Retro Reads discussion

Our group read is starting the 22nd of October, so I'm putting the threads up a little early for the keen readers!

How many times have you read this one? Any first timers?

What format are you using.

For spoilers, please use spoiler tags or post in the spoiler thread. We don't want to spoil a first time read for anyone. :)

I’ve read this one once before, many years ago, and really don’t remember much, except it’s always touted as such a classic, and I know I enjoyed it but wasn’t dazzled by it, so I look forward to a second read and hope it clicks for me this time around!

I’ll be reading the e-book through Scribd.

This will be my second read. The first was a hardback 25 years ago.

I'm reading a kindle edition, but as usual, the cover hasn't downloaded with the book (if anyone knows how to fix that I would be grateful!)

This will be my second read - my first was two weeks ago! I started the book and could not stop.

and .

Second read. I read it years ago in hardback, this go round I'm reading on my Kindle.

This is my umpteenth time. I first read this back in the mid-1960s when I was in high school. I drag it out for a re-read every couple of years.
I'll be reading my current copy (I've worn out at least one other)


I think this was the library edition that I first read all those years ago

I’m not sure how many times I’ve read it; at least three. Originally in hardcover; this time it’ll be ebook.

I haven't read it for years and would love to, but my Goodreads groups are overwhelming me with enticing selections this month! Not sure I'll make it. I have an ancient and crumbling paperback copy.

I first read this at school, in the early 1960s. We had quite a group of Ricardians, and none of us had a good word for the Sainted Thomas More. I used to decorate school books with my version of Richard's Boar's Head emblem. My current copy is a Penguin paperback published in 1956, so may even be the original! At the moment it's hiding itself among the hundreds of other books, but I hope to find it before the discussion finishes.

I downloaded this from Kindle and I'm reading it carefully, with frequent side trips to Wikipedia so I can keep the characters straight. It's a lesson in British royal history, for sure, but I'm enjoying the process. As a keen researcher myself, I can identify with the main character's desire to know what happened way back when!

I've got a little 1977 Pocket Books edition, and it's my second time reading it. So far, I've looked up what "lilies of the field" actually are (the verdict still seems to be out on that one) and wondered how I
missed out on making transfers as a kid. This is, of course, considered Tey's masterpiece, but I loved Brat Ferrar so much that I'll be curious to see which comes out on top after this.

Just starting it tonight on my Kindle! First time reader.

I read this quite a few years back, which started a whole obsession about Richard III and the War of the Roses :0)
Would love to re-read it and shall try to join

I am having so much fun re-reading this. Chapter 1 is so funny, with Grant's acerbic take on the latest best-selling books. Could have been written today instead of 1951!
In chapter 3, we get a little inside joke when Grant refers to having seen 'Richard of Bordeaux' several times. *grin*

Tey shows her off her authorial talents in all those excerpts from The Rose of Raby. How the teenage me wished it had been a real book!! I gobbled up that sort of book like candy back in the day.

I'm so appreciating Google; I looked up "missionee" at the end of Chapter 5, and its first use was by Josephine Tey in the early 1950s. What a great word she coined!

I was a lover of the War of the Roses as a kid, too, but I have forgotten huge amounts of details, so this read is at least bringing back some of them.

Barb in Maryland wrote: "I am having so much fun re-reading this. Chapter 1 is so funny, with Grant's acerbic take on the latest best-selling books. Could have been written today instead of 1951!
In chapter 3, we get a lit..."

I didn't catch the Richard of Bordeaux reference; she must have had fun with that one! And I'd love to read The Rose of Raby, too. If I'd read this as a kid, I'm sure I would have haunted the libraries looking for it!

So, as soon as Sir Thomas More pokes his head in, I'm thinking, "Now, wait a minute. Henry VIII's More?" How very interesting....

Karlyne wrote: "So, as soon as Sir Thomas More pokes his head in, I'm thinking, "Now, wait a minute. Henry VIII's More?" How very interesting...."

