Georgette Heyer Fans discussion

This section of our group read is open to all comments from those who have read the whole book. Beware of spoilers!

This was a really fun read. I guessed fairly quickly who the bad guy was but that did not distract from the enjoyment of the book.

Welcome, Ellen. I'm glad you enjoyed the book and I hope you will share your thoughts with those of us who are new to GH mysteries!

I liked it - it wasn't as bad as the other titles GH suppressed. It was an interesting slice of life in the 1930s - where a house without power was an annoyance not an anomaly.

Like Ellen I guessed early on whodunnit. Acouple of other things struck me;

* The romance was very poorly done.
* Margaret using a pay phone. She had to press all of two buttons & acted like she had split the atom! ONe wonders what GH would have made of the 21st century where things are changing all the time! :D

I was all "meh" the first time I read this one but over time I have learned to like it. unlike everyone else, it seems, I did NOT guess "who dun it" but then I never do. I might be just dumb, but I tell myself it's because I allow myself to be swept up in the story the way the author wants and so I am distracted away from the clues.

the "character" I like the most is the setting - the priory especially, but also the lane up to it - scary!- and the little village. the pub where you feel at home and where the landlord *seems* so nice!

I also really like their Aunt who is going deaf and who insists on a seance to contact the monk haunting them.

was going to say the drunken, drug-addicted French artist is a bit over the top but maybe not in a book where the bad guy is the ghost of a monk.

the four main characters are easily the least interesting in the book and yet not unlikable. I liked that Celia is easily scared since I am myself. more with spiders/snakes than ghosts but still, I get tired of everyone always being completely fearless.

the romance is a disappointment but maybe there just isn't room for it. seems like if either Margaret or Mr. Strange were even slightly more interesting that would help a lot.

one thing I did guess from the first was that "Michael Strange" was law enforcement, rather than one of the bad guys like we were supposed to think, so there was no tension when Margaret was all, should I trust him?

Jackie wrote: "one thing I did guess from the first was that "Michael Strange" was law enforcement, rather than one of the bad guys like we were supposed to think, so there was no tension when Margaret was all, s..."

For me, this was another flaw in the book. Margaret, without really knowing anything about Michael, trusted him & withheld information from her family.

Yes, Michael seems to have "cop" written all over im, doesn't he?

Jackie wrote: "I was all "meh" the first time I read this one but over time I have learned to like it. unlike everyone else, it seems, I did NOT guess "who dun it" but then I never do. I might be just dumb, but I..."
I don't think I guessed who the bad guy was because of any clues but because it seemed like the sort of book where the nice character turns out to be the crook and the suspicious character is the hero.

I am having a heckuva time getting the book from my library despite putting it on hold a long time ago. I guess I have to break down and buy the book. I don't want to get left out of the conversation. :-)

I stayed up waaayyy too late finishing this book. At first I couldn't get into it but once they started finding clues, then I couldn't put it down.

I also figured out quickly who the Monk was. It was fairly obvious and it was also obvious Strange wasn't who he said he was but I couldn't figure that one out as quickly. I wasn't surprised by his revelation though. I found the story rather too gothic for my tastes. The characters are not as well drawn as her Regency characters and the story just wasn't her typical witty style. The romance was dreadful. They meet what three times and she knows he's a good guy?

It was obvious who the villain was because
a) It's always who you least expect so that narrowed it down to two.
b) It's always the person who knows everything. The one who says "Come on you can confide in me!"
c) The Colonel refused to say where he had been stationed in India. That's usually a big clue that the man is lying.

I think FitD was intended a a parody of the Gothic genre, although it was written well before Gothic romances really became the rage (all those paperbacks with dark blue covers showing a damsel in white fleeing at night from some menacing pile of a house). FitD could be considered GH's Northanger Abbey. And wasn't it her first mystery? They definitely get better!

Jackie wrote: "one thing I did guess from the first was that "Michael Strange" was law enforcement, rather than one of the bad guys like we were supposed to think, so there was no tension when Margaret was all, s..."

Jackie, like you I didn't guess who the Monk was but did pretty quickly figure out Michael Strange was a good guy -- this Heyer mystery seems to me to be the most similar to Mary Stewart, romantic suspense more than mystery.

I agree that Margaret & Michael's romance was pretty unconvincing -- I had a bit of a chuckle this time when Charles interrupts their first kiss & Margaret announces they are engaged!

Leslie wrote: "Jackie wrote: "one thing I did guess from the first was that "Michael Strange" was law enforcement, rather than one of the bad guys like we were supposed to think, so there was no tension when Marg..."

