What Are You Reading 4
- Thread starter Tonyblack
- Start date
The Thrill of the Haunt by E.J. Copperman (Berkley, 2013) One of the Haunted Guesthouse series. The plot includes homelessness, the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, lasagna, and several questions of identity. The series is up to nine or ten books now. They are pleasantly witty with relatively little gore, and mundane and not-so-mundane family life impinges on the mysteries. I must admit that I find more interest in them than others might, because I used to know someone who lived in the area, so the place names are familiar and I know what the places looked like before Hurricane Sandy. I guess they qualify as cozy mysteries with the strong paranormal element being ghosts.
Anyway, the book is also good, if you like supernatural murder mysteries.I found a copy of Penhallow by Georgette Heyer, and picked it up because everybody says it's terrible. I think it's not as bad as all that, but it does have huge infodumps. Mainly, it wasn't one of her standard forms. It's an anti-Romance novel, and an anti-Detective novel. It reminded me of the Angry Young Writers of post-WW-I England. The same characters that would have been made out to be heroes in standard regency romance novels are shown and judged for how they would appear in the modern world. I even liked three of the characters. Most people say they can't find anyone to like.
Last edited:
Some of them are better than others. I read them primarily for the humor. They are also interesting for the nuances of behavior in a society whose rules are very different from ours today. New readers criticize her for trying to write in the culture of the historic era instead of grafting modern attitudes onto her characters wholesale.
Likes:
RathDarkblade and Tonyblack
Then ... I'm sorry, but these "new readers" are stupid. 
I haven't read Heyer's novels, but I've read a lot of history and some books based on history, and it sounds like she's taken the right approach - indeed, the ONLY approach.
What's the point of grafting modern attitudes onto her characters? I looked up some of Heyer's books; it looks like they are set during the Regency period, which was obviously a very different time to the 21st (or 20th, or even mid-to-late-19th) centuries. After the end of the Regency (roughly 1830, IIRC?), England changed within a half-century - technologically, at least - to such an extent that the Prince Regent wouldn't have recognised it, and would probably have hated it.
But to come back to my point, I don't understand people who want characters from a historical period to have modern, 21st-century attitudes. Can anyone imagine a highborn Regency lady - or, for that matter, a middle-class Regency matron, or a lower-class Regency woman - being "feisty" or "plucky", or behaving like, or even looking anything like, say ... Katniss Everdeen (from "The Hunger Games") or Lisbeth Salander (from "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo")? It's so dumb!
I won't even mention society's expectation of women during the Regency, or the fact that women's underwear as we know it has only existed since a period between WW1 and WW2 (so it's very out-of-place during the Regency), or that people's attitudes towards hygiene and food cleanliness was different, or that medicine was different ... or ... so many things!
I'm sorry, I know I shouldn't get so worked up. It's just ... this level of stupidity just infuriates me. People who think like this - i.e. that the past should be exactly like the present - are, at best, naive. At worst? Arrogant. "How dare the past be so different! How dare you for writing about the past as if it was so different!"
I wonder if people like this also expect a Crusading knight to have an M16. Or, perhaps, for two Tudor ladies to talk like this:
Tudor Lady #1: "Hey girlfriend! So what'd you think of dat new Shakespeare play, huh? Like, totes boring, am I right?"
Tudor Lady #2: "You got it, babes. Like, plays are like, so nerdy! Dat Shakespeare dude's off his rocker on da wacky-tobaccy!"
Please save us.
Anyway. The first sentence of L. P. Hartley's "The Go-Between" sums it up brilliantly: "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."
I haven't read Heyer's novels, but I've read a lot of history and some books based on history, and it sounds like she's taken the right approach - indeed, the ONLY approach.What's the point of grafting modern attitudes onto her characters?
I looked up some of Heyer's books; it looks like they are set during the Regency period, which was obviously a very different time to the 21st (or 20th, or even mid-to-late-19th) centuries. After the end of the Regency (roughly 1830, IIRC?), England changed within a half-century - technologically, at least - to such an extent that the Prince Regent wouldn't have recognised it, and would probably have hated it.But to come back to my point, I don't understand people who want characters from a historical period to have modern, 21st-century attitudes. Can anyone imagine a highborn Regency lady - or, for that matter, a middle-class Regency matron, or a lower-class Regency woman - being "feisty" or "plucky", or behaving like, or even looking anything like, say ... Katniss Everdeen (from "The Hunger Games") or Lisbeth Salander (from "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo")? It's so dumb!
I won't even mention society's expectation of women during the Regency, or the fact that women's underwear as we know it has only existed since a period between WW1 and WW2 (so it's very out-of-place during the Regency), or that people's attitudes towards hygiene and food cleanliness was different, or that medicine was different ... or ... so many things!
I'm sorry, I know I shouldn't get so worked up. It's just ... this level of stupidity just infuriates me. People who think like this - i.e. that the past should be exactly like the present - are, at best, naive. At worst? Arrogant. "How dare the past be so different! How dare you for writing about the past as if it was so different!"
I wonder if people like this also expect a Crusading knight to have an M16. Or, perhaps, for two Tudor ladies to talk like this:
Tudor Lady #1: "Hey girlfriend! So what'd you think of dat new Shakespeare play, huh? Like, totes boring, am I right?"
