TEST
The Virgin and the Rogue is not a romance. Ignore the cover and the title and the publisher, all of which imply that this book is pure, unadulterated, classic historical romance. It’s not. This is a book about a young woman on a journey of sexual awakening that begins with her sexually assaulting a man while she’s under the influence of drugs.
Charlotte Langley lives with her sisters and brother-in-law, the Duke of Warrington. She is betrothed to a local gentleman, but when the duke’s illegitimate stepbrother, Kingston, comes to dinner and her sister’s potion for Charlotte’s PMS symptoms turn into an aphrodisiac, within twelve hours Charlotte is dry humping Kingston in the library and they’re trading oral down by the lake (her period conveniently never appears to put any damper on her sexual activity for the duration of Kingston’s stay). Pretty soon Charlotte is questioning her matrimonial choices in all the illumination of her afterglow. There’s at least one reference to A Midsummer Night’s Dream in the book to explain this madness, but the story is – forgive the obvious pun – not a dream but a nightmare.
I love the TV show Grey’s Anatomy, and many seasons ago one character described another as “having her heart in her vagina” because she inevitably professed love for every man she had sex with. This perfectly describes Charlotte, because there is no other way to explain how she could claim HEA love for a man after having only two conversations within the space of around 150 pages. Charlotte is a heroine who aspires to domesticity, but instead of showing her as a person who is just as interesting as her sister, Nora, who disdains the prospect of love in favor of “science” (i.e. playing pharmacist and sometimes lying to her sister and making her believe she’s been drugged against her will – yup), Jordan makes Charlotte come across as the “graceless, insipid and uninspiring” woman that another character describes her as. And Charlotte also comes across as a sexual predator.
Her first sexual experience with Kingston involves her dry humping him until she orgasms. Throughout the experience, he never kisses her or otherwise physically engages with her in her act, and only at the very end, when she’s on the verge of coming, does he encourage her – early, clear consent is nonexistent. Compounding this grotesqueness is that for the rest of the book, Charlotte and Kingston often describe her behavior during the experience as “assault” or “accosting” but in a way that makes it clear it’s supposed to be shockingly amusing, which it is not. In Jordan’s version of the English language, it seems “assault” is to be defined as “a natural and applaudable act of female sexual passion”.
The dramatic culmination of the novel comes without a single warning – without giving spoilers, the author forgot to include a literal smoking gun, or other flammable item that would make what happens plausible. The only flames this book fanned in me were the flames of disgusted shock.
Buy it at: Amazon : Audible or shop at your local independent bookstore
Visit our Amazon Storefront
Grade: D
Book Type: Historical Romance
Sensuality: Warm
Review Date: 04/05/20
Publication Date: 04/2020
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.
Part-time cowgirl, part-time city girl. Always working on converting all my friends into romance readers ("Charlotte, that was the raunchiest thing I have ever read!").
Related Reviews
I read the anthology “How the Dukes Stole Christmas” last year, which includes stories by Tessa Dare, Sarah MacLean, Sophie Jordan and Joanna Shupe. I was shocked at the difference in quality between Sophie Jordan and the other three. I was expecting to enjoy her story as much as the others and was ready to give it the benefit of the doubt but was quickly forced to admit it was awful. I just couldn’t believe this cliché-ridden writing and nonsensical plot could be placed on equal footing with the other three, it was so jarring.
I’m glad to see I’m not crazy!
That’s interesting you mentioned “How the Dukes Stole Christmas,” because I read a few reviews that said the same thing you did. Just based on what I remember reading, Sophie Jordan’s “Heiress Alone” got some of the heaviest criticism. It’s too bad really. I checked out the e-book at the library last year just to read that story because I thought “A Home Alone parody? Sounds like fun.” Unfortunately, it wasn’t fun for me like I hoped. I ended up skimming most of the story and didn’t find the home invaders that interesting. Not to mention, the hero and heroine were pretty forgettable as well. In romance, that’s what I would consider a problem.
Sometimes I wonder if the readers and commenters at AAR are not representative of romance fans as a whole. I say this not as a criticism, but just based on some of the glowing reviews I’ve seen of work that many of us consider quite poor. Or how so many of us here express fatigue at cookie cutter heroes and sex scenes. There is obviously a market for certain romance clichés, tropes, and so forth. But I’m beginning to think that we’re not it.
Yep, several reviews I’ve seen of it have pointed out that she’s the weakest link in the series.
I just got a notice from the library that this library loan has come through for the ebook. I had never read Sophie Jordan before so when the book popped up on the library’s website for me to put in a hold in for it, I did. Now I feel like I have to read this just to see how bad it is!
Jordan’s work has um. Not been good, especially historical-wise, for years now (See the last historical I read of hers). Another tragic example!
