Laurie R. King Virtual Book Club discussion

Welcome to our January discussion!

Megan wanted to start the new year off with A Curious Beginning by Deanna Raybourn. I'll let her post an introduction.

I got lucky and was able to download the Kindle version of this book from my library last week.
I LOVED this book. I couldn't put it down once I started it and now want to read the next book in the series. I'm looking forward to the group discussion.

Got the book from the library. So far, it’s kept my attention. Hope to finish before the deadline.

Really enjoyed this book. Fresh and funny.

Waiting for my copy to arrive.
My book arrived from Better World Books. I'm starting it tonight. I read Silent in the Grave and am looking forward to this volume.

Hey ya'll - sorry for being a couple days late to the party...I didn't want to jump the gun and do my own topic before Sabrina had a chance, then the last two days got busy!

I'm a HUGE Deanna Raybourn fan, going back to Silent in the Grave, so when Sabrina mentioned that this one had been on the list for discussion, I jumped on it. Also, the title just seemed so perfect for this month...January 2021 is absolutely its own kind of curious beginning.

Anyway, I know some folks are already underway with their reading, but just like last month, I'm posting not only for those reading right now but for the other lurkers like myself reading back through these threads in the future as they catch up on past selections. So here are a few pre-reading questions to kick things off - the only specific references to this book are from the back of the book summary, so no spoilers of any kind at this point, please! We'll get into the early chapters in the next few days, then it will be spoiler time starting next week!

1. Have you read any of Deanna Raybourn's other books? If so, which one(s) and did it set any expectations about this one going in?

2. We're heading back to Victorian England for this one - what is it about that place and time period that makes it so popular for historical mysteries? Since we're all here because of the Russell/Holmes series, I feel somewhat confident that we all enjoy historic settings to some degree - but do Victorian stories intrigue you more than other time periods? If so, why? And if not, where and when do you wish more mysteries were set?

3. Since it is in the back of the book summary, I don't think it's too spoilery to mention that our main character is a lepidopterist. First, since we happened upon an amazing number of actual Amish country residents last month, I'll ask - any real-life lepidopterists/entomologists/biologists here? If so (or if you know anyone in those fields), what do you think Veronica's profession will bring to her mystery solving pursuits?

4. Another thing that I'm not considering a spoiler since it's in the summary is the involvement of Stoker, "a reclusive and bad-tempered natural historian." Since Deanna's work has always been marketed in a somewhat romance-adjacent way, it seems pretty obvious that there will be some kind of relationship there - any predictions of how things will go? Do you enjoy the romance element in mysteries in general, or do you tend to avoid stories that seem like they're going that way?

5. Also from the summary, we know that the core mystery involves a German baron. Again, because you never know...any real-life nobility here? Or anyone who has interacted with that world? Even if you haven't - are you one of those folks with a jubilee tea set and every Lucy Worsley book and DVD, did you roll your eyes when you saw the word "baron" on the back of the book, or are you somewhere in between?

I think Victorian England makes a great setting for a mystery. There are so many eccentric characters so females can be ahead of the times without being out of place. Sorta.

This is my first Deana Raybourn book. So far, pretty terrific. I like the tension between Speedwell and Stoker.

Regarding the aristocracy, seems like the period demands it. Although, I am totally in the dark about German aristocracy.

#2 - I can think of several reasons Victorian mysteries are popular.

1 - It was the peak of power for the British empire, and so British authors will have it top-of-mind. Many American mystery authors pattern their writing after British models.
2- It was the time the detective novel was developed, not only Conan Doyle but also Dickens and Poe, so it fits our model of what a mystery should be. Sort of like the popularity of Regency romances, which surely owe something to Austen rather than anything about the period itself.
3 - It's long enough ago to seem sort of hazy and romantic, but recent enough that it's not completely foreign.
4- Upper and middle-class people had comfortable enough lives that you don't spend the whole book cringing with how miserable or bizarre everything is. Britain had a period of relative domestic peace (plenty going on abroad, of course), which makes some types of books easier - hard to write a cozy set in the US during 1860-65, or in France during 1793-4.
5- The police force existed but was still in development, so amateur detectives are not as absurd a concept as they would be later.

