Georgette Heyer Fans discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archived
>
Who Is Your Least Favorite Character Lead Or Supporting?
Susan wrote:I really felt uncomfortable with this story ...
I wrote;
Regardless of how WE feel ...
I responded to your discomfort with the story.
It is not GH's only story with an arranged marriage, just a more realistic one than usual for her. It is possibly the lack of a typical romance that leaves many of GH's readers less than satisfied with this book. That's okay! i can't stand Cousin Kate, rarely reread An Inconvenient marriage and never finished My Lord John or any of the mysteries.
Jacquie wrote: "Susan wrote:I really felt uncomfortable with this story ...
I wrote;
Regardless of how WE feel ...
I responded to your discomfort with the story.
It is not GH's only story with an arranged marr..."
Thanks Jacquie - appreciated. I agree with you that the lack of a typical romance can put some folk off. There's a steely thread of realism which often surfaces in GH's books which adds a piquancy to her best or 'most-loved' novels but a somewhat dissatisfying taint to a few of her books. Despite my advancing years, I still like the idea of 'love winning through' and somehow the idea of settling for second best really does not appeal to me; I think that is why I do not like Jenny and Adam's story - as a GH novel; - in another writer's hands, my expectations could of course be very different. However, I would be the first to admit it is a brilliant story, well told and reflects a reality which was sadly all too prevalent. The stories of all the heiresses who were 'bought' by British aristocracy in the late 19th and early 20th centuries shows how pragmatic and ruthless folks could be. And of course in some instances, excellent relationships were developed in those marriages. btw, I am really pleased to meet someone else who never finished Lord John!!
Emily wrote: "Critterbee wrote: "Perhaps some people dislike her because she loves someone who does not return her affections? Is that it?"No, sorry, to make it clear: for me it is not that I dislike her becau..."
I think that's a very good description.
I can't get too worked up over Adam not getting to marry his "first love". Lots of people don't get to marry their "first love" and are absolutely delighted they didn't because as they matured they discovered that they had been too immature and that person wouldn't have been a good long term spouse.
Amy wrote: "I can't get too worked up over Adam not getting to marry his "first love". Lots of people don't get to marry their "first love" and are absolutely delighted they didn't because as they matured they..."i'm not worked up about adam not being able to marry his 'first love' (if julia is). What i find distasteful is. Jenny marrying a man she knows is in love with someone else, and that someone moreover a friend of hers, or supposed to be. Particularly disturbing is the bit where they're going on honeymoon and he feels revulsion when he looks at her. not marrying your first love is one thing, feeling repelled by the one you do marry is quite another. Moreover Jenny is a doormat, and i don't find that appealing either.
Is it more distasteful for Jenny to follow her father's orders and make a marriage of convenience to a man she respects and is not afraid of (in a time when marriages of convenience were normal and expected of daughters) or for Adam to choose to marry the friend of his infatuation only for money (in that same time when marrying for money was the rule)?I think Adam is more repulsed by the fact that Jenny is not Julia, and being stubborn to Jenny's good qualities because he is so infatuated with Julia.
Critterbee wrote: "Is it more distasteful for Jenny to follow her father's orders and make a marriage of convenience to a man she respects and is not afraid of (in a time when marriages of convenience were normal and..."Jenny isn't ordered to marry adam. Her father notices she likes him, It is made quite clear that she could refuse if she wanted to. Likewise Adam could choose to marry the woman he loves, instead of one he finds repulsive. I don't like either of them. I have a lot more sympathy for Julia, who is willing to take a chance and marry the man she loves even though he is poor (by upper class standards).
Julia's father would never have allowed Julia's marriage to Adam in his financial straits! He is however enough of a friend to Adam to put him in the way of assistance by introducing him to Mr. Adams. Julia would have made the worst possible wife for Adam in any case. She was spoiled, immature and saw the world only as she wished it to be. Both Jenny and Adam went into the marriage with their eyes wide open with Jenny's affection for Adam and her determination to make him as comfortable in their union as possible one thing that makes it work. The other is Adam's good manners and basic kindness. Was she selfish to marry Adam knowing he was in love with Julia? Maybe a little, but also rather self-sacrificing -- though she could have made a far worse marriage as many did. GH wrote The Spanish Bride far earlier than A Civil Contract but I can't help wondering if that true story of a marriage wasn't an inspiration for this later work.
