Georgette Heyer Fans discussion

Final verdicts!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SWq7...

& here it is a real treat. The Reluctant Widow movie Part 1. If you make it through more than 1 part you are a better woman (or man!) than me. ;)

LOL I love it! They've changed the plot slightly though.

Ok I didn't get beyond the third episode, which is probably for the best as I don't think the end is on there!

Distracting subtitles and the ending is missing! Too many changes - no wonder GH didn't like it - but you can see how RW could have made a really good film. I do wish someone would try now!

Agreed! The Reluctant Widow is one of the more film-friendly titles.

***Carol*** wrote: "Final verdicts!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SWq7...

& here it is a real treat. The Reluctant Widow movie Part 1. If you make it through more than 1 part you are a better woman (or man!) t..."

I'm going to carve out the minutes to watch it. I can always use a good laugh!

I couldn't follow the dialog at all! and why was Carlyon wearing a military uniform?

Jackie wrote: "I couldn't follow the dialog at all! and why was Carlyon wearing a military uniform?"

Yes the dialogue was hard to follow. The uniform was part of a totally altered sub-plot about him being unfairly cashiered. Absolutely nothing to do with the original plot - but then so much of the film as far as I could follow was nothing to do with the original. To be fair, it was made almost 70 years ago!

In the Chapter 1-10 discussion, the point was brought up that murder done by the elite was covered up. And, it was, but it wasn't murder done to the powerless by the powerful (why, Louis' ton was as good as Cheviot's own!). Cheviot even laments that he "had" to murder his best friend in order to save his parents the pain of knowing their son was a traitor and to save England the embarrassment of having to shoot him for treason. And, I agree, it was still murder, but, other than Cheviot's confession to Carlyon, which Cheviot would adamantly deny, could this even be brought to a charge against him, let alone end up with a conviction? It would be Carlyon's word against Cheviot's.

There certainly is a duty to society which requires us to participate in seeing justice served, but I think Heyer makes a good point that justice wouldn't be served in this case. The documents would have had to be made public, and that might have cost England the war, for instance. Can we see Francis in the guise of an executioner? There was no doubt about De Castre's guilt, and we might argue that Francis, if he was going to be fair, should have taken out his father, too. But I think the fear that silly gentleman is going to feel for the rest of his life might be filed under "life imprisonment".

And, of course, this was a problem of the society of 200 years ago, so I've been trying to figure out when it might apply to our own time and society. How would we react if we "knew" that our relative had interfered with the drug bust across the street because he knew he could sell the information to the drug mafia? And then the son found out that not only was his parent guilty, but his best friend was selling meth to kids and thought the drug mafia was wonderful, and so he quietly disposed of his friend in the river? And, remember, there's little to no proof of any of this! I'm not saying that I would keep quiet about this (shoot! I'm so law-abiding I don't even speed!), but it does give us food for thought, right?

Heyer includes in the dialogue some remarks about spies and their ruthless methods; perhaps she was making an implicit case that Francis was acting as a spy for the “good” (i.e., in this context, British) side. As you indicate, Karlyne, doing an evil to serve the greater good. Even today, the concept that the ordinary rules don’t apply to secret agents is fairly widely recognized in society, if not so much in law. Part of what makes spy fiction so endlessly fascinating, I suppose.

I got the idea that he was more comfortable with both the murder and the cover-up because it was his right than because it was his duty.

Heyer had other protagonists shoot and kill with their elite status protecting them - admittedly times are changing.

His "right" in what way, Howard? My reading of the situation is that for Francis, killing Louis de Castres was the lesser evil (i.e. as a spy he would have been executed anyway, and this way avoids worse consequences for both Francis's family and Louis's).

Margaret wrote: "His "right" in what way, Howard? My reading of the situation is that for Francis, killing Louis de Castres was the lesser evil (i.e. as a spy he would have been executed anyway, and this way avoid..."