Megan - Once again, you've given us a lot to talk about

I haven't read this author before and I went back and forth on this one. I was kind of annoyed in the beginning, but then a little intrigued as the book went on. I thought Veronica was a one-sided character (and now that I'm writing this, I don't think Stoker was as one-sided ...) and it tends to annoy me when woman are portrayed so simply. I am trying to decide if I am going to continue with the series. Since we are discussing cozies, I'm now aware that one of the reasons I have not gotten the next book is I don't like the cover design ... Interesting don't you think? I read most of my books thru Kindle and I am turned off by the covers ...

2) Victoria era mysteries - I agree with what everyone else has said and I add that now we are trained to read Victorian mysteries. Victorian cozies is a subset that we recognize.

3) I liked the tension between them and like my cozies with some romance and without the sex. There is so much violence in our world now I like having things work out with a happy ending. (Side note - I live with a multiple deployment combat veteran. You should hear the conversations that occur over what movie to watch. His favorite is Gladiator and mine is Shakespeare in Love)

4) I didn't know anything about lepidopterist. For me it was a side note ... but a worthy question and it will be interesting to see if we have any in our group :-)

I'll stop there, since I feel I'm kind of rambling. I wasn't able to participate much last month and making up for lost time

Thanks everyone who participates

I’m almost half way through this book and I feel compelled to say that Speedwell and Stoker are the two most tedious and unlikeable main characters I can remember encountering in a very long time. They have not yet begun to untangle the mystery, and the only reason I’m continuing to read is the hope that the mystery itself will prove interesting.

Lenore wrote: "I’m almost half way through this book and I feel compelled to say that Speedwell and Stoker are the two most tedious and unlikeable main characters I can remember encountering in a very long time. ..."

I agree. I loved her other series and went to read this book. Could not finish it. I was so disappointed.

I couldn’t put my finger on what was keeping me from reading this book but Lenore nailed it. I don’t like these characters. I put it down and haven’t been compelled to go back to it.

Lenore wrote: "I’m almost half way through this book and I feel compelled to say that Speedwell and Stoker are the two most tedious and unlikeable main characters I can remember encountering in a very long time. ..."

I had same reaction, Lenore. I loved her other series, but the characters didn't grab me on this one. I will say… I enjoyed the second book though. So for those not too excited about the first book, might worth giving the second a try.

I tried to read this some time ago and I have forgotten the details but I remember that I also found it very repetitive. I felt that it could have been cut in half without losing anything. Don't know if this would be true for later books but I am reluctant to spend money to find out.

I finished the book last night and thought it was interesting enough for a romance novel but it wasn't a mystery. Although we have a death early on, the main characters spend the first half of the book running away and make no attempt to investigate until the second half. Disappointing. Will not read another in that series.

I read this book when it first came out and found Ms. Speedwell very trying / tiring. Stoker was a little more interesting. Their chemistry together did improve over time, and I remember mostly liking the book. I tried to read the second one and just couldn't get into it. Maybe another go at it will be successful.

I love their sparring, and I'm looking forward to #6 of this wild and crazy series in March. Different tastes make life interesting. ;-)
I like butterflies, but I'm no lepidopterist . . . The question reminded me of a poem I hope it's okay to share . . .
(I haven't been getting emailed notices since getting a new gmail address . . . so I'll have to remind myself to check in).
The Butterfly House by Mary Garrett

In January my mother wanted to see the Butterfly House.
My first thought was to plan it for spring break,
But life is always uncertain. We had mild weather for January,
And school ends blissfully early on exam days.

We rushed to get together all the necessities for an outing,
Medicines, oxygen, personal items.
I phoned for directions, and we set out,
Not actually following the most direct route,
But we got there.

