Georgette Heyer Fans discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Group Reads
>
Sylvester Group Read April 2017 Spoilers thread
message 101:
by
Teresa
(new)
Apr 14, 2017 08:40AM
I think GH hit the nail on the head. She wrote romances without any 'heaving bosoms' and explicit sex scenes and yet people read them over and over again. I too like this. It's much more about character and personality.
reply
|
flag
Susan in NC wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Belinda wrote: "Susan your son sounds like an interesting person. I love it when they is more to someone than meets the eye -still waters run deep an..."Beautifully put my dear! Absolutely agree.
Susan in NC wrote: "I suddenly envisioned so many of the characters moving through the highly choreographed social scene wrapped in plastic, like human silos! They move about, make the right comments, dance, visit, ride,etc., and if they are very lucky they somehow, accidentally almost, miraculously, make actual eye contact and really see into another person's heart and mind - and realize they don't have to live inside their lonely silo anymore!"Yes, exactly! What a wonderful way to describe it!
The complaints about lack of physical affection in Heyer novels seem a bit anachronistic to me. Bringing “heat” into “romance novels” became popular only in the 1970s. Before that, it was seen as a violation of the norms of the genre. If you read earlier romantic fiction like D. E. Stevenson, Elizabeth Goudge, or Angela Thirkell, you will see that Heyer is actually warmer than the norm for her time. Steam was for smutty supermarket paperbacks that people put brown paper wrappers over as soon as they bought them; romance fiction was all about matching personalities and ethical systems. Some of us are sorry the two genres ever became fused!
Shall we speak of Claud? I find him a very interesting character. At first blush, he seems to be one of Heyer’s sissy types who are clearly intended to be read as gay. And he’s written for comedy throughout. But there seems to be more to him. For one thing, he’s a truth teller. Whenever he says, “Dash it,” we know he’s going to come out with some uncomfortable fact about a family member, holding up a mirror to vice or meanness. Although he lacks physical courage, he has a kind of moral courage throughout that is impressive. Also, he’s a narcissist, and his fondness for finding working-class women to flirt with is a reflection of that, but it doesn’t seem to be a smoke screen for a different sexual orientation. He doesn’t show any sign of interest in other men; perhaps he’s just on the asexual side, so uses dalliance to feed his ego rather than to titillate himself. Finally, although he’s portrayed as stupid throughout the book, in the climactic scene he acts with presence of mind and good sense. In fact—and here I am inviting the wrath of Cotillion fans—he reminds me quite a bit of Freddy Standen.
Where do other people find the heart of Claud?
Abigail wrote: "The complaints about lack of physical affection in Heyer novels seem a bit anachronistic to me."It wasn't meant to be a complaint so much as an observation!
There were many books of Heyer's time and prior which describe erotic passion without being at all sexually explicit - like the Brontes, Dracula maybe, and of course The Sheik which is famous for having an awful lot of rape for a book with no sex scenes!
This isn't meant as a criticism of Heyer - I'd much rather read Heyer any day that a bodice ripper like The Sheik - it's just interesting that there is such a total lack of erotic or physical attraaction in her books. I think some of the comments in the thread above are very perceptive about the joys of fiction that focuses on mental and emotional connection and how well Heyer depicts that.
Abigail wrote: "Shall we speak of Claud? I find him a very interesting character. At first blush, he seems to be one of Heyer’s sissy types who are clearly intended to be read as gay. And he’s written for comedy t..."I'm feeling terribly stupid, but, for the life of me, I can't think of who Claud is at all? I must've completely glossed over him.
Abigail wrote: "Shall we speak of Claud? I find him a very interesting character. At first blush, he seems to be one of Heyer’s sissy types who are clearly intended to be read as gay. And he’s written for comedy t..."I believe this is the Claud from The Unknown Ajax--another of Heyer's masterpieces!
Cindy wrote: "I believe this is the Claud from The Unknown Ajax--another of Heyer's masterpieces!"Aah, thanks, that makes more sense. I haven't read The Unknown Ajax for so long that even looking up a plot synopsis hasn't jogged my memory.
