All the Racism | How to Lose a Duke in Ten Days by Laura Lee Guhrke

How to Lose a Duke in Ten Days is a book that is intended to be an uplifting story about how victims of sex assault can go on to have happy, meaningful romantic relationships. It’s a lovely story when viewed from high altitudes. And perhaps in 2014, this book’s main goal—to uplift a sector of women who are have been historically cast aside—would have overwritten its flaws.

Unfortunately for Laura Lee Guhrke, the year is now 2020, and certain parts of this book haven’t aged well at all. Spoiler: I’m talking about our “hero”—Stuart, the Duke of Margrave.

The backstory here is that Stuart was once an impoverished duke, and Edie was once a fabulously wealthy American heiress who was socially ruined after her longtime crush sexually assaulted her and then refused to marry her. Edie needed to be respectable; Stuart needed money. They marry and agree to live separately, all is fine and dandy.

But five years after their marriage, Stuart comes back from Africa (where he’s been engaging in typical colonialist bullshit) with a new outlook on life after a near-death experience. He wants Edie back. Poor, traumatized Edie, who thinks her assault was her own fault, does not want Stuart.

Romance stuff happens, blah blah blah.

Obviously, a major red flag here is that we have a duke who’s spent the past five years tromping around East Africa like it’s his private playground. To be fair, Guhrke attempts to characterize Stuart’s adventures as mostly benign—cartography, wildlife research, etc. Which is…fine, I guess. But then once Edie threatens to cut his allowance if he insists on moving in with her, we’re treated to this little chestnut:

“I don’t care about the money.”

“You cared once.” She lifted her head, defiance in her eyes. “You might care again if I cut you off.”

“No, Edie, I wouldn’t, because for me, money isn’t the point. And besides, I’ve invested all the income you’ve already provided me and did rather a fine job of it, if I do say so myself. I managed to buy into some very profitable gold mines in East Africa, as well as some diamond mines, shale fields, and railways. All are paying healthy dividends.”

Oh, of course! Just casually toss in that you own some fucking gold and diamond mines wherein native Africans are being forced to toil in dangerous conditions with meager pay! No problem, no problem at all. I love how Guhrke doesn’t even expect readers to take issue with this little factoid—that’s how deeply ingrained imperialism and racism are in historical romance. Readers are just meant to take this as a given. Fuck that.

But wait, there’s more!

At some point, Edie asks Stuart if he’s slept with other women over the course of their estrangement. Fair question! And honestly, nobody would have begrudged Stuart some human companionship, considering he was married in name only; even Edie admits this. However, let’s listen to how Stuart answers his wife’s question:

“No, Edie, I didn’t have any women in Africa. That’s not to say I was celibate,” he added at once to make things clear. “I wasn’t. I had women, yes. But not in Africa. That’s because—” He broke off, suddenly feeling deuced awkward, but he’d promised her the truth. “Syphilis is very common. I didn’t want to catch it.”

Pink washed into her cheeks. “Oh.”

“It was usually easier to avoid feminine company altogether, but when things got desparate, I’d go to Paris.”

“So you had a lover in Paris, then?” …

“No, Edie, no. No lovers, no mistresses, nothing of that kind. Only courtesans I knew, and none of them meant anything to me.”

DON’T WORRY, EDIE! He didn’t have sex with those disgusting, syphilitic Black women in Kenya! Just the…French prostitutes, who meant nothing to him? So much “cleaner” and “safer”!

Like…I’m sorry, but WHAT? Do only Black people have syphilis now? Is that a historical thing? (Narrator: it is not.) Also…you fucking racist pisshead, nobody asked you WHO you slept with, just IF you slept with anybody. Why go into this long, apologetic monologue about avoiding the “nasty” African women in the first place, and distinguishing between lovers/mistresses/courtesans? Why is this relevant?

Answer: RAAAAACISM.

Fuck that.

And then moving on from obvious racial issues (which are horrible enough), let’s discuss how Stuart treats Edie in light of her status as a sexual assault survivor. He repeatedly assures her that he’s not like that other guy, that he’d never hurt her, that he’ll stop whenever she needs him to, etc. Nice words! I approve.

Except, the first time they have sex, Stuart’s so fucking absorbed by how wonderful her vagina feels that he can’t even take a quick second to check on his wife—who is having a panic attack because she’s just been triggered into reliving her sexual assault! Nice. AND THEN, Guhrke makes it clear that Stuart was not to blame for Edie’s bad sexual experience in this instance, because she didn’t verbally say the word “stop.” (Might I note that she was literally having a panic attack? That’s rather an unreasonable burden to put on Edie, in my humble opinion. )

Excuse me?

Pretty sure that if I’m having sex with somebody and they suddenly go stiff as a board and stop making “I’m enjoying this” noises, I’ll stop for a minute to make sure they’re still feeling the vibe. It’s common decency! Why was Stuart so absorbed in his own pleasure that he couldn’t even be bothered to check in on Edie—especially after all of his protestations of “not all men” and “but I’m different“? What is with the straights and their “once sex gets started, my animal urges kick in and nothing can stop me until my orgasm clears the fogs of lust” narrative???

So then we get to the Grand Gesture in How to Lose a Duke in Ten Days. It’s basically Edie apologizing for having a panic attack during sex? And then apologizing to Stuart for making him feel bad by telling him about her sexual assault in the first place? (To be fair to Stuart, he does tell her she has no need to apologize for his reaction to hearing her trauma, but still. Guhrke went there.) WHAT THE DAMN FUCK.

No. No. No.