I really enjoyed both books although I much prefer Persuasion. One thing that annoyed me a bit in A Civil Contract was the language. I felt that Heyer tried too hard to speak like the early 18th century, or at least how she thought they spoke. It was a bit off putting.
Oh, I did some research and found that Captain Wentworth’s 25,000 pounds is worth about $3.5 million today.
Did Frederick really have an interest in Louisa? I thought both she and her sister were a bit silly for him. Of course, not as bad as Mary, but not the depth of character that was Anne. Also, I really don’t think that Mr. Elliot had and real interest in Anne. She would have been a convenient match, but I couldn’t see it. I could never see Anne with Charles, but I am sure that he regrets his marriage to Mary.
In the Heyer book, I think that Adam did love Julia, but it was a young love. He pined for her as he pined for his life before the war. After Julia got married, he noticed that she dressed as a married woman and did not quite look as she did before. In a sense, the freshness of youth was gone. I think that in the end Adam came to love Jenny. It was because of her that he was able to save his estate. Also, she was interested in everything that he wanted to do with the property.
Jenny is a wonderful person that disappeared into the woodwork but always wanted to please her dad and her H. I hope that her H grew up and learned to fully appreciate and love her as he ought.
That was one key difference between A Civil Contract and Persuasion: Historical events were described and discussed in A Civil Contract, but there was barely a mention of such things in Persuasion (when they would actually have been current events).
The excellent review of A Civil Contract posted above by @Marilyn gives a thorough list of the historical events that Heyer either references or relies on to move the plot along (e.g., financial panic after Waterloo).
Critics generally agree that Austen’s omission of current events in her novels was deliberate. A brief academic essay I found online notes:
…the striking thing about her novels is indeed that they do not mention the French Revolution and barely allude to the Napoleonic Wars. Writing a book entitled, Jane Austen and the French Revolution , Warren Roberts assumes that “she made a deliberate choice not to discuss directly the events that so disturbed her world.”
For example, Jane Austen’s cousin Eliza was married to the French Comte de Feuillide, who was accused of conspiring against the Republic and was guillotined in February 1794. Eliza subsequently married Jane’s brother Henry. What a dramatic novel that would have been, right? But not the novel that Austen was interested in writing. Jennifer Fitzgerald.
Per the essay, Persuasion differs from Austen’s other novels in that it explicitly includes the date of the story (“the summer of 1814”).
Edited to add: There is also a brief mention in the novel that Captain Wentworth was “made commander in consequence of the action off St. Domingo.” For history buffs, everything you ever wanted to know about that battle:
Very similar to Darcy’s long letter with exposition of the wicked Mr. Wickham in Pride and Prejudice.
Yes! And Anne basically says this herself near the end, when conversing with Captain Harville:
“We certainly do not forget you so soon as you forget us. It is, perhaps, our fate rather than our merit. We cannot help ourselves. We live at home, quiet, confined, and our feelings prey upon us. You are forced on exertion. You have always a profession, pursuits, business of some sort or other, to take you back into the world immediately, and continual occupation and change soon weaken impressions.”
As for Captain Wentworth, as far as I can recall, there is only one passage in the book where we get inside his head (and it made me wish for more):
He had not forgiven Anne Elliot. She had used him ill, deserted and disappointed him; and worse, she had shewn a feebleness of character in doing so, which his own decided, confident temper could not endure. She had given him up to oblige others. It had been the effect of over-persuasion. It had been weakness and timidity.
He had been most warmly attached to her, and had never seen a woman since whom he thought her equal; but, except from some natural sensation of curiosity, he had no desire of meeting her again. Her power with him was gone for ever.
I’d say he tried to have an interest in Louisa – telling Anne later that he made “attempts to attach himself to Louisa Musgrove (the attempts of angry pride).” But his attentions go too far, and Captain Harville warns Wentworth that he has “entangled” himself.
It is in Lyme, when with both Anne and Louisa, that Captain truly acknowledges “the perfect excellence of the mind with which Louisa’s could so ill bear a comparison” and “the perfect unrivalled hold it possessed over his own.”
There, he had learnt to distinguish between the steadiness of principle and the obstinacy of self-will, between the darings of heedlessness and the resolution of a collected mind. There he had seen everything to exalt in his estimation the woman he had lost; and there begun to deplore the pride, the folly, the madness of resentment, which had kept him from trying to regain her when thrown in his way.
At least Darcy’s letter was only seven pages of my book . Plus it all related to people and events with which we were already familiar, giving a different interpretation of Jane’s reserve for instance. Mrs. Smith’s tale was almost all new information except for linking it to her financial situation. I guess that’s why it took me out of the storyline because it was essentially an completely new story.
I really liked the Marquis of Rockhill. He loved Julia, but not blindly. He knew exactly what he was getting and was fully aware of her infatuation with Adam. He and Jenny had a mutual understanding about their spouses’ past history; I think Rockhill and Jenny had the foundation for a close, platonic friendship, should the opportunity arise.