Mom looked in dismay at the long path down to the House,
And then smiled brightly
When I pulled the wheelchair from the trunk of my little Tercel.
“I didn’t know you brought the chair!” she exclaimed.
Had she thought I would have her walk that long way?

Inside, warm summer met us in the middle of winter.
Flying jewels danced through the air,
And a room of chrysalises waited to emerge.
One very special blue giant perched on my mother’s knee,
Completely capturing her heart.

The visit was over too soon,
Closing time found us reluctant to leave.
In spring or summer we can come and stay longer,
But I’m glad we didn’t wait --- Carpe diem!

To respond to the earlier questions:

1. This is my first by this author (that I can recall).
2. I’m not especially fond of Victorian novels or mysteries.
3. That our protagonist is a lepidopterist seems only necessary to explain how she derives her income and travels, where she indulges in sexual exploits. I’m not so familiar with the genre, but it these last two plot points require me to suspend my disbelief.
4. Stoker provides tension that is necessary for plot development and his dark nature is a counterpoint for the main character.
5. That Max is a baron doesn’t seem so critical to the plot (at least from where I am in the story).

I’ll finish the book but am not likely to read another by the same author. My opinion could change, of course.

As I said earlier I liked this book. Maybe it just caught me at the right point in my post Christmas blahs but I did enjoy this book.
I thought it was lighthearted and fun.I would probably even characterize it as a young adult book because of Veronica's age. I love that she stood up to all the people that tried to control her life. I laughed when she told off the Parson's wife. Haven't we all had people in our lives we wanted to shock into silence?
Veronica even reminded me a little bit of Mary Russell. A young woman on her own studying a topic that is unusual for a young woman. Our Miss Russell is not travelling the world collecting men along with butterflies, but both characters are not afraid to speak their minds, are able to analyze a situation and come up with a solution. And both are paired with older men. This is not to compare authors or writing styles or character development.

Laura wrote: "As I said earlier I liked this book. Maybe it just caught me at the right point in my post Christmas blahs but I did enjoy this book.
I thought it was lighthearted and fun.I would probably even ch..."

Laura, these are the good points of the book. It is lighthearted and funny at times, and I do like Veronica as a character.

Laura wrote: "As I said earlier I liked this book. Maybe it just caught me at the right point in my post Christmas blahs

I'm mentioned before that I read a ton of cozies - not because I think they are high literature or usually even a good mystery, but they generally are lightly comic and my form of escapism. I found Veronica's promiscuous jarring and unbelievable.

but I did think Stoker was better drawn as a character ...

Jennifer wrote: "Laura wrote: "As I said earlier I liked this book. Maybe it just caught me at the right point in my post Christmas blahs

I'm mentioned before that I read a ton of cozies - not because I think the..."
I wouldn't say I found Veronica's sexual freedom jarring, exactly, but I do get a little tired of sexual freedom being used as an indicator for historical women being open-minded and ahead of their time. Unless they've also magically managed to be ahead of their time in accessing reliable contraception, it's a little facile.

Unless they've also magically managed to be ahead of their time in accessing reliable contraception, it's a little facile.

Hahahaha!!

What a great point Emily

I'm re-reading because it has been so long, long enough for much to be new again, and I enjoy the sparring, and her refreshingly shameless enjoyment, “I might not intend to use him for a plaything, but I could still appreciate looking through the toy-shop window.” She does mention "proper knowledge and precautions," a reminder that women have long used herbal methods to prevent pregnancy. One of Edith Maxwell's Quaker Midwife books mentions new laws against dissemination of contraceptive knowledge, devices, or remedies. Providers used euphemisms about regularizing monthly cycles or restoring women's health (I can't remember exactly).
I love her rule about not in England or with an English man . . . and the irony/hypocrisy of treatment women's vs. men's indiscretions.

There have been contraceptives used for probably thousands of years of human history. However, the efficacy of such was very hit or miss. I'm agreeing with Emily on that one.