Nick wrote: "I often think of Georgetter Heyer as being not particularly romantic, in a very English way. In Austen, the dangers and pitfalls of a bad match are often more the point than the love story! (On the..."I think you see physical attraction between some of Heyer's couples, certainly you see passion breaking through at the end of a number of them, even Freddy in Cotillion gets pretty passionate with Kitty at the end. And for instance Sir Gareth at the end of the Talisman Ring says how beautiful he thinks Sarah is. Social restraints prevented much physical expression of love between upper class characters in the Heyer era.
Louise wrote: "I think you see physical attraction between some of Heyer's couples, certainly you see passion breaking through at the end of a number of them."Yes, very true, lots of the Mark 1 heroes end the story with a bruising kiss, sweeping the heroine into a crushing embrace, or similar.
Oh! So sorry! You’re right, I read ahead this week and just finished The Unknown Ajax, partly in prep for next month’s read in this group and partly because it’s my Jane Austen Reading Group’s assigned book for March. Losing my grip—at least on which of my group reads we’re talking about. That was indeed the Claud I had in mind . . . and now, back to Sylvester.
Abigail you should move your comments on clod over to the unknown Ajax thread so we can discuss it there.
Abigail wrote: "You’re right, I read ahead this week and just finished The Unknown Ajax, partly in prep for next month’s read in this group and partly because it’s my Jane Austen Reading Group’s assigned book for March."Ahaha, gives me nostalgia for being back at school and reading ahead of other kids in class, and then suddenly being asked a question and having no idea what chapter we were supposed to be on!
Nick wrote: "Cindy wrote: "I believe this is the Claud from The Unknown Ajax--another of Heyer's masterpieces!"Aah, thanks, that makes more sense. I haven't read The Unknown Ajax for so long tha..."
Thank you Nick for asking the question. I was completely at sea and wondering if I was reading the wrong book!!!!
I didn't think we were suppose to read ahead. I thought the book was to be started on the Ist of the month. Maybe I'm just too rigid!
I'm sorry Teresa. I didn't realize we're reading the Unknown Ajax in May. I was just thinking about resurrecting an old thread. Ignore me.
Nick wrote: "This isn't meant as a criticism of Heyer - I'd much rather read Heyer any day that a bodice ripper like The Sheik - it's just interesting that there is such a total lack of erotic or physical attraaction in her books...."Heyer's romances are much more cerebral than physical, but some of her books are a tad more physical than others. Venetia springs to mind. In that one, their initial meeting contains a passionate kiss, and although they become more formal after that, there is always a smoldering sexual tension between them. When Lady Denny observes one of their encounters, the glance between them sizzles so that the poor lady realizes that "as well might they have kissed." They also talk openly of his former mistresses and orgies, so they are a rather unusual couple in Heyer's world.
The Devil's Cub is also a little earthier, as well as Lady of Quality. I think that when the hero is more of an alpha male and somewhat of a maverick, it ups the sexual tension in the book, as stereotypical as that might sound. Those particular books just remind me that the same passions we see in bodice-rippers are heaving in Heyer's characters' bosoms as well--they're just too proper to start ripping bodices! You just realize that they're probably thinking about it, though! ;)
Cindy wrote: "Nick wrote: "This isn't meant as a criticism of Heyer - I'd much rather read Heyer any day that a bodice ripper like The Sheik - it's just interesting that there is such a total lack of erotic or p..."Hmm, yes, I think perhaps I'm not explaining myself well. I'm not saying that they never kiss - but that there's a remarkable lack of erotic or phsyical feeling explored. So Venetia starts with a kiss, sure, but it's sexual assault mostly on a whim, not something that Venetia enjoys or wants. And they do talk about his past as a rake, but again, Venetia is mostly accepting or joking about it - there's nothing that we see in her mind or thoughts to suggest that the idea of orgies is arousing to her. Maybe, I should read it again though, and keep an eye out for the smouldering glances!
I'd be really interested to know where you see the earthiness of Lady of Quality though, because that one struck me as rather cold!