The marriage between Rockhill and Julia is also a Civil Contract, but with the genders switched. There is love on Rockhill’s side, but not on Julia’s (yet … but you can see it coming). It is a marriage of convenience for Julia, too, but where Adam seeks money, Julia marries for a different commodity: Adoration.
I agree, there’s nothing like Jane Austen! But I think the Georgette Heyer fans on this thread would urge you to read a second Heyer book that is more in her traditional style. I read Cotillion last year, and the decidedly non-heroic hero, Freddy, couldn’t be more different from Adam Deveril. The book was light-hearted, with characters both silly and endearing. It was its own thing, rather than an Austen wannabe.
I never really thought Rockhill loves Julia. I do like the character. I think he appreciates beautiful things and finds her entertaining. Perhaps he feels it is time for an heir and is looking for someone he can spoil and show off as well. Julia may think he loves her but really wants someone to put her first, which he does.
There were some nuances in my reading this time around that I didn’t really pick up that much in earlier reads. Part of that is an underlying concept of sexuality, never overt but definitely hinted at. It definitely comes into play with Adam thinking about Julia and Rockhill - not just losing her as a dream, but the idea of them sleeping together. I can’t find the exact quote but it’s something to the effect of “every feeling revolts.”
But even more so is the relationship between Adam and Jenny.
The honeymoon had contained awkward moments that were inevitable in the circumstances, but these had been overcome, thanks largely…to the prosaic attitude adopted by his bride. If their union was devoid of romance, less embarrassment attached to it than he had foreseen. Jenny was shy, but never shrinking.
Compared to Rockhill, where “there was little he didn’t know about handling females,” I suspect Julia enjoyed her honeymoon more than Jenny! It doesn’t seem like Adam had much experience in this area, so to speak.
And when Julia learned that Jenny was pregnant, had she been thinking they had a white marriage? It surprised her for sure - but she was not yet married so how much did she understand about where babies came from (thinking Daphne Bridgerton here)? It seemed like she had expected they had a platonic relationship.
Overall this time around, I was much less sympathetic to Adam and much more to Jenny. Perhaps she might have been happier in the end with one of the smart young men from the counting house who would be thrilled and grateful to marry her.
I agree! Or read Venetia, probably my favorite feisty heroine. (Though I admit these days Damarel’s initial actions don’t look so cute.) I also reread Cotillion last year too because another favorite author of mine (Lois McMasters Bujold) said it might be her favorite GH and I had totally forgotten it. I’ve appreciated different books more at different times in my life. That’s another one that has a great father - he doesn’t appear much, but I do love him.
There was a lot of discussion when picking this month’s books about which Heyer (I had been suggesting a Heyer for some time). The general favorite is usually The Grand Sophy; also Venetia and Arabella. The books are lighter weight than Austen for sure, but there are some great characters and more traditional love stories. One of the reasons I like the Bridgerton series is because it brings Heyer’s world to life for me.
Heyer’s characters are less discreet about pregnancy than Austen’s, who might refer to “confinement” or something even vaguer. I think many of Jane Austen’s characters would absolutely cringe at Jenny’s repeated use of the phrase, “I am breeding.”
I am going to be the romantic reading the romance novel… I believe the ending of the story when Adam starts to realize what he has in Jenny is just the beginning of him falling deeply in love with her.
Yes, I think Adam was beginning to see the light after the house party where Julia was beastly and the Marquis had to charm her home and Jenny was all about trying to make sure everyone had a lovely time.
I believe Jenny and Adam could/would be very happy together—much much happier than Adam and vain Julia would ever have been. Adam really had no clue how to manage her other than to be helpless in the face of her theatrics.
Pride is a very sad thing when it blinds folks and makes them do things that can cause harm like Frederick & Louisa. It’s very convenient Louisa fell in love with the mourning poet captain and freed up Frederick for Anne. Frederick and Anne do seem a better match as both are “older” and thoughtful souls. I hope Louisa grows up a bit but is also able to shake her fiance out of his gloom.
That works for me! I did like the inside jokes that Adam and Jenny were beginning to share, so typical of married couples. (After 42 years together, my husband and I will sometimes exchange a few sentences that make a lot of sense to us – and would be incomprehensible to anyone else.)
I agree that inside jokes and taking a genuine interest in what your partner is passionate about are very important elements to a closer bond. It does seem that Jenny & Adam are destined to be quite happy together.
I think that using the word breeding was Jenny being a cit. I seem to recall characters being pretty vague in other Heyer novels. I think there might be one where somebody (male I’m sure) was being particularly dense and they clarified that the woman was “in the family way”.
I thought it was kind of funny that considering all the names in the world (or at least in 19th century England), two of the men in Persuasion were “Charles” (Charles Musgrove and Charles Hayter).
As for Charles Musgrove – seemed like a nice guy, bet he was wishing on a regular basis that Anne had accepted his proposal.
. Plus it all related to people and events with which we were already familiar, giving a different interpretation of Jane’s reserve for instance. Mrs. Smith’s tale was almost all new information except for linking it to her financial situation. I guess that’s why it took me out of the storyline because it was essentially an completely new story.