Georgette Heyer Fans discussion
Group Reads
>
The Nonesuch Oct 2019 Group Read Spoiler Thread
Ah, but she would complain loudly, causing scenes, inflating the injustices done her, thus winning the hearts of her audiences - well at least for a short time. And then the damage would be done, or if it was discovered how incorrigible she was, the blame for that would have been laid at Mrs. U's feet, causing even more harm. Who would want to socialize with someone who was responsible for raising such a wild female?
Critterbee❇ wrote: "Ah, but she would complain loudly, causing scenes, inflating the injustices done her, thus winning the hearts of her audiences - well at least for a short time. And then the damage would be done, o..."Will she win the hearts of her audience? She must know that if she complains to the neighbours about mild discipline at home, then the only person looking bad is herself. Mrs U. and her family are well known and respected - is anyone going to believe Tiffany's inflations (if she makes any)?
Would everyone stop socialising with Mrs U. just because Tiffany is wild? I don't think so - not unless she made herself so disagreable that no-one could bear her anymore, and Tiffany doesn't have any motive to be 'that' unbearable because she still wants to go to socialise.
I guess I feel like if being mortified in front of the neighbours is an unavoidable consequence of disciplining a child then Mrs U. should just suck up the embarrassment. Because the alternative is Tiffany: a girl being trained by her family to believe that emotional blackmail is an acceptable tactic for getting what she wants. In the long run it's bad parenting, and unkind. It's setting her up for so much misery in the future.
I liked the Nonesuch the story was a fun read. I liked how Miss Trent handled the situation having to deal with an indulged person can be tough she was a delightful character and you could relate to her.( for sorry for her, etc.)Waldo is in some ways a tough character to relate to yet in other ways gained my empathy he is in a different culture from the city and having to adjust to new rules of society and a new society for that matter; in some ways he was a little high handed but in other ways he was going into the situation already at a disadvantage because of all the rumors that were said about him. In his case he was right not to give people fuel for the fire and just deal with the situation as it presented itself trying to dispel the rumors or something like never really works.
All in all I like this one!
Nick wrote: "Cindy wrote: "how careful girls had to be to avoid impropriety and then for Lydia to be so blase about openly living with Wickham."But they weren't exactly living openly, were they? They were liv..."
You're right, they were in hiding in London (at least Wickham was--I don't think Lydia cared whether they were found or not). What I meant when I said openly is that everyone knew about it and she was unconcerned about that. She felt no shame, no consciousness of having done anything wrong. She seemed to be surprised that she would be censured by society for it. I guess that lack of shame was what I meant. I feel like she would have lived openly with him--it wouldn't have bothered her.
Nick wrote: "Is nobody authorised to confiscate Tiffany's favourite dresses, or withhold her pin money, or ground her?..."They mention that everything has been tried, and also that Tiffany literally has no limits on what she will do. When a person has no fear of repercussions, no fear of causing a scandal, no fear of any consequence to their actions, you've lost a lot of leverage there. Locking an adult-sized person in a room is different than a small child. Not to mention that having to take steps like that at her age would probably besmirch her reputation, as well.
It is mentioned that Ancilla has tried repeatedly to appeal to Tiffiany's better nature, to make her understand what is wrong with her behavior, but with no success. Tiffany couldn't care less about decency, proper behavior, or scandalizing other people. Ancilla realizes that she either presents desirable behavior to Tiffany in the only way she will care about it, or Tiffany will do whatever she wants with no thought of the fallout. Ancilla is faced with the unpalatable choice of manipulating Tiffany by appealing to her vanity and grandiose dreams, or watching her ruin herself and her future. I believe that she thinks that if she can keep Tiffany from ruining herself today, she might eventually become mature enough to moderate her behavior on her own. Ancilla deeply regrets this necessity and feels terrible about doing it but feels that she has no choice.
Cindy wrote: " Ancilla deeply regrets this necessity and feels terrible about doing it but feels that she has no choice."I don't think there's any evidence of that in the text? What set me off on this train of thought was precisely the opposite observation: We do see conversations between Ancilla and Waldo where they have a good sneer together about how silly and vain Tiffany is to want to marry into the peerage - when Ancilla's been encouraging that idea in Tiffany because it gives her leverage to control Tiffany.
