Georgette Heyer Fans discussion
This topic is about
The Reluctant Widow
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Group Reads
>
Regency Buck Group Read Jan 2018 Chapter 1-12
This is my second or third time reading Regency Buck, and this time will be on my kindle.I am eager to start my GH reading for the new year.
First reading it all the way through, last time attempted was several years ago and I rated it one star, DNF. I found the heroine thoroughly annoying and lacking in humor and the hero too high- handed. It was from my library and only my second or third Heyer after Grand Sophy and another title that escapes me, but Buck was not as funny or charming so I was disappointed. I am reading the kindle version this time and determined to finish!
I'd guess that I've read this one about 10 times. It's one of her books that I've read fewer than most of her other regencies. I'm not sure why that is and I will try to figure that out as I read it this time. I own it in paperback and Kindle but will read it this time on Kindle.
Waiting to pick up my copy from the library tomorrow. This is not one I own, as I am less than fond of it. It has been many a year since I last read it. It will be interesting to see if my opinion has changed. Susan (@message 3) pretyy much sums up my feelings.
I too agree with NC Susan about the principal characters! But I enjoy the plot, and how Heyer deceives you. Reading the same edition as you, Madam Mod (“walking in sunshine” is a lovely sentiment, though now I have that song echoing through my head and can’t get it out).
I must have read it at least seven times, though it’s not a favorite.
Confess to having stolen a march and read it over Christmas to stave off the blues. One thing I noted about the earlier chapters was how much of a parade Heyer made of her erudition—not a mistake she often repeated in later novels. Lists of types of snuff, lists of gentlemen’s clubs, exposition here and there. Rookie error.
Abigail wrote: "One thing I noted about the earlier chapters was how much of a parade Heyer made of her erudition..."I think that will be one of the more interesting aspects of the book; watching Heyer at work in a new setting, one that she was not yet quite comfortable in.
I'm reading this one for the first time (Sourcebooks), am midway through chapter 5. Abigail, I was struck by something different about her writing, I think you put your finger on it. I did enjoy the description of London, from Judith's vantage point as she and her brother are seeing it for the first time. I don't recall reading anything quite like it in Heyer before.Something I wondered about: Though I'm no lawyer, I think a case could have been made that a mistake was made by their father in naming the guardian--and doesn't a guardian have to agree to do it?
Barb in Maryland wrote: "Waiting to pick up my copy from the library tomorrow. This is not one I own, as I am less than fond of it. It has been many a year since I last read it. It will be interesting to see if my opinion ..."LOL - I've requested a library copy as well, sometimes my eyes get tired of e-books. I wish I had an audiobook of it, but I don’t want to buy it in case I still don’t like it...
Abigail wrote: "I too agree with NC Susan about the principal characters! But I enjoy the plot, and how Heyer deceives you. Reading the same edition as you, Madam Mod (“walking in sunshine” is a lovely sentiment..."
Very true - but being a child of the 80s, Walking On Sunshine makes me happy!
Thanks for pointing out the rookie mistake, Abigail, I hadn’t noticed that so much as seeing more humor this time around. I confess I started the first few chapters among other books I’m reading, but only because I was afraid I still wouldn’t like it. I’m afraid our heroine still strikes me as being a feisty Heyer heroine but lacking the humor that helps me warm to her, but I see this time around it could be from lack of confidence. Still want to smack little brother.
Abigail wrote: "I too agree with NC Susan about the principal characters! But I enjoy the plot, and how Heyer deceives you. Reading the same edition as you, Madam Mod (“walking in sunshine” is a lovely sentiment..."
Ok, Abigail, just reading chapter six (kindle version, library is closed today so I can’t get the physical book til tomorrow), and I’m seeing what you mean - laundry list of Perry’s activities at different clubs - like a travelogue of Regency London for the Bro on the Go!
Sheila wrote: "I'm reading this one for the first time (Sourcebooks), am midway through chapter 5. Abigail, I was struck by something different about her writing, I think you put your finger on it. I did enjoy th..."Good point, I wondered about getting the guardian’s approval as well.
This is my first time ever; I will start in a few days, I have to finish another borrowed book before.
I have to say that I'm in the group that didn't much like Regency Buck. Even the title annoyed me a little when I first read it, since that was GH's domain, but I didn't know then that it was her first Regency novel. Still, Lord Worth is a little too much of an alpha male!
MaryC wrote: "I have to say that I'm in the group that didn't much like Regency Buck. Even the title annoyed me a little when I first read it, since that was GH's domain, but I didn't know then that it was her f..."I agree; Worth is way too alpha for me.
Also I dislike the use of Buck, both in the title and in Regency Slang.
I've read Regency Buck several times but I don't really care for it, or any of the Alastair-Audley set, actually. Too serious, perhaps? I'll try it again, with the group, and we shall see...
❇Critterbee wrote: "MaryC wrote: "I have to say that I'm in the group that didn't much like Regency Buck. Even the title annoyed me a little when I first read it, since that was GH's domain, but I didn't know then tha..."And its modern counterpart "Stud". I hates it, I hates it, I hates it.