I did like a lot of the characters -- Adam's sister Lydia is a delight as is his dragon of an aunt who gives Jenny so much support as, surprisingly, does Julia's mother. Adam's mother seems to me another Julia grown older.
We all have our own opinions but mine is that Adam was very lucky NOT to have married Julia. The man Julia did marry was a realist and knew her far better than Adam ever would have.
The characters in a book set in another time and social milieu cannot be judged as though they lived in ours but by the mores of their own.
Jacquie wrote: "Julia's father would never have allowed Julia's marriage to Adam in his financial straits! He is however enough of a friend to Adam to put him in the way of assistance by introducing him to Mr. Ada..."I am judging the characters as they compare to characters in other heyer novels, which are set in the same time and social milieu, at least as interpreted by Heyer. And i don't like them. they are the most unlikeable couple in all of heyer. moreover, not everyone even in the real regency era was entirely mercenary. jane Austen for example turned down a very advantageous proposal, which would have solved any worries she might have about her future, she evidently decided she could not care for the man concerned.
If only Sophy Stanton-Lacy could have rushed in in her high-perch phaeton and figured everything out in the beginning for everybody. Then they would not have had to live with as much angst trying to figure everything out.
Jacquie wrote: "Julia's father would never have allowed Julia's marriage to Adam in his financial straits! He is however enough of a friend to Adam to put him in the way of assistance by introducing him to Mr. Adams. Julia would have made the worst possible wife for Adam in any case. She was spoiled, immature and saw the world only as she wished it to be. Both Jenny and Adam went into the marriage with their eyes wide open with Jenny's affection for Adam and her determination to make him as comfortable in their union as possible one thing that makes it work. The other is Adam's good manners and basic kindness. Was she selfish to marry Adam knowing he was in love with Julia? Maybe a little, but also rather self-sacrificing -- though she could have made a far worse marriage as many did. GH wrote The Spanish Bride far earlier than A Civil Contract but I can't help wondering if that true story of a marriage wasn't an inspiration for this later work.
I did like a lot of the characters -- Adam's sister Lydia is a delight as is his dragon of an aunt who gives Jenny so much support as, surprisingly, does Julia's mother. Adam's mother seems to me another Julia grown older.
We all have our own opinions but mine is that Adam was very lucky NOT to have married Julia. The man Julia did marry was a realist and knew her far better than Adam ever would have.
The characters in a book set in another time and social milieu cannot be judged as though they lived in ours but by the mores of their own."
I don't know about you, but the story could have been kept entirely intact and made more enjoyable if Jenny had only grown some balls. I think the reason Jenny's unlikeable is her obsessive need to be his doormat, and learn his likes and dislikes and make him super comfortable without any regard for how he treats her and without ever making any demand for her own comfort. It makes the ending kind of strange. Of course he'll be happy with her - she's doing all in her human power to make him so. But how can they be happy together in so completely one-sided an affection? I can only see her grow tired, weary, die early in life, and leave him with her fortune, with an heir and free to marry a pretty fribble which is what he obviously prefers.
I particularly wonder at anybody who describes this as Heyer's most 'realistic' regency romance. It's her least romantic, and least idealistic, certainly, but realistic? Really? Is marriage like that? Is marriage of convenience like that? She comes to that marriage with some power, after all - she is the one who brings the money. She is entitled to some basic respect from him, and to some consideration. She is entitled to bloody renovate the ruin that is his house. What's realistic about a woman putting up with every kind of degradation, out of undying love for a man she has never even spoken to, to whom she was married for money? It is as far-fetched as any other scenario of Heyer's, only less pleasant and fun.
It is hard for many of us to imagine the time when women had no power, either personal or financial not to say political. Jenny might not have had power -- not even over her dowry! -- but she had smarts and patience. Adam made a few stupid moves but Jenny had support from other women as well as taking good care of Adam's comfort. Definitely not a doormat! Jenny's quiet ways built a solid marriage, even without a lot of passion it was one to last. Many find Adam dull. I find him solid and kind, with respect for his family responsibilities.