Overall, it's not a very important point in the story so I'm sorry for harping on it! People above made some good points that we don't really know what the Burfords have authorised Ancilla to do - and that could limit how much she can punish Tiffany. But for myself, I'm not convinced that it would be scandalous for Ancilla (or the Underhills) to try to apply some mild punishments which would've been quite normal and accepted at the time.
Cindy wrote: "I guess that lack of shame was what I meant. I feel like she would have lived openly with him--it wouldn't have bothered her."Yeah, I always put that down to Lydia being thoughtless and naive. She genuinely believes that it's all ok because they're going to be married at some point, so she doesn't really understand that she ought to be ashamed, as if the intention to marry in the future is enough to permit anything now.
Nick, I agree, that does leave a sour note - Ancilla's behavior and then laughing about it with Waldo
If Tiffany hadn't been silly, vain and ambitious it wouldn't have been possible to play on her vanity in order to get her to overlook a perfectly eligible parti in the hopes of snaring a bigger fish; it seems perfectly compatible for Miss Trent both to laugh at the girl's deplorably inflated self-image and to use it to the general benefit. (And for anyone who has to deal with Tiffany on a regular basis, the ability to take refuge in laughter rather than rage is probably a great boon!)What I'm actually reminded of is the way that the uninitiated tend to assume that parents of autistic children are just allowing them to misbehave, and that surely there must be some effective sanctions which they are too weak or disorganised to enforce. There are some people you simply cannot meaningfully punish, because the necessary mindset just isn't there. Punishment only works if the recipient is capable of feeling shame and caring for the good opinion of others. If they genuinely don't care what other people think, the only way of stopping them doing something is active physical restraint.
Punish an autistic child, and he simply won't make the connection between his behaviour and what he sees as a random and gratuitous attack on his wellbeing; reward him, and he won't relate that to his actions or your feelings either. You can train any normal animal by positive and negative feedback, but there are humans for whom it just doesn't work.
Obviously Tiffany isn't in any sense autistic, but she does possess a similar sublime immunity to other people's feelings, and the gap between cause and effect. Take away her pin-money, and she won't think "oh, I mustn't do that again"; she'll think "how much of a scene will it take to get it back, and to whom would it be best to make it?". She isn't being "trained" to deploy emotional blackmail, any more than the autistic child is being trained to believe that he can get away with anything he likes, or the psychopath is trained to believe that other people's feelings don't matter. She simply doesn't have the emotional vulnerabilities that limit normal people's behaviour, which gives her a massive advantage.
Perhaps Tiffany is a sociopath?Speaking as someone who dropped her only psych class ever because it was way too difficult...
Igenlode wrote: "Obviously Tiffany isn't in any sense autistic, but she does possess a similar sublime immunity to other people's feelings, and the gap between cause and effect."But Tiffany has the normal teenage ability to understand other people's feelings and cause-and-effect? We know she can empathise because Heyer says so explicitly in the scene at the Inn where she empathises with Laurence not wanting to take her to London. She also demonstrates an ability to understand people's feelings and the consequences of her actions when she manipulates the boys into loving her (think of her appearing on the stairs to dazzle Julian!). She's perfectly capable of controlling her emotions when Charlotte's mum stumbles upon her in the moment she realises Charlotte and Julian are engaged.
Igenlode wrote: "She isn't being "trained" to deploy emotional blackmail."
Repeatedly in the book Tiffany gets her own way when she behaves outrageously badly. She's bored of school so she runs off to the fair with a local boy, and then gets removed from school, which is what she wanted. She wants to go to London so she makes a false rape accusation against Laurence, and then she's allowed to go to London. It's implied in lots of other places in the book that Tiffany is allowed to have her own way in small things too because otherwise she'll throw a tantrum.
If you reward a child everytime they behave badly then you are training them to behave badly, that's how operant conditioning works.
Critterbee❇ wrote: "Perhaps Tiffany is a sociopath?
Speaking as someone who dropped her only psych class ever because it was way too difficult..."
