Georgette Heyer Fans discussion
Group Reads
>
The Nonesuch Oct 2019 Group Read Spoiler Thread
On a completely 'non-plot' point, I can't remember who says it, but at some point one of the character exclaims 'You're joking me!'I was quite taken aback by this, because these days, modern English (well, English English anyway!) has joking as an intransitive verb, not taking an object (ie, one just says 'You're joking!', there is no accusative/object 'me')
What makes it even more interesting (to my pedantic mind!!!), is that making 'joking' a transitive verb is herd increasingly in 'slang', where 'You're joking me!' is very common.
I've always assumed it was a kind of hybrid/bastard from 'You're kidding me' (which is transitive). But may it is historical after all??
Given GH's pernickityness about accuracy, I'll assume she picked up the transitive use of joking from contemporary Regency-era usage. I'm sure she didn't make a mistake!
Spoiled beauty: Cleone from Powder and Patch. I had very little use for her.
I raced to the finish last night and then had a funny Nonesuch related dream.The big highlight of this second half of the novel for me is the waltzing party. EVERYONE can tell how in love Ancilla and Waldo are by how they dance. I think the waltz is a beautiful way to show emotion between two characters without resorting to telling the reader or worse- heaving bosoms! It says a lot about these two people that they dance so beautifully and in sync. Yes you can chalk it up to the fact Ancilla had a London Season and undoubtedly learned to dance but that was several years earlier and may not have included the waltz. It is obviously meant to show how "in sync" they are with each other (In "tune" if you want a pun). I wish there had been more from Ancilla and Waldo's points-of-view instead of the old tabbies gossiping.
Lowlight: The last third of the novel. Raise your hand if you don't want to smack Tiffany! She needed to have been punished long ago, tantrums or no tantrums! The first thing I would have done if I were Ancilla is to lock Tiffany in her room (and lock the window, post lookouts, etc.) when she had a tantrum. Modern parents would ground their teens if they acted like that and Ancilla should have done the same to Tiffany.
There's also too much Laurie in the last third. He comes back out of nowhere and then entire sections of the novel are dedicated to his selfishness. He is more likable than Tiffany but not by much.
The misunderstanding still bothers me. Ancilla doesn't seem to notice when Julian says the Rector is OK with Waldo's plan. Once she says no Waldo didn't tell me, Julian backed off. He needed to explain even though it was Waldo's plan. He could have said something briefly like "one of Waldo's philanthropy projects - something my aunt does too and you would enjoy helping out." Julian is young and silly and was thinking about his beloved Patience but really, the whole thing does not make sense.
When I first read this I was expecting a subplot about cousin Bernard Trent and why Ancilla hates the Corinthians so much.
What happens when Tiffany gets to The City and her bachelor uncle? I hope he hires an old dragon lady to be Tiffany's chaperone for the next few months! It would serve Tiffany right. I am really unhappy she gets her own way in the end.
I'm double posting to tell you about a dream I had last night. I can't believe I still remember!In my dream, Waldo was holding lessons in how to repress vulgar people. Ancilla was peering around the corner smiling as she saw all the young gentlemen frowning and looking stern while barely nodding. ... It was something like that but the image was really vivid! I was hoping the dream would continue. It may have but I woke up. Funnily enough I dreamed about Mr. Darcy, Wickham and Elizabeth the other night. That was funny too.
QNPoohBear wrote: "...When I first read this I was expecting a subplot about cousin Bernard Trent and why Ancilla hates the Corinthians so much.."Yes, that so needed to be fleshed out - why does she feel so strongly about him? What happened?
Critterbee❇ wrote: "QNPoohBear wrote: "...When I first read this I was expecting a subplot about cousin Bernard Trent and why Ancilla hates the Corinthians so much.."Yes, that so needed to be fleshed out - why does ..."
She does say that Bernard got into debt and her uncle had to bail him out which is why she chose not to accept his charity but that doesn't say enough about why she's so against the Corinthian set. One bad egg doesn't make a dozen.
Beth-in-UK- I have agreed with so many of your comments in this thread and I appreciate your defence of GH; but she didn’t actually write 2 books a year - every year! She wrote 57 books over a 54 year period. In the years when she published 2 books - one was usually a contemporary detective story, (for which she used her husband for research). Of course we revere her consummately professional historical research, but bear in mind that apart from AIA - she would rarely have had to do enormous amounts of research for each and every book. Not to minimise that side of her writing, but after a while, she would have internalised so much knowledge and expertise that it would be an intrinsic part of her thinking.
