MobileRead March 2017 Discussion: Queen Lucia by E.F. Benson (spoilers)

[sun surfer]

Originally Posted by issybird

Yes. People give Hyacinth a wide berth, but they're willing to buy into Lucia's pretenses, because there's entertainment in them. But then the people in Hyacinth's world have lives, but those in Riseholme really have nothing to do and they don't have Onslow's predilection for being bone-idle. One can't embroider all day long.

I suppose in Lucia's case, she doesn't have to pretend to be any more upper-class than she is and everyone around her is in that same class; she just puts on airs about her cultural aspirations. With Hyacinth, it's both cultural- and class-related.

As for Miss Mapp, more than anything it comes down to money. Everyone in Riseholme seemingly has as much as they need, but budgets in Tilling pinch a little. Not that everyone still didn'wt have several servants and live lives of leisure!

Yes, the money! I almost wanted to say that in my Miss Mapp Goodreads review but hesitated, because I supposed that the Tilling-ites could have just as much as the Riseholme-ians but it was just more of an accepted practice in Tilling to worry and complain about money a tiny bit.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by issybird

...Daisy's various crank interests....

Daisy seemed like a holdover from the 1960s, which, of course, she never saw. I mention it to demonstrate how modern the character seems. Her household at times seemed like a hippie commune.

Originally Posted by sun surfer

I wrote about the similarities to Keeping Up Appearances in my Goodreads review of Queen Lucia from January....

Which proves once again that great minds think alike.

Originally Posted by BenG

The difference is that in many ways Emmeline Lucas is Queen Lucia, whereas Hyacinth Bucket just wants to be and usually fails.

True. Their similarity ends in the way people reacted to their claims. Even the parson would hide from Hyacinth!

[issybird]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Daisy seemed like a holdover from the 1960s, which, of course, she never saw. I mention it to demonstrate how modern the character seems. Her household at times seemed like a hippie commune.

I think the 1920s were similar to the 1960s; there was the same feelings of being "modern," of licentiousness, of kicking over the traces and rejecting the hide-bound and traditional. The real shocker would be for the 60s types, to discover they weren't the first to dabble in vegetarianism and Eastern mysticism!

[orlok]

Lalalalala! (fingers in ears). I've not quite finished, so I'm not joining in or reading any posts until I've finished (tomorrow, maybe?). Just checking in to say I will be getting involved in the discussion soon

[bfisher]

Originally Posted by issybird

One thing that struck me is that while the story is of its time, it's not in its time. For a book published in 1920 it's remarkable in a way that the society portrayed shows no aftereffects of the Great War, which had just ended. Well, people sought escape in comic novels; that's understandable; you see the same phenomenon in Wodehouse. But much of the action, especially Daisy's various crank interests, reflected how people sought to cope with the grim post-war reality. This would include her interest in Christian Science and her guru, but most notably her involvement in Spiritualism, which had a huge bump in interest immediately after the war, as people sought to contact their dead. But lacking the grief and desperation that fed the movement in the outside world, the Riseholmites could abandon it easily and move on to the next stunt.

That was striking. There is an absolute sense of timelessness, other than that the automobile was beginning to intrude. The Bolshevik revolution was in full spate, yet the only reference we get outside the Riseholme gratin is a telling reference to Lucia mistaking the 'submerged tenth' to a musical term. But then, to me the main point of the book was that the characters are self-absorbed to the extent that they live in a bubble.

[JSWolf]

I finally finished the audiobook. I had a problem with the Hoopla app in that the upgraded iOS app crashed when trying to play the audiobook. The solution I got from Hoopla was to uninstall and reinstall and that worked.

That being said, I did enjoy the book. One thing I rather liked was that the story didn't feel old.

[orlok]

Originally Posted by CRussel

I started reading this on my Kindle, and put it down twice. But as soon as I started listening to the Nadia May narration, I totally "got it" and was able to easily go back and forth between the audio book and the ebook versions. (Made easier by having WhisperSync, of course.)

My basis for comparison is Jeeves & Wooster. There, we had two quite likable protagonists, but much the same quality of humour. (And, of course, who _wouldn't_ want a Jeeves!) This was much harder to get in to, though I can see exactly how it would work as a series/sitcom. Except that the weakness is exactly that lack of the Jeeves character to act as the foil, the calming and sustaining influence, etc. Olga doesn't quite work for that.

Will I be reading the other's in the series? Possibly. I'm certainly glad to have read this, and all the others are available as McCaddon/Nadia May narrations, so there's that to look forward to.

I did exactly the same thing - I found reading Queen Lucia a bit flat at first, but when I started listening to the Blackstone Audio version it suddenly came to life. I too finished it through WhisperSync, mostly via the audio book.