I didn't even take one class! But let's pontificate anway! 😂
I think sociopaths care less what people think of them? Tiffany is clearly mortified when she realises that she's overplayed her hand and alienated every boy in the neighbourhood?
It's not that she can't understand other people's mental processes. It's that she is largely immune to feeling guilt etc. as a result. (Which I suppose is your sociopath again; good at manipulation, not strong on sympathy.)There are people on whom operant conditioning simply does not work. It's very easy to say 'reward+punishment=training" and to blame the caregivers for not applying a few consistent elementary rules, but someone who really does not feel shame doesn't react in the way required. (Probably why it's so much easier to obedience-train dogs than cats; dogs crave approval, cats will just go behind your back and do what they like whenever they know they can.).
Tiffany does what she knows (or presumes) will work. All she is interested in learning is what tactics work best. If they don't work, she'll come up with something else. You can't train her not to try -- you can only frustrate the results.
To be fair, she doesn't actually attempt her escapade with Laurie (for once) with the intention of creating enough scandal to force Mrs Underhill to send her back to London - it's merely an unanticipated consequence of its failure. She didn't expect to be around for the scandal part...
And she is mortified when she realises she has lost all her suitors not because she craves their affection or approval, but because being the toast of the neighourhood is important to her own self-image... but yes, she does care. (And possibly she will take from it the lesson that it's better not to expose yourself in public for purely pragmatic reasons, which is the line Miss Trent has been trying to take with her.)
So theoretically she can be shamed into the appearance of 'good' behaviour, if you can find a severe enough outcome - I think it has to be a visibly direct consequence rather than a sanction, though. We're told that she sees any opposition as ill-treatment, which again is very familiar.
Igenlode wrote: "It's very easy to say 'reward+punishment=training" and to blame the caregivers for not applying a few consistent elementary rules, but someone who really does not feel shame doesn't react in the way required.."Haha! I think we aren't disagreeing on anything in the book - just on the principles of child-rearing! I disagree that someone needs to feel shame in order to respond to rewards and punishments. It seems like you agree with me when you say:
Tiffany does what she knows (or presumes) will work. All she is interested in learning is what tactics work best. If they don't work, she'll come up with something else
This is exactly my point! If the adults around Tiffany would stop rewarding her and start punishing her for her bad behaviour she would learn that it doesn't work and come up with something else!
Whether or not she can be brought to develop a conscience is another thing - 17 may be too old for that. 😞 But it still seems to me that no-one in the book has ever tried to teach her right from wrong.
Rearing a normal child is completely different from rearing one with some type of social deficiency ("We Need to Talk About Kevin" also comes to mind). You apply the prescribed remedies and you simply don't get the prescribed reactions; the child just doesn't get sad, or sorry, or tired of crying, and come crawling back exhausted from its tantrum for a cuddle from Mummy. It exists in its own bubble of outrage and wears everyone else down.If the parents have sharp enough elbows to lobby for specialist treatment (and to convince people that there is anything wrong beyond 'poor discipline'), the child can be schooled into an imitation of acceptable behaviour. Otherwise they end up in jail - 'tantrums' in an adolescent tend to result in criminal assault/damage.
Tiffany is basically a comic character -- well, maybe 'comic' isn't the word, but her behaviour is a useful plot handle rather than a deep psychological study. But people do exist who simply don't get the whole concept of right or wrong, or 'naughty' or 'bad', beyond 'I want and you're stopping me, therefore you are being bad and cruel'. And it isn't for lack of effort in those around them; it's an actual mental lacuna in that department.
Igenlode wrote: "Tiffany is basically a comic character -- well, maybe 'comic' isn't the word, but her behaviour is a useful plot handle rather than a deep psychological study."But I like to read books as if the characters are real and worthy of deep psychological study - especially Heyer, who I think does an excellent job of mixing comedy and psychology. Tiffany is more than just a plot device. Heyer has gone to some effort to show us her desires and her reasoning, and given us her backstory from school and before.
