly, to insult cartoon villains the world over.
I’ve said enough for you to realise that you should give this book a wide berth – unless you’re a masochist or just want a good laugh at the terrible dialogue. If you’ve never read Marie Force before, do yourself a favour and read the excellent Five Years Gone, or one of her romantic suspense titles. I hope she’s not going to stop writing those, because in spite of its lovely cover and less-used setting of 1902 (which is largely irrelevant to the story anyway), Duchess by Deception is terrible.
Buy it at: Amazon/Apple Books/Barnes & Noble/Kobo
Visit our Amazon Storefront
Grade: D
Book Type: Historical Romance
Sensuality: Warm
Review Date: 31/01/19
Publication Date: 01/2019
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.
Related Reviews
Also, why is the series “Gilded” if it’s not set in the Gilded Age? I got very excited about another Gilded Age book (Aside: why aren’t there more of them?!) — but this sounds Regency?
Oh! Wait! It’s Georgian…I guess not Regency? Boy…it sounded Regency from your review!
It’s not Regency or Georgian – it’s set in 1902, so technically it’s Edwardian. But this confusion is yet another problem with the book – there is absolutely NO sense of setting. Plus, we didn’t have a Gilded Age in the UK, so there’s no sense of place either. It’s a complete mess.
I came about a gushing review in publishers weekly and couldn’t believe what I read. So I went to goodreads. The same with a few exceptions . Such dreadful mistakes are often found in self published books I mostly put aside after a few pages. But a famous author and an established publisher – just unbelievable!
Why oh why do authors with no knowledge of history think they can write historicals? Some of their stories would be good contemporaries but set in earlier times they are just crap.
I think reviews in PW are paid for – I’m sure someone here will know if that’s the case. I also saw the huge number of 4 and 5 star reviews on GR, but as I’ve said upthread, so many of those said “I’ve never read historical romance before” – so I imagine most of those are readers of Ms. Force’s other titles who, I’m sad to say, wouldn’t know a decent historical romance if it bowed over their hand and asked them to dance!
The same cannot be said of the publishing house, however. I don’t know what they were thinking. Oh, wait, yes I do. $$$$$$$
Wow. I’m a huge Marie Force fan. I love her. But I read this premise and didn’t want to read the book. I’ll admit I’m not the biggest HR fan. I’ll read anything Lisa Kleypas writes and I’ve read a few others here and there. It’s just not my go to genre. But to hear and author I admire so much just get it so wrong? It’s crazy. I do wonder why nobody around her said anything. She has an editor. She has beta readers. Were none of them honest with her (or themselves?). Like maybe you’re right. These readers have never read a historical and just love her. Which bothers me on another level. I love this author. However, I hated the book she wrote about the guy whose wife is in a coma. I can’t remember it. It’s a series and it’s really popular. I hated the hero and hated the book. It wasn’t for me. I can say that and still be a fan of this author. Grr. I’m just ranting now. LOL Long comment short–great review! LOL
I suspect that those editors and beta readers – if they were people she uses regularly – have no idea about historical romance, either. Kensington publishes people like Theresa Romain and Madeline Hunter, both excellent historical romance authors, so they clearly DO have staff in-house who work on the historical romance genre. Was it a case of nobody wanting to piss off a big name by telling her the book was a pile of doggy-doo and she needed to go back to the drawing board?
Something else that also bothers me? The only duchies in the UK are Cornwall and Lancaster, both held by the sovereign. Dukes hold dukedoms!
YES!! I’m sure I must have missed some of the finer points of error as they were obscured behind the whacking great big ones! I just put my review on NetGalley, and for the first time ever, filled in the “Notes to the Publisher” section, politely suggesting that someone should have done some research!
Thank you for this explanation. I had no idea that duchies existed. Do they work like dukedoms except granted by the sovereign?
All peerages/titles are granted by the sovereign; the point is about terminology. Dukes hold dukedoms, not duchies, apart from the two mentioned. The difference between the two relates basically to land and administration – https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110811122436AA2VB4n&sort=N.
