The Unknown Ajax Group Read May 2017 Spoilers thread

[Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂]

For final conclusions! :)

[Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂]

Easier to put in spoiler thread. I'd forgotten that Claud had inherited money. & it is mentioned that Vincent loves the estate - but loves it the way his grandfather does, without any sense of responsibility.

Both help to explain Vincent's bitter, jealous nature.

[Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂]

& finished just couldn't put it down. Just loved Aunt Aurelia!

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

Carol ♔Type, Oh Queen!♕ wrote: "& finished just couldn't put it down. Just loved Aunt Aurelia!"

Aunt Aurelia was great. And sharp too. She saw through Hugo's rustic bumpkin act.

I wonder how Matthew won her when he had no fortune of prospects for the family title? A strange union. A love-match maybe?

[Abigail]

Interesting question about the Aurelia-Matthew match, Andrea. Perhaps she was interested in politics and found him a promising rising figure in government affairs? I must assume that Matthew does not appear to best advantage in the bosom of his family, with whom he is, plainly exasperated. Or perhaps she was in danger of being left on the shelf and did the best she could. I could see her as making a Charlotte Lucas choice (and she certainly did better than Charlotte!).

[Abigail]

[moved here from its earlier home in the Sylvester discussion]

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?

[Karlyne]

Abigail wrote: "[moved here from its earlier home in the Sylvester discussion]

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 c..."

I think you pretty much nailed it, Abigail. I especially like that you've pointed out his truthfulness, and I agree that he comes off as a much more likeable character with some very good traits (such as that honesty) than Vincent does. Vincent has a nasty side that reminds me of Jack in Cotillion!

[Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂]

Actually Jack is the only other character I can think of in a Heyer that isn't portrayed as a villain but really is. Vincent shows some redemption at the end. Cotillion spoiler (view spoiler)[ Where I think Jack will remain an appalling human being. (hide spoiler)]Lord Darracott's heart is quite broken at the end, but I think he'll be back to his nasty, arrogant self (albeit with more respect for Hugo) as soon as Richmond is on the mend.

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

Abigail wrote: "Interesting question about the Aurelia-Matthew match, Andrea. Perhaps she was interested in politics and found him a promising rising figure in government affairs? I must assume that Matthew does n..."

That's an interesting point about Matthew not showing to advantage when visiting his family.

I think since Vincent relies on his mother financially, I'll agree that Lady Aurelia might have been drawn to a man of politics and public affairs. If Matthew is not the type to think women brainless and lacking understanding, he'd make an interesting husband and as his wife and hostess, put her in the way of meeting other political men and their wives.

[Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂]

Aurelia also may have seen Matthew as a man she could control & thus get her ideas raised in Parliament

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

Abigail wrote: ".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.."

Though Claud has moral courage, I think you are sharp to notice because his family don't take him seriously due to his fixation with clothes.

I think Claud's freedom to actually have moral courage is another thorn in Vincent's side because Vincent is smart enough to see sins of character in others (he's Lady Auralia's son after all), but has to keep quiet.

Claud can afford moral courage since he is financially independent.

It's easy as a reader to get caught up in how his family view him or at least to fixate on his clothes one's self.

[Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂]

Andrea (Catsos Person) is a Compulsive eBook Hoarder wrote: "Abigail wrote: "Though Claud has moral courage, I think you are sharp to notice because his family don't take him seriously due to his fixation with clothes. ."

Also Claude doesn't like brandy! :D

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

Truly a major Short-coming to not like brandy!

[Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂]

Andrea (Catsos Person) is a Compulsive eBook Hoarder wrote: "Truly a major Short-coming to not like brandy!"

Well, I thought it allowed him to take the high moral ground, since he didn't drink it anyway!

[Jacquie]

Carol ♔Type, Oh Queen!♕ wrote: "Andrea (Catsos Person) is a Compulsive eBook Hoarder wrote: "Truly a major Short-coming to not like brandy!"

Well, I thought it allowed him to take the high moral ground, since he didn't drink it ..."

