Georgette Heyer Fans discussion
This topic is about
Georgette Heyer
Group Reads
>
Georgette Heyer:A Critical Retrospective Group Read Jul-Sept 2019 Part 2
date
newest »
newest »
The posts we put on the wrong thread.Carol: I am finding reading review after review a little tedious.
I enjoyed the review from the Boston Evening Standard November 1921. Very witty, but full of spoilers!
message 3: by Critterbee❇ - added it 14 hours, 46 min ago
Critterbee❇ (Critterbee) | 1618 comments
Mod
It is a bit much, I am doing a few at a time.
Are you referring the review of The Black Moth? The writer was really pulling on his dramatic socks for that one!
The NYT Book Review of 24 June 1923, of the Great Roxhythe seems positive, even if the book is usually seen as not brilliant.
Ok, sorry about that. I didn't bother moving the two threads where Critterbee & I realised our mistake!& in answer to Critterbee - yes the Black Moth review. It was very entertaining, but if I hadn't read the book I wouldn't have been happy.
I had forgotten why I never finished the book after I got it. Now I remember; it was that all these reviews became tiresome.
Diane wrote: "I had forgotten why I never finished the book after I got it. Now I remember; it was that all these reviews became tiresome."Indeed!
I read the obits & then went back to the reviews. For me, it was interesting to read the reviews of Pastel as that is the only GH full length novel I haven't read.
The reviews are in chronological order which means there will be a bit of back & forthing if you want to compare a 1920s review with say, a 1970s review. Certainly a lot of these early reviews are still blythely revealing spoilers.
So far all the reviews are British or from the States. Possibly there weren't early reviews from New Zealand, but I find it difficult to believe there weren't Australian or South African reviews - & these were big markets for GH. I haven't got up to any TOS reviews yet, so this might change.
& Fahnestock-Thomas puts a (sic) for a typo in a Helen review but no comment about a factual inaccuracy in a Black Moth review (talking about GH's older brother - both her brothers were younger)
I think I am going to read the reviews by title rather than by chronological order. Although, often many reviews of a title appear around the same time (publication date, etc). I am starting with Grand Sophy, and I think that will be easier on my mind than hopping among reviews of various titles.
Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "no comment about a factual inaccuracy in a Black Moth review (talking about GH's older brother - both her brothers were younger)"I haven't got the book, so haven't read the review, but might the writer not have meant the older of the two brothers, even if both were actually younger than GH?
Rosina wrote: "I haven't got the book, so haven't read the review..."
That would still be wrong though as TBM was written for Boris, the younger of her two brothers.
It might be interesting to (in the future) pair up reading individual reviews with our reading of the reviewed books.
Hmm. the impression I am getting from the reviews of The Grand Sophy, it seems like some of the critics enjoyed reading it:"effervescent"
"Historical research makes this author pre-eminent as a period writer and the atmosphere she reproduces is the last word in its field."
"delectable heroine..."
some couldn't resist being slightly slighting
"readable, if somewhat overstuffed..."
some were torn about whether or not they should really say that the book was good, and had to burden their praise with caveats:
"If this is not the highest art, it is certainly a relief for the reader..." and "There is more to this than superb entertainment, for Miss Heyer's art is a facile and limber one."
"Another of the author's amusing fripperies..."
The reviews at the time of original publication seem mostly positive; it will be interesting to read any later reviews.
Margaret wrote: "It might be interesting to (in the future) pair up reading individual reviews with our reading of the reviewed books."That may be a bit of fun for some of the shorter reviews. Some go on for pages.
Page 87 Barren Corn. V.S Pritchett. I really agree with this short review. The reviewer called this book "a waste of a pretty talent." I don't think that was meant patronisingly - & it is true!
I am persevering, but may not read them all!
I've looked at Trove & there were definitely lots of Australian reviews of GH's books, but Trove wasn't online till 2008, so I don't know how easy it would have been to access them.I know I said that Pastel was my only unread GH novel, but I don't remember reading The Unfinished Clue, so I'm skipping those reviews as well.
F-T seems to have found more detective fiction reviews at this stage. Bias by male reviewers.
I was interested to read E.R. Punshon's (Golden Age mystery writer who is coming back into fashion) review of Behold Here's Poison (page 99) He talks about stock characters (hard to argue against that!) The review is overall positive.
Now up to The Infamous Army reviews - quite lengthy. Do hope they give GH the respect she craved.
I think GH would have been pleased with the AIA reviews, other than the one that was more a plot summary. One review mentions Worth - doesn't mention that he appears is an earlier work. In fact, none of the reviews mention that this book is a sequel. & then I realised no reviews of These Old Shades or Devil's Cub. I've looked up Devil's Cub in the index though & it appears there are later reviews.Detective Writers of the time Punshon & Nicholas Blake (aka Cecil Day-Lewis) give tepid but overall positive reviews to A Blunt Instrument. Hard to argue with their conclusions - it isn't one of GH's better detective stories.
Having finished the reviews of Sophy, I think I will read the Talisman Ring reviews next - that is such a unique book, or at least one that stands out among all the others as unusual to me.
I think you're right--it's more pure farce.
Still wading through. I do have some Punshon books & really must get to them! He loved No Wind of Blame - in particular Vicki!
Page 129 Review in the Times Literary Supplement, November 1941. Review of Faro's Daughter
Now this was interesting (most of the reviews aren't)
The unnamed reviewer says she is predominantly known for her;
...excellent detective stories, which are justly popular for their amusing sketches of character...
GH had only written a couple of Regencies at this stage.
when I first read No Wind of Blame, I didn't like Vicki but she grew on me.
I've hit skim mode now - very few of the reviews are any good, most contain spoilers. Now in the 1960s so have transitioned to her being a Regency writer (although some reviewers miss her detective novels)Back in 1957 though a review in the Times Literary Supplement mentions GH making a factual error in April Lady.
...a careful writer should not introduce a Foreign Office clerk who expects to be sent abroad on a diplomatic mission..."
The reviews for The Talisman Ring contained a lot of spoilers, and (oddly) talked more about Eugenie than Sarah Thane. I like Eugenie, but, to me, Sarah is the main character, as we see so much through her eyes. Most of the reviews were positive, though. I find myself needing breaks from the reviews, there are so many and a lot have no critical value.
Next I will read Frederica, and see how the Managing Female was received.
Finally finished this section.Reviews mainly of the detective books & became quite monotonous. Surprisingly positive reviews for Cousin Kate which I find quite a flawed book.
I love the review from The Atlantic Monthly which calls My Lord John a "terrible bore."
Quite honestly, only the most fanatical GH lover (i.e. me!) needs to read this section - other than the entertaining The Black Moth review I mentioned earlier. & this is from someone who loves reading book reviews on Good Reads!
I don't remember much beyond the overall tone of Cousin Kate, so will wait til re-reading it - I think I was shocked a bit at the differences and how heavy the topic was, that I did not really critique the book.The reviews brought me rather to a stand still, although I would pick up the book and read a few at a time.
The Phoebe Adams review seems like an empty review, pertaining to no actual book. It is a rather good example of what a forgotten then rushed review written 5 minutes before the deadline, about a book that was not read, would look like.
No need for spoiler tags if discussing GH's works.