Georgette Heyer Fans discussion
Group Reads
>
Devils Cub Nov 2020 spoilers thread.
This is a re-read for me, so I will stay parked over here in the spoilers thread!Already happy to see Avon, Leonie and Fanny, and even Rupert!
I have also read this countless times before. This time around I was particularly delighted by Vidal's interactions with Julianna. Previously, I'd always read it as one of Heyer's more explicitly romantic novels. This time I got drunk on the comedy.
Agreed--Julianna and Vidal are a crackup!
Any scene with Rupert is sure to make me laugh out loud!
Anne wrote: "Any scene with Rupert is sure to make me laugh out loud!"Oh, YES. He's my favorite of that family, hands down.
I like Rupert and I think maybe he is my favorite, too. Having just seen him as a young man in TOS, I enjoy his boyishness in middle age. But I think he should get married too! Imagine a sequel where he is the hero: what kind of woman would be perfect for him?
It would have to be an adventuress, to knock him out of his lazy ways.
I find Rupert utterly irritating in Devil’s Cub. Yes he fulfils the comedic function, but he lacks the boyish charm he had in These Old Shades. Although I have read it so many times before and will probably focus on the spoiler thread, I am going to nip back and forwards on these two threads as I’ll be interested to see what those for whom this is a first read, have to say!
I like Fanny, especially when she pops her head back into the room after sailing out majestically.
Critterbee❇ wrote: "I like Fanny, especially when she pops her head back into the room after sailing out majestically."Hahahaha yes, that's so well-put!!
It's always been fun to imagine what kind of woman Rupert might have ended up with. In TOS he reminded me a bit of Sherry from Friday's Child!
I love Rupert in both TOS & Devil's Cub - he provides the comic relief that is so urgently needed as this is GH's darkest hero (Justin's villainy is talked about rather than shown)A small point but I was "You go girl!" when Juliana went to St Vire's ball. This was a family formal occasion. Even if she had wanted to skip it she had to go!
And how strange of Comyn, to test Silly games, but Mary has his measure when she said there was much more of the romantic about Comyn than Vidal.
**Edited to correct name!
Psst - Juliana not Fanny!Yes Mary & Dominic are the practical couple & Juliana & Frederick are the romantic couple.
I think this is really interesting, because the dynamic has been reproduced in other romances, but they sort of missed the point.This is what Heyer has done: she has created a bad boy hero and given him a strong, practical-minded and intelligent love interest. She then created a foil for the bad boy: the sensible, virtuous Mr Comyn. Mary runs away with Comyn, who turns out to be more silly and romantic in his notions than the bad boy. She chooses the man who suits her much better.
This is what modern romance writers do: they create a irredeemably despicable bad boy and give them a meek, sacrificing heroine. They create a foil for the bad boy who is just as handsome but also intelligent, kind and virtuous and very much in love with the heroine. The heroine chooses the bad boy because she finds the foil boring. Thanks I hate it.
There's a reason, I think, we can read about Vidal, with all the bad stuff he does, and still cheer at the end when he and Mary get engaged, and it is not because he's not boring. It's because we are sure Mary will be able to hold her own against him the way no other woman possibly could.
Interesting points Emilia!& Juliana & Frederick are another retread of Lavinia/Richard. (although, like Fanny Juliana has a kinder heart) I doubt if they will be happy together, given the main point of difference between Richard & Frederick is Frederick's controlling nature.
One thing that stands out more this read than in previous reads is how much Mary is attracted to Vidal while he is pursuing Sophia.
There is never the slightest chance that Mary would love Frederick; her heart belongs to Dominic from the very beginning. She and Dominic are realists and true adventurers. It’s her sense of responsibility- the belief he would be marrying ‘down’ which stops he succumbing earlier. It’s his recognition of her sense of honour which makes him realise how far below her he is. Frederick and Juliana are romantics - perhaps they’ll be happy having realised how they nearly fell apart - I hope so! 😉
Anne wrote: "Any scene with Rupert is sure to make me laugh out loud!"Yes!
Sherwood wrote: "Anne wrote: "Any scene with Rupert is sure to make me laugh out loud!"Oh, YES. He's my favorite of that family, hands down."