This book really upset me because it played into the typical stereotypes about romance readers. That we like lowbrow, fluffy literature; love sex verging on pornography and other insulting inscriptions. I agree with your review Charlotte, this is not a classical historical romance or a romance in any sense of what we believe a romance to be. It lacked substance and complexity in every sense and it totally defied any sense of exuberance, hope or positivity that we expect as romance readers. Instead, it left me with a stigma of being a simplistic, lightweight romance reader.
Please let me know if you’d ever like to review at AAR. Your review is priceless!
Thank you Dabney, you are too sweet!
I second the motion! You’d be a fun AAR reviewer.
“That we like lowbrow, fluffy literature; love sex verging on pornography.” Hey, there’s nothing wrong with liking those things too. I certainly write enough shorts in the “verging on pornography” category. :)
I love reading it too Nan. But it has to have context and meaning to the story and part of development of the romance/relationship not just periodically appearing for it’s own sake.
Believe me, that review was one of. I much admire and respect the reviewers at AAR and always grateful for leading me to great books.
“I love reading it too Nan. But it has to have context and meaning to the story and part of development of the romance/relationship not just periodically appearing for it’s own sake.”
Oh, I absolutely agree. When it comes to romance as opposed to erotica, I think it’s fair to say that romance readers have higher plot and character development expectations- as they should. I’m not saying this to knock erotica, of course, but there seem to be two camps when it comes to “smut.” A lot of erotica readers are looking for the thrill and get annoyed with too much story, but there are also erotica readers who expect a story that is as well developed as a romance or any other genre. And I’m sure there are also those who like a little of column A and a little of column B, alternating between the two types of stories depending on mood. But I have found romance readers in general to be far more discerning and holding their beloved genre to a much higher standard- despite mainstream misconceptions to the contrary.
AAR has led me to several great books as well. :) When I first discovered the quality of many romance novels, and the community who loves them, I came to the realization I would probably never be able to successfully write one. Like many, I originally came from a place of sneering disrespect and only saw romance as a possible means to a financial end. After doing some research, which included reading several romance novels for the first time, I came to see the error of my ways- and then jumped on the smut train instead… ;) But as I have learned, and am always learning, erotica too has stories to tell.
In agreement, 100%!
Good work on your review – it’s a lot of fun!
I hope Usha, who sometimes posts here, sees this review and responds. Her Goodreads review this past weekend had me laughing out loud and was the highlight of my Saturday morning. The title and the image of a woman pinned against a wall would not typically prompt me to take a second look, and all of the reviews I’ve seen portray the book as dreadful, including this one.
Thanks for the heads up, Blackjack. I wasn’t aware Usha had a Goodreads account. I found the review here if anybody wants to read it: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/3312290192.
This line stood out to me: “The funniest but obnoxious line in the book and I quote ‘Bloody hell. You’re in heat woman.'” Oh, my goodness!
This premise sounds more like an erotica that got shoehorned into the romance format. But given that it has a “warm” rating, it doesn’t even appear to succeed on that front… Either way, I will not be reading this.
Not excusing the sexual assault AT ALL, but I would like to mention I am impressed to see a “romance” that includes dry humping as a sexual activity. That is sadly rare. Too bad it just wasn’t in a better book…
From what I recall from the books by this author that I’ve read, she’s tended towards the hotter end of the warm rating – rather like Eva Leigh – but doesn’t (IMO) fall into the hot category. (In my book unless a sex scene features more than two people, kink, toys or goats, it’s warm!)
“In my book unless a sex scene features more than two people, kink, toys or goats, it’s warm!”
Woo wee! It sounds like you have a high tolerance for steam! :) Is there anything you would consider “burning?”
On that note, I definitely agreed with Lisa Fernandes’s assessment that “The Prince of Broadway” qualifies as “hot,” despite the lack of kink, toys, or threesomes. For me, the explicitness factor of a sex scene comes from the frank language and unabashed detail, which often includes erotic talk (also known as “dirty talk”). If the door is wide open for the reader to experience every breath, sigh, and lurid description of biological functions in extreme play-by-play detail, it’s a minimum of “hot” for me- possibly “burning.” “Warm” is when the bedroom door is open, but much is left to the imagination by omission, vague choreography, or euphemisms.
Is there anything you would consider “burning?”
Probably not. I’m not really into stories with kink or multiple partners (I’ve read them and don’t dismiss a story that contains them – I listened to one with BDSM elements at the weekend – but I don’t actively seek them out). I have wondered if European sensibilities are different to American ones. We’re a lot less prudish over here! :P
I went with that rating because
Figured it suited! And by the way I loved that scene.
Wow, I can’t believe I had forgotten that scene. Now that you mentioned it, I remember clearly. I agree it was hot, hot, hot!
More like an F- What an insane plot premise. Definitely a NO from me. Great review
Wait… who’s the virgin and who’s the rogue again?
I think it’s gender flipped.
The heroine is the virgin and the hero is the rogue.
Oh, so not gender flipped. Even odder behavior then.