The Reluctant Author: Telling the Wrong Story

I’m warning you now, this is going to be the most niche post ever on this blog. However, I need to get it off my chest, at least three people want to hear it, and I think it has some wider resonances for writing as well.


Today, my friends, I am discussing Georgette Heyer’s 1946 romance The Reluctant Widow. Bear with me. Extensive spoilers will follow; wider conclusions will be drawn at the end.


The Reluctant Secret Agent: or, why Francis Cheviot is the hero of The Reluctant Widow

The Reluctant Widow is generally agreed to be one of Heyer’s less successful romances. It has a great premise—a woman married at midnight to a dying man she’s never met, a mouldering house, French spies—plus a great cast including the ingenuous teen Nicky, his comedy dog, and one of Heyer’s best effete-yet-deadly fops, the purring and catlike Francis Cheviot. Unfortunately, the hero and heroine don’t live up to their book. Eleanor, the heroine, is sadly disinclined to throw herself into the mystery—she is meant to be a sensible heroine like Sarah Thane in The Talisman Ring but she lacks Sarah’s gumption and has no enjoyment at all ofher situation. Ned, the hero, mostly stands around giving orders, and telling people to keep calm. Basically, Ned and Eleanor are boring, sensible people plunged into a completely bananas situation to which they react in a boring, sensible manner.


However, I think we can see why the central romance is such a dud if we look at what the plot of the book actually is.


Synopsis follows. I am going to put Eleanor and Ned’s plotline in bold for easy identification.


Backstory: Eustace is a wastrel drinking himself to death. His sensible cousin Ned (Lord Carlyon) is his heir. Eustace and Ned’s uncle Lord Bedlington has always accused Ned of hating Eustace and wanting his mostly ruined estate, Highnoons, even though Ned is rich. Ned intends to pay a random woman to marry Eustace so she will inherit the estate instead, just so he doesn’t have to deal with spiteful rumours. Lord Bedlington is selling secrets to a French spy, Louis de Castres, using Eustace as go between. Bedlington’s son Francis suspects him. Bedlington gives Eustace a vital memorandum that could alter the course of the war. However, before Eustace can pass it on, he is mortally wounded in a fight. The book starts here.


Ned pressures Eleanor, a passing governess, into marrying Eustace on his deathbed in order to avoid the unwanted inheritance. Eleanor goes to live in Highnoons.


Louis de Castres tries twice to search Highnoons for the memorandum, once as a break-in.


Ned and Eleanor search unsuccessfully for the thing that the intruder was looking for.


Bedlington invites himself to stay with Ned, and insists he will stay the night at Highnoons after Eustace’s funeral, in order to search for the memo. Francis realises he has to put a stop to this. He kills Louis de Castres, then comes down to the house, ostensibly for the funeral. He ruthlessly threatens his father with exposure and forces him to retire from his position in the Prince Regent’s court, putting an end to his access to information. He guesses where Eustace hid the memo and does his best to retrieve it despite interference from Eleanor and Nicky.


Ned finds the memorandum in a clock (but only because Francis knocks Eleanor out to stop her finding it, which gives Ned the clue). He gives it to Francis to put back in the War Office and leaves him to deal with any remaining issues.


I think you can see the problem. Once the brilliant setup of “married by midnight—widowed by morning!” is established, Ned and Eleanor don’t do anything. No, worse: they get in the way. Eleanor prevents Louis from getting the memo once, and purely by accident, after which her every intervention is an active nuisance to Francis—who, let us recall, knows where the memo is, and just needs them to stop impeding him. She achieves absolutely nothing herself.


And Ned? Well, Ned eventually works out that Francis is the hero. That’s it. That is Ned’s big I Am The Man moment: he realises that Francis has single-handedly foiled a French plot that could have damaged Britain, and decides not to be unhelpful any more. Go Ned.


They don’t even solve their own romantic conflict. Heyer sets up the rather flimsy premise that Ned cannot inherit Eustace’s estate because malicious tongues will wag. But the second Eleanor says “I do” to Ned, he gets Eustace’s estate via marriage. What’s happened to the wagging tongues which Ned is now ready to dismiss so casually? Well, Heyer doesn’t spell it out at the end, but the rumours were all set on by Bedlington. And who has drawn Bedlington’s fangs for good? Francis.