At least GH was true to the period in matters of food and drimk! I get so annoyed with many modern Regency novelists who have their men calling for whiskey.

http://www.carolgoss.com/PotentPotabl...
You're probably asking yourself "Where is the whiskey?" Well, most whiskey in the Regency was illegally made in Scotland, where it is spelled whisky and Ireland where it is spelled whiskey.

As punishment for the Scots and Irish rebellions against the Crown, exorbitant taxes were imposed on the production of whiskey and on the stills to make it for whiskey is a distilled liquor of high alcoholic content. Also, the English, especially those of the upper classes, tended to view the Scots and Irish as barbaric. As you can imagine, this led to thousands of illegal stills and to the smuggling of whiskey for over a century. Thus whiskey did not become a regular British drink until the Victorian period

The only upper class British who might have regularly imbibed that illegal whisky during the Regency would have been the Marcher Lords whose estates bordered Scotland and who often had ties with the Scots dating far back in history. It wasn't until 1823 that the British government passed an act allowing legal stills for a license fee. This led to whiskey, however spelled, making its way into the homes and clubs of the English ton.

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

Thank you for that info Jacquie.

I just love these type of details.

Edit

Correction. Oops! I spelled your name wrong!

[Cheryl]

Oh, I agree that Claude improves on acquaintance, particularly in comparison with most of his male relatives! He is courageous, in spite of not being physically brave or athletic. I don't think he's intended for gay or even asexual, although he might not have a very strong sex drive. He does have an interest in women, and I wonder if his choice of working-class women who won't expect anything much of him has something to do with the lack of happy marriages and good female role models in his family. They say people often marry those resembling their opposite-sex parent; certainly, that person is very influential as a model of the kind of person to look for. Sometimes, a model to avoid, to be sure. And his mother, although admirable, comes across as rather daunting to deal with. If Claude thinks he should marry someone who will become a stern matriarch with an interest in politics (perhaps pushing him into politics), I can see why he might prefer a light flirtation with a working-class girl, one that doesn't go far enough to produce complications or burdens.

[Jackie]

OK, I have just listened to the first session of Lord D telling Hugo how it's going to be: including how he needs to get cozy with his cousin and have her show him around the house & teach him about the family. even though he is shy!
is he shy? with women, I mean.
I always assumed he wasn't, since the accent and the dumb as an ox thing are both put-ons. and he likes to tease Anthea more than anyone almost from the first.

but he did - and here is where I had a print version I could review - seem actually nervous for this first one-on-one meeting with her.

what do you think?

[Abigail]

@17: I like your thoughts about Claud, Cheryl! Yes, looking for an Aurelia in one’s life might well send Claud off in search of light, meaningless flirtations. But I’m concerned that dallying with working-class girls was considered bad ton—so maybe we’re supposed to take away the idea that while Claud wasn’t as hateful as Vincent or Lord Darracott, he was no pattern-card of virtue. Or maybe it was only bad ton if one actually seduced the girl. Not sure.

@18: Well, the Major was doubtless bold enough in a man’s world, but he might well be shy or frightened when faced with a woman he really cared about, who had set herself against him because of her grandfather’s clumsy matchmaking. The stakes were high, and at least in the beginning, his odds didn’t look good.

[Jackie]

if he was shy (and I am not sure) it didn't last long; I am really enjoying knowing that Hugo has a fortune but since Grandpapa told him not to talk about his "savings" he is just letting them all think he is poor and has to rely on Lord Darracott for his living.
that and knowing he is going to do what he wants to as far as where he will live and so forth - no matter what the old grump thinks - makes it so enjoyable to witness Vincent and Lord D treating him so badly and knowing they will find out soon.

[Susan in NC]

Karlyne wrote: "Abigail wrote: "[moved here from its earlier home in the Sylvester discussion]

Shall we speak of Claud? I find him a very interesting character. At first blush, he seems to be one of Heyer’s sissy..."

Oh, yes, thank you, I couldn't remember what character Vincent reminded me of!

[Susan in NC]

Abigail wrote: "[moved here from its earlier home in the Sylvester discussion]

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 c..."