Same here. With the two bad boy, brooding types - well, Avon is more dignified here, but seems even more omniscient! - Rupert’s straightforward, pleasure-loving personality is a pleasant and humorous break from the intense personalities!
Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "& Juliana & Frederick are another retread of Lavinia/Richard. (although, like Fanny Juliana has a kinder heart) I doubt if they will be happy together, given the main po..."This might be me being overly-optimistic, but I think they will be sort of happily married. I think she'll annoy Frederick a great deal throughout their marriage, and I think he will be very often frustrated, but in the end I think he will never stop being in love with her, and she'll like always coming back to his staid protectiveness.
Critterbee❇ wrote: "One thing that stands out more this read than in previous reads is how much Mary is attracted to Vidal while he is pursuing Sophia."
Yes, I noticed this too this time around. I like that she recognizes this attraction and yet is perfectly sensible about the realities of being with a man like him. I also like the subtle journey she makes from: I am physically attracted to him --> I could control this beast --> Dang, it looks like I'm in love with him.
And I loved his journey too, because (again unlike so many romances I have read) he is not impressed by her beauty (though she's not lacking in the looks department) but by her character.
Susan in Perthshire wrote: "I find Rupert utterly irritating in Devil’s Cub. Yes he fulfils the comedic function, but he lacks the boyish charm he had in These Old Shades. Although I have read it so many times before and wi..."
True, I guess an aging “boyish” lord is a bit sad...but he at least provides humor - I found Leonie’s frustration over his desire to safely get his wine home humorous!
Abigail wrote: "It would have to be an adventuress, to knock him out of his lazy ways."True - he is quite self-indulgent, I can’t imagine a woman wanting to put up with him. I fear it would be one of those marriages in name only, where the two partners basically live separate lives.
Mod
This is what Heyer has done: she has created a bad boy hero and gi..."
The thing is, though, that Dominic isn't irredeemably despicable. Avon himself tells Mary that "Vidal's morals are rather better than mine" and was surprised to hear of him considerately holding a basin for her to be seasick in. And though he's quite happy to contribute to Sophia's ruin, he does draw the line at ruining Mary. He makes a (to us) regrettable distinction between a 'loose' woman and a 'virtuous' one, but he's not like Tracy, who just takes what he wants regardless of the consequences for his victim.
Dominic seems to me to be being a 'bad boy' because he enjoys the image as much as anything - he's impulsive and enjoys notoriety but he's not really vicious. I don't think Mary's conviction that she could manage him is unrealistic.
Jenny wrote: "he thing is, though, that Dominic isn't irredeemably despicable. Avon himself tells Mary that "Vidal's morals are rather better than mine" and was surprised to hear of him considerately holding a basin for her to be seasick in. And though he's quite happy to contribute to Sophia's ruin, he does draw the line at ruining Mary. He makes a (to us) regrettable distinction between a 'loose' woman and a 'virtuous' one, but he's not like Tracy, who just takes what he wants regardless of the consequences for his victim.Dominic seems to me to be being a 'bad boy' because he enjoys the image as much as anything - he's impulsive and enjoys notoriety but he's not really vicious. I don't think Mary's conviction that she could manage him is unrealistic."
Yes, I agree. I was saying that modern writers doing historical romance often forget the context and psychology behind Vidal's behaviour when reproducing this trope. They make their bad boy hero irredeemably evil but super hot, and the heroine can't resist him, and I find these sort of stories really unsatisfying.
I think the reason Devil's Cub is different, is because Georgette Heyer invests some time into explaining the psychology behind the attraction in each couple, so that regardless of how badly Vidal behaves in the book, especially early on, we're confident in the happy ending at the end.
NB I think Vidal's cruelty stems from a mixture of the temperament he inherited from his parents, and a disenchantment with a world in which his wealth and good looks is all that really counts and allows him to get away with anything. And like to a spoilt, badly behaved child who is not fundamentally evil, the discipline Mary imposes upon him is irresistibly attractive.
Vidal isn't irredeemable but he does have instincts he either cannot or won't control. Then Mary enters the scene and he has to do nothing but control himself.
Modern romances (or historical romances written by modern writers), I find, often do away with all that psychological stuff, and just go ahead and make the hero hot, brooding and evil, and the heroine wringing her hands but unable to resist, and I find it very frustrating.