I had to push myself to finish this book. Part of that is just being distracted by all that is currently going one (attempted coups seem to have that effect), but part is that I could not get invested in the characters. Veronica's character was annoyingly one note, Stokes' was a bit more interesting but still seemed forced, Veronica's utter lack of curiosity about her parentage and odd upbringing wasn't believable, and the actual mystery seemed incredibly contrived. The book could have worked much better if it had been written as a spoof of a melodramatic Gothic.

Emily wrote: Unless they've also magically managed to be ahead of their time in accessing reliable contraception, it's a little facile.

To go along with Mary's comment. "Womb Veils" were in use as far back as the 1830s. They were basically rubbers forerunners of the diaphragm and cervical cap, and were discreetly advertised in various mail-order catalogues. There were also various types of condoms in use. As one catalogue put it: "used by the female without danger of detection by the male."

I think the largest issue with contraceptives was education, which is still an issue today.

I just wanted to add that Deanna Raybourn was a history major and teacher. She's pretty hilarious on Twitter, and some are constantly arguing with her about how 'Victorians didn't talk about sex or even think about it'. Her blunt replies are pretty funny.

She's pretty hilarious on Twitter, and some are constantly arguing with her about how 'Victorians didn't talk about sex or even think about it'. Her blunt replies are pretty funny.

Well, they may not have *talked* about it in polite company; what they did is something entirely different!

Emily wrote: "#2 - I can think of several reasons Victorian mysteries are popular.

3 - It's long enough ago to seem sort of hazy and romantic, but recent enough that it's not completely foreign."

That's the reason that came to mind for me. It's long enough ago to be different, but close enough to current for modern thinking not to immediately jump out as anachronism.

I've always had a hard time getting into the Brother Cadfael books by Ellis Peters because, while I don't really know what life would have been like in the middle ages, I expect more modern theories of deduction would not fit. So my suspension of disbelief suffers. Which is not the case with books set in Victorian England.

Jennifer wrote: "I found Veronica's promiscuous jarring and unbelievable."

I rather did too, Jennifer. Although her travels in general were pretty unbelievable for the times. I forget everywhere she said she's been, but highly unlikely that a woman would be gallivanting around Europe and beyond (I think she says at one point that she's been to South America? And Africa?). Especially without family/chaperonage or being extremely wealthy.

That aspect of her character/backstory was played way down in subsequent books and I think I liked those books better for it. She almost seems like she's bragging about her encounters in this first book.

On the topic of lepidoptery! California Academy of Sciences has a virtual event scheuled for next Thursday 1/21 if anyone is interested! It will be streamed on YouTube, I believe: https://www.calacademy.org/nightlife/...

I remember I read the Julia Grey series first and then moved immediately on to Veronica Speedwell. Julia and Brisbain definitely live in a more believable Victorian England than Veronica does. They have their own eccentricities (which I think is kind of Ms. Raybourn's specialty with her characters), but not quite so extreme as what we find with Veronica and Stoker.

Jumping into the discussion here. First of all, I think Emily gave excellent reasons why Victorian era is popular with mysteries.
Personally, I like historical mysteries in pretty much any era. I read lots of mysteries set in ancient Rome, as well as medieval England and later.
Historical fiction is my favorite, and historical mysteries tend to be less gritty and forensics oriented than modern mysteries. Cozies can be a little too light for me.
As for Veronica Speedwell and Stoker, I enjoyed the novel because I found the voice amusing. I will read a compelling voice even when I don't totally love the characters. I have read several in this series and I must say I like Stoker better than Veronica. I respect his character more, and perhaps he is also more complex. I think I enjoyed this book because I didn't take it seriously and just enjoyed the humor.
I thought the lepidopterist angle added a fun bit of detail, and I think it fits the times well.
Barons tend to make me roll my eyes, I guess. I generally avoid romances, and aristocratic titles don't impress me much.

KarenB wrote: "Veronica's utter lack of curiosity about her parentage and odd upbringing wasn't believable, and the actual mystery seemed incredibly contrived...."

That did seem weird, for an otherwise extremely curious and engaged person. I also agree that I've read later ones in the series and I think they are better.

