Georgette Heyer Fans discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Group Reads
>
Regency Buck Group Read Jan 2018 - Spoilers Thread
date
newest »
newest »
Yes, he does! It's not the driving that's the problem, but the racing, especially into town where she can be stared at (and ogled). After all, appearance is everything, and to be disheveled and sweaty would never do.
Karlyne wrote: "Yes, he does! It's not the driving that's the problem, but the racing, especially into town where she can be stared at (and ogled). After all, appearance is everything, and to be disheveled and swe..."Oh, of course. {hee hee]
Moloch wrote: "I have just finished. It was ok, 3 stars, but not a book I will remember fondly through the years.I disliked the 2 main characters, so I didn't care much for the romance, I must admit. By the way..."
I did enjoy your analysis above and have nothing to add to it . I perhaps enjoyed the book more than many , but I did miss any humour in either of the main protagonists. Both so self conscious and , as we crassly say here in Australia, 'up themselves'.
I think my favorite part of the book is the portrayal of Beau Brummell. I love that he is aware of his own absurdities, and practices them deliberately for his own amusement, aware that their success rests entirely on the absurdity of the rest of society. He would not be able to bamboozle them so easily if they were not so eager to be bamboozled. And the moment when Judith mistakes that overdressed Macaroni for the great Brummell, to the Beau's face, is too funny!
I have a theory that GH went to a later time period for most of her Regencies, because Brummell (other than lack of funds) was already the perfect Heyer hero!
Cindy wrote: "aware that their success rests entirely on the absurdity of the rest of society. He would not be able to bamboozle them so easily if they were not so eager to be bamboozled."Very perceptive! I agree entirely.
Carol ☀ Walking in Sunshine wrote: "I have a theory that GH went to a later time period for most of her Regencies, because Brummell (other than lack of funds) was already the perfect Heyer hero!"
What a pity he couldn't have made a fortune in the south sea bubble and been the perfect hero!
Cindy wrote: "I think my favorite part of the book is the portrayal of Beau Brummell. I love that he is aware of his own absurdities, and practices them deliberately for his own amusement, aware that their succe..."Totally agree, he was one of my favorite characters! And very good point about being able to bamboozle Society so easily...
Brummell is like the ultimate gay sidekick—witty, self-aware, shrewd about other people. I dunno if he was gay, only that he died of complications from syphilis.I note in his Wikipedia entry that his breach with the Prince of Wales began in 1811, when the Prince became Regent, and was complete by 1813. I’d have to reread Regency Buck to see if GH took this into account—am thinking not!
Wasn’t Brummell the main character in another GH book? (Sorry don’t have mine with me on holiday). Just remembering a book where the heroine falls in love with the beau and she pretends she is an heiress?
Abigail wrote: "Brummell is like the ultimate gay sidekick—witty, self-aware, shrewd about other people. I dunno if he was gay, only that he died of complications from syphilis.I note in his Wikipedia entry that..."
Brilliant observation- he does seem like a fun guy to have lunch with...I didn’t know that’s how he died! Learn so much from this group.
Susan in NC wrote: "Abigail wrote: "Brummell is like the ultimate gay sidekick—witty, self-aware, shrewd about other people. I dunno if he was gay, only that he died of complications from syphilis.I note in his Wiki..."
Didn't he once say he had to drop a female acquaintance, because to his horror he discovered she liked cabbage ....
And had to get his discharge from the army when his regiment was posted to Manchester (for non English readers Manchester is a vulgar Northern manufacturing city and probably had no dashed decent tailor dammit.)
Barbara wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Abigail wrote: "Brummell is like the ultimate gay sidekick—witty, self-aware, shrewd about other people. I dunno if he was gay, only that he died of complications from syphilis...."He sold out because he was reluctant to lose his position of influence with Prince George in London, (which he undoubtedly would have done had he moved up to Manchester. They quarrelled in 1812 and although he didn’t lose his friendship with the Regent immediately - by the time he had to leave England because of his debts in 1816, he was no longer in that closed circle of intimates. Interestingly, when Brummell was at Eton, his fashionable style led him to be called Buck Brummell! http://www.regencyhistory.net/2012/11...
Belinda wrote: "Wasn’t Brummell the main character in another GH book? (Sorry don’t have mine with me on holiday). Just remembering a book where the heroine falls in love with the beau and she pretends she is an h..."Heyer never used Brummell himself as a main character. However, she did have several heroes who were known as 'Beau'. Sir Richard Wyndham, hero in 'The Corinthian' was known as 'Beau Wyndham'. 'Arabella' is the book you are thinking of--the hero there is a Robert Beaumaris, known to his friends as 'Beau'.
Thanks for the Beau info, ladies - I’ve read so many Regency-set books where he or his influence on the ton are mentioned, it is difficult to separate fact from fiction.