There seems to be a degree to which Vidal is wicked out of a sense of family obligation—the Alastairs are all supposed to do outrageous and uncontrolled things, so in that sense he is upholding the family (dis)honor. Underneath that veneer he has a core of decency—good to his friends, helping Juliana and Frederick, loving his mother and respecting his father.
Mary sees Vidal very clearly. She is attracted by his stormy gorgeousness, but not blinded by it. She knows his flaws, and does not twist them into virtues in her mind. She does not think she will 'redeem' or change him, but rather knows she will be able to deal with his moods - and rather looks forward to the challenge!Not my ideal mate, but a perfect match for Mary, I think!
Jenny wrote: "Emilia wrote: "I think this is really interesting, because the dynamic has been reproduced in other romances, but they sort of missed the point.This is what Heyer has done: she has created a bad ..."
I am not bothered by the distinction between a 'loose' woman and a 'virtuous' one in the book.
That's partly because it's absolutely authentic for the time period, and partly because Sophia was quite clearly willing to run off with Vidal and accept the damage to her reputation - because she was much interested in being with a rich, good looking man and having fun - than in having a respectable marriage.
She says as much to Mary when Mary asks her if she loves Dominic.
I don't judge Sophia for her disregard of convention, nor for her heedless determination to get what she wants- but she quite clearly makes her own choices in the matter of her behaviour. She is nobody's victim - except perhaps of her stupid
mother!
Dominic doesn't care about damaging Sophy's reputation because she doesn't care about it. He does care about Mary's because it is so important to her.
Abigail wrote: "There seems to be a degree to which Vidal is wicked out of a sense of family obligation—the Alastairs are all supposed to do outrageous and uncontrolled things, so in that sense he is upholding the..."Do you really think so? Do you think it's a choice for Vidal not an impulse? I rather thought Heyer made it a genetic thing ((view spoiler))
Critterbee❇ wrote: "She knows his flaws, and does not twist them into virtues in her mind. She does not think she will 'redeem' or change him, but rather knows she will be able to deal with his moods - and rather looks forward to the challenge!"Yes exactly! That's why we can cheer for her at the end:
1) She knows what she's getting and she wants it
2) Throughout the novel we see plenty of examples to show that she's not being boastful when she claims she could handle him - she proves that she can!
Susan in Perthshire wrote: "JI am not bothered by the distinction between a 'loose' woman and a 'virtuous' one in the book.That's partly because it's absolutely authentic for the time period, and partly because Sophia was quite clearly willing to run off with Vidal and accept the damage to her reputation - because she was much interested in being with a rich, good looking man and having fun - than in having a respectable marriage."
Yes, I agree with you - it's accurate to the time period. I wonder whether it would make it difficult to adapt into a movie or tv show though, if we were ever to get a Heyer adaptation (since the "I will take advantage of you because I think you're a trollop" trope is one she repeats in her other stories). I think for general audiences it might be a difficult thing to accept and make it difficult to like Vidal.
Yes, I really think so! I agree that Heyer would have put a lot of emphasis on the behaviors being “in the blood,” but I think they were more in the family culture. And regardless of any genetic predisposition toward wildness, not every member of a family runs true to type. I see Vidal as deeply conflicted between self-indulgent habits and the stirrings of his heart. He cares about Fox; he cares about Juliana’s happiness and doesn’t want to cause his mother pain. Those qualities leave him with the potential to mature, despite the family culture (and even the wider culture) in which he lives.All that said, I don’t understand Mary’s wish to take on the challenge.
It seems to me that Mary plays the same role in her relationship with Vidal as Mr. Marling did in his with Fanny, and as Comyn will play (to a lesser degree) in his with Juliana. One steadying, one exasperatingly wilder and needing that stability. Later on with their descendants (An Infamous Army spoiler)(view spoiler)
Emilia wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "JI am not bothered by the distinction between a 'loose' woman and a 'virtuous' one in the book.That's partly because it's absolutely authentic for the time period, and..."
You may well be right.
I know in other discussions in various Heyer groups, some people find it absolutely impossible to view Heyer's rendition of 18th and 19th-century attitudes and behaviours as just that - but instead judge the characters and actions as if they were taking place today.
I don't have that problem and would happily watch a film adaptation of Devils's Cub for example - warts and all! But I do recognise others might take issue with the attitudes and behaviours exhibited in this book.
