Freddy from Cotillion - a different style of hero

[Diana]

I love Lois McMaster Bujold. I do enjoy Science Fiction so Sci-fi books with a strong Heyer influence would be hard for me to resist. Most of the Vorkosigan Saga(series nickname in the Science Fiction world) is very space opera. Although not very tech heavy. More character driven. If you like Captain Vorpatril's Alliance you might try Civil Campaign. It also has a strong romance element and includes many of the same characters. Captain Vorpatril's Alliance is ony the most recent one.

[Hana]

Freddy is the best -- my all time favorite GH hero. I fell for him completely when he takes Kitty to see the Elgin marbles and, called upon to admire the Three Fates from the eastern pediment, he protests: "Dash it! They've got no heads!" And yes, I cheered when he lands that facer on Jack!

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

I love Freddy too! Cotillion is in my top 3 -5 og GHs romances.

[Hana]

It's so hard to choose! So which are your top two? I'm on a re-reading kick and I'm trying to plan my orders (My home town is on an inter-library loan system which is fantastic, but a bit slow, so I have to prioritize...talk about complaining of riches!)

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

My top two are: 1) Sylvester or the wicked uncle (this was my 1st GH romance I read); 2) The Grand Sophy.

**Beware! Some people may not care for the hero in this one because he is odiously over-bearing. There is a lot of fun bickering between Sophy and Charles. But most of all people may be creeped out over a pairing of 1st cousins, yes, sophy and Charles, the hero, are 1st cousins. This does not bother me because at that time it was acceptable to marry one's cousin (can I just say that the sons of my mother 'a sister are hotties? However, I never thought of marrying any of them!). I am not bothered by what was acceptable in the past, but some people are more sensitive than I am. Also, there is some anti semitism in the grand sophy from a brief encounter with a moneylender in the story.

[HJ]

I love The Grand Sophy too. My other top two (at the moment - I have a lot of favourites) is Frederica. Aren't you allowed to order more than two books in your library, Hana?

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

HJ, I am glad to learn someone too likes the Grand Sophy! People are quite scathing in denunciation of this book here in GR and in the Amazon reviews of it.

With regard to Frederica, which I also love, I have noticed that this sourcebooks edition is noticeably thicker--has more pages than my other GH titles from this publisher. Have you noticed that too? Since all of the other GH titles that I own by SB are roughly the same thickness , I wonder if GH was restricted to a certain number of pages?

[Janhavi]

The Grand Sophy is my number one favourite- but it seems very controversial on the internet. My Arrow (UK edition) Frederica is long too- I believe this was a longer book in wordcount.. I seem to recall something about that in Jennifer Kloester's biography

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

You are right Grand Sophy is controversial.

Thanks for clearing up my question about Frederica. We'll never know why this was longer I guess.

[Janhavi]

Oh well, now 'never' is a challenge that encouraged me to go look it up :D Lol. So as per Kloester's biography, it was longer than usual, Heyer wanted to cut it but the editor encouraged her not too. So I don't think the other books were shortened, this was just longer than usual. Here is the excerpt from the biography:

It was spring 1964 before she finished Frederica and Georgette told her publisher that it was too long and would need to be cut. Although she knew that her readers loved her longer books, she had never before left a Regency manuscript hanging for six months and was concerned about the effect on the final novel. When Reinhardt read it, however, he declared it first-rate and encouraged her to leave it long.

Kloester, Jennifer (2013-01-01). Georgette Heyer (Kindle Locations 5339-5341). Sourcebooks. Kindle Edition.

[Margaret]

This does not bother me because at that time it was acceptable to marry one's cousin

In fact, IIRC in the UK it's still considered okay to marry one's first cousin. I've noticed this whenever an online Heyer discussion group does The Grand Sophy or other GH novels that have first-cousin pairs: The Americans are going "Ick!" and the Brits are going "What?" It's a cultural thing.

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

Oh . I did not realize that marrying a cousin was still acceptable among our British cousins. I guess it is a cultural thing rather than having to do with strictly something that was done in the past . I admit before you enlightened me I would have had the ick reaction in RL but not to a book , I will be sensitive that it is a matter of culture.

[HJ]

Andrea IS Catsos Person wrote: "With regard to Frederica, which I also love, I have noticed that this sourcebooks edition is noticeably thicker--has more pages than my other GH titles from this publisher. Have you noticed that too? Since all of the other GH titles that I own by SB are roughly the same thickness , I wonder if GH was restricted to a certain number of pages? ..."

I don't know the answer to this. I have a feeling that there was a fairly standard length for books like these, and that the publisher's contract probably specified the minimum length and possibly the maximum, but that's as much as I know.

ETA I see that there's a later comment by Janhavi which deals with this!

[HJ]

Andrea IS Catsos Person wrote: "Oh . I did not realize that marrying a cousin was still acceptable among our British cousins. I guess it is a cultural thing rather than having to do with strictly something that was done in the pa..."