Nowadays, the Duke of Lancaster is always the reigning monarch; the current Duke of Cornwall is Prince Charles.
This is interesting that dukedoms aren’t required to come with land. i thought all these noble titles were landed titles (duke to viscount). I thought the point of these titles were minor rulers who are vassals of the monarch. And their income in land-based.
I read this one recently where the entire premise was borked because the author didn’t understand how an entail worked and had the previous holder mortgaging the estate.
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2668542383?book_show_action=false&from_review_page=1
But yeah… this is one the worst historicals I’ve ever, EVER read, and that is REALLY saying something. I’m honestly just so shocked that a) Marie Force can write something this bad, and b) Kensignton didn’t even NOTICE.
*hits “Like” button*
But it’s also symptomatic of an increasingly frequent trend on the part of bigger (sorry, but it’s true, American) publishers to think that readers of historicals especially will read any old crap as long as it is set in Ye Olde England and features a duke (or twelve).
Sidenote – your review of this book on GR is AMAZING. (And I checked out your other reviews and yeah, I felt exactly that same way RE Tempt me With Diamonds.). *hits like button as well*
Me When I First Saw This: I wonder how Marie Force is going to handle writing historical romance
WHY IS THE MUST MARRY BY THIRTY CLAUSE BECOMING SO POPULAR IN HISTORICALS!? It happened in that book that I dinged by Lisa Berne. It’s not logical in a Regency or later-era novel. If you need this shit to happen write a medieval ffs.
Whoof that dialogue. Whoof. You can hear the modern voice just straining away undercover, trying to be overly-ornate and it hurts!. Cliche a’gogo.
I now officially regret not rating Sex Machine lower for that unlubed-anal-makes-the-heroine-bleed-and-come-at-the-same-time scene.
Oh Damn it: my gif didn’t post. Let’s just say my reaction was very blink-blink.
Also: TEN PERCENT?! I think I have a good idea of what happens before they elope, but HOW much time does Force spend faffing around in the midpoint?!
But it won’t work in a medieval either – the messing about with the inheritance thing.
As for how long the faffing goes on for… I can’t tell you exactly, but it felt like DAYS while I was reading it!
You’re right! I’m trying to think of an era where it WOULD work and I can’t.
PFT I sensed there was desperate plot stretching.
What on earth is the point of stipulating that a title depends on the holder being married by thirty? I get what this does for the author, but why would any character impose this on his descendants? Personally, I’d love to see a story where the hero found a way to overturn that arbitrary deadline, rather than meekly submitting to it.
Also, it’s possible to make a heroine look good without putting down other women. This is not a zero-sum game.
I have no idea. I think to some subset of people on the planet, thirty = massively old.
There’s a reason I gave a workshop on peerage law and inheritance at the last Beau Monde conference. I know this stuff doesn’t matter to everyone, but it matters to ME.
It matters to many of our readers as well.
Something this big should matter – it completely invalidates the book’s premise. There’s a big difference between implausible and impossible. Are all these marriages between dukes and street-urchins/thieves/governesses implausible? Sure – though not impossible, and we know that such unequal matches did happen IRL. But for someone to dictate how a title is passed down is completely impossible under British inheritance law, which completely negates the plot. As others have said here, where on earth was the editor??
I just read a book where this is a tangential threat made by a rambling grandfather (“I’ll disinherit you!”) but nobody takes it seriously. To me, sure, that’s a ding on the book, but at the same time, it’s not a huge deal. It’s in one scene. It’s not like the entire premise of the book hinges on the grandfather’s threat to disinherit – the real threat is that the grandfather is hoarding all the money and using that as leverage, which is totally plausible.
I like historical accuracy more than your average person (Caz not being average!!!!) but my bigger complaint with this is not that it’s inaccurate; it’s that it’s dumb. It definitely shows a lack of familiarity with the genre and its cliches. If you need to rely on this to get your hero and heroine together, then you have other problems.