Nick wrote: "Cindy wrote: "Nick wrote: "This isn't meant as a criticism of Heyer - I'd much rather read Heyer any day that a bodice ripper like The Sheik - it's just interesting that there is such a total lack ..."Yes, Venetia definitely doesn't want the kiss at the beginning, but it doesn't take her long to change her mind. By Chapter 9, (view spoiler) There's several more places like this, which makes them far more physical (at least, where we see it) than Heyer's other couples. I think it is their lack of social inhibitions that sets them apart.
I haven't read Lady of Quality in several years; I just remembered the main characters being more like Venetia and Damerel. I think it is due to Mr. Carleton's lack of social etiquette. He is blunt with Annis from the beginning, telling her openly during their first meeting how very beautiful he finds her. Likewise, she drops her social restrictions during their first meeting and gets into an argument with him and tells him bluntly what she thinks of him. Maybe I just read too much into it, but he is obviously physically attracted to her from the first; he quickly starts calling her pet names like "my entrancing hornet," which reminds me of Damerel's "my dear delight," his pet name for Venetia. (view spoiler)
The books where I find the relationships to be rather cold (but still delightful) are ones like These Old Shades, Marriage of Convenience, or April Lady, where the couples are scrupulously polite to one another. Annis and Carleton have a tempestuous relationship from their first meeting. They're already in love by the middle of the book. To me, Carleton has a rather predatory gleam in his eye from the start, and Damerel certainly does. I guess I think watching them stalk their prey is rather sexy, even if they are still pretty circumspect when they move in for the kill!
The best part of the book is the interlude at the inn when Sylvester, Phoebe and Tom get to know each other. I also liked the scenes on the boat. Sir Nugent is kind, for all his foppish ways. He certainly loves Ianthe in his own way. She is hideously selfish and in love with herself. The description of the coach was too too funny. I don't really blame Ianthe for not wanting to deal with Edmund when he was sick and cranky. That really wasn't her role as a mother. I think most children of their class were raised by nannies, tutors, governesses and servants. Edmund is already infused with the Rayne pride and yet in some ways he's a better person than "Uncle Vester." Sylvester doesn't even know the name of his stable hands!
I think Sylvester was deliberately patterned after Darcy. The language is nearly identical in both the beginning and end of Sylvester. At the end he talks about his own consequence. He almost echoes Darcy's speech about being brought up with good principles but left to follow them in pride and conceit.
Sylvester has been brought up to think so highly of the Rayne pride that he is blinded to his own faults. At first I thought he needed a sense of humor that would allow him to see the absurdity of Ugolino. He certainly shared a sense of humor with Phoebe earlier in the novel but he's so sensitive to the way others see him. If he hadn't made such a fuss, everyone would have forgotten the novel in no time. All they needed was another scandal and unfortunately Sylvester gave it to them. He lost me after that. I no longer liked him. He handled Phoebe and the situation all wrong. It bothers me they never really talked it out. He left his mother to explain but he had to eavesdrop to know Phoebe's side of the story.
The first time I read the book I didn't rate it among the very best of the best Heyers but I do have it in my top 10 list. Sylvester is really not an admirable hero. I liked Phoebe as a heroine very much but I'd rather marry TOM than Sylvester. Tom is loyal, kind and compassionate.
Nick wrote: "Abigail wrote: "Shall we speak of Claud? I find him a very interesting character. At first blush, he seems to be one of Heyer’s sissy types who are clearly intended to be read as gay. And he’s writ..."Thanks for speaking up first, I thought I missed a whole character too!
Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Belinda wrote: "Susan your son sounds like an interesting person. I love it when they is more to someone than meets the eye -stil..."Thank you!
Abigail wrote: "Oh! So sorry! You’re right, I read ahead this week and just finished The Unknown Ajax, partly in prep for next month’s read in this group and partly because it’s my Jane Austen Reading Group’s assi..."Dear Abigail, you do love your Hugo, don't you? Now I'm going to be paying attention to Claud on this reading...
Nick wrote: "Abigail wrote: "You’re right, I read ahead this week and just finished The Unknown Ajax, partly in prep for next month’s read in this group and partly because it’s my Jane Austen Reading Group’s as..."Yes! Glad I wasn't the only one...
