Scan barcode
iskanderjonesiv's review against another edition
Prim, plain, desperately virtuous Lady Mary Fairchild stared at the seductive gentleman and wondered -- did he remember the elements of the night they met? Surely not. In the ten years since, she had abandoned her youthful impetuousness and transformed herself into a housekeeper -- disguising her beauty beneath a servant's dour clothing determined to conquer the passions of the past.But Sebastian Durant, Viscount Whitfield, did recognize her as a Fairchild, one of his family's bitter enemies. When he demanded her help recovering a stolen diary, she dared not refuse him. When he proposed they masquerade as a betrothed couple, loyalty forced her to agree. And when the restraint between them shattered and pleasure became an obsession, Mary had to trust a powerful man who could send her to the gallows ... or love her through eternity.
ab18's review
2.0
It’s not the forced seduction scene that bothered me, it was the awfully constructed book.
This reads like a comedy but it isn’t funny. The humor is so over the top that it falls flat. Literally, Dodd has a group of elderly men falling flat as the door opens to reveal them listening at the keyhole. I like my humor razor sharp not slapstick.
The characters spend waaaaaay too much time reacting to every line spoken, every action taken, every thought they have. It becomes a tedious slog after a few pages. Tens of pages are spent on conversations that can be condensed into just a few. And we didn’t need to have Mary remind herself of how she used to be a housekeeper on nearly EVERY page. We KNOW!!!!
It didn’t help that the author decided the main characters have to give the audience what I can only think of as commentary for the reader on everything they witness, in addition to their inner monologing when it’s just the two of them.
I hated the way the author kept teasing us about Mary’s past murder and the Whitfield/Fairchild feud. Stop playing coy. Either build it up in a way that the reasons themselves are a shock to the reader, or reveal it from the start. Don’t start talking about it and then have the talkative character clam up ALL THE TIME!
The story just lacked smoothness and coordination. Are the Fairchilds incredibly inept and stupid as we’re told or are they maliciously sly and clever (as we’re also told)? Why would they believe Whitfield when he says he just happens to be engaged to a family member they haven’t seen in years, a family member who conveniently comes along with her “guardian” who happens to be the woman one of them is blackmailing? No one is that dumb. How can the Fairchilds have been running amuck among the nobility for generations if grandpa was the first to be given the title of nobility? Why have so many Fairchilds if you aren’t going to bother to use those characters? Same goes for all the guests.
All the characters are extremely blunt, sometimes to the point of social ineptitude which didn’t come across as realistic. It’s not believable when EVERYONE does it. A would be lover doesn’t tell a servant that no one can touch his “precious Mary”, a peer of the realm doesn’t bring in a graphic stallion statue in front of unmarried and married guests, suitors don’t outright discuss their best qualities unless they’re flirting.
The language was also odd. It wasn’t that it was out of period, it was just strange. I love metaphorical language but it seemed at odds with the plain speaking everyone engaged in.
And I hate authors that tell instead of show. Don’t TELL me that Whitfield started falling for Mary when he took care of her on their carriage journey, none of which we see. For a great example of humor, a bad boy and how he falls in love through taking care of the heroine while on a journey see A Devil in Winter. I had no reason to believe Whitfield’s abrupt change, particularly when he was cold and indifferent right before that line of thinking. And how does Mary go from being wary to getting a a hormonal inducing kiss to craving (the author’s word) the hero’s touch? Where was the buildup? Why is Whitfield such a wimp? I don’t want my hero to be beaten into submission by another man to the point where he actually stays away from Mary because he doesn’t want to get hurt again. Dodd gave Whitfield so much potential with his iciness and sharpness at the beginning. By the time we’re at the halfway point he’s suddenly a hormonal fraidy cat. Not cool. He’s supposed to have a big black soul but he doesn’t do anything to warrant it except be crabby when he doesn’t like what Mary does.
He rapes her because he believes she’s been cheating on him (even though they have a sham engagement) but then says he’ll believe her next because… I don’t know why either. His supposed grovel turns into him being pleasured by Mary. HUH?!?!!
