Georgette Heyer Fans discussion
Heyer in General
>
Things we have problems with in GH Novels
I really dislike "Friday's Child" & couldn't believe it when that book was cited by many different people as a "funny story". The whole story from start to finish made me mad. I was going to re-read it again because I thought Sherry did hit Kitten, but I couldn't remember. Thanks Barbara - now I won't have to read it again!
That is the main problem I have also with Friday's Child. The book is extremely funny, but I do not like Sherry, he is very violent to poor Hero! His friends were amazing though.
Little thigs annoy me like the hero/heroine doing stupid things, but it has always bugged me that the villain in the Reluctent Widow never get what's coming to him and basically goes scot-free. Can't he at least be forced to go to India?So that is basically what really ticks me off.
Ferdy and George et al 'save' Friday's Child for me but I do hate the casual acceptance of Sherry's hitting Hero. It is more than once described as 'boxing her ears' which is a phrase one had heard for ever , but I don't know about rest of you, but I never really thought about what it actually consisted of. I looked it up in several places and didn't really get a clear picture. It seems to be equally divided between face slapping ( which is what Sherry did I think, there is a reference to 'her tingling cheek') and a rather horrible thing consisting of cupping the hands and hitting a person over the ears with both those cupped hands at the same time. Designed to hurt the head and ears.Ugh. Damerel's action offends me both as a feminist and as from a class point of view , but I seem able in my later middle age to be able to ignore minor examples of such things in fiction. Don't know if this a good or bad thing.....
Sherry boxing Hero's ears bothers me, too. He's obviously treating her exactly the same way he did when they were children ... which makes me think he was a singularly horrid little boy. One can only hope that once it finally occurs to him that they are both adults he will never do such a thing again.I agree with Barbara and Sakura that the other characters make the book such a pleasure.
I also have less and less patience with scenes where it seems like there are two or three examples of regency slang per paragraph of dialogue. A lot of the slang, while in period, was not language used in polite company, so it's not even that accurate for some of her characters to be using it. In some books there is hardly any slang, and in others she just piles it on, and it's heavy going, even though by now I know what all of it means.
Something else that bothers me is the way that the men refer to their mistresses. It's so dehumanizing.
Not that any of this spoils the experience of reading the books.
I got the impression that Damerel was acting a part. he was SUPPOSED to be the libertine & thus acted as such whenever the opportunity came about. He certainly didn't force anything else on Venetia. In fact, he warned her away many times.I don't know whether I can read Friday's Child again. It was such an unpleasant experience for me the first time.
In my rereads Friday's Child definitely has the most references to violence of any of the Heyer novels. I thought Sherry's growing maturity and sense of responsibility, though, are the real points of the story. Through the novel he has to step in to rescue Hero as she makes mistakes due to inexperience and there are frequent references to his growing concern and care for her. If you notice there are less and less references to boxing ears. When we first see him he is still acting like an adolescent. You notice in the first scene with Isabella something she says makes him remember their shared childhood and that he would like to box her ears. This makes me think it is a childish reaction and I see it improve over the course of the novel. When he discovers about the race, although he is angry you notice his reaction is much more mature. The way I read the book, I do not think he will treat her like that again, not that he won't get angry at her again but that his way of handling it will be more mature. In other words I do not see this as a forecast that he will be an abusive husband. Also you notice that Sherry helps his wife but in False Colors Kit's and Evelyn's mother is left by her husband to flounder into debt. He is not supportive at all but shows a very cold face instead. (I found this very pointed having read False Colors right after Friday's Child) This might be my optimist and romantic nature but I found them a very nice and romantic couple once he grows up.
Helen wrote: "In my rereads Friday's Child definitely has the most references to violence of any of the Heyer novels. I thought Sherry's growing maturity and sense of responsibility, though, are the real points..."I agree, I didn't think it was abuse. He was just immature and he treated her like he would if he were still a twelve year old boy.
I wonder if little boys treated little girls that way when Heyer was young. When I was a child -- which was long after Heyer's childhood, but still a long time ago -- boys were taught not to hit girls at all. It seems to me that their relationship (until she runs away) is like older brother and little sister, but did older brothers act that way?
I agree that he has as much growing up to do as Hero, and he is the one who has shown the most character growth and change by the end of the book.
This is not an ideological problem, but why all the exclamation marks in her books? I was rereading Frederica the other day for about the tenth time since it is one of my favorites, and I was startled to see so many sentences ending this way. It makes it seem as if the characters are shouting at one another or overly excited all the time. But I am assuming it is merely an attempt to emphasis a point that the character is making. Any thoughts on this?