Let me now tell you the actual plot of The Reluctant Widow. It’s a story about a man who comes to realise his father and cousin are traitors. Who befriends a French emigre who he knows to be a daring spy in order to gather evidence; who needs to save his country, but is trying to save his family too. A man who plays a Scarlet Pimpernel-like role, maintaining his public image as an effete dandy despite the sneers, killing an enemy agent without compunction, and ruthlessly eliminating his treacherous father as a danger. (“I was obliged to point out to him that the state of his health demands that he should retire from public life. I really could not answer for his life if he were to continue in office.”) He finally retrieves the memo despite endless interference; he will put it back, prevent catastrophe, and save the family honour. He even stops his father from impeding his cousin’s marriage. He receives no credit and no thanks and doesn’t ask for them: he simply saves the day, without so much as disarranging his cravat.


Francis Cheviot is the hero of The Reluctant Widow, and Heyer knows it. That’s why Ned’s big moment is when he acknowledges Francis is the hero. That’s why Ned and Eleanor are ciphers: they only exist in the plot to be obstacles to Francis. That’s why most of the crucial plot-resolving Chapter 19 is a barely-interrupted Francis monologue; that’s why the ending falls so flat, because Ned and Eleanor haven’t lifted a finger to solve their own external conflict. And that’s why, despite him first appearing in chapter 13 (of 20), Francis is far and away the most memorable character. Because he’s the hero, and the narrative eye of the book spends most of its time focused in entirely the wrong place.


***


This may sound pretty obvious as I’ve spelled it out. It isn’t obvious on the page because, as noted, we are two-thirds of the way through the book before Francis arrives to save us, and because his machinations only become clear in chapter 19. The main body of The Reluctant Widow is about Ned and Eleanor and their valiant supporting cast, including the wonderful dilapidated house which is conveyed with extraordinary vividness. Heyer wasn’t phoning this one in: she was throwing everything she could at the story to zizz it up. But she failed–because she was telling the wrong story.


And she knew it, I think. Francis lights the book up when he appears, and gets all the best dialogue and all the best description. Heyer plunges gleefully into portraying him as a villain with repeated scenes of Ned’s boring bumpkin brothers being appalled at Francis’s effeminacy, almost as if trying to show how stupid and judgemental they are. Francis is the point; Eleanor and Ned’s romance is merely the stage on which he performs.


Georgette Heyer knew how to structure a book. The plotting of Cotillion and the final scene of An Unknown Ajax are absolute masterpieces of craft, and I don’t say that lightly: Ajax leaves me slack-jawed every time. It’s staggering to see how well she can work a plot. But not this one: because she was trying to tell the wrong story, because she needed to write a Regency romance, and–possibly, maybe?–because there was no way in 1946 for Francis to have a mass market romance novel of his own.


So what can we learn? Well, for a start, if your characters are being pushed to the sides of the plot, notice and ask yourself why. Are they just reactive, like Ned and Eleanor, not taking a role in driving the plot? If you’re writing a romance with an important subplot, could the two story strands be taken apart without destroying either–and can you actually intertwine them? Are you more interested in writing a secondary character than your MCs? Any of that might indicate that your main characters, the ones taking up the page time, aren’t actually the centre of your story–and that is likely to be a serious problem.


Don’t feel bad, though. As Heyer shows, it happens to the best.


_________________


Yes, I am a Heyer fiend. My new book Band Sinister has been described as “Heyer but gayer,” which is something I’ll happily have on my gravestone.


Cover of Band Sinister


Sir Philip Rookwood is the disgrace of the county. He’s a rake and an atheist, and the rumours about his hellfire club, the Murder, can only be spoken in whispers. (Orgies. It’s orgies.)


Guy Frisby and his sister Amanda live in rural seclusion after a family scandal. But when Amanda breaks her leg in a riding accident, she’s forced to recuperate at Rookwood Hall, where Sir Philip is hosting the Murder.


Guy rushes to protect her, but the Murder aren’t what he expects. They’re educated, fascinating people, and the notorious Sir Philip turns out to be charming, kind—and dangerously attractive.


In this private space where anything goes, the longings Guy has stifled all his life are impossible to resist…and so is Philip. But all too soon the rural rumour mill threatens both Guy and Amanda. The innocent country gentleman has lost his heart to the bastard baronet—but does he dare lose his reputation too?


