Courtney and Rachel Talk Books: Faro's Daughter

Courtney AND rachel take on Georgette Heyer ( and Kato!)

The Story

Faro’s Daughter tells the story of Deborah, a woman who works in a gamboling house, and Max Ravenscar who is a gentleman trying to save his young cousin from a most inconvenient marriage to aforementioned woman. Of course, as Deborah really has no intention of marrying Ravenscar’s young cousin, this book is filled with many misconceptions and angry words as Deborah and Ravenscar try to get the other to leave Ravenscar’s cousin alone.

And as per any Heyer novel, we can expect these many misconceptions to somehow turn into love and a happily-ever-after ending.

Rachel: I really didn’t like Faro’s Daughter as well as I liked the other Heyer novels. This is a bit disappointing, because up to and surrounding Christmas, I read a string of awesome, adorable Heyer after another. I really think this had something to do with the characters. I did not fall for Max Ravenscar in the same way as I did a Miles Cavanaugh or a Jasper Damerel. Knowing that Heyer as such delightful potential for sparkling, witty heroes and heroines, I felt a little cheated when I failed to really click with either the main or peripheral characters. I rather enjoyed Lucius, Deborah’s erstwhile confidante, but no potential was completely realized on this front.

Courtney: I would completely agree with you about this – not nearly as enjoyable as Heyer’s other novels that I’ve read, and it’s all due to the characters. There was so much potential – misunderstanding! an unlikely female heroine! romance between all the wrong people! But it didn’t go as far as it could have because the characters didn’t bring it there. Whereas you enjoyed Lucius, I have to say that I didn’t even like him – or any of the other secondary characters. I thought they all felt very one-dimensional. And this saddens me.

Rachel: In the best Heyer novels, the relationship between the heroine and hero develops in a sparklingly languid way. Like Elizabeth and Darcy, you follow them through their trail of mishaps to the rainbow at the end of the tunnel and the final “a ha!” moment. Here, Ravenscar and Deborah hated each other (surfacely) so intensely that any development was shoved to the wayside. Thus, in the final moments, they seem almost thrown together and you cannot retrace your thoughts to the beginning of their more amorous acquaintance. Yes, a sparring couple is one of the delights of Heyer—- but this moved beyond playful sparring and bordered on downright mean. They both went out of their way to comment on the others inadequacies in a harsh and cruel way.

Courtney: Downright mean doesn’t even begin to cover it! He insulted her at every possible chance, she went out of her way to provoke his anger, and then if that wasn’t bad enough she kidnapped him! And while love often grows from hate in books, we don’t see their feels really changing and then all of a sudden when she agrees to marry him, it just feels so out of character for both of them… almost like the characters got away from Heyer and this was her reining them in for the big finish.

One of the things that really frustrated me about this book was the double standard that was presented of what women and men are allowed to do. Men are allowed to frequent gaming halls, but for a woman to run a gaming hall out of her house was one of the biggest taboos that could be done. I know it’s my feminist side coming out there, but it made me quite angry when reading about it.

Rachel: I don’t think, particularly, this “problem” was one of Heyer’s writing and plot; rather a double-standard permeating the time period ( alongside a host of others not as starkly explored in this book.

Courtney: One of the highlights of her other books are the whole cast of characters and this one was lacking, especially in the side-kick point. I have a tendency to love sidekicks more than main characters in most media that I thoroughly enjoy. They can provide insights into the character, or provide comic relief, and are often the vehicle used to get us inside the main characters’ heads and understand what they are feeling and thinking.

Rachel: Yes. Friday’s Child has ruined me for Heyer novels without strong sidekicks. Sometimes what is most prominently revealed about the development of the hero and heroine’s relationship is said in these colourful moments with wondrous side-kick aplomb. In fact, the sidekick is SO essential to a great story and so important, one is automatically drawn to thinking about other sidekicks. Say, sidekicks one has seen is recent movies. Say, sidekicks that have nothing to do with regency romance; rather are renaissance men who can make coffee and fight martial arts while listening to Beethoven. Sidekicks who are the personification of a human swiss army knife…sidekicks like KATO!!!!

Courtney: Kato is adorable! And can kick Britt’s butt but is still so loyal to him that he only does it when Britt needs a SERIOUS butt-kicking. Other than that, he will drop everything to make sure Britt doesn’t get his butt-kicked by anyone else!

Rachel: Wait. Maybe we should let people know that we have switched to the Green Hornet: a movie Court and I saw a few weeks back. A movie that was so splendidly ridiculous I doubt it really had any screenwriting: just a lot of running around and laughing.