I found my old, incredibly tattered and falling apart copy this morning. I inherited it from the basement of a friend's friend, so I didn't do the tattering, and I'm interested to see just what she saw in it, as it's never been a favorite of mine, either!
From the reference on the first page about being admired for four years, I'm guessing that Judith is about 21 and Perry about 20. He seems much younger than that, but that's probably just because he's still so self-centered and selfish. Maybe when Judith lets him take care of things instead of managing them all herself, he'll grow up a bit? I'd like to see Judith display some sense of humor, too. Since Heyer was so adept at portraying heroines who love to laugh, I'm guessing that this was deliberate; she is giving us more of an Emma than an Elizabeth Bennett. Well, I've come to love Emma, too, so I'll persevere with Judith.
Close—I think Judith is 20 and Peregrine a year or even two younger. She comes of age during the course of the story (ending Worth’s guardianship), and I imagine that happened when she turned 21.
As I was reading, I wondered just when she would come of age! I actually am enjoying the London descriptions. I even liked the boxing match at the beginning, but then I have to confess to a partiality to sports - athough I'm with Judith in not wanting to actually be at the event!
Ann wrote: "I've read Regency Buck several times but I don't really care for it, or any of the Alastair-Audley set, actually."Actually, I love These Old Shades and Devil's Cub, which they are counting as books 1 and 2, so I guess it is the Audley books I don't like!
Karlyne wrote: "I found my old, incredibly tattered and falling apart copy this morning.."Mine is also second hand, a 1965 edition well taped together!
Mine is 1971, but it looks older! Even the tape is disintegrating...
I remember that I picked up my copy, a Pan paperback, in Brighton, while in England in 1987 on my honeymoon--as well as one of the Bath-set Heyers (I believe Bath Tangle) in Bath.
I'm listening to the audiobook again. I've read this one several times but I liked it better when I first read it than I do now... possibly because listening to it I can't skip the descriptions of all the fights.
I'm still enjoying it, but it does make some of the less desirable behaviours of that time a little harder to ignore than some of them.
I have to say that I enjoy Heyer's books for the regency almost as much as for the romance, so I'm finding all the lists and details of the regency period quite fun. It's a lot better than the romance - so far Lord Worth has been so insufferably overbearing that I would quite like Judith to push him out of a moving perch phaeton!
Nick wrote: "I have to say that I enjoy Heyer's books for the regency almost as much as for the romance, so I'm finding all the lists and details of the regency period quite fun. It's a lot better than the roma..."I'm finding it just about the same. Love all the info on the various odd characters (the Golden Ball!), the places, the descriptions of buildings (interior and exterior)--All food for my history nerd soul.
The romance--not so much.
Judith is just not my cup of tea. Here's her description of Worth: "...a mere fop, a creature of affectations, tricked out in modish clothes, thinking snuff to be of more moment than events of real importance. He is proud. He can be insolent. There is a reserve - a lack of openness..." These complaints can pretty much be leveled at herself; here she is all modish herself (she was very concerned about her country clothes) and having Worth mix her own snuff and choose her horses - so that she can be talked about and be singular. The only time she is "open" is when her temper gets the best of her, and those are times when she feels that she has been condescended to. In other words, her worst traits are exactly what she's complaining about in Worth.I'm trying to remember other heiresses and how they behave. Let's see, Sophy and Jenny come right to mind, and although Sophy's managing disposition could be hard to bear in person, she does have a sense of humor which mitigates most of that, and Jenny's good sense and quiet humor make me love her.
I agree with all the comments about the dense coverage of regency customs - I had not really noticed it in my previous read, but it was really overbearing this time. Right from the initial, incredibly detailed description of Judith’s outfit, throughout the rest of the book, the descriptive prose about clothes, customs, people and locations is on overdrive. I like some colour but this was overblown! I especially loathed the blow by blow account of the boxing match. Boxing in regency times was not the sport we know today; and I really did not feel it warranted as much coverage as she gave it in this book. In later books, she shows her erudition and research so lightly that this feels like being enveloped in a feather eiderdown! My sympathies are almost entirely with Worth. I find it really difficult to take to Judith. She shows not one jot of self awareness until very late in the book. I think Karlyne’s comments are absolutely spot on in terms of indulging in the same behaviours as she criticises Worth for. She is only a year or so older than Peregrine and I think her behaviour is just as juvenile as his. She really is an arrogant, priggish, self opinionated little madam. I also think that GH’s attempts to cloud the issue about who was the villain was very clumsily done. I miss the brilliant wit and humour of later books but she does manage some in this one.
Barb in Maryland wrote: "Nick wrote: "I have to say that I enjoy Heyer's books for the regency almost as much as for the romance, so I'm finding all the lists and details of the regency period quite fun. It's a lot better ..."Yes to both Barb and Nick - Worth is being a high-handed stinker. Perry is a clueless young pup, but he can’t read minds! He’s your ward, deal with it and guide him!