 


“I have read some great romance books this year, but this rises to the top. Entertaining, intricately peopled, tightly plotted and simply … perfect.”–HEA USA Today


“I loved that this couple was completely honest with each other about their feelings for each other, and their feelings for other characters who held important places in their lives. It made their HEA all the more delightful and believable. … this book is really, really good. Go one-click, you won’t be disappointed.”–Smexy Books


“A wonderfully entertaining read that, for all its light-heartedness, nonetheless manages to convey a number of important ideas about love, friendship, social responsibility and the importance of living according to one’s lights. It’s a sexy, warm, witty trope-fest and works brilliantly as an homage to the traditional regency and a tribute to those who dared to think enlightened ideas in a time of entrenched views.”–Caz’s Reading Room


All buy links

15 likes ·   •  11 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on November 01, 2018 07:33
Comments Showing 1-11 of 11 (11 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Banana (new)

Banana I LOVE HEYER. This is a wonderful breakdown and you've made great observations. My only question is, will the epic, effeminate, well-dressed, brave and very gay adventures of Francis Cheviot come available to read on Amazon, or AO3?

Hell, maybe I need to attempt to write it, if I want to read it so badly.


message 2: by Pamela (new)

Pamela Rosen Banana wrote: "I LOVE HEYER. This is a wonderful breakdown and you've made great observations. My only question is, will the epic, effeminate, well-dressed, brave and very gay adventures of Francis Cheviot come a..."

What are u talking about? I purchased the ebk version of The Reluctant Widow in Jan. 2013. And I’m sure that wasn’t the earliest date it was available. The paperback was passed down to me from my mother, OTOH.

You can’t (or shouldn’t) find Georgette Heyer on AO3 bc it’s not like FanFiction. It’s copywrited material from an author like a half century ago. Actually, closer to an actual century.

But if you can write material like that, PLEASE DO SO. I would read it for free (big of me) or pay money, like I do w KJ Charles. Regency romance, when written well, is wondrous to read!


message 3: by Pamela (new)

Pamela Rosen Well, that worked. You took a favorite Heyer Bk (tho I never could quite put my finger on why) and turned the Bk upside down. To an extent.

Enough to get me thinking, yadda, yadda, yadda, and then I purchased Band Sinister. (Altho, to be fair, that would the 10th Bk of yours I bought, so it’s not “earthshaking” & you didn’t turn around a person who might otherwise have never bought the Bk a’tall.) Still and all, I had this vague notion in my head that I might wait for the Bk until it was on sale, that sort of thing. But I ALWAYS appreciate a conversation or forum wherein someone speaks about a topic with which I am quite familiar (I.e., must have read ALL of Georgette Heyer’s BKs at least 20-30 times, except for the war one, the name of which has slipped out of my head, which was both depressing and included huge accounts of the battles I didn’t wish to read. Or that’s how I remember it.)

But, having taken two of my top favs of hers (literally, The Unknown Ajax has generally stayed at #1 and Cotillion around 2 or 3.) And The Reluctant Widow was generally in the top five or so. Please tell me what I missed in The Black Sheep, Frederica, The Grand Sophy, & These Old Shades. [And that doesn’t include The Quiet Gentleman, The Masqueraders, The Foundling, &... I just can’t stop?!]

Or you can name (or I will) a different (not quite as good- depending on personal opinion ) Regency Romance writer, and then you can critique any or all BKs I name. Bc I will own them (at least as paperbacks) and most likely will have read whomever is named.

Like a challenge. If you get stuck on your next book. That sort of thing.


message 4: by Pamela (new)

Pamela Rosen Pamela wrote: "Well, that worked. You took a favorite Heyer Bk (tho I never could quite put my finger on why) and turned the Bk upside down. To an extent.

Enough to get me thinking, yadda, yadda, yadda, and the..."


I was thinking about the authors from when I was younger. Altho you can certainly name newer authors. In my teens and as a young adult, there wasn’t really any gay romance or gay erotica (of which I was aware). I guess you could look at ACD Sherlock Holmes and Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot (albeit, mystery writers) as seemingly inclusive of extremely close male friendship or “friends” and/or “roommates” as I am thinking gay men might have referred to themselves before the gay movement really took off and people weren’t thrown by the topic.