Belinda wrote: "his cousin Georgie (yet another classic nickname)"I love traditional names. I have an adorable little great-niece, not quite 2, who is named Georgiana -- a family name from her father's side -- and called Georgie.
I also have a niece whose middle name is Augusta, after her grandfather (Gus). Not one you see every day but it suits her. Her mother said, "I figure at some point you're going to hate your parents for your name anyway, we'd just give her a reason!" LOL
Nick wrote: "Cindy wrote: "Nick wrote: "This isn't meant as a criticism of Heyer - I'd much rather read Heyer any day that a bodice ripper like The Sheik - it's just interesting that there is such a total lack ..."Funny you mention it - I got the feeling in LofQ that Carleton was laughing inside as he was "stalking" Annis (thanks, Cindy, very apt!), and although he obviously loves and respects her, he clearly desires her as well. He has no patience with all the obstacles she sees in their way, and he seemed to be thinking, "come here, baby, and let me ease that tension!" He's clearly much more sexually experienced and Annis knows it, even if she doesn't understand the full implications of what he wants from her! (with love and in the confines of marriage, of course)
QNPoohBear wrote: "The best part of the book is the interlude at the inn when Sylvester, Phoebe and Tom get to know each other. I also liked the scenes on the boat. Sir Nugent is kind, for all his foppish ways. He ce..."Queen Pooh - I agree there are so many parallels to Darcy in Pride and Prejudice. I thought some interchanges were almost identical between Sylvester and Phoebe to those between Darcy and Elizabeth. I agree with your crush on Tom - I'm absolutely loving him and his father.
Elza wrote: "Belinda wrote: "his cousin Georgie (yet another classic nickname)"I love traditional names. I have an adorable little great-niece, not quite 2, who is named Georgiana -- a family name from her fa..."
That is so funny Elza. I think I would be a little put out if saddled with Augusta however Gus as a nickname is cute.
Elza wrote: "I love traditional names. I have an adorable little great-niece, not quite 2, who is named Georgiana -- a family name from her fa..."
Augusta (like Almeria) will have me expecting a Heyer dowager!
Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Belinda wrote: "Hi Nick. I totally agree. The sad fact is that apparently GH wasn't very physical herself and her husband Ronald apparently had a mistress in later life. GH like one of the upper br..."Hi Susan. Your right - I can't make a sweeping generalisation and on-one can know truly what GH's position on sexuality was except her and her husband. I agree with you (and Abigail) her writing is more a reflection on the social mores of the time than her own personality.
Why am I interested? As GH herself said "I am to be found in my work" so I'm connecting the dots that her writing is a reflection of her own personal world view and how she conducted her relationships. That is a long bow to draw however as her work is fiction. I love her writing so I'm intrigued by her as a person although happy to be corrected if anyone feels I am invading GH's privacy with these speculations and I certainly don't mean to 'troll' her (!!). I can see her shuddering for me even bringing this topic up as she was notorious in guarding her privacy.
Some relevant bits and pieces from biographies:
- Jane Aiken Hodge, page 16 ;" More important, the early novels show that she had thought a great deal about marriage and the relationship between men and women. She may not have gone into marriage passionately: she was not a passionate woman. But she most certainly went into it meaning to make it work."
- Page 204: "..Georgette Heyer herself was known to say that her people lived only from the waist up. They [the two literary critics] both did her work less than justice, though for very different reasons. Overt sex, like poverty and politics, was among the things she chose to leave out of her private world of manners and morals, but this does not mean she was unaware of them. She could describe poverty and politics if she wanted to, and over and over again the long light-hearted battle between hero and heroine resolves itself at last in physical contact. The frisson is there for those perceptive enough to recognise it. And the fact that is it only a frisson is probably one of the reasons for her enduring popularity. Who wants a nymph and satyr, copulating, in the foreground of a Watteau?"
Brilliant insight by Jane Aiken Hodge there. AS Susan in NC says, anyone can write a sex scene but whom can write a masterful interplay of personalities, characters and values where intellects and worlds eventually resolve their differences and unite? Its that chemical interplay, if written well (and so humorously as GH does brilliantly) that interests me.