GH puts Brummell's own words in his mouth too. She does that in An Infamous Army with (view spoiler)
Comments by Susan of P from introduction thread"I don’t understand why Regency Buck is described as part of the Alastair series:- there are no Alastairs in RB!!
TOS and the sequel Devil’s Cub, (which are 2 of my absolute all time favourites), have nothing to do with RB and very little to do with AIA. GH makes a small concession to fans of TOS and DC by allowing Barbara to take a starring role in AIA, but of course the dates make it absolutely impossible for Barbara to really be the grand-daughter.
I stuck with RB to the bitter end in this month’s group read and sympathise with my friend Susan who gave up!!
I actually enjoyed much of it, but got utterly fed up with the overkill in the ‘look at how much research I did’ aspect. I won’t mention any specific plot or character points in case I inadvertently leak a spoiler!
I struggled in knowing whether it was a romance or a mystery. Like Susan I missed the wit and humour of later regencies, but it was interesting to read her very first Regency and marvel at how much she hit her stride in subsequent books. As I said on that thread, even a slightly imperfect GH beats all other pretenders to the genre - hands down. It is worth a read Karishma and you’ve still got time! "
so many good points in Susan's post - another reason to move it here. :)For anyone new I'll just mention that moderators in GR groups can't really move comments. We have to do a copy & paste then delete the original copy which is so messy.
& the GR series reasoning.I am a GR librarian which means I'm one of the volunteers who catalogue & edit the book data. I don't do a lot of work with series.
These books do meet GR's criteria for a series as they do share common characters, even if they are not all in all the books. & they are better read in order (although I'm pretty sure I first read Regency Buck before DC)
Barb of Maryland's Comment."Ah, but the three Audleys, as well as Perry and Harriet, have meaty roles in An Infamous Army (as you know). The tag was applied well after all 4 books were written (by some list maker, somewhere), as a shorthand way of indicating that RB was tied in with the Alistairs in some fashion. If you think of it as books in a saga, rather than books that have common characters that appear in all the books it might make more sense. "
Susan in NC's post:Hi, Karishma, and welcome! Not a fan of the Alastair series, eh? I read Regency Buck with the group - my previous attempt at a solo read many years ago ended in a DNF for me. I was missing the wit and humor!
I've just finished it. It wouldn't be up there with my favorites but I enjoyed it somehow. As I said in my review I'm surprised I liked it as much as I did because I didn't like Judith AT ALL and felt much the same about Worth even though I warmed a bit to him towards the end. The mystery was good I thought though I realised early on what was happening.
I liked Perry. He was fun really. A bit selfish but in a very young man who still has to experience the world type of way. Charles was a great character too. I know we meet him in a later book again. He brought a bit of light relief to a story that was sometimes a bit tiresome. I'm glad I read it again. It had been a long time.
I just finished too - just got it done before the end of the month, LOL. Teresa, my feelings are similar to yours. I didn't really warm to Worth or Judith that much - we didn't see enough of their inner lives to feel that emotional hook. There was too much reading between the lines. I never realised before how little romance there is in this book, actually. It's really a mystery (which isn't my fav genre) with an understated thread of romance. Also, there was also way too much historical description. Accurate, no doubt. But too much info about boxing and cock fighting. Ugh!
Not my fav Heyer either, and it never has been, but after reading more analytically this time, and reading the discussions here, I now feel I understand why that is.
I gave 3.5 stars. My full review:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
Worth accosting Judith, teasing her and kissing her is not polite behavior even for that time. Unaccompanied women were fair game but he knew she had a brother or gentleman companion so she wasn't alone alone. No matter if she is a country bumpkin or not, that type of behavior towards a young lady who has male protection is unacceptable even in Regency society. He deliberately provokes her just to rouse her temper to amuse himself and then continues to be annoyingly obtuse in his behavior. We as readers understand he has a motive behind his decisions but Judith is immature and doesn't understand. He seems to like teasing her and annoying her and that I can not forgive.
I hadn't thought about his behavior as teasing, but I think you're right. The ol' girl's pigtail in the ink well behavior, Gilbert Blythe and Ann(e) Shirley, for instance! I think Worth, too, sees Judith as so haughty and prim that he just lets his ornery side get the best of him and can't resist making her mad.
A random thought:I was thinking about one "controversial" and unpleasant bit in RB: the cock fight (I know some of us felt uneasy for the boxing match too, but to be honest I didn't mind it that much, since after all it's two trained athletes willing to fight and not forced).
It was quite disgusting to read, and yet I am sort of "happy" that GH inserted that scene. I think maybe reading romances, entertaining and "escapist" reading, that don't usually dwelve into more unpleasant aspects of life in the past and maybe paint things a bit pink, we tend to think of Regency era as a dreamworld with nothing but handsome gentlemen, dresses, fashion balls, rides in the park and witty banter. It felt kind of "refreshing" and "right" reading that there were also some things we really don't approve of anymore. I'm not sure this was really the author's intent in writing the scene, though (maybe in the 1920s the idea of a cock fight wasn't so disgusting as today? I'm genuinely asking here), but I appreciated it, as icky as it was to read.