Exactly.

Karlyne wrote: "So, as soon as Sir Thomas More pokes his head in, I'm thinking, "Now, wait a minute. Henry VIII's More?" How very interesting...."

Exactly the thought that Grant (eventually) has!!

I'm obviously much quicker than he is! (ouch, just fell off my chair laughing)

So sorry not to be around. Im really sick

Carol ꧁꧂ wrote: "So sorry not to be around. Im really sick"

Oh, no! I was hoping you were all better! Take it very, very easy and sleep as much as you can. We'll be here when you get back.

Carol ꧁꧂ wrote: "So sorry not to be around. Im really sick"

Oh, you poor thing--like Karlyne, I thought you were on the road to recovery. Take care of yourself and get well soon.
The book and the discussion will be here...

Karlyne wrote: "I'm obviously much quicker than he is! (ouch, just fell off my chair laughing)"

When I first read this in the early '60s, Sir Thomas More was just a name that I was vaguely familiar with. It wasn't until I saw 'A Man for All Seasons' in the movie theaters(1966) that I acquired a firm grasp on who (and when) he was. So, I can forgive Grant's slowness in recognizing the problem with More's "History". However, I can't forgive More for writing that piece of codswallop!

Barb in Maryland wrote: "Karlyne wrote: "I'm obviously much quicker than he is! (ouch, just fell off my chair laughing)"

When I first read this in the early '60s, Sir Thomas More was just a name that I was vaguely familia..."

Wiki mentions that it might have been just a translation of a work by Archbishop somebody, but I'm not sure that lets him off the codswallop hook.

I looked up portraits of Richard III, and there's only one in the National Portrait Gallery, obviously the one Inspector Grant has. Then I looked up his gorgeous, woman-loving brother Edward IV, and I don't see it. In fact, if anything, Richard is better looking -and more intelligent, less fatuous looking, too. So hmmm to that theory of latent jealousy.

On a side note, would there be a book if Google had been around in 1951?

Re: Tonypandy, sure sounds familiar today, too, doesn't it?

In the beginning, I did not like Grant when he referred to the nurses as 'midget' and 'the amazon,' and had no nickname for the doctor, but he grew on me.

Karlyne wrote: "Wiki mentions that it might have been just a translation of a work by Archbishop somebody, but I'm not sure that lets him off the codswallop hook."

It's Morton and all that's covered in the second half of the book.

The few portraits I found of Edward IV are not very good--I'm speaking artistically. None of the painters were as skilled as Hans Holbein (the younger) who gave us all those wonderful Tudor portraits...

Barb in Maryland wrote: "Karlyne wrote: "Wiki mentions that it might have been just a translation of a work by Archbishop somebody, but I'm not sure that lets him off the codswallop hook."

It's Morton and all that's cover..."

Yes, but it's so much fun to pursue my own investigations via Google!

Critterbee❇ wrote: "In the beginning, I did not like Grant when he referred to the nurses as 'midget' and 'the amazon,' and had no nickname for the doctor, but he grew on me."

Matron is just matron, and the doctor is just the surgeon, but he gives the Amazon and the midget pet names, which is kind of endearing. Oh, and then there's the woolly lamb!

Quick question- anyone know who is referred to in chapter two as “the most notorious nymphomaniac in London looks like a cold saint”?

Susan in NC wrote: "Quick question- anyone know who is referred to in chapter two as “the most notorious nymphomaniac in London looks like a cold saint”?"

No clue--late '40s, early '50s London gossip is beyond my ken. I do get the the gist of the remark, though--that much is very clear. Like you I am a bit curious...

Barb in Maryland wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Quick question- anyone know who is referred to in chapter two as “the most notorious nymphomaniac in London looks like a cold saint”?"

No clue--late '40s, early '50s London gos..."