Tudor Lady #2: "You got it, babes. Like, plays are like, so nerdy! Dat Shakespeare dude's off his rocker on da wacky-tobaccy!"
Please save us.
Anyway. The first sentence of L. P. Hartley's "The Go-Between" sums it up brilliantly: "The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there."
Hmm. I just finished some light reading - "I Can't Remember The Title, But the Cover is Blue" by Elias Grieg. (Subtitle: Sketches from the other side of the bookshop counter). It's fairly amusing. Certainly not earth-shaking, but it doesn't try to be.
I bring it up because Pterry gets a mention. Here's the section:
Feel free to google it. Or, here it is on Amazon. A fun stocking-filler.
I bring it up because Pterry gets a mention. Here's the section:
Feel free to google it. Or, here it is on Amazon. A fun stocking-filler.
Likes:
=Tamar
Rath, I've been thinking about why some people want to have stories about the past with characters who think in modern ways. I think it's because when someone is beginning to break out of the mold that much of society forces on them, they feel some justifiable anger at the parts that are unnecessarily restrictive and usually those parts are holdovers from an earlier period. Reading about eras when the old rules were almost entirely unquestioned brings up all the anger and frustration that is still freshly discovered. When in such a state, it is difficult to identify with a character who can't break free of the culture without suffering major punishments, crushing poverty, and death. Although there were books written in the Regency period in which characters broke loose, they were scandalous and even then the main characters tended to suffer the expectable results. Daniel Defoe's unregenerate criminal Moll Flanders has to emigrate to the colonies to escape her past.
I think those feelings are probably why so many young adult books involve adventurers who travel to the frontier, who are forced by circumstance to become privateers, and so on. It isn't just that teenagers want to have something active happening. Most of what we now call classic young adult books were written for adults. it can take years to work on those issues. It can take decades to become calm about them. It takes some serenity to make the temporary identification you need to enjoy a story about someone whose great triumph is that she managed to learn to be polite to someone who didn't know the right social graces for her class, or to empathize with someone who is embarrassed by the manners of her family.
It took me at least twenty years to be able to enjoy novels of manners, in which people didn't break the rules but manipulated them subtly. I didn't even try Jane Austen until very recently, and I know I would not have appreciated the subtlety of her work much earlier. (And my degree is in English Literature.) I still prefer stories in which characters manage to free themselves of the more restrictive rules without losing their empathy and without having to go live in a cave somewhere.
I think those feelings are probably why so many young adult books involve adventurers who travel to the frontier, who are forced by circumstance to become privateers, and so on. It isn't just that teenagers want to have something active happening. Most of what we now call classic young adult books were written for adults. it can take years to work on those issues. It can take decades to become calm about them. It takes some serenity to make the temporary identification you need to enjoy a story about someone whose great triumph is that she managed to learn to be polite to someone who didn't know the right social graces for her class, or to empathize with someone who is embarrassed by the manners of her family.
It took me at least twenty years to be able to enjoy novels of manners, in which people didn't break the rules but manipulated them subtly. I didn't even try Jane Austen until very recently, and I know I would not have appreciated the subtlety of her work much earlier. (And my degree is in English Literature.) I still prefer stories in which characters manage to free themselves of the more restrictive rules without losing their empathy and without having to go live in a cave somewhere.
On my latest one from the pile of Tom Holt books Falling Sideways,from the cover blurb:
From the moment the first Homo Sapiens descended from the trees, possibly onto their heads, humanity has striven towards civilisation. Fire. The Wheel. Running Away from furry things with more teeth than one might reasonably expect - all are testament to man's ultimate ascendancy.
It is a noble story, a triumph of intelligence over adversity and so, of course, complete and utter fiction. For one man has discovered the hideous truth: that humanity's ascent has been ruthlessly guided by a small gang of devious frogs.
It's Ok so far some chuckle moments.
From the moment the first Homo Sapiens descended from the trees, possibly onto their heads, humanity has striven towards civilisation. Fire. The Wheel. Running Away from furry things with more teeth than one might reasonably expect - all are testament to man's ultimate ascendancy.
It is a noble story, a triumph of intelligence over adversity and so, of course, complete and utter fiction. For one man has discovered the hideous truth: that humanity's ascent has been ruthlessly guided by a small gang of devious frogs.
It's Ok so far some chuckle moments.
I'm currently reading "A Founding Myth - Why Christian Nationalism is Un-American." written by FFRF lawyer, Andrew Seidel. It discusses the Founding Fathers, what their vision was for the newly created America, and why the idea of it being a "Judeo-Christian" nation is totally a rewrite of actual history.
I just finished reading this book, aka "F***ING GOOD MANNERS" by Simon Griffin. Despite the repetition of the word "F***", it's a worthwhile read, reminding some of us of the things we may have forgotten, and helping those who haven't forgotten to feel smug.
Actually, no, scratch that. It's not a book about how to act posh. It is a book about having some respect for one another, having more patience with one another, treating each other more nicely - and not flipping off someone in traffic. I'm all for that.
Actually, no, scratch that.
It's not a book about how to act posh. It is a book about having some respect for one another, having more patience with one another, treating each other more nicely - and not flipping off someone in traffic. I'm all for that. 