I also detested Lady Valery. Why would she rope in an innocent woman to retrieve something she shouldn’t have had in the first place, something that people would kill to have? Also, she claims she wants to protect the families of the men she “loved”, the many hundreds of men. If she cared about the families she wouldn’t have slept with their heads of household. There’s a name for women like her. And the moment where she’s imagining her godson and her protege naked made me gag. As did her sleeping with multiple brothers over the course of a few days. What a dirty old lady. We’re supposed to believe she’s still an extremely accomplished lover when she’s in her seventies, enough to make men lose their common sense. Uh huh. I get why she liked Nora, and it had nothing to do with the latter’s good character as the writer would have you believe. Of course Lady Valery would find a kindred spirit in a woman who has no problem prostituting her daughters, and not even for marriage at that. Nora loves her husband so much that she’s encourages THEIR children to sleep with men so that the family coffers can be refilled. She’s a lunatic!
I don’t understand Mary, either. She’s contradictorily shy and bold at the same time during the second love scene. For someone who never saw a naked man or has any knowledge of the intimacies she is unexplainably adept at things no innocent miss should be. But we know she’s innocent because she won’t take off her chemise. As a side note: how can Whitfield kiss her thigh if she’s straddling him? My brain was very confused.
Getting through the book is a determined drag.
This reads like a comedy but it isn’t funny. The humor is so over the top that it falls flat. Literally, Dodd has a group of elderly men falling flat as the door opens to reveal them listening at the keyhole. I like my humor razor sharp not slapstick.
The characters spend waaaaaay too much time reacting to every line spoken, every action taken, every thought they have. It becomes a tedious slog after a few pages. Tens of pages are spent on conversations that can be condensed into just a few. And we didn’t need to have Mary remind herself of how she used to be a housekeeper on nearly EVERY page. We KNOW!!!!
It didn’t help that the author decided the main characters have to give the audience what I can only think of as commentary for the reader on everything they witness, in addition to their inner monologing when it’s just the two of them.
I hated the way the author kept teasing us about Mary’s past murder and the Whitfield/Fairchild feud. Stop playing coy. Either build it up in a way that the reasons themselves are a shock to the reader, or reveal it from the start. Don’t start talking about it and then have the talkative character clam up ALL THE TIME!
The story just lacked smoothness and coordination. Are the Fairchilds incredibly inept and stupid as we’re told or are they maliciously sly and clever (as we’re also told)? Why would they believe Whitfield when he says he just happens to be engaged to a family member they haven’t seen in years, a family member who conveniently comes along with her “guardian” who happens to be the woman one of them is blackmailing? No one is that dumb. How can the Fairchilds have been running amuck among the nobility for generations if grandpa was the first to be given the title of nobility? Why have so many Fairchilds if you aren’t going to bother to use those characters? Same goes for all the guests.
All the characters are extremely blunt, sometimes to the point of social ineptitude which didn’t come across as realistic. It’s not believable when EVERYONE does it. A would be lover doesn’t tell a servant that no one can touch his “precious Mary”, a peer of the realm doesn’t bring in a graphic stallion statue in front of unmarried and married guests, suitors don’t outright discuss their best qualities unless they’re flirting.
The language was also odd. It wasn’t that it was out of period, it was just strange. I love metaphorical language but it seemed at odds with the plain speaking everyone engaged in.
And I hate authors that tell instead of show. Don’t TELL me that Whitfield started falling for Mary when he took care of her on their carriage journey, none of which we see. For a great example of humor, a bad boy and how he falls in love through taking care of the heroine while on a journey see A Devil in Winter. I had no reason to believe Whitfield’s abrupt change, particularly when he was cold and indifferent right before that line of thinking. And how does Mary go from being wary to getting a a hormonal inducing kiss to craving (the author’s word) the hero’s touch? Where was the buildup? Why is Whitfield such a wimp? I don’t want my hero to be beaten into submission by another man to the point where he actually stays away from Mary because he doesn’t want to get hurt again. Dodd gave Whitfield so much potential with his iciness and sharpness at the beginning. By the time we’re at the halfway point he’s suddenly a hormonal fraidy cat. Not cool. He’s supposed to have a big black soul but he doesn’t do anything to warrant it except be crabby when he doesn’t like what Mary does.