I've noticed that, too. I think it's a style thing -- and styles have changed a lot since Heyer was writing. Writers are a lot more restrained in some ways now, the use of exclamation points (in or out of dialogue) is one of those ways, so when we read an old book where the writer uses a lot of them for emphasis, the difference can really "shout" at us.
I think it means characters are just excited. For example, in Roald Dahl's books, such as Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Willy Wonka was always exclaiming, but that was because he was happy, enthusiastic. I like exclamation marks. It gives more 'life' to the dialog.
The endings of Heyer's romances, in general, usually leave me hanging and saying, "Is that it???". I wish the endings were not so abrupt; and that the reader was given the opportunity sometimes to read about the wedding; or perhaps a baby, or the fate of some secondary characters. I love an epilogue.I also know the times in which Heyer wrote were conservative, but I also wish there was a bit more "passionate" passages other than the exchanging of a meaningful glance or lingering handshake.
I still love all the stories despite my above wishes.
Marlene wrote: "The endings of Heyer's romances, in general, usually leave me hanging and saying, "Is that it???". I wish the endings were not so abrupt; and that the reader was given the opportunity sometimes t..."I agree with you on both counts, Marlene. I'm surprised that there isn't more Heyer fanfiction filling these gaps!
Marlene wrote: "The endings of Heyer's romances, in general, usually leave me hanging and saying, "Is that it???". I wish the endings were not so abrupt; and that the reader was given the opportunity sometimes t..."AMEN! :)
Anne wrote: "Marlene wrote: "The endings of Heyer's romances, in general, usually leave me hanging and saying, "Is that it???". I wish the endings were not so abrupt; and that the reader was given the opportu..."Indeed!
A lot of the things in the books don't hold up to close scrutiny. Many times she reveals that she's a woman of her place and time, such as the mistresses and the constant comments from the heroes about wanting to shake the heroines. (I, too, dislike Friday's Child and the other immature heroine stories like Spring Muslin). There's also that passage about the money lender in The Grand Sophy that many people feel is antisemitic. I took it as a stereotypical portrait of a villain. It's a mark of Georgette Heyer's talent as a writer that most people are willing to overlook the flaws for the sake of the witty dialogue and fun plots.
Qnpoohbear wrote: "Indeed!A lot of the things in the books don't hold up to close scrutiny...."
Yes. I think the key to your comment is "she reveals that she's a woman of her place and time". It isn't fair to do as some people do, and apply today's generally held beliefs and values in judging those who lived in a different time. That's especially true when one would have to apply a double-test because she was also recreating the attitudes and behaviours of the Regency.
I know that some people argue that she was out of step even in her own time; I'm not sure about that, but anyway I agree that the flaws (if they be flaws) are far outweighed by the positive aspects which make her books so enjoyable.
Barbara wrote: "I'm thinking, for instance, of Damerel's forcing kisses on Venetia when he thinks she's only a maid or a village girl"I had a problem with that, too, and a similar but stronger problems with The Black Moth, where Belmanoir kidnaps and plans to rape Diana; he has done the same with other girls of lower class, but that is presented as not a big deal and he isn't really punished in anyway, because the upper class maiden was saved and who cares about the others? Sadly, probably a realistic attitude for the time, but it really decreased my enjoyment of the book.
I have to agree, The Black Moth is not my favourite and those reasons are definitely a part of it.
The same thing applies to Devil's Cub, the way I see things. Though I know it's a favorite for many of you, I could never get past Vidal threatening to rape Mary after he first abducts her by mistake, thinking she was Sophia. Sorry, but after that, the romance was lost on me and I could never warm up to Vidal. I mostly read it for the enjoyment of revisiting his mother and father instead.
I agree re Devil's Cub. For goodness sake, Mary had to shoot him!
I think the reason it doesn't bother me with Vidal is that it's not her rank that changes his behaviour, he wasn't threatening to force himself on her because she was poor but because she had, as he thought, foisted herself on him because she was unprincipled and would likely give into him without force for the right amount of money... it doesn't excuse his behaviour but he was making a judgement on her character. As soon as he realised that she was not in fact of that sort he did everything he could to protect her reputation and her person.
Hj wrote: "I agree re Devil's Cub. For goodness sake, Mary had to shoot him!"You bet she did. :)
I tend to be surprised by the extent of hatred for Grand Sophy because of the moneylender scene. Since it was published in 1950, post Holocaust, people often think it was inexcusable. It has never bothered me, well the main reason is I am Indian, and read it when I was 20 or so (which was only a few years ago, though), and didn't even recognize the sterotypes in the first place (I didn't know enough about how Jewish people were stereotyped as having that particular physical appearance). The other reason is probably that we grew up on English literature, with many distasteful descriptions of Indians, so maybe I just learned to ignore this early on? I loved "The Secret Garden" as a child, but Mary's views of 'natives' in India are utterly ridiculous.
