Misfit's Reviews > To Seduce an Earl

To Seduce an Earl by Lori Brighton
Rate this book
Clear rating

by
1375548
To Seduce an Earl begins in 1867 at Lady Lavender’s Estate of Seduction (remember that date) - a house of ill repute for the London ladies. Alex Weston's specialty is seducing young virgins and teaching them the ways of lurve before they're married off to their gruesome wealthy husbands. Enter Grace Brisbane who thinks she's at Lady Lavender's to pick up a book or something, but she's really been sent by her brother to learn how to seduce his drinking/gambling pal the Earl of Rodrick (he needs the money so's he can drink and gamble some more). It is insta-love with Alex and Grace, and the rest of the story revolves around Alex's never-ending pity party about being a "whore", along with his efforts to escape the clutches of the evil Lady Lavender (she blackmailed him into prostitution at age 13).

OK, so I know the whorehouse catering to the ladies is a bit of a stretch, but taxes were hell this year and I really needed some brain candy, but fluff or no, I still expect a somewhat realistic historical setting and you aren't going to get it here (more on this subject later). The language and mindset are much too modern, all our virginal heroine needed was a couple of heavy pettings and she knew exactly how to handle a man's you-know-what without any cribbing from Alex. No shy young Victorian Miss here. Speaking of language, be warned because the "F" bomb is dropped frequently, and "cock" is abused to death. I began wishing for Bertrice Small and her "manroot". Almost.

Then there are the typos. I believe this is self-published, but you still would think someone would look at the final product before putting it on the market, wouldn't you?

"lavacious"

I believe that should be lascivious.

"No taundry sexuall affair as most women would have admitted to him."

"Either groppping women..."

"Everything he held dare..."


Editor, wherefore art thou?

Now back to the historical setting. I understand that some readers want a sexed up wallpaper romance, and I'm not knocking your reading preferences, but I am not one of them. Towards the end of the book Alex and Grace are exploring a storage room at a museum filled with Russian artifacts.

"She glanced toward the case again. Royal artifacts, most likely. She stepped closer, focusing on the card in the case. “Czar Nicholas the Second,” she read."

Remember I said the story began in 1867? I'm more forgiving of older romances written in the days before you could look up historical details with a click of the mouse, but nowadays this kind of EPIC FAIL sloppiness is inexcusable. Toss in the most long-winded boring epilogue ever and you get a book deserving of no stars. Not one.

Supposedly there are two more books planned in this series telling the stories of two other men at Lady Lavender's, but I'll be passing on that ride, Kindle freebie or no.

27 likes · flag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read To Seduce an Earl.
Sign In »

Reading Progress

04/12/2012
7.0% "She’d seen a man’s private parts before, but only in paintings and statues. This…this was utterly interesting!

She pointed a trembling finger toward him. “That…that…is not, Sir, what I need!”

"
04/12/2012
8.0% "“You, my dear, are in a brothel for women.”

After two loooooooooong afternoons dealing with taxes, this is just the lighter read I need at the monent.

"
04/13/2012
22.0% "OK, so riddle me this. What 19C well bred miss would say things like "am not" and "thank you very much"?" 3 comments
04/14/2012
30.0% ""lavacious"?

What kind of word is that?

" 2 comments
04/14/2012
46.0% "This is getting awfully silly."
04/14/2012
57.0% "No taundry sexuall affair as most women would have admitted to him.

Either groppping women...

Everything he held dare...

lavacious

This book is now officially on the editor wherefore art thou shelf :/

" 5 comments
04/14/2012
68.0% "This is getting dumber and dumber." 4 comments
04/14/2012
78.0% "

Need I say more?

"
04/14/2012
85.0% ""He dropped his hold and pulled away from her, swiping his hands over his face, weary, exhausted when only moments ago he’d been thrilled and relaxed."

"
04/14/2012
87.0% "The overuse of "cock" is wearing very thin. It almost makes me wish for Bertrice Small and "manroot". Almost..."
04/14/2012
95.0% "Quote from novel, but a character who is a member of Russian royalty speaking English,

“I stood by vhile you vere harmed and for that I vill forever be guilty. But you have ruined my life. The lives of my family. Ve are even."

