nineveh_uk (nineveh_uk) wrote,

The Convenient Backstory

Reading Heyer's The Convenient Marriage on the bus, it strikes me that the whole thing makes far more sense if one assumes that the absence of a complete backstory as to what actually happened seven years ago so that Rule and Lethbridge hate one another is that Lethbridge only ran off with Louisa after his acrimonious break-up with Rule. Suddenly all the unspoken moments in the text become spoken. Or as Rupert Giles put it, the sub-text is rapidly becoming text.

This reading is not helped by the following passage:

'You'll have to mount me, then, Pelham,' put in Captain Heron.

'Mount you with pleasure, my dear fellow.'

Yes, yes, I know what it really means.

Back to lit crit, in this, and Friday's Child (1944), is one supposed to assume that the love interest have slept together in the interval between getting married and the happy ending, or not? Obviously they do in A Civil Contract, but is that undercutting the unreal, or heightening the romance?
Tags: books
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.