Georgette Heyer Fans discussion

I'm just about to start. Hold me.

I think this is the first time since being on GR that I have started a book already fairly sure I'm going to hate it.

Even FSOG - I read a couple of chapters before taking it out from the library, was pleasantly surprised & thought it was going to be better than all the reviews (view spoiler)[ it wasn't (hide spoiler)]

My one looks to be an American first edition published by Longman Green.

Sending my support, brave fiction warrior!

FSOG? I'm not familiar with that acronym.

Kate wrote: "Sending my support, brave fiction warrior!"

Thanks Kate! It wasn't a bad read till the end of Chapter 6 then it started going south! I'm part way through Chapter 7 now. Even saying not too bad at the start - if you were given a copy without an author name on it I don't think most of us would pick it as a Heyer.

Margaret wrote: "FSOG? I'm not familiar with that acronym."

Fifty Shades of Grey..I couldn't finish it.

Margaret wrote: "FSOG? I'm not familiar with that acronym."

Fifty Shades of Grey..I couldn't finish it.

Thanks! After I decided it wasn't a Heyer title you were abbreviating, "not-Heyer" opened out entirely too wide a field! :)

I just read the first chapter for free on Amazon of FSOG when it was all the rage, and writing was so awful I realized that reading it was never going to happen for me.

Kim wrote: "I just read the first chapter for free on Amazon of FSOG when it was all the rage, and writing was so awful I realized that reading it was never going to happen for me."

I thought the first couple of chapters weren't too bad - bit like a Mills & Boon. But it went downhill rapidly after that.

I read an Amazon review of FSOG and it listed all the bad writing and reused words etc, it was quite a funny summary actually. I had to go out after and I mentioned this to my friend who told me she was reading the book and immediately produced it on her phone showing me where she was up to... I swear every single thing listed in that review was on that one random page, needless to say I didn't bother with it after that.

I've finished it & while it wasn't as bad as Helen it was still pretty bad.

The writing had a lighter touch than Helen. Not lighter in the sense of GH's usual wit but my memory of Helen was it was every bit as leaden as MLJ. This was at least an easy enough read to get through.

Well Carol, it's nice to hear first hand about GHs contemporary novels but since these two books are so bad, I'm not going to read them.

I appreciate your reportage though!

Andrea (Catsos Person) is a Compulsive eBook Hoarder wrote: "Well Carol, it's nice to hear first hand about GHs contemporary novels but since these two books are so bad, I'm not going to read them.

I appreciate your reportage though!"

I would strongly recommend respecting GH's obvious wishes & not reading them. & definitely don't pay collector prices.

Thank you for the warning.

I had had the glimmerings of an idea that I might buy them for collection value, but I'll leave both of these alone if they ever cross my path.

Andrea (Catsos Person) is a Compulsive eBook Hoarder wrote: "Thank you for the warning.

I had had the glimmerings of an idea that I might buy them for collection value, but I'll leave both of these alone if they ever cross my path."

Yes spend the money on a first edition of a GH book you love!

I was thinking - her older books will only get harder to find. If I hadn't been the one checking these books (at the op shop I volunteer at) this one would have gone into the rubbish as it had a broken spine.

I'm still thinking about my rating. Probably 1.5* I think.

Never come across either Helen or Barren Corn and now glad that I haven't! Always wanted to be able to say that I had read every GH; but thank goodness - now that I am much older - I am (at least in that regard ) - a lot more sensible! Thanks for being the brave fiction warrior as Kate described you!

Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Never come across either Helen or Barren Corn and now glad that I haven't! Always wanted to be able to say that I had read every GH; but thank goodness - now that I am much older - I am (at least i..."

Yes that is how I felt before I read Helen. Quite funny if you think about it - GH wrote my favourite book of all time (Devil's Cub) & the worst not self published book I have ever read (other than for school or too bad to finish)

& a fun fact - this book has the lowest average rating of any of GH's individual books (not counting individual short stories & compendiums.) Lower than MLJ, Helen, Simon the Coldheart. Even allowing for the lower numbers who have read this book, that is some serious dislike!