Clearly you are right in stating how difficult it must be to come up with new plots - GH repeated her plot lines many times but it’s never really bothered me. I just feel that the big misunderstanding here is silly and for me, it simply spoils the book. She could have come up with many a different situation to perform the same function.
Ah, I seem to recall reading somewhere along the line that she wrote two books a year for years. But I'm not sure I agree totally with your take that once she'd researched the Regency period she didn't need to research each book - she was, as I recall, a real stickler for accuracy (hence her confession about getting Soho wrong!), and each book would have taken particular details, such as, in the Nonesuch, the distances to Leeds, what Leeds was actually like at the time, etc etc.I recently had occasion of all things to drive cross country from Wells to Bath, and it's a beautiful drive, but takes absolutely ages, even with clear roads - and it set me thinking about that incredibly detailed description of (view spoiler).
I sometimes feel that GH's detailed description go on to long (eg, in (view spoiler).
I can basely suspect this is GH 'showing off' as in 'Look, I've read up on all this and it was a pain to do, and I'm jolly well going to bung it into the novel now!' (oh, wash my mouth out!!!!)
I think too, we must bear in mind that the huge plethera of Regency Era social histories that are now plentifully available to us now would not have been so plentiful at all. In a way, she did so, so much to create the 'Regency social history industry' because of the popularity of her books, but it must have been harder for her to go back to what there was then, or, even harder, any original sources.
And in every book there are detailed descriptions of what characters are wearing, and each and every one of them would have to have been checked for accuracy and likeliness. For example, in the scene I'm just reading, there's a reference to Tiffany's 'Waterloo hat'.....something I've never ever heard of before!
However, maybe, indeed, she was one of these folk who could write very fast, and that might have allowed more research time in comparison.
I do think, overall, that the 'conflict' between Ancilla and Waldo is basically 'weak' in comparison with other conflicts. I do get the feeling she never quite got to grips with the plot overall.I don't know enough about her to know if she was closely edited, or whether once she was a best selling author she was allowed to do what she liked, and God help any editor who dared suggest anything else!!
But, personally, I think the issues we are raising here would probably have occurred to her editor as well, but either they didn't dare say so, or, of course, maybe there were other reasons such as, who knows, she was running late on manuscript delivery for external reasons etc.
That said, given the 'set up' I'm not entirely sure what could have strengthened the plausibility of the conflict. I've suggested that her own background could have been more 'anti-Corinthian' (eg, had her father been a neck or nothing riding and then come to grief, ruining the family financially and forcing Ancilla out to work, or, as suggested above, that there was more going on re Bernard Trent).
I also wonder if GH got a bit 'carried away' (!) by her creation of the monstrous Tiffany, and enjoyed writing her so much, and lining her up for her very satisfying humiliation, that she took her eye off the main plot??
Beth-In-UK wrote: "I also wonder if GH got a bit 'carried away' (!) by her creation of the monstrous Tiffany, and enjoyed writing her so much, and lining her up for her very satisfying humiliation, that she took her eye off the main plot?"Oh, I don't feel that Tiffany got a very satisfying humiliation at all! She got what she wanted at the end - Ancilla agreed she could go to London.
There's no indication that she's learnt any lessons at all.
Although, I have to say that it's hard to imagine what kind of humiliation would be satisfying to me. Tiffany is such a self-absorbed child that even if she had to go home and humbly endure the rest of the summer being always the last asked to dance, I don't think she would learn anything from it!
Can you imagine Tiffany realising that life isn't a competition to win the most lovers, and actually being a true friend to Patience and Elizabeth? I don't think she has it in her.
Well, I think she feels the humiliation of (a) being blacklisted by all her former beaux and (b) having Lindeth offer for Patience (coals of fire upon coals of fire!).I think she does 'learn her lesson' in so far as she realises she must be 'seen' to be making amends (hence the present for Patience). I agree I don't think she means it in the slightest - there is no change of heart (as in, she hasn't got a heart!), but she has 'wised up' a bit more in terms of what she can get away with in the world, and what she can't. She will be more skilful in London I suspect.