Anyway, without differences of opinion these would be very dull discussions!
At least Julia is saved from unhappiness. Someone mentioned he could have sold Fontley--Julia would NOT have liked that and become a bitter wife, I think. Adam would have been mentally and emotionally done in--he would figure in society, his family, and his own mind (in ascending order of emotional importance) as the man that lost Fontley (no matter that it was really his father that did so). He was fortunate that he married a woman that loved him rather than another cit heiress that did not and could have made his life very unpleasant. No, I think their marriage will be happier than Sir Richard Wyndham and Penelope Creed (The Corinthian), who are the most mismatched pair in Heyer's books. She is TOO immature even granting her young age and he will be bored silly in a week or two. At least Satan (These Old Shades) has more sense than Richard about how to handle a very young woman and at least tried to persuade her not to marry him. And talk about Beaumaris' condescension--Richard is far more condescending than Beaumaris. Re: Arabella--I am reminded of Elizabeth Bennet's comment on Darcy: "She began now to comprehend that he was exactly the man, who in disposition and talents, would most suit her....from his judgement, information and knowledge of the world, she must have received benefit of greater importance."
Emily wrote: "... undying love for a man she has never even spoken to..."I don't think this is correct. Remember Jenny was often with Julia when Adam visited her during his sick leave after he was wounded, when they fell in love. Adam may not remember her well, but they would have spoken, and Jenny would have got to know him almost as well as Julia did even if he was too taken up with Julia to get to know Jenny.
Judith wrote: "At least Julia is saved from unhappiness. Someone mentioned he could have sold Fontley--Julia would NOT have liked that and become a bitter wife, I think. Adam would have been mentally and emotiona..."Julia said she could be happy in a cottage. She is never given a chance to prove that. we don't know how it would have turned out. She and Adam might have made a go of it. I don't think Richard will be bored with Pen at all. She is pretty and spirited and i think he will have great fun with her. Impossible to imagine Adam (or anyone else) having fun with dreary Jenny. but adam has made his bed, and he will have to lie in it. Probably shuts his eyes and thinks of Julia. As for Satan trying to persuade Leonie not to marry him - he could have just said no. She could hardly force him to marry her. Beaumaris makes a fool of Arabella by spreading the story about her being an heiress, he enjoys her discomfort. Richard does not do anything like that to Pen. Arabella in my opinion is better suited to waldo from The Nonesuch - they share an interest in philanthropy.
HJ wrote: "Emily wrote: "... undying love for a man she has never even spoken to..."I don't think this is correct. Remember Jenny was often with Julia when Adam visited her during his sick leave after he wa..."
that's what makes jenny particularly creepy. She knows Julia and Adam are in love, but she doesn't care. She's like a squat little spider, weaving her web to catch Adam.
Louise wrote: "that's what makes jenny particularly creepy. She knows Julia and Adam are in love, but she doesn't care. She's like a squat little spider, weaving her web to catch Adam. "Yes, and also they haven't talked in the same way that Julia and Adam have talked. There is no indication that they "know" one another really almost at all! At least that's what I meant, but I may be wrong, it's been a while since I read that book.
Jacquie wrote: "It is hard for many of us to imagine the time when women had no power, either personal or financial not to say political. Jenny might not have had power -- not even over her dowry! -- but she had smarts and patience. Adam made a few stupid moves but Jenny had support from other women as well as taking good care of Adam's comfort. Definitely not a doormat!
Jenny's quiet ways built a solid marriage, even without a lot of passion it was one to last. Many find Adam dull. I find him solid and kind, with respect for his family responsibilities.
