This reminded many of us of our English and Humanities college classes.

Here's Nonnie (May 1, 2000)...

I have reread Some Brief Folly [SBF] even though after I first read it I swore I never would. I am trying to prove to Barbara that the order of Veryan's writing, regardless of publication dates is : L&G [Lord and the Gypsy], LD [Love's Duet], and SBF.

The first time that I read SBF, it was right after I finished the GCs [Golden Chronicles]. So I went from Dedicated Villain [DV] right to SBF. DV is Patricia Veryan at her funniest, frothiest, melodramatic best. It's hard to find a single line in DV that doesn't work. And every character counts. It's full of dialogue, Roly and the squeaker don't shut up. And there is lots of detail about Roly's life to give his behaviour context and the bad guy is her best. And you have to consider that I was already disappointed that GC was not JM. So I closed the cover on DV and opened the first page of SBF. Yikes! It was like going from chocolate mousse to fruitcake.

As far as Hawk went, the explanation for his behavior was minimal compared to Roly, he was not a point of view character in a meaningful way, the villain was a cipher (isn't this a clever choice of word? It a literal description of the underdeveloped villain, as well a subtle reference to GC. That's the effect of eating 3 lbs. of Easter chocolate in one day), and the reconciliation between him and his grandfather was a pretty pale shadow of the one between Roly and Muffin. The dialogue is minimal. The setting standard Gothic romance. I was disappointed.

That's why it took me months to read the rest of the Sanguinets. I actually read the Riddles first, and only when I became absolutely desperate did I start Lord and the Gypsy. There was no way I would reread SBF then. Then I waded through LD. But then, thankfully, came Feather Castles [FC] and the rest and now I even have my own copy of GATL [Give All to Love], thanks to the ever-wonderful Barbara.

So when it was time to reread SBF for the list discussion, this time I did it the right way. I reread LD first. Then SBF. Then when I finished SBF, I reread DV. (This last step was maybe not necessary to prove the point, but I don't need a lot of reasons to reread DV). Now, in context, SBF is not that bad. Certainly, Hawk and Mia are fine. The plot is suitably melodramatic. There are an assortment of interesting secondary characters, and the subplot of Stephanie and Buchanan is more intense than Veryan subplots usually are.

But it's not as well written as subsequent Veryan work. Not by a long shot. I just read a Joan Wolf book. So I'm really into these bullet sentences.

And the one line paragraphs.

So do I think the order written is L&G, LD and SBF? L&G has the lousiest heroine ever, so it must be first. LD has the next lousiest, so it must be second. (Yes, LD maniacs, I'm yanking your chains. I know that L&G and LD were published first and second so I'm willing to grant they were written earliest, so do not bother dusting off those voodoo dolls). But why is SBF third? After all, Mia is actually ok. And publication dates put Feather Castles and Nanette before SBF.

I think that L&G, LD and SBF are the first three Veryan wrote because they are virtually identical to each other in essential areas and radically different in style from all of Veryan's other books. Furthermore, they each illustrate a different version of the same hero that Veryan develops way more successfully in later books.

The similarity in style includes a marked shortage of dialogue. Every Veryan book after these three is chock full of memorable dialogue. Especially between the hero and heroine. Did either Lucian and Deirdre say a single thing that rang in your ears? I'm sorry, but the witty repartee between Camille and Sophia was not. Likewise in SBF. The best piece of dialogue between Mia and Hawk actually comes on the last page of the book. Not that Mia and Hawk don't develop an interesting relationship. It's just that Veryan's not using dialogue to tell the story. And in all of her later books, the dialogue stands out.

Now to be fair about it, there's nothing too snappy about the dialogue in Feather Castles either. But I think that's because the protagonists are two of the dullest people on the planet. But there is way more dialogue than in SBF. Just take them both in hand and rifle the pages. FC is full of it. By comparison, SBF has hardly any.