Thanks for mentioning Claud in the Sylvester discussion, Abigail, I have been paying particular attention to him because of your comments. I've often read Heyers on auto-pilot, just cruising along enjoying the humor and characters and forgetting them when I finish until they all run together. Thanks to this group I'm catching so many more character and plot points I previously skated over - thank you!

[Abigail]

These group discussions are so wonderful for helping us notice new things, aren’t they? Makes it more fun for all of us!

[Critterbee❇]

I realized last night, that the final 'scene' in the book takes up about 20% of the book! As it is my favorite part, I love that it is such a huge chunk of the story.

[Critterbee❇]

Andrea (Catsos Person) is a Compulsive eBook Hoarder wrote: "Carol ♔Type, Oh Queen!♕ wrote: "& finished just couldn't put it down. Just loved Aunt Aurelia!"

Aunt Aurelia was great. And sharp too. She saw through Hugo's rustic bumpkin act.

I wonder how Matt..."

Aurelia is the stronger mind and personality in that match, perhaps she ( and her parents?) were looking for someone of 'good birth' (the Darracotts came over with the Conqueror) that she would be able to mold into a political power.

[Critterbee❇]

Cheryl wrote: "Oh, I agree that Claude improves on acquaintance, particularly in comparison with most of his male relatives! He is courageous, in spite of not being physically brave or athletic. I don't think he'..."

I agree, I think Claud IS courageous! And he often says uncomfortable truths.

Regarding sex drive, he is written to have interest in flirting with ineligible girls, to avoid marriage entrapment. I believe because he loves himself best, a bit like Sir Bonamy in False Colours, and does not want to have to think about anything other than himself and his dandification. Getting married would cramp his style! And there is certainly no reason for him to get married.

One of my favorite Claudisms is when he corrects Lord Darracott, then hastily retracts.

'I don't ask you - fribble!' snapped his lordship, rounding on him, with the speed of a whiplash. 'You may keep your tongue between your teeth!'

"Yes, sir - happy to!' uttered Claud, dismayed. 'No wish to offend you! Thought you might like to be set right!'

'Thought I might like to be set right?'

'No, no! Spoke without thinking!' said Claud hastily. ' I know you don't'

[Abigail]

That was a delicious passage at arms, Critterbee! Thanks for quoting it in full!

[Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂]

Abigail wrote: "That was a delicious passage at arms, Critterbee! Thanks for quoting it in full!"

Yes thanks Critterbee! If that quote isn't already on GR I'll add it later today! :)

[Susan in NC]

Just finished, and I must say I enjoyed the book so much more thanks to you all! That final loooooong climactic scene always leaves me drained, it would make a heck of a movie!

[Emma]

Susan in NC wrote: "Just finished, and I must say I enjoyed the book so much more thanks to you all! That final loooooong climactic scene always leaves me drained, it would make a heck of a movie!"

I've finished too and really loved it! I've only read a few Heyers but this one was quite different and I enjoyed it ! It was much more than a romance.

[Barb in Maryland]

Critterbee wrote: "I realized last night, that the final 'scene' in the book takes up about 20% of the book! As it is my favorite part, I love that it is such a huge chunk of the story."

Alas! I feel the exact opposite. I think it just drags on and on and on, which puts a damper on my enjoyment of the book. The first part of the book gets a 4 star rating, IMO. but that whole 'fool Lt. Ottershaw' part struck me as bad farce. (Though I'm not sure how I would have kept idiot Richmond out of jail...)

[Susan in NC]

Barb in Maryland wrote: "Critterbee wrote: "I realized last night, that the final 'scene' in the book takes up about 20% of the book! As it is my favorite part, I love that it is such a huge chunk of the story."

Alas! I f..."

I fall between Critterbee and Barb on that scene; as I got closer it was vaguely coming back to me (it's been years since I read this one) and I was getting excited looking forward to the big climax - but it did go on for a bit. Although I also cannot see how they could've gotten rid of Ottershaw, he knew he was right and the family was closing ranks and there wasn't a thing he could do unless someone cracked - or started dripping blood on the floor! A less stubborn or righteous man (like the sergeant) would've ducked out of there, bowing and scraping, halfway through the scene!