& the Barren Corn dust jacket for my edition is very pretty.

http://www.facsimiledustjackets.com/p...

I was thinking $22 what a bargain - but that is just for a jacket facsimile!

That dust jacket is pretty.

Agreed.

A thought: another book/author discussion group I belong to posts chapter summaries during its group reads. Would anyone who has read all of one of GH's suppressed novels be willing to do the same for the rest of us? Even a one-page summary of the whole book? (Wouldn't it be awful if someone wound up liking it?)

MaryC wrote: "A thought: another book/author discussion group I belong to posts chapter summaries during its group reads. Would anyone who has read all of one of GH's suppressed novels be willing to do the same ..."

I think it is possible to like this book even though I didn't. Koestler has rated it 4* on GR & suggests it was an attempt by GH to write a social commentary. My main problem with the book is how absolutely horrible Hugh is & the feeling that Heyer sees this but feels it's acceptable because, you know, aristocrat.

I found this summary of the book & it is so good I wish I had written it. Warning full of spoilers

http://www.tor.com/2012/09/11/a-marri...

It is a great review and the comments that follow are just as interesting. I will not be looking to read this as it just does not appeal. There appears to be nothing to enjoy in this book and even books with messages have to be enjoyable!

Susan in Perthshire wrote: "It is a great review and the comments that follow are just as interesting. I will not be looking to read this as it just does not appeal. There appears to be nothing to enjoy in this book and even ..."

Yes I struggled with my rating on this one & did contemplate giving it 2*. There is nothing wrong with GH's writing on this one - it's Hugh's horrible character that was the main problem.

My other 1* (not on Goodreads) of GH's are MLJ, Helen & Simon the Coldheart for the leaden quality of the writing. Royal Escape 1.5-2*. I will reread Simon (hopefully this year) & Royal Escape at some point to see if I have been too harsh.

Carol ♔ Typo Queen! ♔ wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "It is a great review and the comments that follow are just as interesting. I will not be looking to read this as it just does not appeal. There appears to be nothing to ..."

I could not get into Simon the Coldheart so I wil be interested to see how you get on with a re-read! I actually enjoyed Royal Escape - probably because I read it while I was studying the English Civil War at University. I really struggle with her historicals. I think she pursued these because she felt they were more worthy and never appreciated how good she was at the Georgians and Regencies.

I often feel certain writers feel if it is too easy & popular, they are doing something wrong and are not "serious" writers who are suffering for their art. I also wonder what sort of messages she got from her husband. The dynamics of generating income in a marriage can lead to tension and passive-aggressive undermining of the writer as a way of maintaining control. That being said, I am grateful for the writers who can take everyday life and make a world where I want to spend time. I do not need them to suffer, no do I need to suffer or be serious all the time. A reliable escape is a tonic. GH has been there for many of us when we needed a lift, she is a treasure.

Kim wrote: "I often feel certain writers feel if it is too easy & popular, they are doing something wrong and are not "serious" writers who are suffering for their art. I also wonder what sort of messages she ..."

So true!

Carol ♔ Typo Queen! ♔ wrote: "MaryC wrote: "A thought: another book/author discussion group I belong to posts chapter summaries during its group reads. Would anyone who has read all of one of GH's suppressed novels be willing t..."

I've never read this, because it's never crossed my path, so I might be barking up the wrong tree here. But after reading the review, it sounds like Heyer is a reverse snob - I mean, Hugh is the obvious jerk without a job. No spoilers here, but for those of you who've read it, is he the really the upper-class "hero" of the book?

Kim wrote: "I often feel certain writers feel if it is too easy & popular, they are doing something wrong and are not "serious" writers who are suffering for their art. I also wonder what sort of messages she ..."

I've posted somewhere here that I wonder if her husband preferring her more serious works is part of the problem. I got that impression from reading Rougier's introduction to MLJ. I'd have to reread the intro to find out exactly what he said.