I expected Michael to say, "We are?!? I mean, yes, of course, we are."

It's odd that Heyer has written some of the best romances ever, but this one just was so rushed and... silly, although I have to admit it didn't bug me as much during this re-read. I think I just glossed over it and enjoyed the other characters more (except for Duval, no enjoyment there!). Aunt Bosanquet was lovely, and I liked Charles' sarcasm.

And, I agree with Mary that Heyer's mysteries just get better and better after this one.

The seance scene with the planchette was the funniest scene in the whole book. :snore:

Qnpoohbear wrote: "The seance scene with the planchette was the funniest scene in the whole book. :snore:"

that is an excellent scene

It is a good one! I can just imagine myself being all skeptical and poo-pooing the whole thing, and then jumping out of my skin.

Carol wrote: "I liked it - it wasn't as bad as the other titles GH suppressed. It was an interesting slice of life in the 1930s - where a house without power was an annoyance not an anomaly."

I liked that part of it too! And the 'complicated' pay phone with buttons.

My favorite character was Auntie--I loved her insistence on having the seance (definitely one of the best scenes). And I loved all of the secret passages--though what on earth did the monks use them for?

The plot and the romance didn't make much sense to me. I do think it was written very much tongue-in-cheek.

Karlyne your line would have been so perfect: I expected Michael to say, "We are?!? I mean, yes, of course, we are."

I think you're right, Hana, that it was written tongue-in-cheek, and that's the best way to read it, too!

Karlyne wrote: "I expected Michael to say, "We are?!? I mean, yes, of course, we are."

It's odd that Heyer has written some of the best romances ever, but this one just was so rushed and... silly, although I have to admit it didn't bug me as much during this re-read. ..."

Yes! That was the most Regency thing about the book, the fact that as soon as she knew Michael "liked" her too, she assumed the happy ever after.

And yes about it being odd that the romance was so badly done. If it had been the first book by GH which I'd picked up, I'd have thought that she couldn't possibly write a good romance.

Hj wrote: "Karlyne wrote: "I expected Michael to say, "We are?!? I mean, yes, of course, we are."

It's odd that Heyer has written some of the best romances ever, but this one just was so rushed and... silly,..."

I wonder, since this was her first mystery, if she was trying to focus on the atmosphere and the plot more than the romance? Some of the creepy atmosphere was good...

I think she wrote herself that she had not only her husband (who would become her usual collaborator on detective books) but also her two brothers helping & adding ideas. Classic case of too many cooks!

It doesn't surprise me about the romance being 'downplayed'. I suspect that when GH set out to try her hand at a mystery story someone told her (or she told herself) not to overdo the romance side of the story.

The romances in all of the mysteries come across as afterthoughts. Some of them are more convincing than others, but you wouldn't read any of them for the romance. Frankly, few of them are all that great in the mystery department either. In my opinion, their best qualities are humour and witty dialogue. If I remember correctly, Heyer wrote the mysteries as money spinners and presumably inserted a romance because that was expected of her. She rather despised readers who loved her romances, so I don't imagine it troubled her to pay lip service to the romance sub-plot in her mysteries.

Kim wrote: "The romances in all of the mysteries come across as afterthoughts. Some of them are more convincing than others, but you wouldn't read any of them for the romance. Frankly, few of them are all that..."

Yes, but if she was going to include any romance I wish she'd made a better job of it.

My real disappointment wasn't so much the romance but the woodenness of the characters generally.

FYI P.G. Wodehouse defines dope as cocaine.

Has anyone here yet read Duplicate Death or Envious Casca? I'll await their thoughts! :)

Qnpoohbear wrote: "FYI P.G. Wodehouse defines dope as cocaine."

Another great mystery solved :) Thank you Qnpoobear!!

I think Cousin Kate is similar to Footsteps in that the romance is ...not well developed, I suppose because she is busy writing about the, not mystery, but horror? it's better in that there are some interesting characters - Kate's former "nurse" and her family are fun to read about. no "dope" in this book...wait, I guess the doctor does medicate her cousin.
anyway, my point is - if it's not a "romance" then the romantic part is not her best.

Jackie, when I noted that Footsteps might be a paroday of the Gothic romance, I was thinking then that, when GHmuch later wrote an honest Gothic in Cousin Kate, which was evidently GH's concession to the Gothic vogue, it was MUCH better! Yes, Kate and Philip aren't the most entertaining lovers, but the novel isn't a romantic comedy.

As for the supporting cast, isn't Sarah's father-in-law a delight? Someone recently posted, on another thread, a comment that GH's treatement of her non-U characters is usually rather negative or patronizing, but there are a few exceptions. Maybe we need a thread for that topic!