Louise wrote: "I think the reason it doesn't bother me with Vidal is that it's not her rank that changes his behaviour, he wasn't threatening to force himself on her because she was poor but because she had, as h..."I agree!
I agree too! Vidal thought that Mary was a loose woman who had thrown herself at his head.
Exactly! And after he discovers her true nature and says that he needs to marry her to save her reputation, he states that he the only thing he wants to force on her is his name, nothing more.
I'm sorry, but I disagree with you, concerning Vidal. Repeatedly, Mary told him, right up until she shot him, that she wasn't what he thought her to be, meaning a woman without virtue. He threatened to whip her, choke her, pour liquor down her throat, then finally, even as she told him to stay back, he was going to rape her. Even if she had been a loose woman, it wouldn't have given him the right to do any of that when she told him no. And no matter how sorry he was after he learned the truth about her, the damage was done, in my opinion. Vidal is simply not my kind of guy.
Donna wrote: "I'm sorry, but I disagree with you, concerning Vidal. Repeatedly, Mary told him, right up until she shot him, that she wasn't what he thought her to be, meaning a woman without virtue. He threatene..."I agree, Donna. The only good thing is that he does learn to change, and by the end of the book is a different and better person.
Actually, I did not like Vidal either at the beginning and I agree that his behaviour towards Mary was inexcusable, even though he thought she was a loose woman. He didn't believe she was virtuous until she shot him because of how she acted when she took her mask off and tried to fool him saying that she and Sophia had planned the trick together. Of course that's no excuse to threaten to strangle, drug or rape her, but for some reason his actions didn't bother that much after a certain point, because the novel had such a silly, comedy kind of tone that I found the situations rather funny (maybe not the strangling threat, but the shooting scene was hilarious!). What bothered me the most about Vidal's behaviour was the scene at the very beginning when he shoots a highwayman and leaves the body on the road.
I liked it when Vidal shot the highwayman and left the body on the road. The conversation with his coachman asking if something should be done with the body and Vidal responding by asking if the coachman expected him to take a highwayman's corpse to "my lady Montecute's drum was hilarious. I admit sometimes I enjoy bad behavior in my romance novels. But I can see how some people do not find this scene humorous.
Andrea IS Catsos Person wrote: "I liked it when Vidal shot the highwayman and left the body on the road. The conversation with his coachman asking if something should be done with the body and Vidal responding by asking if the co..."I didn't find this scene funny, or the book as a whole for that matter. However, I thought this scene - and the one with Vidal in the park trying to get Sophia on her own - worked very well at letting us see just how spoilt Vidal was. The term which comes to mind is "how entitled he felt", but that's too modern!
I do find it surprising that Leonie and Avon did so badly at bringing him up. One would have thought that with Avon's strictness and Leonie's love of life they would have made a better job of it. On the other hand, I suspect Avon was very like Vidal when he was young and so didn't appreciate that it wasn't the best way to be.
Hj wrote: "Andrea IS Catsos Person wrote: "I liked it when Vidal shot the highwayman and left the body on the road. The conversation with his coachman asking if something should be done with the body and Vida..."These aren't my favorite Heyers and I've always vaguely thought that they aren't because of the language and the more "fantastic" plots, but now I wonder if it's not because they're darker and the characters are more... reprehensible?
It's possible that is why you do not like it Sometimes people do not enjoy characters who do bad things. I for one, enjoyed Vidal's naughtiness. But, I knew in GHs capable hands he would improve. In addition, I have wickedly vividly over-active imagination and a high threshold and tolerance for things in my romances that in these politically correct times, are no longer appreciated/tolerated by a lot of romance readers of today.When I say I have a vivid imagination or over-active imagination, I mean when I read, I like the illusion that the characters are behaving as they should for the time of the story. While reprehensible and dark, I could see Vidal shooting the highwayman and leaving him for dead at that time, 1780s England. During the time that Vidal lived, only people (men mostly) of wealth and rank mattered. I have no problem accepting this in a historical romance novel. I would find this attitude in this day and time reprehensible. But a lot of readers of romances today do not take such a broad view.
For some unknown reason I haven't had any notifications of posts on this thread for weeks and have missed some very interesting ones.My least favourite GH's have always been ( excluding the contemporaries and the medieval 'armour' ones) Black Moth and Devils Cub for precisely the reasons quoted. I know alter temps alter mores etc and I can and do overlook all sort of stuff, but the acceptance of rape and violence towards women I can't, no matter what the supposed virtue or lack thereof of the woman is.