And yes, I guess she does get her own way about going to London, but in the end, that is such a relief for Mrs Underhill and everyone in the village, that London is probably welcome to her!
I don't know if Tiffany is actually 'salvageable'. I think her only way to moral salvation would be to genuinely fall in love with someone, and lose them, either to another, or death, or, perhaps, to have to go 'the full Scarlett' and be forced to deal with emergencies or crises etc, where her 'Will' can actually do some good, ie, enable them to survive, the way Scarlett O'Hara's does.
In a way, Tiffany's eventual punishment, assuming she lives long enough, will be to grow old, and lose her beauty....she might keep her money, but it will be the only thing anyone wants of her any more. I think growing old will be horrendous for her, and rightly so if she doesn't change her selfish ways.
I think you're right, and it would be interesting to read 'The Further Adventures of Tiffany Wield'. Funnily enough, I don't think either of these stories would be 'Heyer' stories.Beth-In-UK wrote: "I don't know if Tiffany is actually 'salvageable'. I think her only way to moral salvation would be to genuinely fall in love with someone, and lose them, either to another, or death."
This one is definitely too much of a tragedy for Heyer. I think this would be a George Elliot, maybe?
Beth-In-UK wrote: "In a way, Tiffany's eventual punishment, assuming she lives long enough, will be to grow old, and lose her beauty."
This one is a Margaret Atwood! She's got the ability to write unflinchingly about the most minute pettiness of humanity - and woman's cruelty to woman!
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Ah, I seem to recall reading somewhere along the line that she wrote two books a year for years. But I'm not sure I agree totally with your take that once she'd researched the Regency period she di..."I didn’t say she wouldn’t need to do ‘any’ research for each subsequent book. - simply that she would no longer have to do the huge amounts she did originally. Of course she would need to research particular elements but it would certainly not be like starting from scratch. Of course she didn’t have access to the kind of research we now take for granted via online tools, but she was a master of the tools she did have at her disposal. Jennifer Kloester’s biography reveals her commitment very well.
I still think that in this book, she could have found a better ‘misunderstanding’!
Of course, one other serious mistake she made was in An Infamous Army, when she ignored the restrictions of the timeline and made Babs the grand-daughter of Dominic and Mary when it was impossible! I find that error far more annoying than the SoHo one.
Yes, I take your point that huge amounts of research were already 'done'....eg, she must have known Debretts inside out in terms of formal address/titles etc (it's a constant peeve with me that so many current Regency Romance and historical romance authors simply NEVER bother to get it right - and the UK press is just as bad, endlessly writing things like 'Lady Susan Smith' when they should say 'Susan, Lady Smith' etc etc.)I've always loved that tiny-but-telling detail in Sylvester when (view spoiler)
But there must still have been a fair amount of research 'per book' for all that, even if, as I say, it was just checking the outfits were plausible etc etc.
I agree with you re AIA, but what I hated most was seeing Vidal OLD!!! NOOOOOOO! :( :( :( (plus he didn't age well, either, unlike his dad!)
Re the Nonesuch, I wonder what could have made a better Big Misunderstanding, given the overall set up?
Have to say I've never read Atwood, and don't really want to (Handmaid's Tale too grim, and I find it 'implausible' to put it mildly, however, I appreciate it is 'allegorical' so to speak).Re women's cruelty to other women, I would suspect a lot of it (all of it?) relates to appearance. I think women 'blessed with beauty' can be very cruel to those not-blessed (Tiffany, for example!), but I also think women not-blessed-with beauty, or those who simply have to work hard for it (!) (er, most of us!), can be very harsh towards 'conceited' women. To my mind that harshness can be 'justified', in that I think it is OK to dislike a woman who thinks herself God's Gift to Men, etc.
I'm not sure many women like 'a man's woman'! And I do feel that women can, overall, be roughly divided into 'men's women' and 'women's women'. Wasn't Babs in (view spoiler).
That said, maybe in olden days the reason a 'man's woman' wasn't interested in her own gender was not because she was conceited, but because she genuinely found women, with their lack of education and 'little lives' (perforce, of course, not their choice mostly!), boring compared with men who were 'fully paid up members' of their society?