As for romance, I would venture to say What Romance? But the guidebook to Regency London quality of the book is fun.
Karlyne wrote: "Judith is just not my cup of tea. Here's her description of Worth: "...a mere fop, a creature of affectations, tricked out in modish clothes, thinking snuff to be of more moment than events of real..."Thank you, very true - I just find it hard to like or care about her!
Susan in Perthshire wrote: "I agree with all the comments about the dense coverage of regency customs - I had not really noticed it in my previous read, but it was really overbearing this time. Right from the initial, incredi..."Thank you, so well put - on Judith and the boxing! I’m liking this second read more than my initial, 1-Star DNF of many years ago, but the lack of humor is really noticeable for me, might bring it up to a 2or 3-Star, being “meh” (2) to ok (3) on my personal scale.
I am enjoying it more this second time around, but I def do not see it as a romance, more a very detailed regency period mystery.
❇Critterbee wrote: "Also I dislike the use of Buck, both in the title and in Regency Slang. "Can you explain the meaning of "buck", please, and why your dislike? I'm curious, I don't know the word and a Google search didn't help to find the meaning in this context.
A ‘Buck’ was a fashionable and spirited young man in olden times. I was also a bit puzzled, so good question!
The word has certain racial connotations, especially in the US. Young male Africans on the slave market were often described as 'a fine buck'. The word 'buck' was also used in a derogatory manner to describe young Native American tribesmen. Lots of baggage goes with the word, especially when applied to humans.
Best use the word only to describe a male deer, IMO.
But this is not how the word has ever been used here in the UK. I would never, ever have thought of the word in that context and GH was certInly not writing in that context either. Seems wrong to me that we should retrospectively ascribe a different meaning to the word used by the writer - simply because it was used differently (and horribly) in a different country. I can understand your sensibilities about the word today, even though they are not something I have ever encountered before. You learn something new all the time in this group!!
Yes, that's a new definition for me too, it can't be what Heyer meant. Indeed, I'm not sure who she meant. The two main male characters are Worth and Perry, and neither seem exactly 'buckish' (maybe it becomes clear later in the book?).
Oh, no one should blame GH for using the term in the context of the period of her story.
Nick wrote: "Yes, that's a new definition for me too, it can't be what Heyer meant. Indeed, I'm not sure who she meant. The two main male characters are Worth and Perry, and neither seem exactly 'buckish' (mayb..."I think this is another example of showing off the research! The term is very much one of 18th and 19th century usage so very apt for a regency setting. I don’t think it really describes Worth so much and whilst it could be used to describe Perry - he is not the main man!
I've always thought buck to be in the same realm of stud, stallion, bull, etc. - in other words, a male who exhibits massive amounts of masculinity.
That’s my take on the term too, Karlyne.
Karlyne wrote: "I've always thought buck to be in the same realm of stud, stallion, bull, etc. - in other words, a male who exhibits massive amounts of masculinity."Aah, very masculine in general rather than very promisicuous! That makes a lot more sense - Worth is certainly a proper patriarch.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/def...“Rakish or extravagantly fashionable man” I don’t believe the “excessive amounts of masculinity” in terms of stud, stallion or bull - was actually seen as part of this definition in Regency times. The term “Rake” describes a certain type of behaviour - not necessarily an excess of masculinity I believe.
A difference in geography perhaps?
In general, I dislike describing people as animals, but I had always taken buck to mean being full of testosteroney maleness. Which is pretty annoying, and often used as an excuse for inappropriate behavior by men. No, of course not all men act inappropriately.
I haven't read this for many years so am really looking forward to it. I read all her books a long time ago and it's great getting the chance to read them all again with the group. I haven't started it yet but will in the next few days.
Sportscasters and college kids are prone to using "stud" when describing athletic prowess, and I think "buck" was probably used along those lines in Recency times, a term of admiration for a male's accomplishments. Why does auto-correct keep insisting "Recency" is a word, while "Regency" is not, I wonder...
I elected not to grab this one from the library today. It's not my favorite. Judith is too crazy and Worth is too alpha male for me. The definition of Buck here may be very loose. This Regency Lexicon (taken from A Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue By Francis Grose) defines Buck as :
Buck--A blind horse; also a gay debauchee.
A Buck of the First Head--One who in debauchery surpasses the rest of his companions, a blood or choice spirit--There are in London divers lodges or societies of Bucks, formed in imitation of the Free Masons: one was held at the Rose, in Monkwell-street, about the year 1705--The president is styled the Grand Buck--A buck sometimes signifies a cuckold.
Because I'm not particularly invested in any of the characters, I am enjoying the descriptive passages, especially the idiosyncrasies of the minor characters. The Duke and Duchess of York at the beginning of Ch. 12 were fun.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
No open spoilers - use spoiler tags or post in the spoiler thread - we don't want to ruin a first read for anyone!
So...is this anyone's first time reading this?
How many times have you read it?
What format are you using this time.
I've read this one countless times. The last time was a previous group read here, 2.5 years ago. I have the same cover as the one pictured.
Happy reading!