Sweeping Sagas discussion

Please try to get these first sections spoiler free.

it seems I will be the first one to post here....

Laura wrote: "it seems I will be the first one to post here...."

I looked it a bit last night before I nodded off. Must shuffle off to work shortly.

great, I won't be alone here...

Okay, here are my thoughts on this section:

1. In Northanger Abbey, John Thorpe telling Catherine Morland that the whole book was about an old man playing at see-saw and learning Latin shows that he never got further than the opening chapters. I have to say I couldn't see what was so hilarious about Sir Hugh wanting to study the classics, however unlikely he was to succeed. It seems the 18th century didn't subscribe to the idea of lifelong learning. It put me in mind of when I was still at school and our German teacher told us she had been examining A-level German students and one of the students was a lady in her 80s. She had previously done a French A-level and was going on to learn Italian next year or something like that. We didn't think it was funny, we were all really impressed, especially as so many people say you have to be young to learn languages, etc.

2. Is Sir Hugh's planned legacy fair? Not being more specific to avoid spoilers, but I'm not sure it is.

3. I remembered Indiana from my previous read of the book 20 years back, and I thought I had liked her, but I don't see why now - she's just a vacant pretty face, and not a very nice person. By contrast I didn't remember Eugenia, but I am finding her far more interesting than Indiana, and to be honest, than Camilla even.

4. Lavinia: what's the point of her? Eugenia and Lionel have important roles to play but Lavinia seemingly doesn't and seems to be an unnecessary character.

I just finished Book I Moppet.

I must agree with with you, but I think Sir Hugh's planned legacy quite unfair since it's more based in remorse than anything else. And he also changes his mind very fast and without any rational reason, only based in his emotional feelings at that moment.

All women characters are not well defined in this first book, lets see what comes next.

Laura wrote: "I just finished Book I Moppet.

I must agree with with you, but I think Sir Hugh's planned legacy quite unfair since it's more based in remorse than anything else. And he also changes his mind very..."

I agree, he makes decisions to meet his emotional needs without thinking about the further consequences (which is actually something Camilla is prone to as well). I think someone at some point says why leave to chance, what could be avoided by foresight and this seems to be one of the lessons of the book.

I think he did have a duty to provide for Eugenia because he was partly to blame for what happened to her and it really would spoil her marriage chances. But making her the sole legatee just sets her up as a target for fortune hunters. I think he would have done better to give her the lion's share but also make legacies to her brother, sisters and cousins.

But at least it's better than his first plan to give everything to Camilla because he liked her the best, which seemed very unfair particularly to Indiana and Clermont who are both dependent on him.

I'm starting book II in order to see how his obsessive character will progress (or not). We never know how people can change his mind specially in the 18th century.