March 2026 - Sylvester - Spoilers > Likes and Comments
I re-read this about 6 months ago. It has always been one of my favorites due to the complex characters of Phoebe and Sylvester. Phoebe is very unusual for a Heyer Heroine. And very few, if any of her heroes have to really grow and change to find a happy ending. The only one who comes close is Sherry in Friday's Child. That's my take, anyway.
Yes, Sylvester really does have to grow and luckily his Mom makes that possible. The wicked step mother Phoebe has to deal with is a villain I don't recall being mentioned in the villain thread but I should go look. She belongs there! Lots of good characters in this one and I love the "stuck in an inn" trope! Heyer is really good at those.
The middle section on the way to France on the boat is one of the funniest things Heyer ever wrote. I also love her skill in showing how hurt Sylvester is by Phoebe on top of still grieving his brother. The servants always know what's going on.
This is such a great book! Heyer’s physically intrepid but socially insecure heroine rings true, and Sylvester’s popped ego and personal growth are a joy to watch. The everyday misunderstandings - when Sylvester wants to make things easier for Phoebe, but she assumes he distrusts her abilities, for example -are so well done.Who else loves the clumsy proposal? The Dowager Duchess is a delight! It’s lovely to think of the effect her motherly kindness will have on Phoebe. She and the Duke will both grow up and become happier people, and Duchess will never have another dull moment!
I would happily devour a book with Tom or Keighley as main characters.
I’ve been MIA for a while, and am very happy to be back here with you all on Goodreads.
Just started this reread today. It's interesting how Heyer manages to make Sylvester kind of unlikable but not awful. He reminds me of Mr. Darcy, who says he was given good principles but left to follow them in pride and conceit. Neither one recognizes how condescending their attitudes really are and how much they may put people off.
Love this book and really looking forward to rereading it. The main characters are so well defined but the scene I really like is in the inn when his nephew shocks them all by swearing in French. So funny!!
Would Freddy and Gilly count? There are some others who have an "Us/Them" world view and then expand out "US" to get their happy endings.
Rebekah wrote: "I re-read this about 6 months ago. It has always been one of my favorites due to the complex characters of Phoebe and Sylvester. Phoebe is very unusual for a Heyer Heroine. And very few, if any of her heroes have to really grow and change to find a happy ending. The only one who comes close is Sherry in Friday's Child ..."
Big Fan wrote: "Would Freddy and Gilly count? There are some others who have an "Us/Them" world view and then expand out "US" to get their happy endings.
Rebekah wrote: "I re-read this about 6 months ago. It h..."
I thought about Freddy, but i don't think he changes too much. It's just that others (including the reader) realize his worth. As for Gilly, I'm sorry to say that I only skipped through it once a long time ago so am not familiar with it. From what I've read, he does grow stronger and more confident but does he have real character issues and faults he needs to realize and come to grips with?
Freddy changes a LOT, not just in confidence but (view spoiler) besides his father recognizing his worth.
It is a matter of degree, and where one chooses to draw the line of significance. But consider that near the beginning, Freddy deliberately goes for finesse dealing with Jack, instead of taking a poke at him, but at the end impetuously knocks Jack down, AND stood ready to make a second try he KNOWS would be futile.
[And even the stuffed shirt would have voted to acquit on a charge of assault, on the basis of intolerable provocation.]
Both Freddy and Gilly not only gain in self confidence in what they can do, but the willingness to assert themselves in matters they might have let go. That combination makes a significant change in their paths.
Rebekah wrote: " ...
I thought about Freddy, but i don't think he changes too much. It's just that others (including the reader) realize his worth. As for Gilly ... "
Jackie wrote: "Freddy changes a LOT, not just in confidence but [spoilers removed] besides his father recognizing his worth."
Big Fan wrote: "It is a matter of degree, and where one chooses to draw the line of significance. But consider that near the beginning, Freddy deliberately goes for finesse dealing with Jack, instead of taking a..."
