AAR

[Islandgirl2]

msaggie maybe most find this kind of ending more true to life. Maybe it is the standard to many for lasting marriages. I realize that it can be held as more true to life then your typical romance found today.

I don't deny that many of those other romance books are harder to believe that they will end with an HEA when looked at realistically.

But when I read romance or expect to read a romance I throw away reality. Reading romance for me is when I suspend my belief. If I wanted to read something close to real life I'd have done so but it irks when you plan for a little escapism and get the opposite.

I'm sure most did enjoy it when they were older or the second time around because by then you discovered what you were reading and knew in your mind that you weren't reading your expected romance where you were able to go into that escapism mode. I'm sure if I planned to read this one day in the future as a character book true to a real life marriage I'll enjoy it more as well.

But for a lady who sat down ready to have her heart beat a little faster and curl her toes when the hero says or does something to sweep the heroine off her feet. I was left But such is the luck when you pick up books I guess. Next time I'll try to pick more wisely and look for reviews by Mark and the such is all.
_________________
Romance my favorite reading pastime.

[kari]

I understand why you didn't find the book romantic; it really isn't a romantic story compared to most romances (including most of Heyer's own work). Honestly, if she was writing today some of her books would probably be labeled fiction. She did write mostly for women (though she preferred socializing and living with men) and women tend to want love stories. Not all of her readers were happy with this book according to her biographer.

I know that my own tastes definitely changed as I grew older (responding to a previous poster). My favorite books by Heyer changed, so I agree with those who say that they didn't care much for A Civil Contract when young, but enjoy it now. Island Girl, I'm not trying to convince you to change your opinion about the book, only to explain the criticism and opinions of other readers (and the publishers) who have labeled it a romance. It also helps, I think, to keep in mind how important Heyer is in the history of writing romance. Since she made the rules, she enjoyed fooling her readers by breaking them! (As in The Quiet Gentleman, when the practical and slightly plain heroine ends up with the gorgeous hero, instead of the beautiful young debutante.)

There are many authors that I started reading when I was a teenager. Some I no longer read today (Elisabeth Olgivie for one, and Lenora M. Weber, who wrote YA for girls). Now most of their books make me uncomfortable; I can no longer stand watching the main characters making stupid mistakes that are certain to humiliate them. When Beany and Katie (Weber's main heroines) insist upon loving the wrong guys, I find myself cringing. But when it comes to Heyer, I never tire of rereading her books, despite the fact that her heroines also make stupid mistakes. (The hero in Regency Buck once threatens to beat the heroine, and one really can't blame him for feeling that way!)

Some of Heyer's books are not as romantic as you prefer. While I don't think you would hate the characters in The Foundling and Sprig Muslin, the romances are not as intense or passionate as in some of her others, while Regency Buck is very passionate in a different way. (The hero and heroine start fighting before they even meet! The passion is there - but it is not demonstrated very romantically. The cover of my ancient Pan paperback shows a fight rather than a clinch.) But it's a fun book, even though the heroine makes some very dumb mistakes. I guess what I'm trying to say that you would probably enjoy those titles if you start off not expecting passionate romances. Mostly I'm glad that you haven't given up on Heyer. She really can't be matched, with the possible exception of Jane Austen.

[PatW]

Can’t resist adding my two cents, although I don’t have anything really new to say. I, too, started reading Heyer many years ago (I was in college, not high school) and my tastes have definitely changed over the years. I recall that when I started reading her, I “expected” all the books to be romances and even though a romance back then (early 70s) wasn’t such a well defined genre, I was still very disappointed in books like A Civil Contract, The Foundling, and even The Unknown Ajax and The Toll Gate …. Now all but A Civil Contract are favorites, especially The Foundling which is not a romance in any shape or form IMO; it is, however, a terrific “coming of age” novel as Mark labeled it in his post.

I also emphatically agree that one’s expectations for a book greatly impact one’s enjoyment. This applies to romantic suspense which is mostly suspense or mystery when one wants romance or getting blindsided by paranormal when one isn’t expecting it, etc. As other posters have remarked from time to time, it is the mood we are in that sometimes makes us say we need to try a book again, rather than toss it out completely.

My advice to the OP or others who have Heyer’s backlist to look forward to, is to check brief plot summaries to make sure what a particular book emphasizes before starting it.
_________________
When in doubt, read.