- Jennifer Klooster page 137: "This comes through most clearly in her earliest contemporary novel Instead of the Thorn, in which her heroine struggles with the realities of sex and its place in marriage. In the book Georgette show herself acutely aware of the fact that many women of her generation had come to their first experience of sex completely unprepared for it. As the writer Vera Brittain reported...prior to marriage many women in that era had never even seen a man naked nor had the least idea of what sexual intercourse involved. As a result, numerous brides (and some grooms) entered marriage without any notion of what it physically entailed. Even Marie Stopes, the author of married Love (1918) had not known that sex was a necessary part of procreation. She had only made that startling discovery after two years of unconsummated marriage."
"[GH] She had also discussed sex with Joanna Cannan and Carola Oman when writing Instead of the Thorn. Her two married friends had told her enough to enable her to write perceptively about her heroine's struggle with the physical side of married life. Whether Georgette herself ever experienced an overwhelming urge for sex is impossible to know, although a close friend later described her as "not terribly interested" in sex. She and Ronald only had one child and for much of their married life slept in separate beds, giving little or no impression that physical lovemaking was an intrinsic part of their life together. Georgette had her passions but they were not physical. Her marriage to Ronald was first and foremost a marriage of two minds. While theirs was to be a long and happy relationship....."
-Page 323 "They were great friends. Georgette and Ronald shared many common interests and she endured his irascibility and outbursts of temper while he coped with her forceful personality and determination to be right. When they did fight it was usually over a point of history..or a word or phrase in one of her manuscripts, than over more mundane things like domestic problems or money. Their deep intimacy and mutual understanding failed only in the sexual side of there relationship. If Ronald ever chose to fulfil those needs with someone else he did so with complete discretion. In the mid-1950's Georgette would sometimes joke in her letters to Richards about father's "Blonde" and chaff Ronald directly about his "Floozie". This may have been typical family humour or it may have been Georgette's way of letting her husband know that she knew that if he was seeking physical comfort elsewhere she, like so many well-bred Regency wives, would always turn a blind eye."
- Page 368 GH reacting to a good review by A. S Byatt."It was a perceptive assessment, for Byatt described precisely Georgette's own view of the ideal relationship between a man and a woman - one with a deep mutual understanding and a lasting connection that was much more than purely physical or emotional - exactly what Georgette shared with Ronald."
Cindy wrote: "I haven't read Lady of Quality in several years; I just remembered the main characters being more like Venetia and Damerel. I think it is due to Mr. Carleton's lack of social etiquette..."Cindy, thanks so much for your thoughts on Lady of Quality. I see where you're coming from now. I always read Annis's reaction as (view spoiler)
I was seeing anxiety rather than physical attraction.
But your reading makes a lot of sense too, so thanks, you've given me a new perspective!
Belinda wrote: "In the mid-1950's Georgette would sometimes joke in her letters to Richards about father's "Blonde" and chaff Ronald directly about his "Floozie".That's so interesting! There does seem to be a clear parallel with the books, doesn't there? Quite a few of them have sisters teasing their brothers about their 'birds of paradise'. And then of course, the brothers always tell the sisters off for their use of vulgar slang!
Belinda wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Belinda wrote: "Hi Nick. I totally agree. The sad fact is that apparently GH wasn't very physical herself and her husband Ronald apparently had a mistress in later life...."I totally understand the motivation to find out as much as one can about a writer. The fact we all spend time analysing GH's books in enormous detail is proof of our curiosity and desire to learn more. I must confess to feeling personally uncomfortable about speculating on what GH would clearly have seen as very much a private matter. If she were reading the conversation on here - I imagine she would be literally spinning!