When it comes to a character like Tiffany, she simply views all men as conquests and all women as rivals - no space for any real friendship with anyone. Very sad. :(For someone like Ancilla, it's harder. I think this is a character that occurs quite a lot in Heyer novels: the woman who is too intelligent and principled for the people around her. Ancilla and Waldo are made for each other because they're both more interested in a genuine connection and a sense of humour than 'marriage at any cost' like the local mamas, 'dresses and dances' like the girls, 'cutting a dash' like the boys!
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Yes, I take your point that huge amounts of research were already 'done'....eg, she must have known Debretts inside out in terms of formal address/titles etc (it's a constant peeve with me that so ..."Oh Beth, I am so with you about Vidal in AIA. I really loathed what GH had done to him.
DC was my first Heyer - read when I was 12 (and closely followed by TOS). Vidal has a special place in my heart and I have lost count of the number of times I have re-read Devil's Cub over the period since then. In my eyes Vidal has aged as well as George Clooney, Viggo Mortensen, Denzel Washington or Antonio Banderas! In other words - seriously fabulous!
about Vidal in AIA. I really loathed what GH had done to him. I never read An Infamous Army, what was the old Vidal like?
Jackie, the original Vidal in Devil's Cub is a real hothead, but he has a good heart. I love DC, but more for the heroine Mary and for a fantastic cameo appearance of a familiar character from These Old Shades.I've never read AIA but I think the comments here have put the nail in that coffin. :/
Jackie wrote: " about Vidal in AIA. I really loathed what GH had done to him. I never read An Infamous Army, what was the old Vidal like?"
He is tetchy, boring, judgemental - uninteresting and OLD! In my mind, GH should have left him and Mary out of the book. I love AIA overall, and the section with Vidal and Mary is only a few pages. It adds nothing to the story, and as a sop to fans of the Avon trope - it does nothing there either. On top of which the timeline doesn't work - no way Vidal and Mary are able to be Babs' grandparents so altogether a huge mistake in my opinion!!
Jackie wrote: " about Vidal in AIA. I really loathed what GH had done to him. I never read An Infamous Army, what was the old Vidal like?"
What Susan in Perthshire said, especially about the time-line problems. I liked younger Vidal--In AIA GH turned him into a crabby geezer. Bad move, GH!
I finished it and I love, love, love it as much as ever. Love Ancilla and Waldo. Wanted to slap Tiffany. What an annoying person and trying to placate her just to keep the peace wasn't doing her any favors! I know some people had sympathy for her but not me. I was glad all the suitors saw through her in the end.
Nick wrote: "When it comes to a character like Tiffany, she simply views all men as conquests and all women as rivals - no space for any real friendship with anyone. Very sad. :(For someone like Ancilla, it's..."
Totally agree Nick. In other words they're not superficial and really care about people. They'll have a wonderful marriage.
I think GH always has 'marriages of equals' doesn't she? Even if the 'equality' is not always 'top notch' to use one description.For example, whilst I totally agree that Waldo and Ancilla are well matched because they are similar in temperament, they are also mature, intelligent people, able to take a responsible attitude to the world. Waldo doesn't seem to be particularly into estate management (say unlike (view spoiler), his intelligence and social involvement are directed out into philanthropy....and I feel sure that he will start, too, perhaps with Ancilla's encouragement, to be an early pioneer of better provision and protection for children, and indeed, with their protection at work as well.
On the other hand, there are also other pairings of hero and heroine who are extremely well matched, but not at the level of Ancilla and Waldo. For example, (view spoiler)
Similiarly, although (view spoiler)
I'm just watching (yet another!) rerun of the Colin Firth Pride and Prejudice (it replays regularly on a 'Yesterday' channel in the UK), and I'm struck by similarities between Lydia and Tiffany. Both so headstrong, irresponsible and utterly unconcerned with any other person other than themselves.I wonder if GH had Lydia in mind when she created Tiffany?
Beth-In-UK wrote: "I think GH always has 'marriages of equals' doesn't she? Even if the 'equality' is not always 'top notch' to use one description.For example, whilst I totally agree that Waldo and Ancilla are wel..."
I think Waldo is definitely into estate management. He seems to have pots of money and you don't get and keep it if you don't look after it. Being philanthropic is only possible if your own affairs are in order. Just a thought.
Whereas I think he's a real hands on guy. It's interesting how we all see characters differently.