Cousin Kate was the first Heyer I ever read. I loved it. Even though I now know it was not a typical book for her I still really like it and it got me started on all her other titles. I am very thankful for that.

Mary wrote: "Has anyone here yet read Duplicate Death or Envious Casca? I'll await their thoughts! :)"

Envious Casca is one where the solution is obvious, but I got so carried away by the characters that I missed it. In fact, I probably wasn't even thinking much about the solution at all.
I couldn't remember which was Duplicate Death (I'm terrible with titles), so I had to go look it up. It's the Beulah and Terrible Timothy Grown Up one, and it's funny and full of unlikable characters, and I liked it a lot!

Kim wrote: "The romances in all of the mysteries come across as afterthoughts. Some of them are more convincing than others, but you wouldn't read any of them for the romance. Frankly, few of them are all that..."

I agree with you, Kim; I read these because they're the wittiest, most humorous of all mystery novels. The plots can be interesting, the romances plausible, but what I'm looking for is Heyer's own brand of thoughtful wit, and that's what I get! Even in Penhallow, which is not a funny book, her words simply appeal to me.

Mary wrote: "Jackie, when I noted that Footsteps might be a paroday of the Gothic romance, I was thinking then that, when GHmuch later wrote an honest Gothic in Cousin Kate, which was evidently GH's concession ..."

Is non-U non-University?

Non-Upperclass?

This "romance" btwn M. Strange and Margaret was silly. I had a hard time suspending disbelief in that quarter.

I can suspend disbelief in Spring Muslin that the h/H fall in love even if they are only together for.. lets see..less than ten pages.

I can't believe that a cold fish like Margaret and M. Strange are in love after spending so little time together. Their "romance" seems like something that GH "inserted" into the story.

Although I thought that it was Duvall's destiny to be murdered, the immediate cause of his death can be laid at the door of Charles. Duvall begged Charles for his discretion. When the butler came in to inform Charles that Duvall was waiting to speak with him in the hearing of the two couples playing bridge, I new that the Frenchman was done for.

Jackie wrote: "the "character" I like the most is the setting - the priory especially, but also the lane up to it - scary!- and the little village. the pub where you feel at home and where the landlord *seems* so nice! "

I like the setting the most also. This feeling made me believe that I might enjoy watching a British country village mystery, than reading. I'd like to see the Priory, ruins, village etc.

I think the setting and the atmosphere were done very well, and I agree, Andrea, that Charles was at least somewhat responsible for Duval's murder. I wonder if he'll ever realize it...

Right, Karlyne--"non-U" is non-upper class. (Although Nancy Mitford didn't coin the term, she seems to have been the one who made it more or less common usage.)

I've read a bit of Nancy Mitford, but I don't remember coming across that one!

It's in an essay, "The English Aristocracy," which was printed in a book called Nobless Oblige along with Alan Ross's "Linguistic Class-indicators in Present-day English," the scholarly article that actually introduced the terms. If you're interested, here's a little more on the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U_and_no...

Mary, that is a fascinating article!! And it arrived in such a timely fashion, since I just finished reading Vita Sackville-West's novella, The Heir; A Love Story, which deals with exactly these issues but looking at them from 1921 rather than the 50s.

Have you read The Heir? It is simply wonderful!

Mary wrote: "It's in an essay, "The English Aristocracy," which was printed in a book called Nobless Oblige along with Alan Ross's "Linguistic Class-indicators in Present-day English," the scholarly article tha..."

Oh, my word (haha)! I had no idea that there was such a topic as recently as the 1950s. I immediately thought of Pygmalion/My Fair Lady for an earlier generation, but of course that was a matter of accent and speech as well as words. Anyhow, how very informative!

It led me to think about American class and class-consciousness and whether or not it is reflected in words, and, at least here in the West, I think it's more a matter of grammar than actual words. The poorly educated (which, by the way, has nothing to do with a college degree) tend to put words together without regard for what's correct. I hear a lot of double negatives and a lot of confused pronouns, for instance, but I think that just about everybody uses the same words for the same things!

Stopped in the library today and this book was out with the staff picks. I took it as a sign!

@Jaima

That sounds like a sign to me!

Do you suppose one of the staff is one of our group?

Maybe! That would be a fun coincidence.
So, is anyone else here from Edmonton?

@Jaima

Maybe the book store person is a lurker.

I'm hearing footsteps in the dark...

I've always wanted to go to Edmonton! And Calgary! And Prince Edward Island! And...