I don’t know why, but Princess Margaret popped in my head; I don’t watch The Crown but my sister-in-law is a huge fan and recommended it, so I watched a trailer for the coming season, she looked like quite the femme fatale! And I remember my mom told me years ago, there was some scandal about her in her younger days, don’t know what.

Susan
Well, the biggest early scandal for Princess Margaret was that she was madly in love with, and wanted to marry, a divorced military man--Group Captain Peter Townsend. This was around 1952; she was 22 or so. Wikipedia has a fairly good recap in their entry for her.
This is probably what your mom was talking about.

Barb in Maryland wrote: "Susan
Well, the biggest early scandal for Princess Margaret was that she was madly in love with, and wanted to marry, a divorced military man--Group Captain Peter Townsend. This was around 1952; sh..."

Thank you, that sounds familiar!

Good lord, that wouldn’t maker her a nymphomaniac by the standards of the day, would it?

What the what? Was that so bad?

Critterbee❇ wrote: "What the what? Was that so bad?"

I know, that’s what I was wondering! I just figured, Tey wouldn’t put a gossipy comment in there like that unless it was about someone readers would pick up on, so I was wondering who it was (nymphomaniac and drinks a lot, so someone who was a party girl type). Let’s see, when was the book written - and who would be a famous London socialite at that time?

Ok, Book was published in 1951 - any suggestions? I know it’s just a tossed away comment from a conversation between Grant and a fellow copper, but I hate when I don’t get references like that!

Btw, I’m reading the Kindle and listening to the audiobook through my library- Derek Jacobi is narrating, *swoon*, love his voice! Needless to say, he brings every character to life brilliantly!

It's an interesting judgmental remark, telling because of the year. It seems peacetime mores were reasserting themselves with a vengeance. During the war, there was a lot of random (I won't say "casual" because nothing was casual during the Blitz) sex, and it was pretty much accepted as an expression of the extremity of the stress (recent book on the subject, titled something like The Love Charm of Bombs). That a writer only a few years later would refer to a promiscuous person as a nymphomaniac is striking--an expression of society's determination to return to "normal"?

Abigail wrote: "It's an interesting judgmental remark, telling because of the year. It seems peacetime mores were reasserting themselves with a vengeance. During the war, there was a lot of random (I won't say "ca..."

That sounds feasible, whoever the crack was aimed at, it’s pretty harsh, and I assume a reader of the day would get the reference, since Tey writes:

“Not so saintly of late; she’s drinking too much these days,” the A.C. had said, identifying the lady without difficulty; and the conversation had gone on to other things.

Barb in Maryland wrote: "Susan
Well, the biggest early scandal for Princess Margaret was that she was madly in love with, and wanted to marry, a divorced military man--Group Captain Peter Townsend. This was around 1952; sh..."

My mom was fond of saying, "Who do you think you are - Princess Margaret?" It was just an expression denoting extreme privilege and nothing else, though.

Lol!

It is an extremely sexist comment, and confirms the impression from other books that Tey doesn't really believe in equality for women. I doubt if her characters would impute a medical/mental illness to a man who enjoyed the company of women.

Very true!

Rosina wrote: "It is an extremely sexist comment, and confirms the impression from other books that Tey doesn't really believe in equality for women. I doubt if her characters would impute a medical/mental illnes..."

Hmmm. I have only read a couple of Tey's other books, so I can't speak to her general woman-hating, but I can see her making a comment about a saintly looking priest who is, in fact, a Don Juan or a satyr, both of which would be the clinical conditions of a male sex-addict. Perhaps she's making more of a statement about promiscuity rather than about women in general?

Well, there are the kind of remarks and attitudes you can encounter when you read older books (this one is 65+ years old). One of the reasons we read the oldies is to get a glimpse into the past--warts and all.
This little scene, designed, I think, to illustrate the point that you cannot always judge a person's virtue by their face, offers us a bit of the attitude of the day--but it isn't really important to the larger story that Tey wants to tell. I didn't find it very wart-y myself. I rolled my eyes and kept right on reading.

True.