Anyway, without differences of opinion these would be very dull discussions! "
Nope, it's not hard to imagine at all. But women weren't entirely without power, that's simply not true. Different women in different positions had different amounts of power, and as I said, Jenny had the money. Not only that, she had the very loud and domineering support of her father. She could have asserted herself easily, she simply chose not to. And there's a difference between being a nice person, trying to make a relationship work against the odds, and being a doormat, allowing others to trample over you and treating your own feelings as though they were of no moment whatsoever, which is what she does. Of all the Heyer heroines, she's just the most spineless doormat, and I can't like her. But you are right of course that we can differ in opinion on this point.
Emily wrote: "Louise wrote: "that's what makes jenny particularly creepy. She knows Julia and Adam are in love, but she doesn't care. She's like a squat little spider, weaving her web to catch Adam. "Yes, and ..."
that's it. Jenny has a very wealthy father, who buys adam for her. She is not a helpless, powerless female, she chooses to be a doormat because she hopes it will make Adam love her. Which (somewhat improbably, in my opinion) it apparently does.
Mod
Well, the marriage would have ended at the wedding night if she had!
Jenny wrote: "Emily wrote: " the story could have been kept entirely intact and made more enjoyable if Jenny had only grown some balls..."Well, the marriage would have ended at the wedding night if she had!"
Jenny, I was rather hoping someone would make such a point! >:)
I still feel that we are judging Jenny's actions by 21st century standards of appropriate behavior. It must have been obvious to her that a marriage between Adam and Julia was off the table when he came to dinner and that marriage to her would be his financial salvation! Why shouldn't she follow her heart and hope?I don't see Jenny as a doormat but as a shrewd tactician. She makes Adam comfortable and gives him a son!
Mod
Exactly. As Adam told Julia, it wasn't a question of living in straitened circumstances - he had no circumstances, not even a home. They couldn't have lived together in a cottage, because they hadn't got a cottage, and Adam had only his pay, and that only if he stayed in the army. Julia would have had to live in the cottage on her own, on what Adam could send her and what she could make out of running a cottage garden smallholding, which as her brother pointed out, she was wholly unsuited for. And they would have had to wait till Julia was 21 anyway, because her father rightly wouldn't consent.
As Jenny told Julia, he didn't choose between the two of them, he chose between Jenny and ruin. I can't see how anybody could see it as immoral to marry a man who couldn't marry the woman he was in love with (especially as both Jenny, delicately, and Julia, broadly, hinted that they could have an affair if they wanted).
Jacquie wrote: "I still feel that we are judging Jenny's actions by 21st century standards of appropriate behavior. It must have been obvious to her that a marriage between Adam and Julia was off the table when he..."I think you are right that Jenny married him to save him, and she did it out of love for him. But why is making Adam comfortable and giving him a son anything to her credit as a character in a novel? I don't understand. As to judging her by 21st century standards - nonsense! Elizabeth Bennet is the creation of a woman from the early 19th century and for the life of me I can't imagine her behaving in this way. Or Jane Eyre. Jenny didn't have to be the way she was, she chose to be. I don't personally see her as a shrewd tactician. I just think she's a doormat. I haven't yet seen an argument to disprove this statement.
Jenny wrote: "As Jenny told Julia, he didn't choose between the two of them, he chose between Jenny and ruin. I can't see how anybody could see it as immoral to marry a man who couldn't marry the woman he was in love with (especially as both Jenny, delicately, and Julia, broadly, hinted that they could have an affair if they wanted). ."
I don't think anybody's disputing that Adam did what he had to do. Or that Jenny did him a kindness by agreeing to this, and further by trying to make the marriage palatable to him. But that doesn't mean giving up your whole personhood for someone else.
Jacquie wrote: "I still feel that we are judging Jenny's actions by 21st century standards of appropriate behavior. It must have been obvious to her that a marriage between Adam and Julia was off the table when he..."I absolutely agree, Jacqui and Jenny. I'm not sure why Jenny's love for Adam is being given less weight than Julia's. Also, there's a degree of revisionism going on in that the author's very clear message (that a marriage between Julia and Adam was impossible) is being ignored. I think it is unfair to judge Jenny against an impossible scenario. The facts are that she knew that Adam and Julia could not marry, and that he had to marry a rich wife or else his life would be ruined.