For example, my nephew is 9 and he has grown up just knowing there are different kinds of lifestyles, dif. kinds of people. Even w Pence in office, he will grow up not thinking there is any difference bet. gay, straight, bi, etc. (except the obvious) - he won’t think any lifestyle is “lesser” or the people don’t deserve the exact same rights as everybody else.

People think that bc there are still places where discrimination hasn’t been abolished that no real progress has been made, but I think GREAT progress has been made.


message 5: by Banana (new)

Banana Pamela wrote: "You can’t (or shouldn’t) find Georgette Heyer on AO3 bc it’s not like FanFiction. It’s copywrited material from an author like a half century ago."

What I meant was, I'd love to read a retelling of The Reluctant Widow, but this time focused on Francis Cheviot, his life, loves, adventures, and tragic family. This would definitely fall into the category of transformative works, and, if Heyer's source hasn't been permitted to slip into public domain, the transformative work would most definitely belong on AO3.


message 6: by K.J. (new)

K.J. Charles Banana wrote: "I'd love to read a retelling of The Reluctant Widow, but this time focused on Francis Cheviot, his life, loves, adventures, and tragic family."

I'd love to write it but it won't be public domain for another two decades, sigh.


message 7: by Pamela (new)

Pamela Rosen Banana wrote: "Pamela wrote: "You can’t (or shouldn’t) find Georgette Heyer on AO3 bc it’s not like FanFiction. It’s copywrited material from an author like a half century ago."

What I meant was, I'd love to rea..."


Sorry. Totally misread and misunderstood. 🤪

That WOULD have been a really interesting take on the topic. The character was generally three-dimensional and some of his comments were really chilling (a la see above “I was obliged to point out to him...” and his (apparent) true sadness about having to murder his good friend in cold blood).

I do really apologize for the misunderstanding but isn’t it nice to know that there are other people (beyond family) who love these books and characters as much as you? That is to say, I know it on an intellectual level, since Georgette Heyer is such a popular writer, but I rarely have a one on one convo w somebody re her BKs or, at least, beyond the mere fact that they are THE BKs to read for Regency Romance and “here are some of my favorites”... 🧐😏


message 8: by Banana (new)

Banana Agree. Conversations about good books are something I sorely miss in my daily life. I know virtually nobody in person that reads the same things I do. Thank goodness for the internet.


message 9: by April (new)

April I love Heyer so much! Even when she's writing the wrong story, it's still enjoyable. Francis is such a memorable character! I don't think it was a problem writing a book about him... after all, she took her villain from her first book and made him over as one of the more unusual heroes of a romance (and which no doubt created one of the most amazing tropes ever!)--and put him in a fantastic sequel, too. (I adore her Georgians more than her Regencies. She loved putting men in high heels, lace, and powder and patch! Gawd, it was lovely!!!)


message 10: by Banana (new)

Banana I’m a complete sucker for a devastatingly clever man swathed in glorious foppish plumage! Could read it over and over!


message 11: by Pamela (new)

Pamela Rosen There are very few Heyer BKs that I don’t particularly like, or reread on a regular basis. Admittedly, I seem to like the men who follow Beau Brummell’s lead on how to dress, but that was partially placed into my head by Heyer herself.

For example, that wasn’t the case with Freddie in Cotillion or in These Old Shades. The Duke of Avon used the trinkets that one might think were too effete to specifically and pointedly mock others. And Heyer herself actually included points in her BKs wherein the people in the household (I.e., the footman in Frederica) to speak to the enormous consequence and palpable excitement it gave them to just watch as a nobleman pulled off a particularly difficult neckcloth arrangement.

It isn’t so much whether or not the man in her Bk is considered part of the “dandy” set; it’s more the specific individual characteristics given to each person that makes you enjoy their overall look and personality. If the “hero” of the Bk is quite happy taking 45 minutes to an hour to get dressed (on a good day) then you are likely to just follow along with that mindset. It’s only when the specific hero of the novel disparages such apparel that it might make other characters who use it possibly seem weak. (I.e., The Grand Sophy)

To quote banana: “I’m a complete sucker for a devastatingly clever man swathed in glorious foppish plumage!” But, TBH, he does have to be devastatingly clever. (This doesn’t apply to whether I like men dressed to the nines — this just means I’m a sucker for devastatingly clever men.)

Must go read about last night’s election results!!


back to top