Sounds more like Sgt. Schultz than a Russian count...

" 3 comments

Comments (showing 1-41 of 41) (41 new)

dateDown arrow    newest »

message 1: by Tara (new)

Tara Chevrestt This looks good!! I love the house of ill repute for WOMEN idea.


Misfit It has potential, doesn't it?


message 3: by Laura (new)

Laura got it, thanks.


Misfit Hah, this has been popping up on my feeds all afternoon.


Misfit 4/12/12. Kindle freebie today.


Serene Yeah, I plunked this one into my DNF category. I love books with male prostitutes too... But sadly, this just din't work for me.


message 7: by Kelly (new)

Kelly ...Tsar Nicholas the Second, in 1867? *facepalm*


Misfit Kelly wrote: "...Tsar Nicholas the Second, in 1867? *facepalm*"

I know. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. If I didn't have the higlight function and copy from my Amazon Kindle page I'd still be doubting it.


message 9: by Kelly (new)

Kelly That's as bad as the book I tried to read that was set in the South in like 1830 and talked about the "antebellum" mansions...


Misfit Ye Gods. It isn't that difficult to look this stuff up.


message 11: by Rio (Lynne) (new)

Rio (Lynne) At least it was free ;)
Really, eff bombs? Hate that, so not necessary.


Serene I really felt Alex's wangst was overdone. Plus he's still being blackmailed at such an adult age, I would've expected him to have turned the tables on lavendar by the time he reached the age he was. I was also a bit irked, he hadn't come to grips with his life by the time he met the heroine. He had so much baggage to work out, that it made the romance unbelievable for me since he didnt seem to deal with that properly.


Misfit Rio (Lynne) wrote: "At least it was free ;)
Really, eff bombs? Hate that, so not necessary."


Major F bombs and in front of his darling Grace at times. I agree, not needed.

@ Serene, I agree about the emotional baggage. It went on way too long and poorly handled.

Freebie or not, this is a major fail all around.


message 14: by Rio (Lynne) (new)

Rio (Lynne) I will scratch this one


Misfit Rio (Lynne) wrote: "I will scratch this one"

A wise move.


message 16: by MAP (new)

MAP CZAR NICHOLAS THE SECOND?! I think a part of my soul just died.


Misfit MAP wrote: "CZAR NICHOLAS THE SECOND?! I think a part of my soul just died."

I'm just waiting for someone to come along and slap us with the old BUT IT'S FICTION! line.

Seriously, there is no excuse for that. None whatsoever.


message 18: by Laura (new)

Laura oh dear....


message 19: by Tammy (new) - added it

Tammy Walton Grant Oh, Misfit, based on this I don't even know if I can start reading it. :)

Great rant review! I don't think I've ever seen you this ticked off.


message 20: by Rio (Lynne) (new)

Rio (Lynne) But it's just fiction......"har har har!


Misfit Tammy wrote: "Oh, Misfit, based on this I don't even know if I can start reading it. :)

Great rant review! I don't think I've ever seen you this ticked off."


I'd love to see you try Tammy, but I won't blame you for not doing it.

@ Rio. I know. I'm saving that example for the next time someone gets attacked by the "but it's fiction" crowd.


message 22: by Kim (last edited Apr 15, 2012 02:27PM) (new)

Kim Misfit, sometimes I really don't understand why you put yourself through the torture. But I'm glad you do.

ETA. This one has got a lot of love in other reviews. Yet another thing for me not to understand.


Misfit Kim wrote: "Misfit, sometimes I really don't understand why you put yourself through the torture. But I'm glad you do.

ETA. This one has got a lot of love in other reviews. Yet another thing for me not to und..."


Thanks Kim. I honestly didn't expect anything quite like this, especially based on the other glowing reviews. I am just scratching my head though - no one else mentioned the reference to Nicholas II.


message 24: by Tammy (new) - added it

Tammy Walton Grant Misfit, Misfit, Misfit. That's because it's fiction!