Given that she loved him, why should she not marry Adam? The suggestion that she should have let him marry some complete (rich) stranger simply because she knew he loved Julia and she was Julia's friend is, I think, nonsense. That way all three of them would have been miserable.
HJ wrote: "Jacquie wrote: "I still feel that we are judging Jenny's actions by 21st century standards of appropriate behavior. It must have been obvious to her that a marriage between Adam and Julia was off t..."Jacquie wrote: "I still feel that we are judging Jenny's actions by 21st century standards of appropriate behavior. It must have been obvious to her that a marriage between Adam and Julia was off the table when he..."
i don't think he should have married a rich stranger, i think he should have married Jullia, if he had any gumption. He's a wet lettuce. And I think jenny is quite creepy, waiting to snatch adam from Julia, and then trying to ingratiate herself with him by being a total doormat.
None of heyer's other heroes or heroines behave like them, and they are the people I am judging them against. For me, they are the most unlikeable couple in all of Heyer's novels. i despise both of them. judged by Heyer standards, they're not up to much.
HJ wrote: "Jacquie wrote: "I still feel that we are judging Jenny's actions by 21st century standards of appropriate behavior. It must have been obvious to her that a marriage between Adam and Julia was off t..."Absolutely brilliantly put HJ - I agree with you and Jenny and Jacquie on this one.
Susan wrote: "HJ wrote: "Jacquie wrote: "I still feel that we are judging Jenny's actions by 21st century standards of appropriate behavior."I suspect that our differences of opinion on this subject have to do with whether we're judging by 21st century standards or 20th century ones. Of course such a marriage would have been quite unusual even then (but think of Consuelo Vanderbilt), but I still have a feeling that it's the older readers who are more tolerant of Jenny.
Jenny wrote: Well, the marriage would have ended at the wedding night if she had!"LOL. That's the funniest line I've read on the internet today!
I've been reading all this, and truly the post-suffrage attitude of women as persons is permeating the discussion. Back than they had very few rights, no voice unless their husbands or other males in their lives allowed them to have a voice. Even Heyer operates in a rose-colored glasses arena when she creates strong women character like the Grand Sophy. The biography of the Duchess of Devonshire portrays a very real marriage--married to a man who did not love her, had mistresses, just cared to get an heir-and-a-spare, left her on her own in the predatory society of London where she gambled away what would amount to GNP of a small nation. Jenny was likely going to have to marry someone, perhaps marrying someone she loved seemed better than someone for whom she felt nothing. She may have hoped for the best, and saved him from financial ruin in the meantime. I do not think anyone is bad, just caught in the too-common circumstances of the day. We take marrying for love for granted, but it was not always so, and still is not for some.
MaryC wrote: "Susan wrote: "HJ wrote: "Jacquie wrote: "I still feel that we are judging Jenny's actions by 21st century standards of appropriate behavior."I suspect that our differences of opinion on this subj..."
Very true - but of course the book is actually set in the 19th century (1814-15); and that gap of 200 years makes it very difficult for us to truly understand either the circumstances of such a marriage or to empathise with the positions of men and women at the time. The story of Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire shows us that women - regardless of rank or fortune had far fewer freedoms than we enjoy today. Once married they had virtually none!
I personally could never settle for being 2nd best:- but then I am not Jenny, daughter of a wealthy (and ambitious) cit ; nor am I in love with someone who loves someone else. I am not quite sure what is meant by the suggestion that it's the 'older readers' who are more tolerant of Jenny. I see nothing to be 'tolerant' about, but I do feel sympathy for the characters, even whilst I question their behaviour. I think GH wrote one of her most sophisticated and challenging novels in 'A Civil Contract' and I think that is definitely proven in the very diverse opinions that are posted here.
Judith wrote: "No, I think their marriage will be happier than Sir Richard Wyndham and Penelope Creed (The Corinthian), who are the most mismatched pair in Heyer's books. "Oh indeed. I liked the story but I thought that they might have a rough go of it together. So mismatched. I think Pen needed a few more years to mature before she got married.
Kim wrote: "I've been reading all this, and truly the post-suffrage attitude of women as persons is permeating the discussion. Back than they had very few rights, no voice unless their husbands or other males ..."You beat me to it! The Duchess of Devonshire IS a great illustration of how bad a woman' situation was.