Well that is the difference Gillie and Freddy become more secure, while Sherry and Sylvester are completely self assured from the beginning and become more caring and less aloof. The only other male character I can think of going this way is Sophie´s final husband. While Arabella´s swain, does keep an arrogant streek, which I do not like.
What impresses me with Phoebe is how much her lot changes throughout the book: being overlooked and afraid, finding her feet, not enjoying the success of her book and what people are making of it, the total fall from grace in the ton, which really affects her, the tour to Dover, the absurd circus along the self absorbed couple, supporting the child, and the difficult journey back and towards the final kiss.
Lovely summary, Sophie! I hadn’t thought of it in those terms. No wonder she’s a little grouchy by the end of the trip. All in all, she handles the ups and downs impressively!
Sophie wrote: "What impresses me with Phoebe is how much her lot changes throughout the book: being overlooked and afraid, finding her feet, not enjoying the success of her book and what people are making of it, ..."It's not a favourite of mine so keeping your thoughts here in mind I may it enjoy it better this time.
Contemplating Gillie and Sylvster: the first chapters of Gillie and Sylvester are like inverse: Gillie comes in the from the hunt, tries to avoid everybody because he feels harrassed by his servants and relatives and is told whom to marry, when, While Sylvester is thinking about going hunting, beningly accepts that his underlings say, what a pity it is, he is not going hunting, and tries to get his mother to tell him, whom to marry
I like reading discussions about Heyer's heroes. They remind me why I love her novels so much. :-)
Sophie wrote: "Contemplating Gillie and Sylvster: the first chapters of Gillie and Sylvester are like inverse: Gillie comes in the from the hunt, tries to avoid everybody because he feels harrassed by his servant..."I like this comparison between dukes! Gillie is kept away from his responsibilities ... Sylvester takes them on (maybe) a bit too much? Gillie has to find his place ... Sylvester has to find his heart (again). And as they are both GH's characters, they go about it in curious knots and twists.
Sophie wrote: "Contemplating Gillie and Sylvster: the first chapters of Gillie and Sylvester are like inverse: Gillie comes in the from the hunt, tries to avoid everybody because he feels harrassed by his servant..."Great observation!
The double personality of Phoebe has always been an obstacle for me to get into and like this book. I can understand that she finds a much needed outlet for her imagination and escape from the oppressive family situation, but I cannot imagine her *writing* in a fluent, elegant, satirical style while *talking* like a shy, rustic schoolgirl - even accounting for her stepmother's terrifying presence. The book seems to be something that remains outside her personality - she is no writer. Although GH was in a good place to create such a character, she did not go there. If she had, the story would have been different. Sometimes I wish she had written that other story.
this bothered me the 1st two times but then I accepted Phoebe s and Sylvester's nonsequiturs
sabagrey wrote: "The double personality of Phoebe has always been an obstacle for me to get into and like this book. I can understand that she finds a much needed outlet for her imagination and escape from the oppr..."That is not a problem for me to believe. Writing and talking/speaking are totally different skills. Not all great writers can communicate well verbally. Besides, since we are never favored with an example of her writing (are we?) we don't know how elegant and fluent it is.
Finished the re-read. I find that I don't like the last scene, the one in the library. It is one of GH's light-hearted, witty endings, and I think it does not fit here, when up to this point we have got glimpses of some more serious challenges to the couple.
I agree that the ending is strange: Sylvester back in the saddle and high handed, no transformation on his side!What I enjoy is that almost everybody is flawed, especially the hero and the heroine, the scene in the ball sall, is cruel. Both parties are fighting, especially in the last chapters. Phoebe is constantly shifting between argumentative and frightened. Sylvester shifts between haughty, engaged and enraged.
In the beginning the POV is Sylvesters, for some time it shifts between Phoebe and Sylvester, from London onwards we have almost only Phoebes POV, so that Sylvester reactions come as a surprise. At the end, we shift again between Slyvesters and Phoebes POV, but the final scenes are completely from Phoebes Perspective.