Totally agree with Margaret and Karlyne. The dialogue in Carlyon's house shows that very clearly - the lesser of 2 evils (better than execution) and it was wartime and they were dealing with spies for goodness sake! I do think one has to understand and accept the context and appreciate that 21st century mind-sets are a pointless way of judging historical behaviour. Otherwise, it would be impossible to enjoy The Count of Monte Cristo or War and Peace!! One can intellectually refute the standards of the day - but it changes nothing! Cheviot is a cold, unpleasant and unlikeable fellow but I get no sense of him thinking he could commit murder because it was his 'right'. Still, I guess everyone brings their own sensitivities to the table.

Howard wrote: "I got the idea that he was more comfortable with both the murder and the cover-up because it was his right than because it was his duty.

Heyer had other protagonists shoot and kill with their elit..."

Do you mean Carlyon was comfortable with the murder and cover-up or that Cheviot was, Howard?

Howard's comment, moved from the Chapter 1-10 thread.

In the first part of the book, I was enjoying myself. But I don't think Heyer does mysteries well, and I certainly don't care for letting high-status people getting away with murder.

I finished yesterday & again I loved it. For me the only flaw was the original motivation as I can't believe that anyone other than Bidlington would have seriously believed Carlyon would have wanted this debt ridden estate.

& at the end it was suddenly Ned gaining possession of the estate through marrying Elinor wasn't a problem at all.

I'm wondering if this is another one where GH was slightly off in her dates? I'll look up the passages I was thinking of tomorrow after a good night's sleep!

I quite like Cheviot! Yes, he's ruthless, but charming with it, and I suspect he'd be great fun as a friend (always assuming that you aren't working part time as a doubt agent of course...!)

I do wonder whether he was actually working as a Government agent himself, although I can't really see him taking orders from anyone that he would consider of having a lesser intellect (ie practically everybody). If he was, then the removal of De Castres would have been part of his 'job'.

I must admit, I have never quite understood why Carlyon and Eustace were so keen to make sure the estate was settled away from Carlyon - if Carlyon really didn't want it what was to stop him simply selling it as soon as he inherited it, or giving it away... which is essentially what happened anyway. But then would have been no story...

When people start talking about Heyer secondary characters who deserve their own books, I always start thinking that Francis Cheviot could easily move to the protagonist spot in a historical mystery ... or even a series of them.

Margaret wrote: "When people start talking about Heyer secondary characters who deserve their own books, I always start thinking that Francis Cheviot could easily move to the protagonist spot in a historical myster..."

Oooh, wouldn't that be fabulous! Francis is definitely a character I'd like to see more of!

Cheviot is smokey!

Thinking about Carlyon not wanting the estate: let’s remember that he’s quite a young man, despite having had so much responsibility thrust on him early in life. And Bedlington, a very prominent person in society as ADC to the Regent, has been unfairly accusing him (probably in public) of wanting the estate for his own gain. This must hurt his pride a lot! He wants to prove to the older, successful man that he doesn’t want the estate, and cooking up the silly scheme of marrying Eustace off to somebody is kind of a young man’s notion of a good idea.

By the end of the book, Bedlington is humiliated and forced into obscurity; he no longer has power in the world, so his power in Carlyon’s mind is probably diminished. There is a brief exchange between him and Elinor about her giving away any proceeds from the sale of the estate, but maybe the minimal attention given to this at the end is a reflection of how unimportant it has become to Carlyon.

Abigail wrote: "Thinking about Carlyon not wanting the estate: let’s remember that he’s quite a young man, despite having had so much responsibility thrust on him early in life. And Bedlington, a very prominent pe..."

Hadn't thought of that! Another example of the subtlety that GH was capable of if that was what she meant!

GreyGirl wrote: "Margaret wrote: "When people start talking about Heyer secondary characters who deserve their own books, I always start thinking that Francis Cheviot could easily move to the protagonist spot in a ..."

Yes! But i wouldn't like to see that tackled by another author!