I'll preface my review by saying that this is not my usual genre, and I'm not a big fan of "a comedy of manners" stories. I have read and enjoyed a number of P.G. Wodehouse books, and as CRussel says, there are obvious parallels, but it's not my genre of choice. When I was reading the book, I found it mildly amusing at certain points, but often found I was wandering and had to bring myself back to the narrative, sometime rereading passages that had completely passed me by. Once I started listening, though, I experienced a number of snicker-out-loud moments, and the story came alive for me.

I too wonder whether I will read any more in the series. Maybe to find out where Mapp comes in, as he/she was not in evidence here, even though this is the first in the Mapp and Lucia series... I'm not sorry to have participated in the read - it proved a mildly diverting and sometimes amusing read - but it's not one that will stand high in my memory of favourite books.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by bfisher

But then, to me the main point of the book was that the characters are self-absorbed to the extent that they live in a bubble.

It's also notable (and Nancy Mitford said this in the introduction to one of my paperbacks) that no one in this class has children. The Antrobus "girls" are as young as it gets. Again, you have the sense that children would have forced their parents, even in an age of servants, outside their self-absorption. Adding to this impression are the veiled references to homosexuality, as presumably all the Pillson siblings are gay, as indeed Benson is presumed to have been. And certainly Lucia's marriage seems sexless, as

Spoiler:

her second marriage will be explicitly.

As a gossipy aside, Benson's parents, the Archbishop of Canterbury and a lesbian, had six children but no grandchildren.

Originally Posted by orlok

I'll preface my review by saying that this is not my usual genre, and I'm not a big fan of "a comedy of manners" stories.

I understand that reaction; for me it's exactly my thing, or one of my things. That mildly absurd English humor that relies so much on understatement and indirection, generally silly and occasionally uproarious, is like crack to me. Which I'm mentioning because I'd love to hear others' favorites in that genre!

[JSWolf]

I agree with orlok. I too found reading the book to be flat. It picked up once I started listening to the audiobook. Life was then brought into the story. You could ignore how it was written very easily and get into the story and characters. I didn't find any laugh-out-loud moments. There were some smiles, but that's about it. I found Queen Lucia to be a lighthearted story that was pleasant to listen to. I did like that the humor wasn't forced or made to be silly.

[orlok]

Originally Posted by issybird

I understand that reaction; for me it's exactly my thing, or one of my things. That mildly absurd English humor that relies so much on understatement and indirection, generally silly and occasionally uproarious, is like crack to me. Which I'm mentioning because I'd love to hear others' favorites in that genre!

I do get it, and sometimes I really get it (have you listened to any of the Alan Bennett monologues?), but it's not a genre I am naturally drawn to.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by orlok

I do get it, and sometimes I really get it (have you listened to any of the Alan Bennett monologues?)

I have; that's a terrific example of this kind of humor. And his The Uncommon Reader was a five-star read for me.

[bfisher]

Originally Posted by issybird

I understand that reaction; for me it's exactly my thing, or one of my things. That mildly absurd English humor that relies so much on understatement and indirection, generally silly and occasionally uproarious, is like crack to me. Which I'm mentioning because I'd love to hear others' favorites in that genre!

Yes, this book seemed like an exemplar of that.

I was very impressed by the quality of the prose in places. I thought that the closing sentence was brilliant as a summary of the flavour of the book, and of the situation of the characters.

"As Lucia played to them, she drew a lozenge out of the box and put it into her mouth, in order to begin growing at once. It tasted rather bitter, but not unpleasantly so."

[WT Sharpe]

The name of the spiritual medium, Princess Popoffski, reminds me of Peter Popoff, the phony evangelist and faith healer exposed by The Amazing James Randi's investigative team. (Seems the voice of God revealing information about strangers in his crowds was really his wife feeding him information via a radio receiver hidden in his ear.)

Let's send it to the Psychical Research, or whoever those people are who collect coincidences and say it's spooks.

I guess E.F. Benson didn't have a lot of faith in such things.

Originally Posted by issybird

...Adding to this impression are the veiled references to homosexuality, as presumably all the Pillson siblings are gay, as indeed Benson is presumed to have been.....

Well, that would explain the "bulge in Georgie's pocket" when he saw Robert.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Well, that would explain the "bulge in Georgie's pocket" when he saw Robert.

Given that Georgie was in love with Olga, I would say bisexual.

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Well, that would explain the "bulge in Georgie's pocket" when he saw Robert.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Given that Georgie was in love with Olga, I would say bisexual.

I got the feeling throughout that his 'love' for Olga was more appreciation than love, and the definite feeling that he was predominately gay, if perhaps unacknowledged (and certainly not out!) Given the era, hardly surprising.