Kim wrote: " Jenny was likely going to have to marry someone, perhaps marrying someone she loved seemed better than someone for whom she felt nothing. She may have hoped for the best, and saved him from financial ruin in the meantime. I do not think anyone is bad, just caught in the too-common circumstances of the day. We take marrying for love for granted, but it was not always so, and still is not for some."
Some great points here. Jenny was an heiress. She was going to marry somebody. It's possible she was wise enough to the world to look around and think "You know I could get stuck with some real dud or jerk. I think I'm better to take my chances with this Adam chap."
Kim wrote: "I've been reading all this, and truly the post-suffrage attitude of women as persons is permeating the discussion. Back than they had very few rights, no voice unless their husbands or other males ..."the Duchess of Devonshire was no doormat. She ran up massive gambling debts, quite staggering amounts which her husband paid off several times. And she had a lover and an illegitimate child and she made quite a stir on the political scene. she wasn't sitting at home suffering in silence. nancy Mitford said she was an extremely stupid woman, I don't know whether that is true, but she certainly made quite an impression.
And there are plenty of strong women in contemporary regency fiction - the novels of jane Austen for example. i don't believe all women were doormats like Jenny, nor that strong women were entirely unknown.
MaryC wrote: "Susan wrote: "HJ wrote: "Jacquie wrote: "I still feel that we are judging Jenny's actions by 21st century standards of appropriate behavior."I suspect that our differences of opinion on this subj..."
As i've already said, i'm judging by heyer standards. this thread is about which heyer characters you like least. For me, that's Adam and Jenny. Why Heyer created such a couple of wet lettuces i don't know, i think she must have been having an off day. Everything they do is annoying. I mean, even the peacocks - Jenny's father sends them peacocks and they turn their noses up at them, decide to give them away. Why? They should be thrilled to have beautiful peacocks. Oh, they are so dull! If I'd read this one 46 years ago, I would probably never have bothered to read another. Lucky for me it was Sprig Muslin.
Louise wrote: "the Duchess of Devonshire was no doormat. She ran up massive gambling debts, quite staggering amounts which her husband paid off several times. And she had a lover and an illegitimate child and she made quite a stir on the political scene. she wasn't sitting at home suffering in silence. nancy Mitford said she was an extremely stupid woman, I don't know whether that is true, but she certainly made quite an impression.And there are plenty of strong women in contemporary regency fiction - the novels of jane Austen for example. i don't believe all women were doormats like Jenny, nor that strong women were entirely unknown.
"
Yes! Yes! Yes! The Duchess of Devonshire as an example of how powerless women were!? She was not powerless, and in any given period there were strong women putting their mark on society, on politics, on culture and certainly on their own homes! It is common knowledge, for example, that it is a wife's BASIC right to decorate her home. But when Jenny sees Adam's home he tells her sharply that she's not to change anything. He's being an arse and she, putting up with it, is, as Louise so aptly put it, a wet lettuce. Can you truly imagine Elizabeth Bennet or Emma Woodhouse putting up with that!? No! She had rights, she could have chosen to be more assertive, but she chose not to be. And the trouble with the novel is that she is rewarded for this submissive nonsense.
I think Jenny acted as she thought best, in a way could feel OK with herself and sleep at night. She was not a combative person, and preferred harmony to unrest.
I am not saying the Duchess of Devonshire was powerless later on, she grew into her role, matured, found compensations for her situation, made allies, found love. But as a young woman, her choice was made for her by her family, and she found herself in very deep waters, indeed, with very little guidance. Jenny may well do the same in her fictional future, we don't know. Those of you who do not like her as a character are welcome to your views, as are those who enjoyed the book. It is, at the end of the day, about discussing an author we love, her books, and her characters, in as civilized a manner as we can. It is not life or death, or the fate of civilization. We can be passionate about our favorite of her books, we can dislike certain ones...several I read as a teen and never cared to pick them up again. But what we should be most to each other is kind, I think. It is an increasingly rare quality in daily life, but I find it on Goodreads, and I value it very much.