& (change of subject) Nicky had one of GH's funniest lines - the one where he assured Elinor that if she had known Eustace better she would have wanted to be a widow! :D

***Carol*** wrote: "Nicky had one of GH's funniest lines - the one where he assured Elinor that if she had known Eustace better she would have wanted to be a widow! :D "

I loved that line!

@Howard - I didn’t get the sense that Cheviot thought it was his right to kill whomever he chose, in fact he finds it all rather distasteful. I’d agree that other of Heyer’s characters do have that sort of superiority complex, although even then they don’t do it indiscriminately, they just don’t care if they are provoked to.
Cheviot is a member of a class who had a certain duty to their peers, I think he sees it as his duty to avoid scandal and disgrace. The fact that he has the means to cover his tracks makes it easier but if there was evidence against him he would have had to stand trial, but would probably have been acquitted for dealing with a traitor and a spy… I do actually think his father would have met with an accident as well if necessary though, he was quite ruthless.
I think too that although everyone was willing to swear blind that Nicky was innocent, whether he was or not, it wasn’t because of his rank or Carlyon’s it was because they like them.

@ Carol – I agree that Carlyon’s marrying Elinor would look suspicious, but I think it was more about laying to rest some of the lies that his cousin had told about him and since he didn’t jump at the chance to get Highnoons -- he didn’t actually have to do anything in order to inherit after all -- and instead made a point of facilitating the marriage, it was enough to stop people talking?

& doesn't Elinor end up with such a happy ever after! She loved her father but is obviously distant (at best) from the rest of her relatives. Now she will be in the midst of an affectionate warm hearted family.

& I'm sure Becky will remain with her to be governess to Elinor & Ned's children.

& let's talk about the covers. Pan ones were always hit & miss (Devil's Cub is really bad!) but this one very disappointing. one Obviously assigning Ned's character to something that happened to Nicky!

I actually don't think the international espionage business has changed that much in 200 years. Most governments still prefer that spies be quietly removed rather than end up on the front page of the newspaper if they are caught in seriously compromising situations.

Prior to the early 1900's there wasn't official spy agencies like the CIA and MI6 in most countries. The military did some spying, but quite a lot of it happened at the various royal courts and was conducted by the aristocracy who had access to the right places and ears.

The Double Traitor is one of the earliest spy novels and various members of the Austrian/German/British aristocracy are involved in transferring bits of information.

But removing spies has to be done by the spy agency.

Howard wrote: "But removing spies has to be done by the spy agency."

Well, unless they're really bad spies, in which case they're fair game for anyone...

& I'm wondering if this is another book where GH is slightly out in her dates. Wikipedia has this book set in 1813.

Francis talks about his father having a Chinese Drawing Room a la Prinny. But I thought that the redecoration to the Brighton Pavillion started 1815.

I just finished the book (again!) and, as always, the Romance is satisfying. Ned and Elinor have a quiet, gentle courtship where not only is much left unsaid it was ALL left unsaid until he proposes. and he is such a handsome, strong man our heroine - while otherwise so brave - is all shy and flustered. *sigh* I love the humor but in the end, it's all about LOVE and The Happy Ending. I never get tired of this book!

Jackie wrote: "I just finished the book (again!) and, as always, the Romance is satisfying. Ned and Elinor have a quiet, gentle courtship where not only is much left unsaid it was ALL left unsaid until he propose..."

Well said!

One of GH best as far as I am concerned.

☆ Ｃａｒｏｌ ☆ wrote: "& I'm wondering if this is another book where GH is slightly out in her dates. Wikipedia has this book set in 1813.

Francis talks about his father having a Chinese Drawing Room a la Prinny. But I ..."

I don't know but if the choice is between believing Heyer and Wikipedia, I would believe Heyer! Wikipedia is better now but is known for being unreliable as a source of information.

I think It is much more likely to be 1813 - because the stolen memorandum is probably relating to plans for the battle of Vitoria which Wellington led in June 1813. If it was later and in 1815 then Wellington would not have been planning activities in Spain!