In comparison to the foundling, where all parties just gain assurance and Gillie and his Bride take the most absurd situations in their stride, Sylvester is very much challenged by everything that happens to him, only not in the last scene. This makes him a very unusual Heyer Hero, that he is so bothered.
sabagrey wrote: "The double personality of Phoebe has always been an obstacle for me to get into and like this book. I can understand that she finds a much needed outlet for her imagination and escape from the oppressive family situation, but I cannot imagine her *writing* in a fluent, elegant, satirical style while *talking* like a shy, rustic schoolgirl - even accounting for her stepmother's terrifying presence."It's interesting you should see it that way, Saba, for to me it makes Phoebe extremely identifiable. In my experience, writing certainly can spring from the inability to express oneself in conversation. It's a bit like the difference between translating and interpreting. Translating, you sit at your desk and think and write. Interpreting, you need to snap out phrases in two languages while surrounded by tensions and personalities.
In normal conversation, I reckon everyone knows those situations where you can't think of what to say but then, while doing the dishes, witty repartees blossom in your brain – is it in Black Sheep, and is it Selina who describes to Abby all the things she would have liked to have said (to whom?)?
Elizabeth wrote: "In my experience, writing certainly can spring from the inability to express oneself in conversation. It's a bit like the difference between translating and interpreting."(you know, interpreters still have to come up with complete, intelligible sentences which, where possible, reflect the speaker's style ... been there, done it)
I've thought about my impression that Phoebe was "no writer" and where it came from. I think it was not just her way of speaking - or not speaking - but her way of *seeing* the world, especially people. The way in which she can look through people - sharp, detached, humoristic - gives her some distance, defence and independence. Yet she is emotionally overwhelmed all the time. That is totally possible, but I do not get a single whiff of her switching (or being unable to switch) between the 'writer' and the 'schoolgirl' personality. She should at least be aware of it, even if she fails to distance herself. .... But as I said, GH did not go there, maybe because such a self-aware, layered personality was too complex.
sabagrey wrote: "Interpreters still have to come up with complete, intelligible sentences which, where possible, reflect the speaker's style."Yes, that's what I was trying to say, Saba, I just didn't put it very well. A good translator is not necessarily a good interpreter. A fine writer is not necessarily a brilliant conversationalist. It's a different set of skills.
(I've just realized that this is exactly what Rebekah has already said, and much more succinctly! Well, I agree with you, Rebekah!)
What you say about Phoebe's apparent lack of detachment, Saba, makes total sense to me. Once again I've left the book in France so I'm relying on memory, oh so fallible, but I do seem to remember that while Heyer gives us a good idea of how Phoebe is gauche but clever, we do not see her using her skills of observation to achieve detachment from the situations she is in. There's that scene where she almost lets on that she put Sir Nugent in her book, but that's different, isn't it?
I don't know if showing that side of her would have made Phoebe too complex, throwing the book out of kilter, or if this is another instance of Heyer's tendency to look down on human weaknesses, the way she makes light of illness and injury in a pull-your-socks-up and don't-fuss sort of way.
Interesting discussion. I'm not too far into my reread, and it's been interesting paying more attention to Phoebe as a young writer. So far I'm finding it believable, as it seems her governess let her read books. And Phoebe is observant of people, notices little things about them, and is a good mimic. She also appears to have some imagination, though that's me inferring.I'm not sure that I think there's necessarily such a thing as switching between being a writer and being a person, nor do I believe she should be able to distance herself because she's a writer. I've been a writer all my life, and I don't find that I switch personas or use it as a way to distance myself. I observe people and things, but that's all part of who I am. If that makes sense. There aren't two different parts of me reacting to the world in two different ways.
Also, she's still really young and definitely hasn't found herself as a person or her place in the world. Her personality is very unformed, and I think Heyer shows that.