I suspect each of us 'read in' quite a lot into characters that we'd like to see there!I think, these days, we have far more respect for, as you say, a 'hands on' landowner, or, even if they hire experts to do the land management and agronomy etc, they have something else to do with their lives (eg, Waldo's philanthropy)
I think thee days we have far less admiration for the 'idle hero' (er, (view spoiler) than perhaps was acceptable earlier on (perhaps in GH's youth where being 'idle' was seen as acceptable if you didn't need to work!)
I would make allowances for youthful heroes (eg, (view spoiler) not doing anything very much with their lives except enjoying themselves, but once they pass 25 I think they ought to be doing 'something useful' out of the privileged positions they find themselves in in society.
To me, it doesn't matter so much what they do - whether it's managing their estates and improving the agronomy and, hopefully, the lives of their tenants, or whether its politics, or the army, or philanthropy or even art collecting or whatever. But a hero (or heroine) that just wants to dress up and idle their way through their entire life is just a waste of space!
And that's one thing Waldo certainly is not!!
Lydia Bennet is young, stupid, silly and has foolish parents but she isn't a spoiled brat like Tiffany. I agree with Laurence that Tiffany is "queer in her attic." Today they'd drag her to a psychologist for a diagnosis. I do not think Tiffany will ever outgrow her toddlerness but she'll learn to be more careful with her suitors.
QNPoohBear wrote: "I do not think Tiffany will ever outgrow her toddlerness but she'll learn to be more careful with her suitors...."I agree! As I mentioned earlier, at some point she will get married and then she's going to have a major reality check. At that time, the men will no longer be her main concern. She will find that her social world will depend much more on other women than men. She will still be able to have light flirtations and socialize with men to a degree, but they will not be buzzing around her all of the time like when she was single, and she will have to be careful not to show too much attention to one and create a scandal. While men will still find her attractive, it will be their wives deciding on who gets invited to social events. If she does not moderate her behavior, she will find herself only included in the most public of events, like the occasional huge ball. She will find herself excluded from more intimate gatherings, such as dinner parties or card parties.
Ironically, though, Lydia Bennet does far, far more harm to her family than Tiffany! Even if Tiffany had not 'met her match' in Laurie, and had persuaded him to take her to London, and she'd ended up compromised and had to marry him, she wouldn't have caused any damage to anyone else.Lydia really is a dangerous person - only thanks to Darcy does she avoid ruining her entire family because of her behaviour.
I find her unforgiveable. Yes, I agree she has been abysmally brought up, and just how much responsibility she has to take for her own recklessness I'm not entirely sure - but that she is selfish, mean to her sisters and rude to everyone is something that, even at 15, she should have realised was 'not acceptable'. She might have been doted on and indulged by her mother, and ignored and 'unfathered' by her father, but Lizzie would not have held back from criticism of her behaviour, and at 15 Lydia, or anyone, should have been sufficiently aware of social norms to realise what was 'beyond the pale' for female behaviour in those days - AND aware of the dangers she could place herself in.
She has no redeeming virtues whatsoever to my mind. A nasty piece of work.
I don't think Tiffany is queer in her attic! Nor do I think dragging her to a psychologist would do the slightest good at all! She isn't mad, she's selfish. She needs 'moral correction' (!), not psychoanalysing.Or....on the other hand, Ancilla does come closest to finding 'excuses' (reasons?) for her behaviour, saying how petted and spoiled she was, and, indeed, perhaps most crucial of all, orphaned.
She and Lydia Bennet really do exemplify the crucial importance of parenting.
"And that's one thing Waldo certainly is not!! "Definitely! I think he probably is the 'best' of all the Heyer heroes.
(I wonder who 'the worst' is? ie, by modern standards. Probably, alas, sigh (view spoiler))
I do love that final scene between Tiffany and Laurie, and her amazement to discover that she can't make him do what she wants, that she's met her match. Hurrah!
Beth-In-UK wrote: "I do love that final scene between Tiffany and Laurie, and her amazement to discover that she can't make him do what she wants, that she's met her match. Hurrah!"I agree! I especially like the way Heyer describes Tiffany as being caught between annoyance at Laurie's refusal, and empathy because he's acting exactly the way that she would!
It does beg the question, doesn't it, whether equally selfish people 'respect' each other since they obviously, by definition, never respect anyone else!I just love the way Tiffany's mouth falls open when Laurie says bluntly 'no' to her.