He rapes her because he believes she’s been cheating on him (even though they have a sham engagement) but then says he’ll believe her next because… I don’t know why either. His supposed grovel turns into him being pleasured by Mary. HUH?!?!!
I also detested Lady Valery. Why would she rope in an innocent woman to retrieve something she shouldn’t have had in the first place, something that people would kill to have? Also, she claims she wants to protect the families of the men she “loved”, the many hundreds of men. If she cared about the families she wouldn’t have slept with their heads of household. There’s a name for women like her. And the moment where she’s imagining her godson and her protege naked made me gag. As did her sleeping with multiple brothers over the course of a few days. What a dirty old lady. We’re supposed to believe she’s still an extremely accomplished lover when she’s in her seventies, enough to make men lose their common sense. Uh huh. I get why she liked Nora, and it had nothing to do with the latter’s good character as the writer would have you believe. Of course Lady Valery would find a kindred spirit in a woman who has no problem prostituting her daughters, and not even for marriage at that. Nora loves her husband so much that she’s encourages THEIR children to sleep with men so that the family coffers can be refilled. She’s a lunatic!
I don’t understand Mary, either. She’s contradictorily shy and bold at the same time during the second love scene. For someone who never saw a naked man or has any knowledge of the intimacies she is unexplainably adept at things no innocent miss should be. But we know she’s innocent because she won’t take off her chemise. As a side note: how can Whitfield kiss her thigh if she’s straddling him? My brain was very confused.
Getting through the book is a determined drag.
thebookcoyote's review
1.0
I liked this book for the first part. Then I hated it. Who in God's name ever thought that rape was sexy??? Because that's exactly what it was. Mary was flat-out raped, and the fact that we're supposed to like the guy who did this almost made me vomit. I lost any sympathy for the hero at that point. He claims to love her - and I don't believe a bit of it. He's cruel, selfish, and a rapist to boot. And his attempt at an "apology" later is pathetic. Disgusting.
plottrysts's review
3.0
2.5 stars for this surreal romance novel. Often when we critique historical romances, we criticize the historical accuracy of the setting. In this case, the entire book is so unrealistic that the anachronisms didn't even make a blip in our radar. If you're looking for a soft-focus, dreamy (in the surreal sense where things don't seem to make logical connections with each other or, really, don't seem to make sense at all), Gothic-tinged reading experience with more than a dash of non-consensual sex, this is the book for you.
41-Word Summaries:
Laine: The only two witnesses to a crime committed ten years ago just happen to be at the same house party with the perpetrator. Objectively, I hated the rape and lack of realism. Subjectively I laughed out loud and heartily so often.
Meg: Mary is a fugitive housekeeper. Sebastian (who might know her fugitive secrets) needs her for an elaborate fake relationship plot to get revenge on her family. All of this takes place in a dream-like novel with a Gothic fairy tale feel.
www.linktr.ee/plottrysts
41-Word Summaries:
Laine: The only two witnesses to a crime committed ten years ago just happen to be at the same house party with the perpetrator. Objectively, I hated the rape and lack of realism. Subjectively I laughed out loud and heartily so often.
Meg: Mary is a fugitive housekeeper. Sebastian (who might know her fugitive secrets) needs her for an elaborate fake relationship plot to get revenge on her family. All of this takes place in a dream-like novel with a Gothic fairy tale feel.
www.linktr.ee/plottrysts
smiley7245's review
adventurous
emotional
mysterious
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
3.0
chels_ebooks's review
adventurous
dark
funny
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Plot
I read this because I found this letter from Judith Ivory to an All About Romance column that defends it's right to exist.
Basically, this book has a reputation because of one particular scene. In 90s euphemisms, it's "forced seduction." In modern euphemisms, it's "noncon." If it's me being blunt, it's a rape scene.
