LJ lives again!

[brigdh]

So, I keep seeing Georgette Heyer mentioned as an influence on Swordspoint, and I want to read some of her books, but apparently she wrote, like, fifty, and I have no idea where to start. Does anyone have recommendations for ones that are particularly relevant/well-written?

Any other book recommendations, by the way, are also welcome. And I know, I know, asking for such general recommendations tends to get me few responses, because it's so wide open that it actually stymies thought instead of encouraging it, but I can't think of a genre I want at the moment, other than "good". Um. Epic fantasy with interesting relationships always gets bonus points from me?

Comments

Re: Lymond

[p-zeitgeist.livejournal.com]

the books work on a couple different levels, and may be enjoyed by different readers for completely different reasons.

Well, yes. But the fact that people like different things and can enjoy the same work for different reasons is precisely what makes it potentially interesting to talk about -- as long as you can avoid the ugly thing where people take disagreement or differing reactions as assaults on their own taste and judgment. I know that not everybody shares my obsessive urge to dissect these things, and to try to figure out what something like a novel or a picture look like to people whose minds and tastes are wildly different from mine, and I do try not to inflict it on people who'll hate it.

But I always want to know. I mean, I live inside my own head. I already know what it looks like from in here. How other people see it is so much more interesting . . .

Re: Lymond

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Well, I can certainly talk about my impressions of the first book!

I didn't mind all the confusing details of people's relationships and alliances and networks so much- I was annoyed that every character seemed to have at least five names, which they used interchangeably and without explanation- but since I've already mentioned by fondness for epic fantasy, I'm used to huge cast lists with incredibly complex interworkings, so I didn't mind having to spend time figuring out who was who.

I didn't like Lymond, though. He was such an asshole, and I know, I know: which of my favorite characters aren't assholes? But he seemed so smug and self-centered in his cynicism, as though on some level he enjoyed the terrible things which had happened to him because they gave him the excuse to act exactly as mistreated and unloved as he'd always secretly known he was. He wasn't broken so much as indulging in misery, and I only enjoy watching people be cruel if they have a reason for doing it beyond spite.

Re: Lymond

[p-zeitgeist.livejournal.com]

He was such an asshole, and I know, I know: which of my favorite characters aren't assholes? But he seemed so smug and self-centered in his cynicism

Oooh, yes. That was pretty much the reaction most of my friends had to the books on first read. So much so that by the end of the third book -- no, I'm not going to give details, I suppose that would be too spoiler-y of me. Let's just say that by the time the villain has the opportunity to do it, everyone I knew was only dying for him to beat Lymond to a bloody pulp, on the grounds that it was about time someone got to do it.

I hadn't read broadly enough at the time to diagnose it as I would now, but these days I'm inclined to think that the Lymond problem is that he's an angst-flavored Mary Sue. It's not just that he's prettier than everyone and smarter than everyone; it's that everyone he ever meets instantly becomes obsessed with him, and that the narrative suggests to us that we're supposed to love, admire, and envy him as blindly and obsessively as all the characters do. It's not terribly attractive, as attitudes go.

And yet, this would not stop me from saying that it might well be worth giving the next volume, or the one after that, a try. The books have a lot of strengths: Dunnett's gift for pure storytelling really comes out in the next book, her feel for politics is sophisticated and interesting -- she gives you the feeling that her people are grown-ups, and that the world is a big and complicated place, which many writers can't quite manage -- and while she's not really trying for historical accuracy in terms of people's worldviews and psychology, her precision about the material aspects of her period is a beautiful thing to behold. And God, can she write dialogue when she feels like it. And her set pieces -- things like a race over rooftops at night -- are glorious things to behold, Angst-King Mary Sue or no Angst-King Mary Sue.

Ah, this brings it all back, that first-time group trip through those books. None of us ever knew, moment to moment, whether we wanted to squee over them or hurl them across the room in utter disgust.

Re: Lymond

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

Well, you've certainly convinced me to give the series another chance. It's oddly comforting to know that I'm not the only one who dislikes Lymond, because I was under the impression that he was the main draw of the series, and if I hated him, well, why force the rest on myself?

But if the appeal of the books is something else, I too can join in the squeeing.

Re: Lymond

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

I was annoyed that every character seemed to have at least five names, which they used interchangeably and without explanation

It took me four books before I realized that "Margaret" and "Lady Erskine" (or some such set of names) were the same person.

Re: Lymond

[wordsofastory.livejournal.com]

My edition came with a cast list in the front, which I referred to constantly. Otherwise I'm sure I would have done the same.

Re: Lymond

[rachelmanija.livejournal.com]

I would love to discuss the Lymond books. Let me know if you open a thread in your LJ, now or later.