I read this book a year ago and thoroughly enjoyed it, especially for its humour. I read all Raybourn’s books as they come out, and this book is my favourite to date.

On why we might like the Victorian era: the extreme contrasts during this long time period allow authors to focus on what interests them most: the political, social, artistic, etc.

On butterflies and Veronica’s believability and likability, about which readers seem polarized: I wonder if Raybourn modelled Veronica on Margaret Fountaine (1862-1940), a fascinating traveller and scientist described online as « Europe’s most famous woman lepidopterist of the late Nineteenth and early Twentieth century. » She travelled over six continents and six decades, and like Veronica, she sourced rare butterflies for others when she was broke. She made watercolours and sketches, wrote and published in-depth, ground breaking articles (between 1897-1938). The focus of biographies and the abridged versions of her diaries seems to have been on her love life at the expense of her professional accomplishments. I read a little about her in books from Virago Press years ago and had to go online to refresh my memory as my books are long gone.

Re Stoker — he’s a taxidermist! Veronica is the focus!

Dorothy wrote: "I read this book a year ago and thoroughly enjoyed it, especially for its humour. I read all Raybourn’s books as they come out, and this book is my favourite to date.

Interesting to consider that Veronica was based on a real person. Makes her a little more believable.

Dorothy wrote: "I read this book a year ago and thoroughly enjoyed it, especially for its humour. I read all Raybourn’s books as they come out, and this book is my favourite to date.

On why we might like the Vic..."
I love having a real person as inspiration. Resistance to the norms is possible, if not easy. The self-defense training was probably necessary, going unprotected into the world. (I just flashed on the scene in ENEMY WOMEN when she realized that without a hat she would be seen as a loose woman, subject to maltreatment).
I did find myself sometimes confused between the two series, reading as the library had them for me rather one at a time and in order. I had to remind myself with my page of notes: Who's the gypsy? What? The melding of traits was fun, too, in its own way.

Dorothy wrote: "I read this book a year ago and thoroughly enjoyed it, especially for its humour. I read all Raybourn’s books as they come out, and this book is my favourite to date.

On why we might like the Vic..."

Dorothy, I like your theory of Veronica being based on a real person. And after reading the many comments from other readers here, I do believe a Facebook post from the Goodwill Librarian on Jan 20th - "No two persons ever read the same book" - Edmund Wilson.

Judith commented:
No two persons ever read the same book" - Edmund Wilson.
I love this observation.

I intended to skim and refresh and found myself savoring every word . . . again. It might also be true that in rereading one is also a different reader each time.

So now that we're at the end of the month...how's everyone coming? I have to admit that I was firmly in the camp of the first several commenters when I read this one the first time back when it came out. This one, for me, suffers from series-opener-itis, with way too much of the book dedicated to establishing the characters and setting and way too little plot and action. My faith in Deanna and love of her previous writing kept me going, but it was rough for a while there.

I don't know Deanna Raybourn personally, of course, but I follow her on social media and get her email newsletter (as it sounds like some of you also do), and it seemed as an outside observer like her change of publishers was rather difficult, and that it happened without a clear picture of what she would write next. My personal theory is that this series started as a recycling of concepts she had considered for Julia and Brisbane (Veronica and Stoker do seem suspiciously similar in many ways), and this first installment was intended to buy her time to come up with stories for the future. The series does get better, but, to me, it still hasn't gelled to the point of the Lady Julia series and related works.

HOWEVER:

Now that we're at the end and don't have to worry about spoiling anyone, I think it's reasonable to post a few wrap-up questions, which you are welcome to reply to whenever you're reading this, or to consider on your own.

1. Was there any point in the book at which you thought Stoker might be a murderer?

2. Were you surprised about Veronica's parentage/family? How would you have handled learning all of that if you were in her situation? Whose family situation did you relate to (whether personally or in a Jerry Springer show sense) more - hers or Stoker's?