Thanks! You'll also see the same type of discussion about Mary Stewart's books if you read them - cousins marry in more than one of her books. Indeed, I understand that the American editions of some of her books were altered because of this. We Brits are still wondering what the fuss is about.

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

I do not approve of altering books in that way. I think books should be published as written by the author.

Are Mary Stewart's books taking place in the past of are they contemporary?

[HJ]

Andrea IS Catsos Person wrote: "I do not approve of altering books in that way. I think books should be published as written by the author.

Are Mary Stewart's books taking place in the past of are they contemporary?"

They were written as contemporaries, but most of them were published in the 1950s and 60s so now they're like reading modern historicals! They're romantic suspense, very good. They're often set abroad, which adds to their attraction. (She also wrote a set of books based on the Arthurian legend which I haven't read, but which are highly rated by those who like that sort of thing.)

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

Ah. I think I recall seeing her Authurian books around somewhere. As I recall, it is as you say, they well-liked and highly regarded.

[Louise Sparrow]

Margaret wrote: "In fact, IIRC in the UK it's still considered okay to marry one's first cousin. I've noticed this whenever an online Heyer discussion group does The Grand Sophy or other GH novels that have first-cousin pairs: The Americans are going "Ick!" and the Brits are going "What?" It's a cultural thing. "

Lovely way of putting it :p

[Hana]

Many thanks everyone for all the good advice! Actually my Massachusetts inter-library loan system has a limit of three books by the same author, as I discovered to my disappointment when I tried to order the entire 22 volumes of Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin sea saga. This time I will do a more modest request based on all your recommendations: Frederica, The Grand Sophey and Sylvester The Wicked Uncle!

[Louise Sparrow]

Good choice! Three of my favourites ;)

[Hana]

Re the whole cousin/marriage thing: Thanks GoodReads Friends for sending me on another delightful Google journey! This is an incredibly interesting topic full of both historical,religious and scientific references. Just my cup of tea!!

Consanguineous marriage bans are one of the weird things the US does totally differently from Europe. First Cousin marriage is legal in most of thirteen original US states, but elsewhere in the US the map is spotty and some historians have argued about whether the first cousin ban was just a matter of eugenic purity and/or ethnic and class discrimination, or was an issue of public health. Jury still out.

As for the science behind all this -- gosh I could bore on for ever. Most of the science says no prob with the cousin marriages, but the final bottom line is that it's probably okay.

[HJ]

Hana wrote: "Re the whole cousin/marriage thing: Thanks GoodReads Friends for sending me on another delightful Google journey! This is an incredibly interesting topic full of both historical,religious and scien..."

It's a while since I did that journey, but it is interesting, isn't it? For me one of the interesting aspects is that if you grow up just knowing that something is so (e.g. that you can't marry your cousin) it just never occurs to you that it isn't a universal law, like gravity. In my case it was the other way round - I had no idea that in some places it was illegal.

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

I did not know marrying a 1st cousin was legal or illegal in the US, I just knew that it was viewed as creepy here. But I could accept in books like the Grand Sophy etc. And I thought that it was only something that was acceptable in the past. I did not realize that it was a cultural thing and still ok to do in the UK.

[Karlyne]

I remember briefly researching this first cousins thing a long time ago and being surprised that there's no "science" behind it. I suppose that if, as in some of the royal lines of Europe, the families exclusively married close relatives, problems would surface. It kind of reminds me of dog-breeding for smaller, prettier heads, and then finding out the brains got smaller, too...

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

I'm no scientist, but wonder why problems crop up with dog breeding but not with intermarriage between close relatives?

Maybe dog genes are more sensitive (for lack of a better word) than human ones.

[Karlyne]

Probably because the breeders looked for a specific characteristic and keep breeding those with those traits? I'm no dog-breeder, either, but I do know some, so I'll ask them one of these days!

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

That sounds like recipe for unhealthy dogs. It seems to a mutt or mixed bread is more hardy and healthy.

[Louise Sparrow]

Too much close interbreeding does cause genetic problems in humans after a few generations, tending to bring out bad traits.

Based on some conversations I've had with American friends I think that in general, a cousin there is seen as a closer relation than they are in England and the closer the perceived relationship the odder it would be to marry.

[HJ]

Maybe one difference with dogs is that the generations are much shorter, so problems which might only arise over a very long time with humans happen more quickly with dogs. Also, the likelihood of repeated cousin inter-marriage in one family is low, whereas if someone was breeding dogs to emphasise a particular characteristic that may happen more frequently.

I haven't checked the science at all; just guessing!

[chinami]

i never liked Freddie and i also found cotillion boring.

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

Really? You don't like Cotillion? It's number 3 of my top 6. What don't you like about Freddy? I admit He is a departure from the sort hero from some of GHs other romances.

[Karlyne]

Freddy is the reason I love Cotillion. He's someone I'd love to meet!

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

I think Freddy is cool.