Ah wrote: " I liked Waldo but he is bland.That is what I was trying (unsuccessfully!) to find the words for!
Ancilla was being paid £8,614.56. She said a governess would normally be paid £1,378.33. Wow. Tha..."
In the early 19th century a governess could be paid as little as £20 per annum. plus bed and board. A good wage would be £50 per annum. Charlotte Bronte was paid £20pa in 1841.
I don't know which version of the book you have which gives the figures you quoted. They're not in mine and they do not reflect the reality of the time period at all.
The figures Ah is quoting are modern-day equivalents of (1) a standard governess salary and (2) Ancilla’s salary of 150 pounds. Those equivalents are always speculative, but earlier in the thread we were discussing in general terms what her income would look like in the present.
Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Jackie wrote: " about Vidal in AIA. I really loathed what GH had done to him. I never read An Infamous Army, what was the old Vidal like?"
He is tetchy, boring, judgemental - uninteresting and ..."
Completely agree! I have never understood why Heyer chose to feature the Alastair family at all in AIA. It adds nothing to the story. Worse, this Dominic seems to have nothing at all to do with the previous two books, unlike TOS and DC which were beautifully integrated in terms of characterisation. It messes up the timeline, even though Heyer was usually so careful about accuracy. She could have given Babs any set of grandparents and siblings - so why, oh why did she ruin the Alastairs for us?
QNPoohBear wrote: "Lydia Bennet is young, stupid, silly and has foolish parents but she isn't a spoiled brat like Tiffany. I agree with Laurence that Tiffany is "queer in her attic." Today they'd drag her to a psycho..."'toddlerness'! I love it:)
I agree with QNPoohBear and others: Both Lydia and Tiffany are self-absorbed, heedless, childish and willful, but Tiffany takes it to a whole 'nother level. I'd say she also has much more of a temper than Lydia. It is interesting, then, that Lydia causes (or at least, nearly causes) so much more damage to her family than Tiffany's antics. I certainly wouldn't put it past Tiffany to do the same sort of thing, except that Tiffany has the idea firmly in mind of marrying a peer. But what if an untrustworthy viscount tried to get Tiffany to run away with him, promising her marriage? (spoiler for P&P, not that it's likely to be necessary for anyone in this group :) ) (view spoiler)
I don't view Tiffany as mentally ill, just very, very spoiled and not raised correctly. If Waldo and Ancilla were her parents and had the raising of her from the time she was a baby, I think it's highly likely she would have turned out much different. Likely she'd still have some of the same faults, like pride, but I think she'd have had far more self-control.
Tiffany meets the criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder:Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a long-term pattern of exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of empathy toward other people. People with NPD often spend much time thinking about achieving power and success, or on their appearance. Typically, they also take advantage of the people around them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narciss...
Being cynical (!!!), I 'm sure Tiffany does meet the criteria for NPD - but does NPD actually exist in real life (as opposed to just in the mind of highly paid Psychs whose interest it is to have everyone nuts but themselves!!!!!!) ?, or is it better called SBS (Spoilt Brat Syndrome)???!!!!!!!!I have huge issues with a lot of psych classifications, which, to my mind, are better subsumed under 'morality' than 'insanity'.....
I don't wish to trivialise (completely), but 'insanity' of every kind (from sociopath psychopaths downwards) raises HUGE moral issues, and just to what extent (if any???????????????????????????) 'bad' becomes 'mad' is a very thorny issue to me!
(There's a lot of mental illness in my family, and I've grown very sceptical of it in terms of how much endless 'slack' seems to be expected to 'make allowances' etc etc)
I also think we have to be very aware that psychs DO make a living out of mental illness, and therefore they are NOT a disinterested party when it comes to (a) classifying a disorder and (b) diagnosing it and (c) treating it.
The dear old DSM 'bible' of classification is suspect from the off - these days it counts 'bereavement' and 'grief' as a disorder. If someone you love dies and you are still mourning them a couple of weeks later apparently you are mentally ill.....*!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In all seriousness, I don't think it always help to classify someone as suffering from mental illness. Sometimes they are just (a) unhappy or (b) selfish.