3. Where do you expect Veronica and Stoker's relationship to go from here after what they've learned about each other and been through together?

4. I recall from past discussions that there are several fellow Rivers of London fans here. Obviously the city itself is not as central to this story as it is in that series, but there is quite a bit of time spent establishing the physical setting. Do you think that was helpful or distracting? Did reading this make you more interested in visiting London, have you planning a trip to the Bahamas instead, or just keep sticking with Rick Steves on the TV?

5. There has been some discussion already about the ways that sex, birth control, and relationships in general are depicted in Veronica's character...what did you think of how that was introduced? Was it believable? Did it affect how you thought of her? Did it feel shoehorned in, or give her more dimensions?

on your #5, I loved Stoker's reluctant advice re cold baths. ;-)
I admired Veronica's frankness on the subject, in a time when a lady was expected to blush at sight of a table leg.
#3 They felt like a good couple from the beginning, but I'm glad there was a delay . . . and besides, they were a bit busy.
#2 I looked forward to the revelation in this re-reading, and to the parade and sight of Queen V. and I did enjoy remembering my own tame river cruise from a dozen years ago, glad it did not involve swimming.
** How does one find the early discussion?

Megan wrote: "The series does get better, but, to me, it still hasn't gelled to the point of the Lady Julia series and related works."

Somewhat agree. Although I do like Veronica and Stoker's working relationship better than Julia and Brisbane. Julia tries to jump into this detective world that Brisbane has been a master of for a few decades and Brisbane continuously tries to hold her off. Veronica and Stoker are both rather new to detective work together, so they seemed on more even footing right from the beginning. They have different life experiences that mesh well in a professional partnership. And then they have that sexual tension on top of it.

Erin, I agree that the basis of the Veronica/Stoker relationship does seem a bit more equal than Julia/Brisbane - and like I said, they do get more individual as the series goes on (I haven't read the most recent one, so I'm not completely up to date, but at least in the first four).

Mary, I know that Rivers of London briefly came up during last month's discussion of Assaulted Caramel, but I feel like it's come up in other prior conversations as well. I don't know that there ever was a dedicated topic or anything, though. Maybe one to consider for the future for the group?

Megan wrote: "Mary, I know that Rivers of London briefly came up during last month's discussion of Assaulted Caramel, but I feel like it's come up in other prior conversations as well. I don't know that there ever was a dedicated topic or anything, though. Maybe one to consider for the future for the group?"

It's in our discussion archive here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

2015, so deep dive in the archive!

I haven't been able to participate in this book club in months, though I have been interested in some of the selections. I just finished this book, I wasn't sure I was going to get to it this month but once I started I read quickly. I got into it, I was interested in the story, but I couldn't decide whether or not I actually liked Veronica through most of the book. In the end I enjoyed it and I'd be interested in reading more, and possibly other books by the author (I've never read anything of hers before). And I'm still not entirely sure if I like Veronica! She does seem a little too dense and stubborn, and I figured out some parts of the plot relatively easily, though I honestly didn't realize this was a cozy until I read through the discussion. I'm a lot more forgiving when it comes to cozies because I read them for fun and don't expect too much.

Erin wrote: "Megan wrote: "Mary, I know that Rivers of London briefly came up during last month's discussion of Assaulted Caramel, but I feel like it's come up in other prior conversations as well. I don't know..."

Intriguing -- I'll check it out. Thanks!

Just wanted to let anyone interested in reading Deanna's Lady Julia series know that a set of the first three ebooks is on sale for $1.99 right now at all of the usual ebook retailers - this link should give you a choice of your preferred source.

https://www.bookbub.com/books/lady-ju...

THANKS! I got it. What a great deal!

Late to the party (Jan. was insane for all kinds of reasons), but I am in the "really enjoyed this book" category. I read this and #2 in preparation for interviewing the author about #6 on my blog, which you can access on GR if you're interested. I have holds on #3 and #4 through my library, but who knows when those will arrive.

Seems to be a divisive series, in the sense that people either love Veronica or can't stand her!