Critterbee❇ wrote: "Mary sees Vidal very clearly. She is attracted by his stormy gorgeousness, but not blinded by it. She knows his flaws, and does not twist them into virtues in her mind. She does not think she will ..."wonderfully said, Critterbee.
they will have a happy marriage since they start with such a good understanding of each other - they've really seen each other at their worst, haven't they? and at their best?
I am really enjoying this thread!
Abigail wrote: "All that said, I don’t understand Mary’s wish to take on the challenge."Yes, I've got to say that I'm with the Duke of Avon on this one. But even though I wouldn't want Vidal for myself, I am happy for Mary. I really do believe she'll cope just fine.
Susan in Perthshire wrote: "I know in other discussions in various Heyer groups, some people find it absolutely impossible to view Heyer's rendition of 18th and 19th-century attitudes and behaviours as just that - but instead judge the characters and actions as if they were taking place today.I don't have that problem and would happily watch a film adaptation of Devils's Cub for example - warts and all! But I do recognise others might take issue with the attitudes and behaviours exhibited in this book."
I agree with you actually - in fact, I think I'd prefer a period-accurate adaptation to a cleaned-up one.
I am wondering whether Netflix decided to adapt the Bridgertons instead of any of Heyer's novels because they're more PC?
Critterbee❇ wrote: "It seems to me that Mary plays the same role in her relationship with Vidal as Mr. Marling did in his with Fanny, and as Comyn will play (to a lesser degree) in his with Juliana. One steadying, one exasperatingly wilder and needing that stability."Oh well observed! Yes, there seems to be a great symmetry between these couples!!
Finally getting around to catching up with this group, I find myself looking for "like" and "love" buttons. So many insightful comments, thank you! I particularly liked Emilia's wider look at the overall structures and mechanisms, and Abigail's comments on family culture.To add another aspect there, if Vidal isn't all bad but probably redeemable, it may have to do with Leonie. Unlike Alverstoke – it was Alverstoke who lived in a different wing of the house and never saw is parents as a boy, wasn't it? – he knows what love is because his mother loves him and he loves and respects her. Leonie probably wasn't a very good parent, but she did give him lots of love.
Great point, Elizabeth!And Vidal saw Leonie's love for Avon, and Avon's love for Leonie, and so sees that they are both lovable and loves them both himself.
Although, Leonie is unable to hide her feelings, and Vidal probable sensed her approval for his behavior when he was not quite being well-behaved, and continued in that vain.
Leonie says Vidal is too much like her, and I think 'Well, of course! You were probably encouraging all of the wilder traits in him because that is how you are and what you admire'
I was going to use the word 'respectable' instead of 'well-behaved,' but hesitated when considering the Alastair's bendy view (to me) of what is respectable...
Oh, man...now I'm remembering why this book is at the bottom of my re-read list: Vidal is a straight-up, murdering sociopath. We meet him in the first chapter after killing a highwayman - admittedly, not a sympathetic character - and then ordering a servant to deal with the body.
Then he murders Quarles in a duel (again, not a sympathetic character, does that make it OK?). Meantime, we've heard about at least one other guy he killed in another duel, which evidently aroused a spot of tut-tuttery among the Upper Ten Thousand, but not enough to see the son of the Duke of Avon face any actual consequences for it.
(I seem to recall that killing your man in a duel was actually pretty serious business in the real world, even among the Live and Die by the Code Duello crowd. Even the then-VP of the United States, Aaron Burr, basically had to flee the country after killing Alexander Hamilton- altho' in his case, I believe "fleeing the country" meant going to New Orleans or some other French-occupied territory. But GH's world in this one just collectively shrugs its shoulders and moves on.)
ETA: Oh, maybe the killing-Quarles is the thing that makes him have to go to France? You can tell how little I've re-engaged with this one based on how little I remember about it.
ETAA: Ah, now we've got to Chapter 5 - yeah, it is the precipitating event.
Well, Quarles actually survives, and in the case of the highwayman it’s probably a kill-or-be-killed scenario. Doubtless he shouldn’t have left the body in the road. The 1780s, when I think this is set, were a particularly dangerous and unlawful time in England, with essentially no organized law enforcement, so lots of people went around armed, especially on the roads but even in London. There was a very different ethos around crime and punishment, with death decreed for even property crimes. So in his context I don’t think he’s a sociopath.You could add sexual predator, but then again, the mores of the era . . .
