What's inside my edition

[Misfit]

I finally grabbed the 1954 edition I nabbed at a library sale for a whopping $.50 and had to share what was on the inside.



Larger image here

[Kathleen]

Isn't it wonderful? I got the same edition on Ebay, but I paid four times what you did. But, and here's the best part, the original sales receipt had been left inside as a bookmark. That lovely lady paid $2.50 which was 50 cents more than me!

[Misfit]

I can't say how surprised I was to come home from the sale, open it up and find that lovely bit of art. One time I found an old doctor's prescription in a book, another a newspaper article from the 1980s. You just never know.

[Kathleen]

This was the edition I read as a teenager. I loved everything about it. Holding it in my hands again was pure bliss.

[C.P.]

I remember that chart, so it must have been the edition I first read, too!

My Reissued Classic paperback has historical notes but no genealogical chart. What it does have is the most gorgeous cover: an Art Deco redhead (Dante Gabriel Rossetti's Veronica Veronese, 1872) who looks so much like my mental image of Katherine that at times I just stare at it mid-chapter.

[M]

I also have the cover with the beautiful redhead who perfectly matches the description of Katherine. My edition includes an introduction by Philippa Gregory.

[Nenia]

Wow that's beautiful.

[C.P.]

Maggie wrote: "I also have the cover with the beautiful redhead who perfectly matches the description of Katherine. My edition includes an introduction by Philippa Gregory."

Yes, exactly. I haven't read the introductory stuff yet, as I wanted to dive into the story. I'll go back and see what PG has to say when I finish, 75 pages from now.

Alas, I have to work in the morning, so I can't finish the book tonight.

[M]

The only other Seton book I've read is Dragonwyck, which I thoroughly enjoyed last summer. I grabbed Katherine and Avalon during free volunteer shopping hours at a local bookfair. I may have to read one Seton book each summer.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

That family tree is fantastic.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

Maggie wrote: "I also have the cover with the beautiful redhead who perfectly matches the description of Katherine. My edition includes an introduction by Philippa Gregory."

Same here.

[C.P.]

I really enjoyed Philippa Gregory's introduction when I read it. It captures much more elegantly than I have ever managed to do the difference between historical fiction and historical romance (even though the John/Katherine relationship is obviously crucial to the book).

For those who don't have my edition, PG draws a distinction between authors who make a sincere effort to recreate the social and psychological circumstances of a prior time and characters who live within the restraints and opportunities available to their social group in that prior time (historical fiction) and authors who focus on the glamorous parts of the past—clothes, fancy carriages, jewels—to give a kind of local color to what are essentially modern characters in modern relationships (historical romance).

I suspect the line is a bit blurrier than that in practice, but it's a nice formulation. It also reinforces my gut sense that I was right to classify my own books as historical fiction even though romance plays a part in them.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

I myself would say that "historical romance" must actually be a romance (with the rules of that genre - most importantly the HEA), but yes.

[C.P.]

Yes, I agree that those genre conventions (which PG doesn't get into) are an important part of any book billed as a romance, historical or contemporary.

What's interesting is that Katherine hits most of those marks, yet I doubt most people nowadays would think of it purely as a historical romance.

[Misfit]

C.P. wrote: "I really enjoyed Philippa Gregory's introduction when I read it. It captures much more elegantly than I have ever managed to do the difference between historical fiction and historical romance (eve..."

I don't recall much of PG's intro to this book, but she did a few more of them on later reissues of Seton's books, and they started to be borderline insulting, plus she drew out the incest card in Devil Water. Thankfully she was gone by the time My Theodosia came out. I shudder what she might have tried to insinuate with that close father/daughter relationship.

[C.P.]

Yikes! Glad I didn't see those. I'd still be frothing at the mouth.

I put Katherine back in the bookshelf after my summary post, so I can't say for sure, but as I remember, PG was quite respectful in this one. "Post-nineteenth-century conscience" was as specific as she got (unless I got that from someone else), and since I thoroughly agreed with her in that respect, the comment didn't bother me.

[Misfit]

I'd have to dig out my copy of Avalon, but I recall her being somewhat dismissive of Seton, but it was definitely Devil Water where she went OTT. Big star author and all :/

[Marie]

I have a 1956 edition from The Reprint Society of London, & when I got it for less than $5 I was thrilled- but even moreso because there was a small drawing/bookmark inside in the shape of a heart that said God Loves You.

I am reading from the newer redhead edition & noticing a few typos.

[C.P.]

Marie wrote: "I am reading from the newer redhead edition & noticing a few typos."

Oh, more than a few. Missing articles, mostly. Nothing major, though.