I think Tiffany fits into a tradition of female characters, like Scarlett O'Hara (as mentioned above) (Gone with the Wind) and Becky Sharpe (Vanity Fair): women who are naturally self-centered, energetic, and ambitious who have the misfortune to be born in a society which expects them to be self-abnegating, idle, and passive. It's no wonder that they fix on heart-breaking as their competition - it's the only competition they're allowed to play in!
I don't see much similarity between Tiffany and Kevin in We Need to Talk About Kevin. Kevin's childhood was filled with instances of sadism where he hurt people and animals for pleasure. Tiffany doesn't do that - she just likes to win and be admired.
people do exist who simply don't get the whole concept of right or wrong
It's not clear that Tiffany is one of these people, when we have so much evidence in the text that she hasn't received much moral education.
I don't find anything wrong with Ancilla and Waldo laughing at Tiffany as long as she doesn't know about it. for anyone who has to deal with Tiffany on a regular basis, the ability to take refuge in laughter rather than rage is probably a great boon
exactly
Given the complete lack of legal power both women, and minors had, obviously really 'tough love' could indeed have been applied to Tiffany - as in, Mrs Underhill/Mr Burford could have 'legally' incarcerated her, etc etc, but whether that would have changed Tiffany on the INSIDE is highly doubtful!
Beth-In-UK wrote: " whether that would have changed Tiffany on the INSIDE is highly doubtful!"Agreed - it might make her behave better, but harsh punishments are unlikely to make her suddenly Charlotte on the inside! Some carrot-and-stick tactics might work even better.
Honestly, with someone like Tiffany I think diverting her energies might be the best tactic. Get her involved in the local hunt and let her wear herself out jumping hedges all day long! We know she's a courageous rider already.
I think if I'd had sole charge of Tiffany (eg, her guardian aunt etc, rather than a governess/companion etc) I would seriously have given it a go to 'turn her around' on the inside, and start talking serious morality - about what it is to be human, what are reciprocal obligations are to each other, what a privilege it is to have wealth of any degree, etc etc.It would be nice to think, in the context of the Nonesuch, that maybe (!!!!) Ancilla and Waldo could rope her in to help with the orphans, and she might actually realise how much 'good' she could do in the world with her money, etc etc.
As an article of moral principle, I don't personally believe any one is a total 'lost cause' (Ok, maybe sociopathic psychopaths apart!), and that even spoilt brats can become decent human beings.
In the UK, some years ago, there was a TV series called something like 'Spoilt Brat Waste-of-Space Teenager to Decent Human Being', where the SBWST was shipped off to a family (often an American one) to learn how to be a DHB.
It involved really basic 'eye-openers' for them like 'You don't sit down to eat a meal that you have not helped prepared and then cleared up afterwards'....
It was basically to teach them' Life is not Free, and that you Pay Your Way in life or you get nothing at all.
They were painful experiences for the spoilt brats, but they DID turn themselves around with 'tough love'. (Maybe the TV series only showed the success stories of course!)
Beth-In-UK wrote: "It would be nice to think, in the context of the Nonesuch, that maybe (!!!!) Ancilla and Waldo could rope her in to help with the orphans, and she might actually realise how much 'good' she could do in the world with her money."I like this idea! I can't imagine Tiffany being good at taking care of orphans, but I bet she'd be a wild success at organising and hosting the fund-raising gala-dinner (if they had them in the Regency period?). The 'Mrs Crewe' of orphan philanthropy!
Beth-In-UK wrote: "They were painful experiences for the spoilt brats, but they DID turn themselves around with 'tough love'."
I'm glad it worked out for those kids! And ashamed that it was necessary: [Insert diatribe here about our national moral decay]
The premise of the show sounds a bit like The Plain Princess, a story by Phyllis McGinley that I was fond of growing up.
Nick, yes indeed - she'd be ideal as a fund raiser! Good works AND being the centre of attention! Perfect for Tiffany! :)(And remember how she has a glow of virtue when she decides to give Patience the rose corsage she bought in Leeds to atone for having abandoned her etc etc.... :) )
Re 'national moral decay' (!!!!), I think it's the curse of 'lazy parenting' where - often working - parents simply indulge their children to compensate for not bothering to spend time with them or bring them up properly.It's a form of abuse, lazy parenting!