Mod
'Sexual predator' surely implies a measure of coercion - which, in Mary's case is quite true, of course, but in terms of, as Abigail puts it, the mores of the era, a 'loose woman' is considered to have made herself lawful prey. "My good girl", as Dominic puts it, "You've given me any right I choose to claim". A man's only duty towards a 'loose woman' is to do right by her financially and there's no reason to suppose that Dominic fails in that respect - in fact, he assures Mary of it.
I’m with Abigail and Jennie on this and I think describing Dominic as a murdering sociopath is not only inaccurate and unfair but quite frankly, ridiculous. The highwayman attacked Dominic’s coach first and the risk he took was that the occupant might have pistols to hand and fire at him. There were no police at hand to protect travellers so looking after yourself was seen as fair.
Quarles started the quarrel and in fact survived - but even if he hadn’t I wouldn’t describe Dominic’s behaviour as that of a sociopath. He was drunk and he’d been accused of cheating. Dominic’s behaviour was juvenile, vulgar and dangerous but again, that doesn’t make him a sociopath.
I understand we don’t all like the same things but I’m afraid I just don’t agree with Elliot’s assessment of Dominic at all.
I know it’s been said before, but I really don’t think you can separate the character’s attitudes and behaviours from the mores of the time. ‘The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there.’
I dunno Susan. I've just reread the spoilers thread from last time we read this book & I made this comment;DC feels either very modern or very some things don't change! Driving drunk, obsessed with speed, admiring each other's fashionable toys - ie snuff boxes. Also there has been a couple of mentions of capacious pockets - clearly they carried a lot of things around!
So Vidal does have a twentieth century feel for me!
This might be partly because the late 1960s had a craze for Georgian clothes.
This is some of the members of The Left Banke (& sad to think almost all of them are dead now 😥)
So the clothing looks masculine to me!
I can see Elliot's point. While I don't feel the same way about Vidal, I can totally understand why someone would be put off by his behaviour. Say what you will about his justifications for shooting at people, most of us would not find it easy to do that so cold-bloodedly. (I agree that the historical context is key here, as is the fact that he was under the influence while this was happening, but still...)We all have different tolerance levels for different types of behaviour. For example, I always thought Beaumaris was mean and selfish and I never really warmed to him. But he's a firm favourite with most Heyer readers.
Abigail wrote: "Yes, I really think so! I agree that Heyer would have put a lot of emphasis on the behaviors being “in the blood,” but I think they were more in the family culture."This is probably off topic, but I'm listening to Gaskell's Wives and Daughters just now and came across this wonderful passage: "Not that Lord Cumnor troubled himself much about his political interests. His family had obtained property and title from the Whigs at the time of the Hanoverian succession, and, so, traditionally, he was a Whig, and had belonged in his youth to Whig clubs, where head lost considerable sums of money to Whig gamblers. All this was satisfactory and consistent enough."
Talk about family culture!
Susan in Perthshire quoted: "The past is another country. They do things differently there."Thanks, Susan, that quotation so hits the nail on the head. We should all keep it pasted to our glasses while reading historical fiction. With GH it works at two removes – she is describing a historical period from the perspective of a period that for us, today, is also historical and strange in many ways.
I read Wives and Daughters earlier in the year and was sorry to learn it was Gaskell’s last novel. Many deft observations of human nature like that!
Emilia wrote: "I can see Elliot's point. While I don't feel the same way about Vidal, I can totally understand why someone would be put off by his behaviour. Say what you will about his justifications for shootin..."Good point. Just because it's historical doesn't mean it's OK ;-). Or does it? If someone's behaviour is acceptable by the standards of their own time (and culture - hot water here), is it acceptable to condemn them by our own standards? It's anachronistic, certainly. I think I'm getting a bit muddled here!
Georgette Heyer Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
The Black Moth (other topics)These Old Shades (other topics)
Authors mentioned in this topic
Daphne Clair (other topics)Daphne Clair (other topics)
I'm going to allow open spoilers for The Black Moth & These Old Shades as well, so if you haven't read either of these books and are still intending to you may be best to stay in the other thread. :)