Scan barcode
A review by allisonwonderlandreads
The Duke's Rules Of Engagement by Jennifer Haymore
lighthearted
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
1.0
Sometimes historical romance is the only thing that can bring me joy, and other times it stomps on all kinds of people on its way to its blissful, oblivious happily ever after, infuriating me in the process. Welcome to my rageful review of The Duke's Rules of Engagement.
The introduction to the story is an infodump, an unappealing first impression that forecasts the at times wooden storytelling to come. It's a matchmaking gone wrong romance, where Jo is our matchmaker. Matthew is a duke who only wants to get married so he can have an heir and prevent his conniving uncle from one day taking up the reins of the family title. It's a pretty basic conflict because Jo insists on making love matches, which Matthew doesn't want at all. Things get more sticky when Jo figures out that if she can steer Matthew toward a specific match, she can also save her best friend, Lilly's, love from collapsing by infusing some much-needed cash into her would-be husband's household. It leads to a lingering and intentional scheme of dishonesty, not only personally but professionally. Matthew doesn't know her ulterior motives in matching him a certain way (a great basis to start a relationship), and honestly, I think given his aversion to love, he might have been open to an upfront business proposition if Jo didn't find that side of matchmaking abhorrent. Instead, she smooths her hypocrisy away with silence. Worse, the girl she hopes to match knows it could save her family and allow her brother to marry Lilly. Jo doesn't bother to inform the girl that the duke will actively prevent himself from a loving marriage... and likes to make out with his matchmaker on the side. Conflict of interest much? I was extra mad because the intended match has less power and even less knowledge of the situation than the Duke, and she would be more trapped by this future Jo is crafting as a function of gender. But all of Jo's guilt is geared towards how she's manipulating the duke while falling in love with him with no thought spared for the girl caught up in her schemes. Jo literally wants her chosen bride to be "besotted" because she feels the duke deserves to be loved instead of letting her go in, eyes wide open. But it's all OK because Jo just wanted her friend to be happy? And then said friend ALSO starts putting pressure on her would-be sister-in-law like "Hey can you please get a move on marrying a wealthy duke so I can be happy k thnx bye" like wtf with the emotional warfare on this barely grown woman. In the end, both Jo and Lilly get what they want with no particular flavor of regret.
And then there's the colonialist, straight-people bullshit. The author tries a little too hard to convince me our protagonists are good people by randomly bringing up that one thinks slavery should be abolished and the other shares food with beggars. Like, save your breath-- basic human rights bona fides are far from impressive, especially given other details of their world views.
For example, Lilly's side hustle (as compared to her 9-5 of crying and trying to maneuver everyone else so she can marry as she wishes) is architecture. Her designs are inspired by the "Far East and India," and we are assured by Jo that no one else has created anything like it... despite the clearly stated origins of her ideas. Appropriative much?? As Jo gets to know a young woman with an enthusiasm for expanding the British Museum's colonial ventures, it only added to my ick. In a surprising turn, someone actually criticizes an archaeologist as a thief, but his devotee shuts it down on the basis that he "has preserved so many ancient artifacts and shared so much knowledge with the entire of the civilized world." Don't even get me STARTED on the civilized world. The former archaeologist in me is having a whole-ass fit about the romanticized, racist past in these pages. Also, the brief joy I experienced seeing someone call it out was doused by her general characterization as a wet blanket. Only people who hate fun call out colonialism when we see it. Please put that on my headstone.
Finally, I received a personal slap to the face when Jo states she doesn't need (romantic) love to be happy early on in the book and is pitied for her supposed naivete. Like you poor girl... I guess you'll just be lonely forever. There's yet more queer erasure when Jo muses that she'd "never met a man who was completely immune to the physical charms of the opposite sex." Then expand your social circle like damn, Jo. I'm pretty sure gay and ace men enjoy their immunity just fine.
This was a super yucky experience for me, and I don't recommend it.
The introduction to the story is an infodump, an unappealing first impression that forecasts the at times wooden storytelling to come. It's a matchmaking gone wrong romance, where Jo is our matchmaker. Matthew is a duke who only wants to get married so he can have an heir and prevent his conniving uncle from one day taking up the reins of the family title. It's a pretty basic conflict because Jo insists on making love matches, which Matthew doesn't want at all. Things get more sticky when Jo figures out that if she can steer Matthew toward a specific match, she can also save her best friend, Lilly's, love from collapsing by infusing some much-needed cash into her would-be husband's household. It leads to a lingering and intentional scheme of dishonesty, not only personally but professionally. Matthew doesn't know her ulterior motives in matching him a certain way (a great basis to start a relationship), and honestly, I think given his aversion to love, he might have been open to an upfront business proposition if Jo didn't find that side of matchmaking abhorrent. Instead, she smooths her hypocrisy away with silence. Worse, the girl she hopes to match knows it could save her family and allow her brother to marry Lilly. Jo doesn't bother to inform the girl that the duke will actively prevent himself from a loving marriage... and likes to make out with his matchmaker on the side. Conflict of interest much? I was extra mad because the intended match has less power and even less knowledge of the situation than the Duke, and she would be more trapped by this future Jo is crafting as a function of gender. But all of Jo's guilt is geared towards how she's manipulating the duke while falling in love with him with no thought spared for the girl caught up in her schemes. Jo literally wants her chosen bride to be "besotted" because she feels the duke deserves to be loved instead of letting her go in, eyes wide open. But it's all OK because Jo just wanted her friend to be happy? And then said friend ALSO starts putting pressure on her would-be sister-in-law like "Hey can you please get a move on marrying a wealthy duke so I can be happy k thnx bye" like wtf with the emotional warfare on this barely grown woman. In the end, both Jo and Lilly get what they want with no particular flavor of regret.
And then there's the colonialist, straight-people bullshit. The author tries a little too hard to convince me our protagonists are good people by randomly bringing up that one thinks slavery should be abolished and the other shares food with beggars. Like, save your breath-- basic human rights bona fides are far from impressive, especially given other details of their world views.
For example, Lilly's side hustle (as compared to her 9-5 of crying and trying to maneuver everyone else so she can marry as she wishes) is architecture. Her designs are inspired by the "Far East and India," and we are assured by Jo that no one else has created anything like it... despite the clearly stated origins of her ideas. Appropriative much?? As Jo gets to know a young woman with an enthusiasm for expanding the British Museum's colonial ventures, it only added to my ick. In a surprising turn, someone actually criticizes an archaeologist as a thief, but his devotee shuts it down on the basis that he "has preserved so many ancient artifacts and shared so much knowledge with the entire of the civilized world." Don't even get me STARTED on the civilized world. The former archaeologist in me is having a whole-ass fit about the romanticized, racist past in these pages. Also, the brief joy I experienced seeing someone call it out was doused by her general characterization as a wet blanket. Only people who hate fun call out colonialism when we see it. Please put that on my headstone.
Finally, I received a personal slap to the face when Jo states she doesn't need (romantic) love to be happy early on in the book and is pitied for her supposed naivete. Like you poor girl... I guess you'll just be lonely forever. There's yet more queer erasure when Jo muses that she'd "never met a man who was completely immune to the physical charms of the opposite sex." Then expand your social circle like damn, Jo. I'm pretty sure gay and ace men enjoy their immunity just fine.
This was a super yucky experience for me, and I don't recommend it.