I am uncertain in my own mind as to how far a biographer should go in unpicking the minutiae of an individual's life. If it's in the public arena, the it's probably fair game. But if it isn't or is based on anonymous comments? I am not sure. It is interesting that both biographers limit their speculation about GH's sex drive and sexual activity to a tiny part of their books. That speculation seems not to be based on what GH herself said, but on conclusions that others drew. That being said, I would suspect their general conclusions are probably correct and that she was not particularly excited by or involved in much sexual activity. I am familiar with the quotes you have provided:- including the passage I was referencing and which you quote in full (page 323 in JK's biography) These quotes certainly 'suggest' that sex was either unimportant or irrelevant to GH but neither of her biographers attempt to suggest why that might have been the case. We all know that libido can be affected by any number of things - not least medical conditions including childbirth which make sex unpleasant and even painful. I just feel uncomfortable about drawing conclusions about her sex life when she herself never ever went public on the subject. In terms of Ronald's fidelity and GH's possible response, JK simply speculates 'if' Ronald had an affair, it was conducted with great discretion. I think Byatt's comment whilst pointing out that GH thought the ideal relationship was "more than" purely physical or emotional, does not say that the physical or emotional was unimportant.
I don't think one can read anything into the Rougiers having only one child, nor in the very common practice in certain circles at the time for separate beds. After all, in aristocratic circles, they had separate bedrooms not just separate beds - but it did not mean they did not like sex lol! Thanks Belinda for making me think about this.
Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Belinda wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Belinda wrote: "Hi Nick. I totally agree. The sad fact is that apparently GH wasn't very physical herself and her husband Ronald apparently had a mistres..."Your welcome. I do to want to leave GH some 'mystique' around this issue too. I was just keen to speculate on what her attitude was in relation to how it affected or underpinned all her novels. I find it so fascinating yet rather gruesome that late edwardian/early victorian women had no idea about sex before they married. In this day and age of internet /oversharing/oversexualised teenagers that seem to know 'everything' its certainly a different age. It makes me prefer the innocence and just pure romance of GH's novels as refreshing.
Belinda wrote: "Hi Nick. I totally agree. The sad fact is that apparently GH wasn't very physical herself and her husband Ronald apparently had a mistress in later life. GH like one of the upper bred ladies in her..."I have a high libido (with only one partner), but I don't want to read about characters in romance's physical actions. (I can look for porn, or I can look for romance - I don't want to combine them).
Belinda wrote: "How funny the Squire has 7 outdoor servants versus only 3 indoor ones - just shows you how sporting mad he is with a groom, coachman, gamekeeper, kennel man a cocker and a huntsman."This has been bouncing around in my head for a while, as well. Can anyone with more historical knowledge say what the 3 indoor servants would have been? Cook, kitchenmaid, housemaid, maybe?
I'm only thinking of it because it seems funny that the squire does not 'stint his lady the elegance of life', but presumably the elegance of life doesn't stretch as far as a lady's maid! I guess having a lady's maid is a touch above a squire's wife? One would have to actually be a lady for that?
Nick wrote: "Belinda wrote: "How funny the Squire has 7 outdoor servants versus only 3 indoor ones - just shows you how sporting mad he is with a groom, coachman, gamekeeper, kennel man a cocker and a huntsman...."You're likely to be correct about the indoor servants. If he had many more, then he would have a Butler too. You would have had a lady's maid if you - a) had money and b) lived the kind of life which required several changes of clothes a day. This lifestyle would generally be confined to the landed gentry in Georgian and Regency times - but not exclusively so. A Squire's wife would rarely need a lady's maid but if the Squire was again very wealthy and kept lots of indoor servants - a lady's maid would be one of them. Ladies such as Fanny in TOS, Sophy in TGS, Annis in LOQ would have a Lady's maid in addition to far more indoor servants than the Squire has. As always, it's about money and lifestyle.
Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Nick wrote: "Belinda wrote: "How funny the Squire has 7 outdoor servants versus only 3 indoor ones - just shows you how sporting mad he is with a groom, coachman, gamekeeper, kennel man a cocker an..."Thanks Susan, that's very interesting.
It did strike me as funny that the squire got 7 servants for the maintenance of his hobbies, but his wife could acheive all the elegance of life with 0 servants for her exclusively! And women are supposed to be the expensive ones!
For most of history, the cheapest thing for the elite to buy was labor.Clothing was expensive, and the elite were good at mending - or of having their servants mend.