Mod
I think part of the problem with Tiffany is that there is no one person with ultimate authority over her.
With her uncles having legal guardianship and Mrs Underhill (mostly) having custody and both parties shipping her backwards and forwards between them whenever she gets too much for them, she can simply play one off against the other and there is nobody to say "NO" and mean it. The school clearly had no idea what they were dealing with, and Ancilla is, when it comes down to it, just a servant, without the power to overrule Mrs Underhill's weakness.
And Tiffany has discovered that authority is pretty much bluff, which is fatal.
If only she could be dispatched for a spell at Sir Waldo and the new Lady Hawkridge's country home .... but what would induce them to put themselves through that? They certainly don't need the money.
Plus Ancilla is only waiting to get away from her!!! In the name of all that's holy why would she want that selfish madam with her when she's settling into her new life!!
Jenny - exactly! No 'one person' to be her 'substitute parent'. Hopeless!
Jenny wrote: "The school clearly had no idea what they were dealing with."What did Jane Austen say about ladies boarding schools... 'Places where young girls are screwed out of health and into vanity'?
Nick wrote: "Igenlode wrote: "Tiffany is basically a comic character -- well, maybe 'comic' isn't the word, but her behaviour is a useful plot handle rather than a deep psychological study."But I like to read..."
Nick, I agree with you completely! If the characters aren't real to me, but are more in the caricature style, I'm not really interested in them. I don't see Tiffany as just a plot device, but a real-life pain-in-the-patootie with a myriad of problems - and almost as many solutions!
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Jenny - exactly! No 'one person' to be her 'substitute parent'. Hopeless!"There was no one in the role of “in loco parentis” in Tiffany’s life. She was an obligation to her guardians and Mrs Underhill. But nobody ever loved her. By the time we meet Tiffany, she’s pretty much odious and unloveable. I don’t think any of the people in who’s charge she was left, ever lived her.
She’s been compared to Scarlett O’Hara (I don’t agree). Scarlett, unlike Tiffany had the benefit Of love by both of her parents, was daddy’s girl and favorite. She also had not just deep love for her mother, but respect as well and aspired to be like her mother (in theory!). Scarlett was capable of having a conscience.
Tiffany had none of these.
Sometimes it doesn't matter how much someone is loved or how good your parents are, if you're selfish and self centred it will out. There isn't always an explanation, you're essentially what you are, if any of that makes sense.
Mod
Ah, but they don't need to raise funds, do they - they've got Waldo!
Ah, but with more money, they could house more orphans still! (Sadly, as in the third world today, there are more poor in the world than rich, and all the riches of the rich wouldn't make all the poor not poor.....))
What would Tiffany be like if she were to lose all of her money, I wonder...
Good point about no one actually loving Tiffany.And I'd forgotten that about Scarlett and her parents, which does raise the issue Teresa mentioned - that even with love, children can still grow up to be stinkers!
So, the wrong sort of love perhaps? The doting and indulgent kind?
Tricky stuff, parenting!!!!
Karlyne wrote: "What would Tiffany be like if she were to lose all of her money, I wonder..."She'd be a one-woman Gunning sister!
Nick wrote: "Karlyne wrote: "What would Tiffany be like if she were to lose all of her money, I wonder..."She'd be a one-woman Gunning sister!"
The one who married two dukes!
I think there were two sisters EACH of whom married a duke???Later in the 19th C there was a woman who married two dukes (successively, not simultaneously!) and was known therefore as the Double Duchess.
I feel Lady Bracknell should have made some observation along the lines of 'To marry one Duke is an achievement, to marry two is simply greedy'.....!
Elizabeth, one of the Gunning sisters married both James Hamilton, 6th Duke of Hamilton AND John Campbell, 5th Duke of Argyll.Greedy, indeed!
Picture of Elizabeth:
Her sister Maria married an Earl
Picture of Maria:
The sisters are mentioned in Cotillion (view spoiler)but I don't think they are mentioned in the Nonesuch.
Nick wrote: "Karlyne wrote: "What would Tiffany be like if she were to lose all of her money, I wonder..."She'd be a one-woman Gunning sister!"