[chinami]

Andrea IS Catsos Person wrote: "Really? You don't like Cotillion? It's number 3 of my top 6. What don't you like about Freddy? I admit He is a departure from the sort hero from some of GHs other romances."

i have a thing for rakes. freddie is too good.

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

I can see you point. I too love rakes and bad boys (in books, not in RL). Freddy is neither.

[Karlyne]

Veronica wrote: "Andrea IS Catsos Person wrote: "Really? You don't like Cotillion? It's number 3 of my top 6. What don't you like about Freddy? I admit He is a departure from the sort hero from some of GHs other r..."

Did you like Jack, then?

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

No, strangely enough, I did not like Jack.

[Karlyne]

What about you, Veronica? Did you like Jack?

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

Did anyone like Jack?

[Karlyne]

Heeheehee, good question!

[Hana]

I was sort of primed to give Jack the benefit of the doubt having read other Heyer romances first (and of course Pride and Prejudice), but there seemed to be something weak about him. I just never clicked with him.

I think it's interesting how so many of us have such different reactions to each of Heyer's books. I am starting to think they are a kind of Rorschach test of what each of us wants/needs/secretly desires in a partner and how each of us view ourselves as women in relationship with the men in our lives.

[Karlyne]

At the beginning, I also thought Jack might come around and be the hero, but I didn't think I was going to be terribly fond of him even if he was!

And I think you're also right about how we react to Heyer's books. Even though I enjoy just about all of them for the superlative writing, the ones that I positively, absolutely adore are the ones with the characters and relationships that resonate with me personally. I don't know about anyone else, but I can't get into a book that doesn't speak to my own personality and, if not to my own strengths, at least to the ones that I wish I had!

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

We all agree that GH was a superb writer. I wonder if we did not care for Jack because GH did not want us to? I feel She performed a bit of a feint with this book. At first she lead me to think that Jack might be the hero since Kitty seemed to be in love with him at the outset of the book. But then later he turned out to NOT be the hero and in fact was not a likeable rake at all while I often like a rake.

[HJ]

Andrea IS Catsos Person wrote: "We all agree that GH was a superb writer. I wonder if we did not care for Jack because GH did not want us to? I feel She performed a bit of a feint with this book. At first she lead me to think th..."

I think you're absolutely right about what GH wanted us to feel about Jack. Before I read your comment I was just thinking about how I had been prepared to like Jack at first. He has laughing eyes, and I quite understood his refusal to be manipulated by his great-uncle. And I could forgive him for gently teasing Freddie - even Freddie's own father finds his gullibility amusing and hasn't appreciated his hidden depths. And Jack's pursuit of Olivia is what rakes do, after all, and the behaviour of her mother makes it clear that he isn't wrong in casting her in the role he has in mind.

But I think he starts to lose our sympathy because we're invested in Kitty and we know he doesn't really love her and takes her for granted. If he'd been less arrogant and had exerted himself a little things might have been different.

His behaviour with Meg is unacceptable to us: we see it as taking advantage of his ambiguous position as her cousin, playing on her vulnerabilities (missing her husband, not as sophisticated as she thinks), and as inconsistent with his pursuit of Olivia let alone Kitty. It is also stupid, given Kitty's relationship with Meg. It's clear that he could have found any number of other lovers, and it's not as though he has any strong feelings for Meg - why jeopardise his long-term plan for Kitty by persisting with his flirtation with Meg? He should have known that the damage it would do him in Kitty's estimation would outweigh any benefit from making her jealous.

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

Well said.

[HJ]

Andrea IS Catsos Person wrote: "Well said."

Thanks! (I've just replied to you over in the Historical Romance Group.)

[chinami]

Karlyne wrote: "What about you, Veronica? Did you like Jack?"

i liked him. but not as mush i love Dominic from devils cub. the rake must show potential for redemption.jack was a douchebag.

[Andrea AKA Catsos Person]

I think you are on to something. Jack showed no signs of redemption. He was an unlikeable rake and a creep.

Rakes are often arrogant but he knew Kitty loved him and although he intended to marry her someday to secure his uncle's fortune, I think he hurt her feelings by running around with Meg and chasing after Olivia for nefarious reasons. He saw no reason to at least act as if he had some regard for Kitty.

He certainly does not hold a candle to Dominic!

[chinami]

Andrea IS Catsos Person wrote: "I think you are on to something. Jack showed no signs of redemption. He was an unlikeable rake and a creep.

Rakes are often arrogant but he knew Kitty loved him and although he intended to marry ..."

Dominic is an angel.i cant get enough of him.

[Karlyne]

Hj wrote: "Andrea IS Catsos Person wrote: "We all agree that GH was a superb writer. I wonder if we did not care for Jack because GH did not want us to? I feel She performed a bit of a feint with this book. A..."

I think Jack was so sure of himself that he really thought that nothing he could do would cause Kitty to reject him. He thought that her refusal was just a little show of spirit, because "Hey! I'm such a catch!". It's his arrogance that is really a turn-off.