Interesting question, Moloch. From what I’ve read, the early nineteenth century was a time of changing sensibilities with regard to cruelty toward animals for entertainment; and the debate over it was highly politicized. In 1800 there were extensive debates in Parliament about bull baiting (tying a bull to a stake and then allowing it to be attacked by dogs, sometimes for days on end). This was a popular lower-class entertainment, and some in Parliament wanted to ban it. The arguments against the ban seem peculiar to us today: that hunting and shooting were equally cruel but they were upper-class sports and therefore protected, so why should the pleasures of the lower classes be denied? The cruelty was openly acknowledged but wasn’t regarded as the central issue, except by a few.Cockfighting was an interesting anomaly because it crossed class lines, as we see in Regency Buck. Low-class people enjoyed it but couldn’t generally afford to raise cocks specifically for that purpose, so the gentry raised and trained the cocks and everyone watched the fights. It was kind of a thing among younger members of the gentry to go “slumming,” as we would call it today, and rural gentry especially had certain activities that crossed class lines (cricket included). Women of the gentry in general disapproved of the cruel sports, but not many men at this point listened to them.
The very fact that cock fighting might offend our 21st century sensibilities is one of the reason that I'm glad it's in there. It's too easy, as you say, Moloch, to think about historical times as all "good" or all "bad", and it's a good thing to remember that the worst and the best times all come at one time.
Karlyne wrote: "The very fact that cock fighting might offend our 21st century sensibilities is one of the reason that I'm glad it's in there. It's too easy, as you say, Moloch, to think about historical times as ..."Exactly...the oft-lamented “good old days”, exploited often in this country for political gain, rarely existed; people forget, or never learned, that it also meant polio, no votes for women or minorities, no germ theory - no thanks!
That’s why I love historical mysteries and fiction, they remind me, when I’m despairing for the current state of the world, that dictators, famine, and natural disasters have come and gone, and we’ve survived and things are, in so many important ways, better now, and this too shall pass...
Moloch wrote: "A random thought:I was thinking about one "controversial" and unpleasant bit in RB: the cock fight (I know some of us felt uneasy for the boxing match too, but to be honest I didn't mind it that m..."
I think GH's own revulsion comes through in Judith's voice.
I'd be interested to know when cock fighting did die out/was banned in Great Britain. I'll do a little digging if no one else knows. :)
Carol ☀ Walking in Sunshine wrote: "Moloch wrote: "A random thought:I was thinking about one "controversial" and unpleasant bit in RB: the cock fight (I know some of us felt uneasy for the boxing match too, but to be honest I didn't..."
I don't know but I do remember the NFL quarterback who was fined and went to jail for raising dogs for fighting, about 10 years ago!
Carol ☀ Walking in Sunshine wrote: "Moloch wrote: "A random thought:I was thinking about one "controversial" and unpleasant bit in RB: the cock fight (I know some of us felt uneasy for the boxing match too, but to be honest I didn't..."
Originally banned by Oliver Cromwell, but legalised after the Restoration, it was finally banned in 1835.
It's definitely illegal here, but dogs do get stolen for fighting.
Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Carol ☀ Walking in Sunshine wrote: "Moloch wrote: "A random thought:I was thinking about one "controversial" and unpleasant bit in RB: the cock fight (I know some of us felt uneasy for the boxing ..."
I missed this Susan - thank you.
Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Carol ☀ Walking in Sunshine wrote: "Moloch wrote: "A random thought:I was thinking about one "controversial" and unpleasant bit in RB: the cock fight (I know some of us felt uneasy for the boxing ..."
1835, just two years after slavery was banned in all of the U.K. ...
The first house I owned was in a neighborhood where there were both cockfighters and dogfighters. It was very painful; and the sheriff’s deputies didn’t want to do anything (much less the animal control people, who wouldn’t even come into the neighborhood without deputy escort). I had to listen to small dogs and other animals being thrown into pens for the pits to tear apart, just one block up from my house.
I don't think I could have coped with that Abigail. What an ordeal!!!
Abigail wrote: "The first house I owned was in a neighborhood where there were both cockfighters and dogfighters. It was very painful; and the sheriff’s deputies didn’t want to do anything (much less the animal co..."What an awful experience!
I moved away as soon as I could afford to do so, believe me! It was either that or buy a gun and take out the perpetrators myself.
Oh Abigail that is heartbreaking. I am so sorry.
Wow! That's really ugly. The disrespect for life that's always been prevalent is just plain ugly.
We seem to be getting a bit off topic for this thread, myself included.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
But isn't it Beau Brummel who tells her "never apologize" and urges her to start driving all over Brighton alone? It was one of my favorite scenes in the book.