It's not exactly a great reference for the brain power of romance authors/readers, is it?


Misfit Tammy wrote: "Misfit, Misfit, Misfit. That's because it's fiction!

It's not exactly a great reference for the brain power of romance authors/readers, is it?"


I know, but come on. I've lost count of how many times I've double checked that quote to make sure I wasn't imagining things. Geez.


message 26: by Tammy (new) - added it

Tammy Walton Grant I know. If this was from a publisher I'd be saying "How STUPID do they think we are?"

As this is a self-pub it almost begs the question, except in reverse.


message 27: by Rio (Lynne) (new)

Rio (Lynne) I'm just waiting for someone to come along and slap us with the old BUT IT'S FICTION! line.

I couldn't help myself. I deleted it from the kindle



Shera (Book Whispers) Can't believe you made it to the end of it!!

Manroot, haven't heard that one in a while.


Misfit Shera (Book Whispers) wrote: "Can't believe you made it to the end of it!!

Manroot, haven't heard that one in a while."


Someone had to take the hit for the team.


Shera (Book Whispers) And we thank you!


Misfit You are welcome. I had no idea how painful this one was going to be :)

RE: manroot and Bertrice Small. I threw that in for Karla's sake and she missed it all :/


message 32: by [deleted user] (new)

I greatly apologize for the historical inaccuracy. I am trying to figure out how I missed this as I remember researching it. I wrote the book a couple years back and I believe I changed the date and forgot to change the leader. One of those mistakes you wish you could take back, but can't :(


Misfit Hi Lori, thanks for that note. What I can't figure out is why none of the other reviewers noticed it...


message 34: by [deleted user] (new)

lol, I have no idea. It was read by quite a few NY editors as well. It's pretty darn embarrassing. I've been seriously trying to figure out how the heck it happened; as I said, I remember researching it. Only thing I can think of is that I changed the date and missed that. Very embarrassing. But oh well, lesson learned!


Shera (Book Whispers) Misfit, not too many people notice history facts like that. Even if historical romance is there main genre. ^_- I remember history being one of my schools lowest letter classes.

I know I might have missed it.


message 36: by [deleted user] (new)

ughhh! After reading my notes I know what I did, was supposed to be Nicholas the first! Well, at least now I know what happened. Of course that doesn't help much now. But anyway, at least I can fix it. Stupid mistake indeed.


message 37: by [deleted user] (new)

It's a pretty blatant mistake; most people (even those who aren't up on their history) know of Nicholas II. But I speed read when I read for fun, so I don't tend to notice typos. If others speed read as well, they might not have noticed the name slip. Plus the characters almost have sex right after the mistake. Readers might have been more focused on that :)


Misfit Shera (Book Whispers) wrote: "Misfit, not too many people notice history facts like that. Even if historical romance is there main genre. ^_- I remember history being one of my schools lowest letter classes.

I know I might ..."


Hi Shera, I understand your viewpoint, but there are a lot of readers of historical romance that do care and notice these things. A lot of historical fiction readers like myself like to read a romance on occasion as well, and the Romanovs are kind of popular these days.

Lori, I do hope you can fix it in the e-book editions.


message 39: by [deleted user] (new)

That is one of the good things about self publishing, you can fix typos. With NY books, not so much.


Shera (Book Whispers) Hmmm . . . I should have worded that better Misfit. Most historical romance readers do know they're history. ^_-

Yeah, I know when I power read I miss certain facts sometimes.


message 41: by Kym (new) - rated it 1 star

Kym I was going to write a review, but you said just about everything. Aside from the poor pity me attitude from Alex (I don't even care for that whiney in a female character) and historical inaccuracy, the deus ex machina moment when daddy comes sweeping in to save his son from the villainous bitch put a capper on it for me. He'd disowned the boy, then followed him from London ( how did he know where/when they were going?) to give him his inheritance. Yeah, right. That would have all been gone to buy mama's sapphires by then.


back to top