You can see Veryan devoloping her writing style throughout L&G, LD, & SBF. For example, in L&G, a number of key scenes were not described directly, like the kidnaping of that secondary woman character that Lucian foils. It involved a serious attack on the hero, but he just describes it retrospectively to some friends. Later Veryan would never leave that out. In LD, key scenes and characters are attenuated, too short to get milked for their full value, eg the big bad guy, or the guy who takes the treasure. In SBF, side issues receive too much prominence, as with the 2nd aunt's musicale, the excessive number of servants with interesting features. But in all of the books subsequent, Veryan finds the balance between relevant and irrelevant narrative and characters and when to show it and when to stow it. Even in GATL, which has a surfeit of servants, each one has a point to move the story along.

Similarly with subplots. I've already ranted about the excesive number of things happening in L&G. It's the same problem with LD: the missing treasure, the spa, the land deal gone bad, the evil Cobras, the alienated papa, the alienated uncle and papa, the brother, the bad friend, the broke cousin...And there's SBF, with not one but two aunts, the missing child, the murdered wife, the alienated grampa, the feuding neighbor, the nephew, the depressed brother and the chaste sister. Fewer subplots than L&G and LD, but still too many. Compare them to Nanette or FC. After SBF, Veryan pares it down so the reader can focus on the story. The subplots don't require a score card.

There are equivalent issues with point of view. L&G is all Lucian. LD is Sophia (why?), like SBF is mostly Mia. Most of her later books use multiple points of view, even if she's chosen the hero or the heroine as the main one. There is a little Simon in SBF, but not even close to enough Hawk. She doesn't make that kind of mistake in later books: she won't waste time giving you the secondary male character's pov, when you don't get the hero's. Hawk actually remains more oblique than Simon. Frustrating.

Apart from the same unfocused writing style, the other thing that L&G, LD and SBF share is the presentation of the Veryan archetypal hero: noble, brave and good, but misjudged and alone, until his true love recognizes the truth about him.

Lucian is the publically-humiliated misjudged man. Society is punishing him because it is suspected that he's killed his girlfriend. (Not Deirdre, since obviously, no one would be shunned for killing her) In true early Veryan overkill, he then gets boycotted by society again because he makes it look like he's trying maneuver his cousin Vaughn out of an inheritance. So unfair, since he was really just trying to protect his girlfriend and Vaughn. But Lucian stoically endures the cruel treatment by his mistaken peers. Sound familiar? Anthony Farrar even looks just like Lucian.

And Camille. The sarcastic uncaring front presented to insulate the vulnerable man from exposing his true self to cruel society. August, step forward dear. That's enough. Meet me later around back. Where's Treve?

Hawk: the misjudged man forced to take refuge from cruel society by becoming a rake. Roly, you and Treve come over here. Tell August to come in, but just for a second.

Now Veryan does have other archetypes: dull men with the huge fantasy life, wild boys, adorable boys, etc. But the most powerful of Veryan's heroes are the vulnerable inside, crunchy outside guys that suffer from society's cruel misjudgements: August, Roly, Anthony, and Treve. Is there any argument about this? Do we need a poll?

And these shellacked-over bowls of jello are exactly the kind of men that Veryan is playing with in her first three books. She's trying them on, working the permutations. That's why poor Lucian has to suffer two humiliating courses of treatment. And practically everyone is misjudged in LD. And why Hawk is has to do a major reversal after several years of being reviled by society.

Society's misjudgement, with all of it's horrible consequences on the psyche of the poor man are essential Veryan themes. Why did she make Rossiter's men dump August after the duel? Because he wasn't suffering enough. She had him rejected by haut ton society, but it didn't bother him enough. Not until he's rejected by his friends can he follow the trail of degradation blazed by Lucian and Hawk and reach the depths inhabited by Roly and owned by Anthony.

So it's not that Mia and Hawk aren't interesting characters or the plot is not good. It's that Veryan later develops such an inspired and original way of telling the same story. Like LAN [Love Alters Not] is better that L&G, SBF doesn't have the trademark Veryan style that makes her later books so excellent. Except for the type of hero, SBF could have been written by anyone. But all of her subsequent books could only have been written by Patricia Veryan.

Please email any corrections, revisions, changes, additions, deletions, oversights, errors, typos, good ideas, bad ideas, new ideas, links, congratulations, adulations, optimism, pessimism, questions, clues, hints, events, notifications, or stories to Tonia Izu.
Changes last made on: Sunday, June 17, 2007
This page accessed   times since March 13, 2000.