[Susan in NC]

And speaking of that scene, anyone else kind of appalled that an aristocrat pitching a fit was enough to get rid of an officer of the law back then? Does set my back up a bit, I couldn't help thinking if this were modern times in the US and a Trump or Bush or Clinton or Kennedy kid was running drugs out of a Manhattan condo and there was a bust and the cops backed off, wouldn't there be hell to pay in the court of public opinion?

I was trying to put it in modern context and understand why the family was so appalled at Richmond and the scope of what he had done - Hugo tried to warn them!

[Susan in NC]

Emma wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Just finished, and I must say I enjoyed the book so much more thanks to you all! That final loooooong climactic scene always leaves me drained, it would make a heck of a movie!"..."

It was fun, wasn't it Emma? I think someone may have suggested to you, if you liked this kind of adventure/romance you might like Talisman Ring or The Toll-gate, also!

[Critterbee❇]

Susan in NC wrote: "And speaking of that scene, anyone else kind of appalled that an aristocrat pitching a fit was enough to get rid of an officer of the law back then? Does set my back up a bit, I couldn't help think..."

The laws were different then.
As Hugo said, the laws at that time required Ottershaw to actually catch a culprit red-handed. As he did not catch Richmond with any smuggled goods, or in the company of smugglers, Ottershaw was (by the laws of that time) not legally able to apprehend or charge Richmond.

[Barb in Maryland]

Susan in NC wrote: "And speaking of that scene, anyone else kind of appalled that an aristocrat pitching a fit was enough to get rid of an officer of the law back then? Does set my back up a bit, I couldn't help think..."
Susan, that was a major part of my dislike of the scene (besides its length). Ottershaw was absolutely in the right; Richmond was guilty. One can hope that being shot was enough punishment to wake him up to reality. Too bad the laws of the land at that time didn't embrace 'pay the fine and do x hours of community service'.

[Critterbee❇]

I guess it is much like in some court cases today, where there are legal loopholes to 'excuse' what they have done.

Merely committing a misdemeanor or felony does not mean that a person will be held accountable, if a legal defense can successfully use laws towards a not guilty verdict.

[Susan in NC]

Critterbee wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "And speaking of that scene, anyone else kind of appalled that an aristocrat pitching a fit was enough to get rid of an officer of the law back then? Does set my back up a bit, I..."

Oh, I know, but I still realized it felt weird when I realized I was rooting for the little stinker who disgraced his family to get off!

I've read so many historical mysteries, my favorite genre, and always come away grateful that I was born when I was - granted, plenty of elites still get away with nefarious deeds (hello greedy geniuses who crashed the world economy!), but at least we have a free press and the right to protest and vote (for now) to ride herd on them as needed!

[Susan in NC]

Barb in Maryland wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "And speaking of that scene, anyone else kind of appalled that an aristocrat pitching a fit was enough to get rid of an officer of the law back then? Does set my back up a bit, I..."

Hear, hear!

[Susan in NC]

Critterbee wrote: "I guess it is much like in some court cases today, where there are legal loopholes to 'excuse' what they have done.

Merely committing a misdemeanor or felony does not mean that a person will be h..."

Yes - a summer internship in the U.S. Attorney's office many, many years ago convinced me I didn't have the stomach for being a prosecutor and put a period to my law school career at the halfway point!

[Abigail]

Critterbee is right about the laws. Richmond was not caught red-handed, so it would have been very difficult to prosecute him. Discovering that he was the one who was shot would qualify, I believe, so it was crucial that he not appear to be wounded. And aristocrats could only be tried by Parliament, except for a handful of crimes—though I’m not sure whether that applies only to Lord Darracott or to all of his family.

[Nick]

Critterbee wrote: "I guess it is much like in some court cases today, where there are legal loopholes to 'excuse' what they have done."