All of this is, of course, just my opinion, and as I said I'm only about half way through. Still, I'm enjoying having another lens to use on the story as I read it. :)
Teri-K wrote: "I observe people and things, but that's all part of who I am. If that makes sense. ."It does make sense. - And it is just what Phoebe is not: the author-personality in harmony with herself. That is why I came up with the idea of 'switching'.
I have never read Glenarvon, but I think that GH gives us here her opinion of the book: good satirical descriptions of characters, woven into a weird, hair-raising story in the gothic style. So maybe GH considers neither Phoebe nor Lady Caroline Lamb to be 'real' writers?
sabagrey wrote: "Teri-K wrote: "I observe people and things, but that's all part of who I am. If that makes sense. ."It does make sense. - And it is just what Phoebe is not: the author-personality in harmony with..."
I guess I'd just say that Phoebe is so young and inexperienced I'd be surprised if she was in harmony with herself. I think that generally takes a maturity she's been denied, by her age but even more by here upbringing. She'll get there, but she has barely begun right now. And I don't see that immaturity has to keep her from having some talent as a writer that's been encouraged by her governess and by the reading she's done.
But we don't have to agree on this, of course. :)
The trouble with these speculations is that GH - with the ending I don't like, see above - gives us no hint whether she even has a shred of ambition to remain/become a real authoress. GH just dropped this interesting thread, because it was not considered relevant to the kind of romances she wrote (or was supposed to and paid for to write). Being a duchess was enough of a happy end. Women with professions or vocations were not the stuff for romances in her day.
Elizabeth wrote: "sabagrey wrote: "The double personality of Phoebe has always been an obstacle for me to get into and like this book. I can understand that she finds a much needed outlet for her imagination and esc..."Yes Elizabeth it is Selina!
sabagrey wrote: "The trouble with these speculations is that GH - with the ending I don't like, see above - gives us no hint whether she even has a shred of ambition to remain/become a real authoress. GH just dro..."
It's funny, as a girl I never let endings I didn't like interfere with my fun - I just reimagined them ending the way I wanted. And I still do that. So, for me, Phoebe will continue writing novels and Sylvester will make helpful suggestions, some of which won't be helpful at all. LOL
Teri-K wrote: "I just reimagined them ending the way I wanted. And I still do that..."Same!
Misti wrote: "Teri-K wrote: "I just reimagined them ending the way I wanted. And I still do that..."Same!"
Oh, good. I'm glad I'm not the only one! :)
Teri-K wrote: "It's funny, as a girl I never let endings I didn't like interfere with my fun - I just reimagined them ending the way I wanted. And I still do that. "Oh, I do that, too! - But I have never done it for this book. The reason may be that I prefer not to imagine the terrible stress for Phoebe in her role as a duchess. (view spoiler)
sabagrey wrote: The way in which she can look through people - sharp, detached, humoristic - gives her some distance, defence and independence. Yet she is emotionally overwhelmed all the time. That is totally possible, but I do not get a single whiff of her switching (or being unable to switch) between the 'writer' and the 'schoolgirl' personality.Could that be because we do not ever see her with paper and pen actually writing? I think I understand what you are saying, but how one reacts in the heat of the moment and how one sees it later while writing about the experience or the people involved can be vastly different. That's pretty normal. If Phoebe were able to coolly analyze situations that challenge her as they are happening and laugh at them, she wouldn't be Phoebe. She is, as Elizabeth said so aptly, gauche. Also emotional and insecure. I think you are right that if she tries to be a conventional type Dutchess she will be very stressed. Hopefully Sylvester will not try to put that on her. But in my opinion that personality doesn't mean she can't be good writer.
I've finished and it will never be a favourite with me. I did enjoy Tom again and some of the sayings young Master Rayne came with were hilarious!Phoebe annoyed me. She acted very childishly I thought especially towards the end. Not your usual Heyer heroine.
Teresa wrote: "I've finished and it will never be a favourite with me. I did enjoy Tom again and some of the sayings young Master Rayne came with were hilarious!Phoebe annoyed me. She acted very childishly I tho..."