I see my vehemence has clearly affected my grammmar, but I guess the drift is clear!
I'm also ruefully aware that I seem to have no problems with bodies left on highways ....
I know, Barbara! That's something that makes me laugh! I don't have problems with bodies left on the highways of centuries ago, either...
I think there is a difference here between rape and violence and the threat of rape and violence. The villain in the Black Moth definitely was prepared to carry out the act and in fact we know he had in the past, I don't like that. Had Vidal carried out the full extent of his threat I wouldn't have read it, let alone finished the book. But it doesn't imply that he went around forcing himself on women and in fact he didn't because he stuck to women like Mary's sister who were more than willing if he made it worth their while. His inclination was for women who co-operated.
Mary knows she provoked him, and in fact tricked him into thinking she had no morals, he was partially drunk and prepared to treat her the same way. He has his mothers temper. Part of the point is that he liked her for standing up to him and she saw past his bad behaviour to the person underneath.
No he isn't entirely a good person but Mary makes him better.
Karlyne wrote: "Hj wrote: "Andrea IS Catsos Person wrote: "I liked it when Vidal shot the highwayman and left the body on the road. The conversation with his coachman asking if something should be done with the bo..."It's funny, that for the same reasons (language, fantastic plots, reprehensible behaviour), These Old Shades and Devil's Cub are my two favourite Heyers!! I found them really fun and enjoyable, but I can see how other readers have problems with them. I agree with Andrea about having a vivid imagination while reading historical novels that enables you to accept certain behaviours and attitudes that would be totally unacceptable today (but I still find the highwayman scene a bit much...although, Andrea you brought a good point, Vidal's response to his coachman was actually pretty funny!).
And it would probably make a real pot-boiler of a movie!
Yes, Barbara, a lot of romance readers of present times do not tolerate threats of rape etc. in historical romances. Authors of HR written in these times write for readers similar to you in mind. Therefore, political correctness and anachronistic attitudes and names of characters that are anachronistic riddle today's HRs that are written. These writers do not write for readers like me by feeding my fantasy that characters are behaving and have attitudes that are somewhat consistent with the time period of the story.
I love Devil's Cub and These Old Shades. I like the 17th century equivalent of a bad boy. Bad boys/bad ass's in velvet coats and flowered embroidered waistcoats, haha! I also liked that bad guy Belmanoir (Duke of Andover) from the Black moth as well, although he was not the hero. However, he did kidnap the heroine so that he could either have his way with her by forcing her to marry him, and if she will not marry, having his way with her anyway.BTW, Justin in These Old Shades is based on Belmanoir. These Old Shades is supposed to be "shades"of The Black Moth.
Andrea IS Catsos Person wrote: "I love Devil's Cub and These Old Shades. I like the 17th century equivalent of a bad boy. Bad boys/bad ass's in velvet coats and flowered embroidered waistcoats, haha! I also liked that bad guy Bel..."I am with you!! In fact, I loved Belmanoir from TBM more than Jack (the actual hero) and I was so happy when I found that Justin was based on him and given his own story in These Old Shades!
I'm glad I have some company where Belmanoir is concerned ;-). Yes, I too enjoyed him more than the hero Jack. Incidentally, until you mentioned his name, I could not recall the name of the hero in ToS. The villain was more compelling.
THAT'S IT! I'm not a lover of bad boys! Never have been, never will be!
Oops! I meant TBM, not ToS.
I don't like "bad boys" in RL, but they are fun in my inner world. That's why I like these bad ass types we just mentioned in TBM, ToS and DC. These characters are a part of my inner word. These types do not dominate my inner word though.
I'm glad we agree on Belmanoir too! I was beginning to think I was the only one who liked him! I don't like bad boys in real life either, but I LOVE them in novels! My favourite plots are always where a rake is concerned. I love the idea of the "redemption" they usually go through. That's why TBM, ToS, and DC are my favourite Heyers (so far). :) I'm glad I'm not alone!
Ditto with what Anne just said.
Georgette Heyer Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
The Unflappable Miss Fairchild (other topics)Devil's Cub (other topics)
Venetia (other topics)
Devil's Cub (other topics)
The Black Moth (other topics)
More...
I'm thinking, for instance, of Damerel's forcing kisses on Venetia when he thinks she's only a maid or a village girl, or , the one I'm really having a bit of a problem with currently, the fact that Sherry actually hits Hero and more than once too, in Friday's Child.
Any thoughts?