I actually just finished reading a really interesting book Eavesdropping on Jane Austen's England which said that at the time there was the death penalty for theft, but only for items that were worth over a certain amount (it was a pretty low number). Apparently juries would often find people 'not guilty' of stealing the full amount they were accused of but guilty of stealing something smaller. It was pretty silly - like if a person had obviously stolen a entire bolt of silk the jury would find them guilty of only stealing one hankerchiefs worth. That way they wouldn't get the death penalty but would only get 10 years transportation.

I did find it funny that not only were the Darracott's totally unfairly leveraging their class to get Richmond out of trouble, but Hugo said something like: 'Heading this smugglers gang just proves what great leadership qualities Richmond has, he'll be great in the army!' Which seems like a hilarious double standard - as if any common smuggler would get a commission for his leadership qualities!

[Critterbee❇]

Susan in NC wrote: "Critterbee wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "And speaking of that scene, anyone else kind of appalled that an aristocrat pitching a fit was enough to get rid of an officer of the law back then? Does set ..."

Hear, Hear!

[Louise Sparrow]

I feel the need to stand up for Richmond and Hugo.

The fault was with Lord Daracott. Richmond had grown up believing that there was nothing really wrong with smuggling and because everyone else had lived more in the world and knew that wasn't actually the case even if they turned a blind eye to it, they all thought he would know that too.

What Hugo was saying was that while Richmond had a few warped beliefs he'd still developed a sense of responsibility for people who were dependent on him and that would make him a good leader.

[Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂]

Louise Sparrow wrote: "I feel the need to stand up for Richmond and Hugo.

The fault was with Lord Daracott. Richmond had grown up believing that there was nothing really wrong with smuggling and because everyone else ha..."

Louise Sparrow wrote: "I feel the need to stand up for Richmond and Hugo.

The fault was with Lord Daracott. Richmond had grown up believing that there was nothing really wrong with smuggling and because everyone else ha..."

Indeed! I do still feel sorry for Overshott though. Once Richmond was shot, he was in an impossible position. & undoubtedly his career will suffer a severe check.

[Louise Sparrow]

Very true, I can't help hoping that if there is any trouble over it Hugo will try to smooth things over for him.

[Abigail]

I feel an obligation to speak up for common smugglers, perhaps because I’m currently writing a novel about a real-life smuggler from the late eighteenth/early nineteenth centuries. This was an illiterate farmer who rose through his smuggling to become quite a wealthy man, with multiple properties and thousands of pounds to leave to his many heirs. He also became essentially a lord of the manor, building cottages and providing livings for the families who served him. And he wasn’t even one of the coastal smugglers. They developed business networks in France, financed the building of ships, raised enough capital to pay up front for all the goods they were running. They commanded up to a couple hundred workers and had networks that could bring together dozens of horses, carts, and men within an hour or two. They bribed Excise officers, Land Guards, and local officials to make their work safer and avoid unnecessary violence.

They had considerable organizational skills and the seagoing smugglers, at least, were highly prized by the Navy as low-level officers—whenever the Navy could persuade them to give up their more lucrative profession. Ones that were caught were often offered large sums of money to go legit.

[Susan in NC]

Louise Sparrow wrote: "I feel the need to stand up for Richmond and Hugo.

The fault was with Lord Daracott. Richmond had grown up believing that there was nothing really wrong with smuggling and because everyone else ha..."

I totally agree, Lord Darracott has a great deal to answer for! And I also found myself hoping Hugo would help out poor Ottershaw if he could.

[Nick]

Abigail, that sounds fascinating! I hope you'll let us know when the novel is ready to read. I would definitely read more about smugglers.

I'm actually from Hawkhurst, so it was weirdly fun to read about it in Unknown Ajax.

[Susan in NC]

Abigail wrote: "I feel an obligation to speak up for common smugglers, perhaps because I’m currently writing a novel about a real-life smuggler from the late eighteenth/early nineteenth centuries. This was an illi..."

Sounds fascinating! I have a lot more sympathy for an illiterate farmer, however, than a spoiled rich kid with a hyper controlling old stinker for a grandfather...