[MMcA]

[KayWebbHarrison]

[Islandgirl2]

MMcA then let me just ask how do you appreciate this book? As a fulfilling romance? Or a character book with a case study on marriages for that era? Do you yourself at your more mature age or wisdom appreciate it as a good romance? Or are you appreciating the book for it's good literature? While I am reading many comments that state they enjoy the book now more than when they were younger...they don't exactly state for what purpose. I'm curious if this fulfills your romantic side.

This wasn't my opinion of if this is a good book in the world of literature. This discussion started as a person looking for again regency romance....

Funny I was just reading on the internet this funny article about a survey for the happiest age. I think each individual has their own age of when they feel it was the "best" but in reading this article I couldn't help but find it funny as I'm 33 myself and it was the chosen number.

"[That age] is enough time to have shaken off childhood naivety and the wild scheming of teen-aged years without losing the energy and enthusiasm of youth," Donna Dawson, a psychologist, told Fox's Washington, D.C., affiliate. "Innocence has been lost, but our sense of reality is mixed with a strong sense of hope, a 'can do' spirit, and a healthy belief in our own talents and abilities."

Again I don't hold much stock in this I agree with age comes wisdom. But I hope the older I get I don't lose the sense of hope and 'can do' spriit.

Just the outlook I like to have in my own personal reading for enjoyment.
_________________
Romance my favorite reading pastime.

[veasleyd1]

Legally, marriage was/is a contract between the participants (just as a real estate sale is a contract). The title plays on two meanings of "civil" -- one as a legal contract, and one in regard to the husband and wife treating one another in a civil/courteous manner.

[Islandgirl2]

veasleyd1 I'm sorry but a title has no bearing on what's inside the book and the assumption that I should have somehow known from the title that it wouldn't have romance in the story orin the conclusion. A bit condescending. I mean title doesn't neccessarily mean Got the story now and the conclusion of it too.

Reading that title didn't mean I couldn't somehow believe that though the circumstances started out the way it did it wouldn't lead to some time spent and growth of falling in love between the couple like so many other similar stories.

To bring up The Convenient Marriage once again that had a similar premise...look at the title what was the implication how did the story actually turn out.

I mean really how many romances out there have a play on their titles..

Pride and Prejudice. Hmmm should I have gathered that Mr. Darcy and Miss Elizabeth would not have fallen in love due to the title? What does that title say to the actual story. That one had pride and one had prejudice and that was all? Or was there more to it than met the eye with the title.

So I'm sorry could not agree at all with the point you are trying to make.
_________________
Romance my favorite reading pastime.

[Susan/DC]

I haven't read A Civil Contract in many years, but it definitely was not one of my favorite Heyer's. If I were to reread it today or if I read it as a portrait of a marriage rather than a Romance, I might change my mind, but there were two basic reasons I did not care for it.

First, I found nothing attractive about Jenny. I could certainly accept that she was not physically beautiful, like Julia, but I need something in my romance heroine that makes her appealing. It could be intelligence, wit, courage, whatever, but there needs to be a quality that makes the hero's love for her understandable, even if it is the quiet love portrayed here. With Jenny, all she seemed able to do was to redecorate Adam's home just as it had been before. Her father was far more interesting to me: he was a self-made man and it was he, not Jenny, who had an eye for beauty (not entirely sure, but I think he collected Chinese porcelains).

Second, as with Islandgirl2, I do need a bit more romance in my Romance. While there would be no sex, I could have a relationship that would "never reach the highs but wouldn't have the lows" with a girlfriend.

[Mark]

I don't think changed appreciation of A Civil Contract necessarily has any connection to maturity--I think it is another demonstration of the importance of expectations. Anyone RE-reading ACC knows what to expect--a story of a marriage developing a quiet love--and won't be disappointed because they were looking for a flashy romance or funny comedy of manners.
Reading ACC expecting a conventional romance is like eating vanilla pudding when you thought you were getting lemon pudding. You might LIKE vanilla pudding, but it isn't what you wanted at the time.
Off the top of my head, all of these Heyer books can be enjoyed more after the first reading:
Cotillion
The Quiet Gentleman
Regency Buck
The Talisman Ring
The Unknown Ajax
In most of them, the rereading enjoyment comes from knowing who the h/h are and being able to pay closer attention to their interactions. In some there is also an improvement from getting mystery/suspense elements out of the way. In TUA it is knowing the nature of the hero and what he is doing for much of the story.
The Reluctant Widow is a related case. In this, it isn't a matter of prior knowledge but how one reads the heroine. The first time I read TRW I took the heroine at face value and I didn't care for the almost Gothic story. When I read the heroine as sarcastic/ironic TRW became very funny.