I was curious to find out how this book would fare on a reread after six years, and the answer turned out to be: not much better. Slightly worse, in fact. Looks like the older I become, the less tolerance I have for this kind of stories and their brand of humour.
When I first read this, my seventh novel by Heyer, I said it had become apparent that Georgette Heyer was a hit or miss author for me, and not in an I loved all her books save this book way but following a consistent love this-hate that pattern. Save for These Old Shades and
Venetia, the pattern still holds now, cementing my conviction that this is an author best taken in small doses and, at least for me, better left unrevisited.
Frederica didn't escape the above pattern and was a miss the first time, and it's a bigger miss this second time. Normally, I am able to isolate the whys and hows for my lack of favourable response to a given book, and so it's clear to me that the main reason was more a matter of failing to engage me on its own merit. Is the plot engaging? No, not unless you like this specific type of fiction. Original? No, unless if you count having Alverstoke be the main character in spite of the book being named after the heroine, which deviates somewhat from Heyer's formula.
The second motive is a matter of been there, done that, that is: familiarity, the plot elements and the overall gist of the story has already been done by this author, so it was old oats to me; a second time won't make a favourable impact and even less so if it follows so shortly after another book with a similar plot that I considered better (Venetia).
Which leads me to the third reason: that reading it after a favourite makes it become like one of those terrible second-part books in a series that you read after a great first book, and then wish they hadn't been written, or written better. In hindsight, the same happened with "Devil's Cub," which besides having its own flaws--and it does have some huge flaws--had to live up to Monseigneur and Léonie. Similarly, this book followed "Venetia," and although the story itself is different, the underlying theme and plot is still the same: lively country girl enchants jaded middle-aged aristocratic rake who falls in love with her despite feeling he's not worthy of her, and gets her brilliant wunderkind of a little brother, whom the ex-rake naturally comes to adore, foisted on him. Yes, I get that this is a fairly common trope and that many, many, many other authors have done it, even Heyer loves to recycle her plots. But precisely therein lies the issue. when repeated by the same author, a plot is bound to either work for you or not work for you, no middle ground.
Perhaps that's also at least partially why I like some of her books and not others. I'll never know if had I read "Frederica" before "Venetia," I'd have gone the route that some seem to have followed in disliking TOS after reading DC, but even on its own and leaving all else aside, the plot in this novel failed to engage me. The Baluchistan hound incident was supposed to be fun, but instead of laughing I was thinking of that time when I actually witnessed a bovine stampede from the safety of a car, and it was no longer a joke, just to name once famous scene, and besides the dog-rake banter is already overused even for Heyer. And so on, and so forth.
The female character was the most interesting thing in the novel, and to me she was the redeeming aspect. She's the sensible one that takes care of everyone despite not being the eldest, the one that worries about everyone's well-being and looks for favourable positions for her siblings, etc. I can see why she's well-liked. I suspect she might be the reason this novel is so popular, too, but I can't swear by it. It's a pity, however, that she is accompanied on-stage with an ensemble of crazies and fools: her sister is the stereotypical empty-headed beauty and her brothers alternate between being irresponsible brats and annoying brats. And I don't think the male lead is up to her level, either. The man is rather shallow, unlikable, and petty, and in spite of all that I still can't see why exactly he's got that bad reputation in society--Heyer usually lets readers know what her rakes have done to deserve being labelled rakes, but here? Unless I missed the explanation, I failed to grasp what Alverstoke's bad reputation is based on exactly. It seemed that he was more a self-centred and egot man at odds with equally egotistical sisters, save one, that learns to be somewhat less selfish.
And here comes another problem for me: I found it hard to swallow that a man so selfish he wouldn't care a fig for his sisters to the point of punishing the children for the mothers' sins would all of a sudden agree to selflessly sponsor a family of complete strangers from the country, just because a young woman pleads to him prettily, when in his own family he has at least one niece, Kitty, who adores him, but he doesn't seem to care even for her. Unbelievable, if you ask me, and why exactly it should be up to Frederica to redeem him from his own character flaws? It's the typical bad boy that's just a selfish arsehole suddenly becomes a saintly and selfless benefactor because some skirts moved enticingly in front of him.
I didn't find the romance compelling, either. There's hardly any of it, because Alverstoke spends so much time gazing at his (well covered by a well ironed and starched shirt( navel and gazing despairingly at the Merriville brats. It's only after we're past half the book and nearing the end when there's finally some feeling, and it's already late by then to care.
Maybe I'm past the point where I can take Heyer in small doses. It's simply no longer a type of romance I can be invested in.
I received an ARC through NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.