What I REALLY liked about the Britt-Kato relationship was the balance ( or imbalance) of power. It takes Britt a long time to reconcile himself to the fact that Kato really is his superior in many ways. When Kato tells Britt he is stubborn it is an understatement. Britt finally learns that in order to stay safe ( metaphorically and literally), he has to move into the front seat of the Black Beauty and let equilibrium ensue.

I also LOVE little details about Kato: the fact that he makes coffee, sketches Bruce Lee; draws a happy face on a card accompanying a gift to Britt; is saved from Britt’s pool by an inflatable lobster…

And what I liked MOST about this partnership is how different it is to other partnerships. So often ( and can I shamelessly use the BBC Sherlock as an example, please? Okay. I will) as in the BBC Sherlock, the “team” of hero and sidekick are mentally in synch: they just need to glare at each other and they are mentally attuned to what the other is planning.

Britt and Kato ( in their development as the Green Hornet and Kato ) have no synchronicity at all.

I love how we jumped from Georgette Heyer to this, by the way. What a subtle transition.

Courtney: I think you’ve covered everything that is important about the Britt-Kato bromance, and I don’t know that there’s anything else that needs to be said about it, really. Except that it was really awesome that there wasn’t REALLY any romance in the movie. I mean, they were both in love with the same chick, but she wasn’t interested in either of them. And so the focus was completely on the Britt-Kato dynamics without getting sidetracked and distracted. Not enough stories do this!

The Bottom Line

Hum. The most boring of Heyer’s books that I’ve read so far. So boring that we tangented quite easily.

Rachel and Courtney talk a whole lot of "Jack!"( we're a tad loquacious).

disclaimer: I ain't so savvy with the accents on the computer, y'all. So, when we type "Ate's" name --- I want you to know that it doesn't read "Ate" ( as in I ate some carrots whilst watching the World Cup); rather, "TAY" as in parTAY (with carrots while watching the World Cup)! savvy? second, this little book dialogue contains some spoiler-ish content ( but not enough to keep you from wanting to run out and buy the book, methinks)

'Member when Courtney and I discussed Georgette Heyer and it changed your lives? well, we're back! together! la la la !

Rachel:Courtney read the Blooding of Jack Absolute. I have been trying to get Courtney to read TBoJA since, umm, since 200--- when did it come out again?

Courtney: This one came out in 2005. First Jack book came out in 2003.

Rachel: So, when Court texted me saying she was reading some Jack. I thought: count me in! This stuff is FUUUN! ---plus, it takes me back to my university student years. Court, you might have to get us through the first part of the novel because I have not read it in FOREVER! Readers, I just picked up my copy and read from the chapter called “Ate” onward --- ‘cause that’s where all the best stuff is. So, Court, maybe you want to tell us about the first three quarters of the book: like, with Jack and Craster and an annoying female character ( or two ) and Plains of Abraham and Stuff ( to put it eloquently). What was your initial impression of our friend Jack( other than the fact that he looks like Jack Davenport)?

Courtney:Well! Prologue starts when he’s about … 7 I think? Anyway, we meet Jack as who is constantly beat and bullied by his uncle, and his older (by a year) cousin Craster. (And so, the first parallel between Jack and Craster: both were born out of wedlock, and so are considered bastards – except apparently Jack isn’t really a bastard, but we don’t learn that until later on.) Jack’s uncle dies, Craster is annoying (not in a good way), Jack’s parents show up, and whisk the two of them off to London, where they will both be attending (different) boarding schools. And you can’t help but feeling both annoyed with and protective of Jack. He’s a dumb boy who eggs things on, but these people who are supposed to be his protectors (read: his uncle) is a complete tyrant to him. Not cool! Fast forward however many years into the future when Jack is 16 (I think?). He and his friends have formed a society of “Mohoks” (sp?), which they’ve fashioned after the REAL Mohawks of Canada. (Woah, foreshadowing!) Jack gets into a duel with his cousin Craster (the kind of duels where pistols are shot, obviously), and then in order to save the family name and to escape the police etc etc, he gets into the British army, and is shipped off to Canada. (w00t w00t!) Which is where the fun begins. Oh, right, and before he is shipped off to Canada, he has relations with many women. One, he is in love with – a delicate, precious, goddess of a thing, who is rather annoying. One, taught him the art of making love – the mistress of another dude that Jack manages to serious piss off, and seriously the female should’ve known this would eventually happen. And I think there is one other, but I don’t know. Anyway, these parts were really boring. Because, seriously? Must ALL awesome adventure novels have the hero get into some kind of romantic encounter? BAH. It just detracts from the adventure story itself.

