Review of Georgette Heyer's "The Devil's Cub"

[shadowkat]

Devil's Cub by Georgette Heyer



First a caveat...I read the Kindle E-Book Version via Amazon. So many of my complaints may well be associated with this version, which had quite a few typos or digitization errors. My first clue? A character, who we are told is an Englishman and cannot speak a word of French, is reported to not be able to speak a word of English in a sentence. These errors in word syntax were so frequent that they jarred me out of the story. Another example..."she discovered herself to his lordship by removing her cloak". "Uncovered" is the correct word. Discovered makes no sense.

This version makes 50 Shades of Grey syntax issues seem pale by comparison. If they are in the original version of the text, then I'm thinking Georgette Heyer is grossly overrated.

Heyer wrote witty romance novels in between mysteries. And allegedly defined the Regency Romance. Although I think witty is an exaggeration, silly is a better description. The characters are satirical caricatures of romantic tropes. It's hard to care about any of them. They come across as merely ridiculous and over the top. In some respects, Heyer's novel reminds me a great deal of Oscar Wilde's far superior satiric work such as the play - The Importance of Being Earnest or Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility - both were masters of the satiric romance. Heyer is not a master. Her satire is obvious and lacks finesse. I'm admittedly picky when it comes to satire - if it is not subtle, I'm bored. (Not a fan of Jonathan Swift, but adore Oscar Wilde and Jane Austen). It also lacks the subtlety and charm of Eloisa James, not to mention the active tense and clear style. While James words flow across the page, Heyer's stumble over each other, and clumsily fall into ditches.

The action is constantly being talked about but rarely seen. And when it is seen, it is then discussed endlessly. Turned over and over. As if the writer is uncertain that we figured out the joke the first time around. She does not appear to trust her reader. There's an insecurity to her writing...you feel as if she is running away from the text, instead of embracing it. Fearful of revealing too much in some places where more is needed and too little in places where far less is required. For example she spends far too much time on sub-plots that go nowhere and ridiculous characters that lack depth and are uninteresting to the reader and unnecessary to the plot - I did a lot of skimming.

That said...what she excels at is poking fun at established romantic tropes in Regency Romance novels, such as the rake who runs off with and seduces the maiden. In some respects the Devil's Cub felt like a satiric reaction to Richardson's classic epistolary novel Clarissa, except it ends well and Lovelace is a nice guy. Here, the rake, Marquis of Vidal (also our hero) whom I kept wanting to call Vidal Sassoon, brutally takes our heroine across the sea to France. She shoots him in the arm, which brings him to his senses. But as she thinks to herself much later..."Vidal, a character out of romantic fiction, lacked any romance whatesoever, while Mr. Comyn, who was not one, on the contrary, was quite romantic." The play on words is a bit over-the-top and I think unnecessary. Mrs. Simms (Simple), or Mr. Comyn (Comyn) or Vidal (Vital). Clearly subtlety is not one of Miss Heyer's strong suits.

Heyer allegedly defined the Regency romance (even though several of her romances take place in other periods), and appears like most Regency romance writers during the 1940's to 1960's to have been a bit afraid of sex scenes. She avoids them like the plague, merely suggesting them with a few subtle words. It's odd, she has no problem showing the reader graphic gun-play or sword-fights, or discussing them ad nauseam. Indeed, twenty percent of the book is taken up with a lengthy discussion of Lord Vidal killing a highwaymen, which is described various ways by a multitude of characters. But love? Or making love? Barely mentioned. "Betrand made intoxicating love to her in the a clove." So what happened exactly? Did they have sex? Merely make out? Did he just compliment her and kiss her? This being Heyer, it's most likely the latter. Later, it is alluded that the Marquis and Miss Challoner, our erstwhile heroine, made love the night before by the heated blush on Miss Challoner's cheeks the next morning at breakfast when she glances at the Marquise.

It's odd. Romance novels are about making love. They are about "love". Not describing sex or making love or even dwelling on it in a romance novel is a bit like not describing a murder in a murder mystery or refusing to describe a sword fight in a swashbuckling adventure. Imagine The Three Musketeers without sword fights, with the sword fights only being faintly alluded to? Heyer does show the hero and heroine kissing but it lasts for two sentences and is barely there.

Instead Heyer dwells on the violence and there is quite a lot of it - the Marquis is shot in the shoulder by the heroine in a rather funny and graphic scene, and the heroine gets a slight abrasion or cut attempting to prevent a lengthy sword-fight between the hero and her well-meaning but somewhat insipid protector. This is also, not coincidentally, in the shoulder. And we have the brutal and somewhat violent abduction of the heroine by the hero (he chokes her so she can't scream), as well as two shootings - the hero shoots and kills a highwayman and brutally shoots a man in a duel. It's a rather violent novel for a light fluffy Regency romance. The sex scenes, kissing scenes, or love-play are almost non-existent.

I don't believe Heyer promotes violence, the moral characters certainly oppose it. But it is not clear. It does make one wonder however...why the lax attitude towards depicting violence in detail, but the veering away from sex scenes? Was the writer just uncomfortable or squeamish writing them? Sex scenes are like action scenes - same writing principle applies.

Austen to be fair also veered away from depicting sex scenes. As did Richardson. So it may well be the time period (the English were anything if not puritanical when it comes to sex - going so far as to ban it, the Americans were even worse.) Yet violence was never a problem. What does this say about human beings? Literature is after all a reflection of our culture, is it not?

At any rate...I found Heyer to be a bit prudish and disappointing. The book didn't become funny until the very last twenty or so pages. You have to wade through a bunch of silly and at times grating nonsense to get there.

If you want witty banter, and subtle satire - go read the far superior Eloisa James' A Kiss At Midnight. Plus more sex, no violence.

Far better book, not to mention cheaper. Heyer is not worth $8.99 on Kindle. If you must read her - go check it out at your local library.





Next up, Eloisa James Pleasure for Pleasure. She plays off of Shakespearean titles - "Measure for Measure". Although the story is sort of a homage to Little Women and Shakespeare. She also likes to poke fun at romantic tropes and romance novel formulas. Clearly I'm not burned out on the genre quite yet. But am beginning to think it is maligned for a reason. Genre..sigh it is fun, page-turning, but oh so delightfully pulpy.