That isn't to say there aren't profound reasons why they have become either of those two things, and the degree to which they have become them (and I don't trivialise the effect - a suicidal teenager is incredibly dangerous to themselves and their family), but I'm not sure that seeing them through the lens of mental illness is actually very helpful (irrespective of whether it may or may not be accurate).
Tricky business, that is for certain sure!
Tadiana - perceptive comments re Lydia and Tiffany, and yes, Tiffinay might have been more vulnerable to 'ruin' if her vile seducer had been a lord, etc. That said, I think Tiffany revels in being the centre of attention, and would have loved being courted, in public, with huge envy and adulation, by her peer, rather than him whisking her off to a secret tryst etc.Whereas I don't think Lydia wanted adulation (only to take gleeful precedence over her sadly unmarried sisters!), she just wanted what she wanted, and didn't think further than the day. She is also utterly immoral/amoral, as in it doesn't bother her a jot to be a 'fallen woman' who is 'living in sin' with Wickham in London.
I get the feeling Babs was supposed to be 'mad, bad and dangerous to fall in love with', just as Vidal and his dad were.But, overall, with AIA, which I confess I haven't read for decades either, I get the feeling that GH predominantly wanted to write a novel about Waterloo (and, to an extent, not quite 'show off' but to 'prove' that she, a mere woman, could have written as historically and militarily as accurate a description of the battle as any male!), and so all the characters were a bit irrelevant. She seemed to be using up 'left overs' from other novels, both with Babs (from Devil's Cub progeny) and Charles (Regency Buck)
Susan, £8, 600 is a single woman's old age annual pension in England, if you want a comparison. About £600 per month. not much if you have to pay rent/rates out of it, plus everything else. I'm not sure it's a 'living wage' in fact. There won't be tax or national insurance, but even so, it is still extremely little to live on.I think the whole 'cost of servants' in historical novels/times is something we find very hard to comprehend. Labour really was incredibly cheap. Scary!
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Whereas I don't think Lydia wanted adulation (only to take gleeful precedence over her sadly unmarried sisters!), she just wanted what she wanted, and didn't think further than the day. She is also utterly immoral/amoral, as in it doesn't bother her a jot to be a 'fallen woman' who is 'living in sin' with Wickham in London. ..."That was the part that I had trouble wrapping my head around. How could any girl from that time period, raised as a "gentleman's daughter," be so sanguine about premarital sex? And open premarital sex! When you think of all the rules women were hedged about with, how careful girls had to be to avoid impropriety and then for Lydia to be so blase about openly living with Wickham. It just boggles my mind! And then Mrs. Bennett joins in, complaining because Lydia can't be married from Longbourne! I get that these two barely have one working brain between them, but that level of cluelessness is epic. They may have their own private opinion about whether there's anything wrong with it, but they can't kid themselves about how society will view it. They've been raised with these rules and beliefs their entire lives. Mrs. Bennett is a married woman and knows how other women talk about "fast" girls, has probably known about other girls who were compromised and lost their reputations. Lydia, whose silliness is fed by her sister Kitty and her mother, has still grown up listening to her older sisters and all of the other women in their social circles. The other girls their age, like Charlotte and Maria, are very straitlaced and proper, so it's not like Lydia grew up surrounded only by amoral people. But Jane Austen wrote it, so I guess it was a possibility even in their time.
Georgette Heyer Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
The Foundling (other topics)The Plain Princess (other topics)
Gone with the Wind (other topics)
Vanity Fair (other topics)
We Need to Talk About Kevin (other topics)
More...
Re the Big Misunderstanding - yes, I guess Ancilla just felt that her loving Waldo, and Waldo loving her back, and marriage bells and HEA beckoning to a choir of angels etc, was just too good to be true 'for the likes of her'......so she is 'not surprised' when it all goes hideously wrong.....
One of the things I feel that GH could have done with Ancilla, to strengthen her initial dislike and disapproval of Waldo's sporting prowess and all the Nonesuch stuff, was to change her background.
When I first started this book thanks to this discussion group, which I hadn't read for ages and ages and ages, I had assumed that Ancilla had been 'forced' into becoming a governess because of her father dying, not in battle, but on the hunting field racing neck or nothing etc etc. I think that actually would have strengthened her initial dislike of the Nonesuch.
However, I think that background had already been used, hadn't it, by GH in another novel ((view spoiler)[ Cousin Kate, maybe? (hide spoiler)]