Rachel:Humphreys is not the only culprit here. I am looking at you, Bernard Cornwell and you Ian Fleming and you every- other- author -of -adventure- fiction -that -features -some -sort -of- “strong” -heroine ---is it to entice women to read “guy” books? pfft!I think girls want battles and bromance in their adventure novels. You need not cater to us. If we want our girly stuff, we can traipse over to Austen.

Courtney: Rachel, I know that you started when Ate shows up, but I have a sneaking suspicion that you’ll want to say something about the Plains of Abraham, so why don’t you continue tangentially on with how awesome and underrated Canadian history is?

Rachel: Really? I thought you would never ask!

THE PLAINS OF ABRAHAM as retold by Rachel

-->the Battle of the Plains of Abraham was the pivotal battle in the SEVEN YEARS WAR ( don't ask me how long that war ran for ;) )--

-->It was fought by the British Army and the French army on the plains just outside the fortress of Quebec City.

-->it was the result of a three month siege on Quebec by the British and basically the action went down in an hour---Gen. James Wolfe led the British; Louis-Joseph, Marquis de Montcalm led the French

--> WOLFE AND MONTCALM ( is grade eight history coming back to you now? ) were mortally wounded during the Battle and people painted their deaths. ( Apparently Montcalm said something poignant on his deathbed like " I am glad" or " I am glad of it" or summat like that)

-->the Battle basically was the last straw and the last hold that the French had in any power/ ownership of Canadian land---within four years of the Plains of Abraham show-down, all of France's possessions in this area of North America were ceded to the British.

-->Jack was there!

Courtney:Ha! Brilliant! So yes, Jack fights in the Battle of the Plains of Abraham, which was totally awesome because it’s a huge part of Canadian history (even if it only lasted like 15 minutes and a lot of Canadians don’t even know what it is when mentioned) and it made it seem so much more real than when reading history book entries about it. Because you care about the characters, and so it means more to you (not that it shouldn’t mean a lot, but there’s a lot of disconnect due to how many years ago it was)! This is how history should be taught! Anyway! Blah blah blah after that, Jack’s a slave, meets Ate, they don’t get along, then they escape together and then! This is where the fun stuff starts. Because the two of them spend ONE WHOLE WINTER in a cave with JUST THE TWO OF THEM and a dead bear (that they killed to get meat and other stuff and that was really the best part of the whole book). And do you know what keeps them occupied all winter and makes them the bestest of friends? --HAMLET. Because the Bard has a way of making enemies into friends, yo.

Rachel:Seriously. So, one of the things that Courtney and I wanted to address in ye olde Jack Absolute is the theatricality. First off, we should mention that Jack Absolute is not just a figment of the author’s imagination. Instead, he is a character featured in Richard Brinsley Sheridan’s The Rivals (1775): a play I had to read in university—around the time I met “our” Jack. From the start, theatricality is embedded in the stories. There is something so wonderful about Ate mounting a tree stub and quoting the "To Be or Not To Be" soliloquy in his native language. Hamlet, for Jack and Ate, is an equalizer. We learn it is something that Jack can “trade” for Ate’s inherent wilderness skill and it obliterates language and cultural barrier for the two of them. In essence, Jack and Ate communicate through Hamlet: Jack teaching English to Ate all the while and Ate translating Hamlet ( as best possible ) into his own Iroquois language. I would have to say, Court, that it is one of the more brilliant literary turns in contemporary fiction. The chapter focusing on their re-hashing of Hamlet as the sleepy, cold winter drips past them is utterly unique, surprising and a type of meta-fiction I can sink my teeth into. Moreover, it provides a delightful contrast: the crude Canadian wilderness somehow made eloquent by a British and “cultured” play. A unifying force that binds their two starkly different worlds together. But, enough about Hamlet ( which, we will learn, is a recurring motif in the trilogy -- I say trilogy ‘cause where in bloody hell is the fourth book?), how about THE BEAR?

Courtney:Okay. So. The bear is really THE BEST moment in the whole book. I mean, here you are reading about how these two guys who hate each other are going to need to hunt deer all winter, and there’s all this snow, and they just have to SURVIVE… and then next moment, Jack is being chased down by a bear, and Ate is close on the bear’s trail. It’s like a scene out of a cartoon! And what makes this moment even better is how pivotal it is in the Jack and Ate relationship – this is the moment that Ate first calls Jack “Jack” (as opposed to “white boy”). And you can tell that it’s that type of moment where a friendship and brotherhood is born! And you know, it always seems to be those bigger moments when their friendship deepens – like when the guy who had enslaved the two of them come back into their lives for the first time, and Jack thinks that Ate is dead. Or when the two of them decide to take revenge on the men who had made their lives miserable (the guy who had enslaved them, and Jack’s cousin Craster).