Here is a link to info about the history of the Brighton Royal Pavilion:

http://brightonmuseums.org.uk/royalpa...

In particular, I see that although Nash didn't start his work on the Pavilion until 1815, soon after 1787 "George hired architect Henry Holland to transform his Brighton lodging house into a modest villa which became known as the Marine Pavilion. With his love of visual arts and fascination with the mythical orient, George set about lavishly furnishing and decorating his seaside home. He especially chose Chinese export furniture and objects, and hand-painted Chinese wallpapers."

This work was apparently finished by 1808 so Francis' comment is appropriate for 1813.

Leslie wrote: "Here is a link to info about the history of the Brighton Royal Pavilion:

http://brightonmuseums.org.uk/royalpa...

In particular, I see that although Nash..."

So even though it was a far more modest building than we see now, in 1813 it could well have been furnished in the Chinese style.

I had better change my review! :D

The Prince Regent had been spending time in Brighton for 25+ years by 1813 and had over time embellished and expanded his home and would continue to do so. The setting of 1813 (prior to the battle in Spain) and Cheviot senior's choice of chinoiserie for his own home are not out of sync. Brighton Pavilion is definitely worth a visit. An homage to ostentatious and conspicuous consumption - it stands as a reminder of gross over privilege.
But it is fun!!

Susan wrote: "The Prince Regent had been spending time in Brighton for 25+ years by 1813 and had over time embellished and expanded his home and would continue to do so. The setting of 1813 (prior to the battle..."

Yes I went to the Brighton Pavillion in '76 (I posted some pics of a pack of playing cards I bought there on one of the Regency Buck threads) & I loved it!

My lack of taste is a constant source of grief to my graphic designer daughter! :D

With reference to Howard's posts about murder/the role of spies and who might/could get rid of them - I think it is worth noting that this book was published in 1946 after GH had experienced (like so many million others), the horrors of WW2. I am sure her attitude like many folk today would have been that a spy was fair game and moral debates about killing one and getting away with it (regardless of class) would have been greeted with disbelief and puzzlement!! I still think RW is one of her best and one of my favourites to return to and enjoy yet again. I think the dialogue alone - is just so entertaining, witty, incisive and laugh out loud that it is worth it for that alone. In fact all the elements of GH work are present - realistic characters, believable plotting and good story basics are all present. Looking forward to one of my other top favourites - the Grand Sophy next!!

Susan wrote: "With reference to Howard's posts about murder/the role of spies and who might/could get rid of them - I think it is worth noting that this book was published in 1946 after GH had experienced (like ..."

& Ned & John weren't happy about falling in with Francis's solution! But Louis was already dead & they had good reason to believe that Bidlington was scared of his son & would retire quietly, rather than risk being "bumped off!"

Absolutely - it is quite clear that GH has described a pragmatic though not necessarily desirable solution! I think that is where GH shines in her realism. She is far from being some insipid, missish writer. She pushes the boundaries and makes you think!

Susan wrote: "Absolutely - it is quite clear that GH has described a pragmatic though not necessarily desirable solution! I think that is where GH shines in her realism. She is far from being some insipid, miss..."

She poses some great questions, one of them being "Is it always right to let the law deal with every situation?"

Leaving aside questions of right and wrong (in any universal, absolute sense), I think GH had a real handle on the kinds of dilemmas that would have arisen in a society in transition. Old feudal traditions of ownership and patronage by the landed class were in rapid flux in the early years of the 19th century as industrialization and urbanization were changing everything about British society. Law had always been whatever the local landowners said it was, but that system was breaking down as land gradually ceased to be the only form of power. And as always, people’s attitudes were a little behind events.