Nick wrote: "Belinda wrote: "How funny the Squire has 7 outdoor servants versus only 3 indoor ones - just shows you how sporting mad he is with a groom, coachman, gamekeeper, kennel man a cocker and a huntsman...."The exact quote was "and his household boasted no more than three indoor manservants." Were men only allowed to fill positions such as butler, footmen and cook whereas the women were chamber maids, abigail's, dressers, housekeepers etc?
Belinda wrote: "Nick wrote: "Belinda wrote: "How funny the Squire has 7 outdoor servants versus only 3 indoor ones - just shows you how sporting mad he is with a groom, coachman, gamekeeper, kennel man a cocker an..."I hadn't picked up on that Nick - well reminded!! But you are right - except that in most establishments the cook would be a woman too. It's only in extremely wealthy, fashionable and titled families would they employ a chef. A man with interests (e.g. Alverstoke in Frederica) might employ a secretary who would always be male; also a male tutor for the boys,; the roles of men and women in the work context were just as circumscribed as every other at that time.
Belinda wrote: "The exact quote was "and his household boasted no more than three indoor manservants."Oh that's a good point - maybe I'd wildly off-base then and she may have had any number of female servants!
Ok so I just finished it. It's definitely not one of my favorite Heyer's. I was enjoying it until they went to France. Here I thought Sylvester did a complete about turn and became totally obnoxious. Phoebe also did a lot of dithering. She was mad as hell then she was sorry for what she said then mad again. All in all I thought it just got plain silly at the end. I started to feel less sympathy for Phoebe and shake her and tell her to grow up. I know Sylvester had everything bred into him because he was a duke but a person's own personality will always come through. I didn't think much of him by the end of the book.
Was glad to read it again though because it had been a long time since I read it last.
Nick wrote: "Cindy wrote: "I haven't read Lady of Quality in several years; I just remembered the main characters being more like Venetia and Damerel. I think it is due to Mr. Carleton's lack of social etiquett..."Thanks, Nick! I think your take on Annis is spot-on. She is anxious and torn about her decision because of those reasons you mentioned, and especially because she fears it will cause a rift between her and her family. (view spoiler)
QNPoohBear wrote: "The best part of the book is the interlude at the inn when Sylvester, Phoebe and Tom get to know each other. I also liked the scenes on the boat. Sir Nugent is kind, for all his foppish ways. He ce..."Even upper class mothers seem to have attended to their children when they were ill, like lady lEgerwood in cotillion. and in Persuasion, jane austen is critical of Anne's sister and brother in law for going out to dinner while their son is unwell.
Howard wrote: "Belinda wrote: "Hi Nick. I totally agree. The sad fact is that apparently GH wasn't very physical herself and her husband Ronald apparently had a mistress in later life. GH like one of the upper br..."Thanks, Howard, good point. Very nice to get the manly perspective!
Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Nick wrote: "Belinda wrote: "How funny the Squire has 7 outdoor servants versus only 3 indoor ones - just shows you how sporting mad he is with a groom, coachman, gamekeeper, kennel man a cocker an..."Thank you, Nick and Susan, I wondered about that, and I agree - first thought was a butler, but then I realized they probably wouldn't need one. I agree the indoor servants needed would be whoever would allow Mrs. Orde to be comfortable and have a welll-run household.
Belinda wrote: "Nick wrote: "Belinda wrote: "How funny the Squire has 7 outdoor servants versus only 3 indoor ones - just shows you how sporting mad he is with a groom, coachman, gamekeeper, kennel man a cocker an..."Thanks Belinda - well, I figure the squire would want his wife to have a comfortable and well-run life and establishment, so to me that would be enough maids to keep herself, her wardrobe and her home in good shape!
I wonder what the future is of people knowing who wrote that book. Their engagement will slow down guesses - but eventually they will know. If she's writing under the same pseudonym, they will still care.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Georgette Heyer Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
Regency Recollections: Captain Gronow's Guide to Life in London and Paris (other topics)HIST LITTLE GOODY TWO SHOE (other topics)
The Unknown Ajax (other topics)
The Unknown Ajax (other topics)
Dracula (other topics)
More...
