Georgette Heyer, The Convenient Marriage

[rowyn]

This might be my least favorite of the Heyer books I've read so far. The male protagonist is twice the age of the female protagonist and I didn't like either of them. Some of the supporting cast was entertaining.  There are the usual hijinks, some of which were amusing, but for the most part without protagonists that I could actually like it just was not a fun experience.  I skimmed my way to the end just to see if the characters would redeem themselves, but meh. This was like a 5, I guess.

I put another Heyer book on reserve, one that was specifically recommended, because I am still in the mood to read one but I want it to be good this time. c_c Wish me luck!

Comments

[alltoseek]

I've read that Heyer had two "types" of male heroes - the kinder, gentler one and the more arrogant and overbearing type. Some clearly fall in one or the other. In Convenient Marriage, I'd say the male was of the more arrogant, controlling type, but in a more laid-back way - he lets what's-her-name, our young heroine, dig her own grave before hauling her out of it. But he's defnly of the obscure, uncommunicative type.

So all this is to say, if you buy the two types theory, then certainly one type of hero could appeal more to some readers than the other type. I don't think Heyer would expect everyone to like every one of her protagonists, male or female.

Also, Convenient Marriage is set pre-Regency, like late-18th C. I'm not as fond of those as I am of her Regency-set romances, of either hero type. Most of the earlier-period novels have that darker style male lead.

Have you read Cotillion? That hero is like the diametric opposite of CM's *g* (Maybe you read it but didn't like it? I can't remember.)

CM's saving grace in my mind is how spirited the heroine is, taking charge to save her sister from a loveless marriage and telling her husband-to-be that she's volunteering to be the family sacrifice :D

Oh, if you mention which of Heyer's novels you've liked (if any!) I can tell you which others you are likely to enjoy :-)

[rowyn]

Cotillion was the first Heyer novel I read, and definitely my favorite Heyer. :D

Heyer herself is the one who said she had two types of heroes, so this seems a legit interpretation.

I read A Civil Contract recently and found the characters sympathetic but the ending SUPER DEPRESSING, so I think I'm gonna take a break from Heyer for a while.

[alltoseek]

You know what's weird is that A Civil Contract is the main one of Heyer's books that will pop into my head at random times. I hardly ever think about any of them unless I feel like it, but that one will just wander in and poke around a bit before wandering away again. I think what it is is that the female protagonist, who is so blandly bland, really grows on you. You can just see how their marriage is going to enrich and deepen - how the love will grow into that solid dependable trustworthy sort without ever having gone through the infatuation phase.

(Also the high-maintenance drama queen alternate love interest is so obvsly, by the end if not before, such a godawful DRIP that you are so glad to see the back of her!)

PS: Am revisiting these ancient posts because I just finished Naomi Novik's Uprooted and I remembered you reviewed it and wanted to read again what you'd thought and then got distracted by these other reviews along the search for it...

[rowyn]

I quickly fell in love with the female protagonist, and the male protag's attitude at the end came across to me as "I'm glad I married this woman because she's so useful, but I don't love her and I never will." I forget exactly why it is burned into my brain like this, but it is. :|

[alltoseek]

I think he thinks that - I mean, Heyer literally writes that he thinks that - but what he means by love is infatuation, but he doesn't (yet) know the difference. But he's totes capable of learning.

Or Heyer meant to show that you can have a successful marriage without love. Maybe he never does love her, or realize that he does. It could go either way, I suppose.

But I think at some point, years on, she has some brush with death from illness or childbirth or whatever and he realizes that he would really miss her if she died - not just as mother to the kids or homemaker, but for herself, and he goes, oh, huh. But in a low-key undramatic way *g*

[rowyn]

Or Heyer meant to show that you can have a successful marriage without love.

I would actually have been much more okay with "their marriage is a success even though it's not romantic" than the "his wife is in love with him and completely devoted to his well-being, while he regards her with a mild affection based entirely on her utility to him" that Heyer presented.

I mean, I didn't hate the book: it had a lot of good bits and humor stuff. I just found the ending extremely sad, in a way obviously most people do not. :)

[alltoseek]

Oh, I wouldn't say you're alone in finding it a sad ending. I wouldn't say I'm "most people". And it's been a while since I read it - I have this affection for Heyer (or for the enjoyment of reading the books?) that is prolly not actually borne out by the books themselves, so I maybe remember them better than they are.

[rowyn]

Heyer is enormously popular for a reason! She writes well, with a particular flair for comedy IMO. And A Civil Contract was specifically recommended to me by another person who enjoyed it. I think your take is entirely appropriate. ♥