The Reluctant Widow, it seems to me, shows a world in which people of all classes are wanting to cling to the old certainties—like the innkeeper who is always loyal to the lord of the manor but at the same time expects that lord to make everything right for everyone who lives within his demesne, as well as taking care of “bigger” issues of the world outside the immediate community. A bad lord, like Eustace Cheviot, could mean destitution for all those dependent on him. Members of the ruling class in the story are increasingly aware of how hollow and fragile their position is, but seek honor in living up to traditional perceived obligations. Francis is a rather explicit example of this. He seeks honor in patriotism while recognizing the moral absurdity of his position in the world.

Abigail wrote: "Leaving aside questions of right and wrong (in any universal, absolute sense), I think GH had a real handle on the kinds of dilemmas that would have arisen in a society in transition. Old feudal tr..."

Yes indeed, what a good analysis , and so nice to read such a thing about a GH novel, so widely misunderstood as she still is. ( not on this board of course )

Not meaning to threadjack , but Norah Lofts does a similar feat for different historical period in a trilogy of hers, especially the first book, The Town House, in part via a character born in 1381 and leading from the purely feudal to the early mercantile eras.
https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

thanks for the link, I have never heard of her and it sounds like I need to find one of her books and check it out!

Please don't kick me out of the group but this book fell flat for me. The group read was actually my second attempt at reading it and I only got through it because y'all seemed to love it so much.

I didn't hate it. I didn't love it either. Or particularly like it even.

I think I can summarize what didn't work for me:
*Carylon - He seemed too unreal. I've never known anyone with any of his personality traits and I don't think that person exists. I'm willing to suspend belief for the sake of fiction but Carylon was such a caricature to me that I never could like him.
*Elinor - I liked her. She was plucky. GH should have sent her to a different story so she could have gotten a better hero.
*Minor characters - No complaints on them. One of GH best writing skills is making minor characters that you want to know better.
*Romance - C'mon. They knew each other for a week. During that week they seemed to spend about 4 hours total together. Half the conversations they had consisted of him not telling her important facts and her saying "You abominable".

I think this is my first GH that doesn't get 5 stars.

Amy wrote: "Please don't kick me out of the group but this book fell flat for me. The group read was actually my second attempt at reading it and I only got through it because y'all seemed to love it so much...."

That's ok, Amy. I think we all know that "were they reading a different book?" feeling.

I found it an enjoyable read, by GH so better than most others, yet not one of my favorite GH books.

Reading it and expecting romance, most people would assume that Carlyon and Elinor would make a match of it.

To me, it reads as general fiction or even mystery, with a sweetly romantic conclusion.

Is Carlyon truly in love with her? Has the absurdness of the events and the overall situation drawn them closer, as often does when people experience stressful and unusual situations together?

Or has the craziness of it all removed any reservations that they might have had towards each other if they encountered each other in a calm, usual, everyday (boring) way? Kind of an accelerated courtship?

To clarify, when I wrote "most people would assume that Carlyon and Elinor would make a match of it," I meant that when reading GH and expecting a match, those two would seem the most likely. In no way was it plain to me that they were falling for each other.

It was not obvious, for example, as how it was with Alverstroke realizing his strong feelings for Frederica, long after it was clear to the reader that he was drawn to her.

That is one of the things that I like about GH, how she was able to create different stories, and she did not follow an exact formula for each and every book.

Amy wrote: "Please don't kick me out of the group but this book fell flat for me. The group read was actually my second attempt at reading it and I only got through it because y'all seemed to love it so much...."

Everyone's taste is different - and thank goodness or else we would all be boring clones. However, I am astonished that Carlyon is dismissed as a 'caricature', and accused of possessing character traits that have never been encountered in real life. One could perhaps accuse GH of creating a caricature in the late, unlamented Mr Cheviot - but to suggest that poor Carlyon is a caricature?? I cannot agree. I recognised several of his traits in real people I have known; and I found him a very believable, if unromantic figure. As for falling in love quickly - well, in my personal experience, this is perfectly possible and can lead to lifelong happiness - so I did not find that aspect of the book at all hard to believe! I still think TRW is one of her best and will continue to return to it like an old friend.