I actually like Phoebe, though I don't much care for Heyer's ingenue young heroines in general. She has more gumption than most, and really is prepared to earn her living with her pen. It's Edmund who annoys me - I don't find Heyer's cute little boys cute at all.
Alathea wrote: "Teresa wrote: "I've finished and it will never be a favourite with me. I did enjoy Tom again and some of the sayings young Master Rayne came with were hilarious!Phoebe annoyed me. She acted very c..."
Funny isn't it how we're all different. I actually laughed at Edmund when he was saying all the cant he picked up from the stables!
I generally like Phoebe, although the older heroines tend to be my very favorite. I don't think she was childish. Edmund frequently annoys me!
Teri-K wrote: "...Phoebe will continue writing novels and Sylvester will make helpful suggestions, some of which won't be helpful at all."I like to imagine Phoebe writing children's stories, trying them out on her own children, and getting them published under a pseudonym. Even if her name still gets out, it's not going to cause any drama this time.
I finished this yesterday. I really enjoyed about the first half, but thought it was less interesting once Sylvester disappeared for a while. I like him as a character, but Phoebe is mostly just tolerable to me.Tom is a good character, I like his straightforwardness, but none of the other minor characters were that interesting. I think Ianthe and Sir Nugent are supposed to be comic relief, but I just found them annoying. Edmund, also was sometimes amusing but overall became as tedious to read about as he would have been to take care of.
I did enjoy Sylvester's terrible marriage proposal, it's almost as bad as Mr. Darcy's first. But I thought everything wrapped up too quickly in the end; I didn't find Phoebe's sudden change of heart believable. So overall this book was fine, but not one of my favorite Heyer novels.
I do think the part where they are all stuck at the inn and generally have made friends is the best part, by far. The trying to get to France part does drag a bit, perhaps.
Jackie wrote: "I do think the part where they are all stuck at the inn "GH had a knack for these "all stuck at an inn" scenarios, and used them repeatedly, for example in the Corinthian and the Talisman Ring. the finale in the Grand Sophy, though not set at an inn, is similar. They are staged like vaudeville comedies - people enter and exit and talk at cross-purposes, often nonsense, to comic effect. These scenes read as if GH really *saw* them as staged plays - but as far as I know, she never wrote a play?
There is an extended sojourn at an inn in Sprig Muslin where a crowd shows up toward the end. GH made good use of events at inns. Mary gets to shoot someone at one, then the cat gets out of the bag in another, she is wounded in a third crowded one, and finally meets all the prospective in-laws at a fourth ....
sabagrey wrote: "Jackie wrote: "I do think the part where they are all stuck at the inn "
GH had a knack for these "all stuck at an inn" scenarios, and used them repeatedly, for example in the Corinthian and the T..."
sabagrey wrote: "Jackie wrote: "I do think the part where they are all stuck at the inn "GH had a knack for these "all stuck at an inn" scenarios, and used them repeatedly, for example in the Corinthian and the T..."
Also Friday's Child and her short stories.
oh, speaking of short stories "Night at the Inn" (I think it was) was a completely different animal! (view spoiler)
such a good point, Sabagrey, those scenes may be my favorite part of Heyer in general, which is saying a lot. WHY they aren't movies I do not understand. done right, they would be wonderful.
sabagrey wrote: "GH had a knack for these "all stuck at an inn" scenarios, and used them repeatedly, for example in the Corinthian and the Talisman Ring. the finale in the Grand Sophy, though not set at an inn, is similar. They are staged like vaudeville comedies - people enter and exit and talk at cross-purposes, often nonsense, to comic effect. These scenes read as if GH really *saw* them as staged plays - but as far as I know, she never wrote a play?..."I always think The Talisman Ring reads like a French farce. I can just see it as a stage play, with people crawling through windows and hiding behind doors. It tickles me every time. :)
The thread without spoilers is here.