Kim wrote: "I am not saying the Duchess of Devonshire was powerless later on, she grew into her role, matured, found compensations for her situation, made allies, found love. But as a young woman, her choice w..."Who is being unkind? Saying you don't like a character in a book isn't being unkind, it's just stating a fact. This thread is, after all, about the characters you like least.
No one said Georgiana was a doormat - BUT as a woman, albeit a very privileged one, she exemplifies the lack of legal rights at the time and which we take for granted in the 21st century; we are free to make our own decisions, live our lives according to our own choices, have our own money, own our own property etc etc. She had no such rights. Neither did Jenny.
Susan wrote: "No one said Georgiana was a doormat - BUT as a woman, albeit a very privileged one, she exemplifies the lack of legal rights at the time and which we take for granted in the 21st century; we are fr..."Jenny does have a choice though. She isn't forced to marry Adam, she wants to. Her father buys him for her.
Louise wrote: "Susan wrote: "No one said Georgiana was a doormat - BUT as a woman, albeit a very privileged one, she exemplifies the lack of legal rights at the time and which we take for granted in the 21st cent..."Yes. But my point is that once married - a woman had no rights.
We must agree to differ on the rights and wrongs of Jenny's actions. And motivations. As I have already said, people's opinions about the characters in this book are very diverse and at times so opposite that rapprochement is almost impossible. Vive la difference!
On a rather more facetious note, if Jenny had not married Adam, the book would have ended incredibly early!
Susan wrote: "But my point is that once married - a woman had no rights."Lol, what on earth do you mean they had no rights?! They were not slaves, were they? Hell, even divorce was possible. They absolutely had rights. Fewer than today, of course, and it much depended on your particular circumstances, but Jenny was loaded, and Adam needed the money.
Kim wrote: "I am not saying the Duchess of Devonshire was powerless later on, she grew into her role, matured, found compensations for her situation, made allies, found love. But as a young woman, her choice was made for her by her family, and she found herself in very deep waters, indeed, with very little guidance. Jenny may well do the same in her fictional future, we don't know. Those of you who do not like her as a character are welcome to your views, as are those who enjoyed the book. It is, at the end of the day, about discussing an author we love, her books, and her characters, in as civilized a manner as we can. It is not life or death, or the fate of civilization. We can be passionate about our favorite of her books, we can dislike certain ones...several I read as a teen and never cared to pick them up again. But what we should be most to each other is kind, I think. It is an increasingly rare quality in daily life, but I find it on Goodreads, and I value it very much. ."
It's hard to convey tone while writing. You may think you're writing something in a light-hearted way, but it reads to someone who doesn't know you, or who is from another part of the world, as though you were being very serious and grave or even offensive. I don't think anybody cares so very much about this issue. At least in my case, I only want to get my point across. I don't think this is a terrible novel, or even that Jenny acts in an unbelievable way - but she is a character in a novel, and as such I can judge her on her actions. I can like or dislike the way she acts. My objection is that the lesson drawn from this novel is: be subservient, lose yourself in the man you love, and eventually he'll find you tolerable. So that is why I find people saying it's a realistic novel, or that it's romantic, really strange. I don't think it's either. It's a competently put together novel that I wish had gone in different directions.
Emily wrote: "Susan wrote: "But my point is that once married - a woman had no rights."Lol, what on earth do you mean they had no rights?! They were not slaves, were they? Hell, even divorce was possible. They..."
See an earlier post on the "possibility" of divorce. It was far more complicated getting one and expensive--it required an act of Parliament. And the process favored the man, who, by law, by the way, retained custody of the children. No, for most women there was no possibility of her suing for divorce. There are biographies of a few elite women who chose to desert their husbands (because no divorce was possible even for them, let alone for non-elite women such as wives of innkeepers etc.). See www.kristenkoster.com/a-regency-divor... and the comment about proving non-consummation of marriage--pretty embarassing for a man charging that or being charged with that!) Also http://www.thebeaumonde.com/divorce-r... or for more google divorce georgian england.