Rachel: ALSO, we have to have a moment for when Jack speaks Iroquois in iambic pentameter. It is just such a delicious touch. Also, how EXCITED Ate is to fight in a battle. And their attempt to coerce the other into joining each other’s sphere: Jack wants to show Ate the world of Hamlet, Ate wants to show Jack the world of his school Mohock society. I am tickled to the gills.

Courtney:Yes! There are so many delicious bromance moments in this book! (And bromance is so much more awesome than romance!) So now you just have to let me know which is the next of the books that I should read, and I’ll be ready to hunt that one down!

Rachel: 'cept I can't remember what chronological order they go in. Anyone know?

Court, you and I should talk about books more often. We are just so dem'nd good at it.

(finis)

The Corinthian by Georgette Heyer

Courtney and I read this together and then decided to blog about it together ( with some casting .... enjoy!)

Courtney: I haven’t read any Georgette Heyer in a while and I’m always pleasantly surprised by her books when I pick them up just because of how fun they are. I found The Corinthian to be a lot more fun than some of the others I’ve read just because of the crazy hijinks that were involved – girls dressed as boys getting into scrapes, murder, theft, running away in the middle of the night, oh joy! What a great escapist novel, and how perfect for the February blahs. You’ve been devouring your way through her books – how did you find this one compared to the others that you’ve read?

Rachel: I really liked the pace of this one. There was lots of adventure and it didn’t take her very long to catapult us into the plot. Plus, she kept the whole cloak-and-dagger motif running rampant throughout the story. Like you, I really enjoyed the hijinks— and the image of carriages running helter skelter at a dizzying pace. This was sheer fun. Some of the books of hers I have read have serious undertones — like These Old Shades ( a great romance of redemption, in a way) and Black Sheep ( where the theme of women as marriageable commodities is pretty abundant ) —- but The Corinthian—well—- it was as of Heyer was writing with her tongue in her cheek.

Courtney: Yes, she does tongue in cheek very well. One thing that I noticed with this book is how much the quality of her writing improved from earlier books – this one is about 20 years into her career as a novelist, and you can really tell the difference. There’s more depth, more maturity in the writing (not necessarily the content, but certainly the writing style), etc. That’s one thing that is so much more noticeable when you can pick and choose your way through an author’s whole catalogue of books, as opposed to having to wait for the next one to be released.

Rachel: I also get the sense that Heyer was writing first and foremost for her own enjoyment. I love books like that because they allow the author’s personality to seep through. To continue your noting of her depth and maturity, I also feel she improves her grasp of how to tell convincing historical fiction. Whereas her early works had the tendency to lapse into encyclopediac knowledge now and then ( in an almost cut and paste fashion), the regency details in the Corinthian were more implied and ingrained so you had a keen picture in your mind’s eye and got a feel for the period without it being bludgeoned over your head with numerous factoids. Can I also just throw the word verisimilitude in here because I never get to use it? Thanks.

Courtney: I just had to look up “verisimilitude.” Google tells me that it is “the quality of seeming to be true or real.” But I can really see how this applies to The Corinthian. It does appear that she knows a lot of what is going on in the regency period, and it is sometimes surprising (in the case of this book, for example) to realize that she didn’t experience it herself. While this was a fun romp, it still does touch on some of the issues that would have been relevant at that point in time – specifically expectations of women who spent unchaperoned time with men, the difficulties families face with financial issues, and the necessity of women to make a good marriage. As much as I love reading regency books, I really don’t think I’d want to live in a time where it was depended on me to marry well just so I could secure my family’s financial stability!

Rachel: What I liked about this particular novel is that Sir Richard was facing the same impending threat of a loveless marriage to secure his family’s financial gain and to hold up in society. It is rather refreshing to see a man have the same expectations thrust upon him. It immediately set the stage for an understanding friendship between Sir Richard and Penn. I rather enjoyed this. Richard immediately understood Penn’s dilemma and I think, in part, that was why he was so eager to jump and save her. He knew what it felt like to have this unsavoury future looming afore him.

Courtney: Well, that plus he was completely smashed when he came across her attempting to run away in the first place. That might have had something to do with it, haha. I love the relationship that Penn and Sir Richard have right from the beginning in this book – she’s adventurous and naïve, and he is amused by her and knows that she needs protection in her wild and crazy schemes. I love that she puts him in situations he doesn’t feel comfortable with at all (hello, stagecoach?) and that he lets her do this. And that he goes out of her way to protect her without caging her in or patronizing her for her naïveté.