I read something by the same writer at the link above about Helen theorising that GH was still courting literary approval - & that most of the critics were men. I'll put that link up in the other thread. It's kind of timely for me as I'm reading A History of New Zealand Women & there is somthing in that about Eleanor Catton's (The Luminaries) battles with male critics over here. She has described it as bullying which will always make a GR reviewer go "hmmm." but I think she chose the wrong word. Patronising might have been better. I think she is mainly referring to CK Steadas I found the critic's review from the Listener very fair. (Like him I felt the book lacked a beating heart.)

Karlyne wrote: " Hugh is the obvious jerk without a job. No spoilers here, but for those of you who've read it, is he the really the upper-class "hero" of the book?

It's in the book folder so it's "at your own risk" as far as spoilers go. :)

It's a contemporary not a romance but you do get the feeling that Hugh's world is the one to aspire to. I felt as baffled as Laura did by his attitudes & values.

Yes, if that's the world that is valued, then it is snobbery. But since the main character comes from that world and is universally detested, it's just plain weird! Poor Laura. And everyone else.

Karlyne wrote: "Yes, if that's the world that is valued, then it is snobbery. But since the main character comes from that world and is universally detested, it's just plain weird! Poor Laura. And everyone else."

Oh, Hugh has friends but some of them are shallow as he. It's an interesting study I guess but its values are too far removed from mine to make it enjoyable as a read.

Ha! Good point, Carol, that not only is their "class" so far removed from our own that it's incomprehensible, but, values, too.

Karlyne wrote: "Ha! Good point, Carol, that not only is their "class" so far removed from our own that it's incomprehensible, but, values, too."

It's a combination of that + I loathed Hugh. The values are much the same in Heyer's early Historicals/regencies but you like the main characters. hugh has nothing going for him but a pretty face,

And if he can't even cook... (Remember the old kitchen saying, "Pretty don't last, but good cookin' do"?)

Then of course there's that duke's son who fell in love with the rather scandalous daughter of a country doctor--whoops! Different author!

All right! My ILL copy of Barren Corn just came in, and I am going in full strength!

Critterbee wrote: "All right! My ILL copy of Barren Corn just came in, and I am going in full strength!"

Well... I hope you enjoy it. Who is the publisher & what is the date of publication?

Good luck!

Buccaneer Books, Cutchogue, New York, ISBN 0899661238. From 1977.
Hardback, with a red cover, and with the dedication "To Doreen."

When I looked in OCLC, I only found about 70 copies in libraries in North America. I will check again today and see if that search included the Commonwealth Countries, as sometimes when a low number of results are returned from North America, the search includes the UK, Australia, and New Zealand.

I read that edition! I guess yours isn't from the Downers Grove Public Library though, I would have remembered "Darlene." Someone at Buccaneer ought to pay for having republished it!

No, the copy was sent from Norfolk, VA.

I have begun, and I feel great anxiety for Laura's future. Hugh seems not to consider anything but his immediate gratification. Does not look to have a happy ending.

& I've rerated at 2*. The book was readable - unlike Helen. It's just the values I struggled with & the horrible, horrible hero!

Did you mange to finish it, Critterbee?

Carol ♔ Type, Oh Queen! ♔ wrote: "& I've rerated at 2*. The book was readable - unlike Helen. It's just the values I struggled with & the horrible, horrible hero!

Did you mange to finish it, Critterbee?"

Yes, I finished it, and it seemed rather like a melodramatic made for TV movie. I felt that it failed as a commentary on class inequality because most of the people were quite two-dimensional. Nothing seemed real, and most of it seemed cliche, definitely not GH's best!

(view spoiler)[ Heyer wrote Hugh's character to be aware of his own snobbery and hypocrisy, even to explore it and at times have great clarity. That seems grossly inconsistent to me; I do not think he would be in the least aware or mature enough. And if he was mature enough to be doing that soul-searching, how could he come to the conclusions that he did? Hugh thought Laura should cut off all contact with her family, yet it never was an option for him to do the same with his family, probably because he was unable to do anything to take care of himself. Shades of spoiled man-child.

And Laura, as the innocent martyr, is so passive with her life being decided for her until she feels she has no other choice but to do, well, what she does. (hide spoiler)]

I am glad that I read it though.