There are a lot of superficial comparisons I could make to this book and To Have and To Hold! The heroine, Mary, is also a housekeeper. (She's an aristocrat disguised as a housekeeper, but I digress!) The hero's name is Sebastian, like the infamous rake from TH&tH. Then there is that one scene that both books host and are still hotly debated.
But A Well Pleasured Lady isn't interested in being To Have & to Hold. To Have & to Hold is a character study that challenges your ideas about the criminal justice system. A Well Pleasured Lady is a horny melodrama that is easily digestible until it suddenly isn't. That one scene is here in this particular book for kink purposes, and I agree with Judith Ivory when she says it has a right to be there, and we should judge it on how well it's executed.
Honestly, I enjoyed a lot about this book, and I would have done a full defense of it if it wasn't for a transphobic joke that I feel like crosses over into the harm spectrum. Dark doesn't equal harmful! Depiction doesn't equal endorsement. But harm and purposefully dark are different, and in this one aspect Dodd overstepped.
Basically, this book has a reputation because of one particular scene. In 90s euphemisms, it's "forced seduction." In modern euphemisms, it's "noncon." If it's me being blunt, it's a rape scene.
There are a lot of superficial comparisons I could make to this book and To Have and To Hold! The heroine, Mary, is also a housekeeper. (She's an aristocrat disguised as a housekeeper, but I digress!) The hero's name is Sebastian, like the infamous rake from TH&tH. Then there is that one scene that both books host and are still hotly debated.
But A Well Pleasured Lady isn't interested in being To Have & to Hold. To Have & to Hold is a character study that challenges your ideas about the criminal justice system. A Well Pleasured Lady is a horny melodrama that is easily digestible until it suddenly isn't. That one scene is here in this particular book for kink purposes, and I agree with Judith Ivory when she says it has a right to be there, and we should judge it on how well it's executed.
Honestly, I enjoyed a lot about this book, and I would have done a full defense of it if it wasn't for a transphobic joke that I feel like crosses over into the harm spectrum. Dark doesn't equal harmful! Depiction doesn't equal endorsement. But harm and purposefully dark are different, and in this one aspect Dodd overstepped.
Content Warnings
Graphic: Transphobia and Rape
Moderate: Violence and Gun violence
rainnbooks's review against another edition
3.0
This historical romance has quite a plot.Forced marriage, untrustworthy relatives, a missing diary and what not.There are parts of the book that was quite interesting but other parts felt tad down.The love scene was sexy if we can numb our mind to the fact that it was more a rape than a proper seduction or consensual even though most books in this genre carry a similar thread, here the line blurs a little.But still an enjoyable fare.
intostarlight's review
1.0
I never thought there'd come a time when I'd rate a Christina Dodd romance 1 star but here we are. Never say never I guess. To sum it up shortly, the hero rapes the heroine (but hey it's ok because she ends up liking it, right?). Screw heroes like that! That's a villain and not a hero for me. And the heroine's brother (who's supposed to be a good guy too) only gets mad at another guy when he finds out the woman he tried to dishonour was his sister, the heroine, but was totally ok with it when he thought it was some namless woman. And these are supposed to be the good guys? Yeah, no thank you, 1 star!
amshofner's review
2.0
Hrmph.
-Despite heroine saying, "Don't," hero still had sex with her. Guess it's okay because she secretly wanted it. *rolls eyes*
-The supposedly well pleasured lady had her virginity taken while against the wall (which I'm still not sure how it all went down, but okay), and more about her being sore was mentioned than her being pleasured.
-I don't know why this couple is together.
-Despite heroine saying, "Don't," hero still had sex with her. Guess it's okay because she secretly wanted it. *rolls eyes*
-The supposedly well pleasured lady had her virginity taken while against the wall (which I'm still not sure how it all went down, but okay), and more about her being sore was mentioned than her being pleasured.
-I don't know why this couple is together.
heroman's review
2.0
Kinda wish I could rate this a 2.5. it has good parts, but it kinda mistumbled and couldn't recover it's pacing tempo.
Alas. Time to read an YA.
Alas. Time to read an YA.
More...