Rachel: He treats her like an equal— and I suppose she is— in humour and in situation and circumstance. But, I think he smiles at her out of his eyes the entire time and doesn’t always take her seriously. But, I am not altogether sure he completely takes life seriously so this is just another one of his many charms. I also enjoy the hint of rogue he has. In fact, talking about him makes me want to cast him. Jack Davenport?

Courtney: Mmm. I was just watching The Wedding Date last night and he is in it. He would definitely be able to pull off the rogue aspect, and we’ve already seen him in that same sort of time period in Pirates of the Caribbean. He could pull off being Sir Richard. What about Penn?

Rachel: I really like the idea of Carey Mulligan (Bleak House, An Education, Dr. Who) as Penn. \

Courtney: Is that Sally Sparrow? She looks a bit old for the role… I don’t know too many young females in acting, so this part is a little hard for me. What about Alexa Vega or Eliza Bennett? Actually, Eliza Bennett probably looks a little bit too young. Oh, what about Rachel Hurd-Wood? She’s rather adorable.

Rachel: What’s REALLY funny is that when you said Eliza Bennett I was thinking of the “real” Eliza Bennett ( which, in my crazy mind, was automatically Jennifer Ehle ). Alexa Vega!

Courtney: Yeah, I remember thinking that quite a bit when I read her name in the credits for Inkheart! Oh, Jennifer Ehle is such a wonderful actress. And Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy, mmm… Anyway! Tangent! I hate to say this, but I think if they were to make a movie out of this, it would actually be better as a 2 hour movie than a 4 hour miniseries. As much as was going on, it felt like not everything was necessarily needed to make this a good story. Not that it dragged on, but it just wasn’t all that important to furthering character development or pushing the story to a climax – like the meeting between Penn’s aunt and Sir. Richard.

Rachel: What they should do is a BBC series featuring two hour episodes of each Heyer novel. They could totally squeeze this into two hours. I mean look at the ITV Northanger Abbey— that worked brilliantly. As did the ITV Persuasion ( Unfortunately, I have nothing good to say about the ITV Mansfield Park so I am just not going to say anything at all…..)
Penn’s aunt! Sir Richard! How Lady Catherine de Bourgh-esque was that pivotal moment. Good God Georgette Heyer! You’re like mango gelato. You are the sweetest confection in the world. And you ruin me for real life…. And so do your men with their boots and cravats and eye glasses hanging from dainty chains! Back to Jack Davenport ( because isn’t that just the best segway??? ) he has a delicious voice. I have a feeling Sir Richard would have a delicious voice.

Courtney: He really does have a delicious voice. And I imagine Sir Richard would too, especially when he is amused at Penn. And Jack Davenport could totally pull off Sir Richard’s bored attitude that seems to intimidate those he doesn’t care a fig about. Mmm, I totally want to rewatch all the Pirates of the Caribbean movies now, darn it!
What did you think of all the secondary characters? I loved me the thief they met in the stage coach. He was a lot of fun.

Rachel: I loved the thief and I loved the rather portly relative whose house Sir Richard visits at the beginning of the story— the one who tries hard to emulate Sir Richard’s flair with a cravat ( his name escapes me right now )

Courtney: The sister’s husband?

Rachel: Yah. That’s him. He was super cool.

Courtney: Yeah, he was pretty awesome. They were all mostly awesome; in fact, there were only two characters that I DIDN’T like – Penn’s childhood friend (again, the name is not coming to mind) and the girl he’s in love with. I have no patience for silly little people like them. I was especially aggravated when whats-her-name told her father that she met Penn for a romantic rendezvous instead of whats-his-name. This girl came across as being way too flakey, and I have no stomach for characters like that.
Before I start going on a rant, I need to change the subject.
How about the last moment when Penn and Sir Richard finally both admit and realize that the other is in love with them? It is up there with the awesome endings of Rilla of Ingleside and North & South, as far as my favourites go.

Rachel: I also loved the last moment. The thing with Georgette Heyer is she always leaves the romantic climax until the very last page. You know it is coming but she makes you wait and wait and THEN …. Then she ties it up with a happy bow ( same with North and South, eh?)
I really enjoyed the ending and the discovery of love which, really, when you think about it had been there since Sir Richard first saw Penn—all inebriated and blurry and cleaned her up and whisked her away.…

..
Courtney: Oh, he obviously loved her from the beginning. And she was in love with him from that point too even though she didn’t realize it until later. But all-in-all a satisfying end to a good book then. Yay!