I was thinking of Becky Sharp, too! Ambitious to the point of conniving, and always self-centered and self-involved.
Ah, Ok - so there was an earlier Double Duchess as well!By the way, I'm sure Maria was pretty miffed she only bagged an Earl - and only one of them!!
Jenny wrote: "I think part of the problem with Tiffany is that there is no one person with ultimate authority over her.With her uncles having legal guardianship and Mrs Underhill (mostly) having custody and both parties shipping her backwards and forwards between them whenever she gets too much for them, she can simply play one off against the other and there is nobody to say "NO" and mean it. The school clearly had no idea what they were dealing with, and Ancilla is, when it comes down to it, just a servant, without the power to overrule Mrs Underhill's weakness...."
I'm just catching up! I totally agree with this. None of her guardians are close enough to her to have formed a real relationship with her, which is crucial to having influence over her. Mrs. Underhill is also tied by her unrealistic desire to make a match between her son and Tiffany. This requires her to try to control Tiffany without making her mad enough to want to leave.
Tiffany's wealth and beauty make her the human equivalent of a winning lottery ticket. If she marries within the family, they can absorb her wealth; if she marries outside of it, she is capable of pulling off a high-profile match that will greatly benefit the family socially. That is, of course, if they can prevent her from committing social suicide before then! I'm sure it would be possible to break her out of her self-centered bubble, but I'm not sure that anyone in her world has the stamina or dedication that such an effort would take. The point has been made that she has no one that really loves her; the reciprocal is that there is no one that she really loves. THAT person would have more control over her, but it seems that it might have to wait until Tiffany falls in love herself. It reminds me of Amanda in Sprig Muslin. No spoilers, but we know the one person who could actually control her--and why! There is a little similarity there, I think.
Cindy wrote: "It reminds me of Amanda in Sprig Muslin."Oh yes, good point! Another headstrong girl determined to have her own way. Here's hoping Tiffany finds someone to love...
Yes, a broken heart (at first!) would be the making of Tiffany - discovering there is someone she can't control.She also reminds me a bit of Judith in Regency Buck. My paperback has the (extraordinary!) claim on the back blurb that (view spoiler) which makes her sound like a lunatic!
Cindy wrote: "Jenny wrote: "I think part of the problem with Tiffany is that there is no one person with ultimate authority over her.With her uncles having legal guardianship and Mrs Underhill (mostly) having c..."
You know, just like the Queen song, what makes us fully human is that we need someone to love, someone to care for, someone who depends upon us. That's the reason I think getting kids real pets is important (and it drives me crazy to see a parent taking over and not letting the kids do the work - missing the point here, Dad!)
I think that's the main difference between Tiffany and Amanda. they're both headstrong and single-minded, but Amanda loves and Tiffany does not.
Judith and Amanda are certainly used to getting their own way, but they have a moral code, unlike Tiffany. Neither is fundamentally dishonest.I don't think Amanda realises how worried her grandfather must be, because she doesn't realise the danger she is in. The lies she tells are funny precisely because they are more like a child's make believe, rather than a calculated intent to deceive.
And Judith does not feel obliged to obey Worth, but she does love Perry and put his needs before her own wishes, and seems capable of genuine friendships.
Tiffany, on the other hand, is completely self-absorbed, and seems to have no moral limits.
In other words, Tiffany will not be changed by loving someone, as I don't think she is capable of loving anyone.Whereas Amanda and Judith will change aspects of their behaviour because of the people they love.
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...
Hmm, I dunno. This was an era in which it was perfectly acceptable to beat children with a birch rod. I don't think Tiffany would be able to claim mistreatment for something as mild as being locked in her room, or having her pinmoney reduced (I mean, losing pocket-money is an acceptable form of punishment today.)
I guess it does come down to how her uncles would feel, and we just don't get enough information. From what we've heard of them and the troubles they had with Tiffany, I feel like if she made a case to her uncles they'd tell her to stop being disobedient if she doesn't want to be punished.
Mrs U. is a big softie though - I can totally see her being the reason why Tiffany is given her head! I bet she can't bear any unpleasantness.