A tangential threat that nobody takes seriously, probably because they know he can’t do it, is one thing. Building a story on a complete impossibility is another. If you read the synopsis for this book, you can see that whoever wrote the copy had no compunction about putting their ignorance on display!
I’m trying to think of an analogy that will make sense to people who don’t read a lot of historicals and/or who don’t live on my side of the pond. The ignorance of how long it takes to get from Essex (where I happen to live!) to Scotland by carriage is one thing, the fact MF ignored that by 1902 you could get to most places by TRAIN I can only compare to a contemporary in which for some reason, nobody thinks to use their mobile phone.
But even without those glaring inaccuracies, it’s still a poorly written, poorly constructed book.
Now I want to write a trilogy where the old duke has three sons of roughly the same age, and he tells them they have to compete to become the heir. That way, the new duke won’t be chosen until the last book, so readers will have even more reason to keep buying.
I’m being sarcastic, but the sheer fact that I thought of this means someone has already written and published it to great acclaim on Goodreads.
I was about to say exactly that. I’m sure I’ve seen that synopsis somewhere – and sadly, more than once!
“We’re 11% into the book by this point”
I came very close to physically recoiling. Thank you so much on the heads-up on this one, had it on my tbr.
Yeah. FIle under “B” for “BIN IT”.
Oh yes indeedy! My favourite rant: the sheer stupidity in writing about the British aristocracy without spending 5 minutes reading up on the ancient and actually quite staightforward rules. For nearly 20 years I have been posting here and in my amazon reviews on this subject. Once more into the breach, dear authors: why do you want to write about the British aristocracy and then completely f*** it up? Have you NO shame in flaunting your ignorance? I just do not get it. (End of – yet another – rant.)
why do you want to write about the British aristocracy and then completely f*** it up?
YES. This hits the nail on the head. It pisses me off that these authors – and while we’re calling spades spades, let’s be honest; they’re mostly American – want to take all the “good bits” out of the Regency or whatever era they’ve chosen – but not to bother with all the rules and conventions that go with it. It’s downright disrespectful, IMO.
It’s also a bit odd that the cover screams inspie but it’s full of fornication.
It.., isn’t really, There’s one “full-blown” (!) sex scene – which is pretty badly done – but I think the others are fade to black,
I…feel a blog post on inheritance plots coming on.
I think one is DESPERATELY needed. A while back I reviewed THIS, in which the final plot twist involves the hero deciding to renounce his title because his father wasn’t his biological father, even though he was married to the hero’s mother at the time of his birth and acknowledged him and brought him up. And I can probably think of loads more of these kinds of dumb instances of people not realising (or bothering to even think) that laws on this side of the pond might a) a be different from ‘over there’ and b) have been a bit different a hundred or so years ago
So please go ahead. I’ll be over here in the cheering section!
http://kjcharleswriter.com/2019/01/31/inheritance-faqs-or-how-to-disinherit-a-duke/
Well, I’m TOTALLY going to claim credit for providing the inspiration! At least something good has come out of the hours I wasted reading this book!
“Have no fear, my dear lady. Your shrewishness has caused my ‘thing’ to wither and die… I can assure you that you’re entirely safe from my fornicating tendencies”
OMG – this is hysterically funny and so, so off-putting. Again, I say, as I have been carping about for years, where are the bloody editors? Great review, Caz. I think your D was probably a bit generous.
I can only think that whoever was tasked with ‘editing’ this thought “oh, she’s an experienced author, she knows what she’s doing” or some such. Or maybe its her regular editor who has no experience with historicals whatsoever. I looked at the – predictably – gushing reviews on GR, and many of them say ‘I’ve never read historical romance before…’ I was tempted to comment – ‘You still haven’t.’
It just goes to show that genre-hopping isn’t easy, especially going from contemps to historicals. It’s not just about research (and judging from this, I can’t believe the author did any!) – it needs a completely different mindset.