This is a complicated subject, but I think that one thing we need to keep in mind is that although legal rights have changed for women in many ways for the better, moral and societal rights have not followed pace. Is it a "better" thing that divorce now is no-fault, that it cannot be stopped, although if the bread-winner leaves his (it is, after all, usually a man) family he plunges them into financial adversity? Of course men used to leave their families, too, but society did not look upon it with complaisance, as his "right". Men did occasionally beat, physically and emotionally, their wives, too, but those women usually had brothers and fathers to stand up for them and society to look down upon them and ostracize them. I think that we're talking about independence on the one hand and marriage on the other. It may be possible to have them both, but marriage means two people being somehow dependent on each other - it's a "need" or "want" situation. If you happen to marry a ... jerk, you're going to be paying for it one way or another, regardless of which time period you're living in.
Emily wrote: "Susan wrote: "But my point is that once married - a woman had no rights."Lol, what on earth do you mean they had no rights?! They were not slaves, were they? Hell, even divorce was possible. They..."
Maybe not slaves - but quite frankly, many women would have found it difficult to see the difference 200 years ago in England.
Once married they became subjugated to their husbands and were legally then deemed to be one entity - with the husband as the boss. Any money or property she brought into the marriage became her husband's - unless her parents had been able to tie it up neatly. Divorce was not generally possible for women in the late 18th and early 19th centiuries and could in any case, only be obtained by a private Act of Parliament. It was the 1880s before some of these inequities were addressed. In 1814, women had few rights and that is why single women who had a private income often preferred not to marry.
Susan wrote: "Emily wrote: "Susan wrote: "But my point is that once married - a woman had no rights."Lol, what on earth do you mean they had no rights?! They were not slaves, were they? Hell, even divorce was ..."
Risking making erroneous assumptions about the ages of the various correspondents in this post, I will proceed nonetheless. I am glad to see comments on the gumption or lack of it re: Georgian/Regency elite women (for that is whom GH writes about, whether cit or not), but much has changed since the Women's Movement in the 1970's and for the better. (Though I would say my widowed aunt, with no special training, but with a high school degree, showed a lot of gumption working low pay positions to raise her two sons--she had to). In the Regency period there was no social security for widows or orphans, no possibility of a woman suing for divorce, or having any career outside of being a governess (which Jane Fairfax in Austen's Emma terms a kind of white slavery--and indeed it was, and when you became too old to teach you had to depend solely on your savings assuming you had any), social isolation and familial abandonment if you disgraced yourself by being divorced by your husband. No women had no rights back then and even in the 1900's farm women did not automatically inherit the family farm if their husband died intestate. I grew up in the pre-1970's and yes, women libbers have done women of today a great service.
I am sorry, I must disagree. Married women had certain rights, they simply did. Yes, they were different to what we understand as our rights as women today, but to say that they had no rights is simply incorrect. Things were different back then, absolutely, but I get the impression that some of the posters think that once a woman was married she had no choice but to follow her husband around like a slave, never speak unless addressed, and never to disobey. Putting aside the issue of class and money for a second, all my reading suggests that women on Adam's class were managers of the house, including managers of the expenses of the household (see here); in At Home with the Georgians, Dr Amanda Vickery explains how one wasn't really a man until one had a wife, and that to keep that wife looking well and be happy was a status thing. The possession of a house was part and parcel of the wooing of a woman, and it was part of the marriage deal, that a woman got to decorate the house, i.e. make it their home. This is what Adam denies Jenny. This is an actual right that she has. I am not talking about legal rights, which women also had, of course, such as not being stolen from or not being killed or raped. Those are rights. They had them. So once again: they had rights.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Georgette Heyer Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
The Talisman Ring (other topics)Faro's Daughter (other topics)
The Corinthian (other topics)
The Nonesuch (other topics)
The Nonesuch (other topics)
More...
He doesn't care for her that much though. She knows he'll never love her the way he loved Julia. there are plenty of romance novels where the hero and heroine are not immediately attracted to each other, but no other novel I can think of where the heroine brazenly marries a man she knows is in love with someone else, and that someone supposedly her friend. Jenny is not a nice person.