[DWJ] Heyer (was Polys)
minnow at belfry.org.uk
Tue Dec 25 18:56:01 EST 2007
>On Tue, Dec 25, 2007 at 04:24:02PM -0500, Allison Marles Gryski wrote:
>>Maybe we should start a People-on-the-DWJ-list-who-like-GH list?
and Roger wrote:
>That's what I'm aiming for with the Masquerade list - at least the sort
>of people who would like DWJ, even if they haven't met her work yet.
If enough people from here who liked Heyer had a go at it, we might even
turn the Masquerade list into somewhere to talk about Heyer books and have
fun! That's an idea! It's often silent for ages at a time.
>>I always feel rather embarrassed about reading my bright pink Harlequin
>>copy of Sylvester in public and yet no one would probably look twice at
>>a woman reading a pink book. Mostly I have the Pan editions, of which I
>>am trying to collect a set.
The only Pan I have spare copies of are *April Lady* (1977 7th paperback
printing) and *Faro's Daughter* (undated) with oval-on-the-cover, and
*Regency Buck* (1959 ist paperback printing) with full-cover illo. Are any
of these any use to you? *April Lady* has a slightly torn back cover,
lovingly mended with sellotape, and *Faro's Daughter* has the front
title-pages missing and starts straight in at the beginning of Chapter 1,
but they don't have pages of actual text missing as far as I know.
>_Which_ Pan editions?
Wot he said...
>There are the full-page cover illustrations and the "cartouche"
>illustrations-in-an-oval - and I think some of the cartouches were
>redrawn for the shift between a plain white and a half-coloured
I've always perceived them as either full-on different between the
all-cover and the oval, or obviously a bit of full-cover cut out to fit
into an oval. The first Pan *Regency Buck* for instance has a scene
full-cover that couldn't have a bit cut out for the oval, and is not at all
the same though I think it purports to show the same scene from the text,
and Barbosa's covers for the hardback originals of *Bath Tangle*, *The
Unknown Ajax*, *A Civil Contract*, *The Nonesuch*, *False Colours*,
*Frederica*, *Black Sheep*, *Cousin Kate* and *Charity Girl* are nothing
like the Pan ovals nor the full-cover earlier Pans. Edward Mortmain's
full-cover illo for the hardback *Lady of Quality* is nothing like the Pan
oval of a woman's face in close-up. Mortmain's *My Lord John*, on the
other hand, has definitely had a bit cut directly out of it to form the Pan
oval. LoQ and MLJ were her last two books (1973 and 1975).
Incidentally I think one needs to beware of the most recent (slightly
larger sized paperback) Arrow reprints, which the Heyer List have found to
have more than a reasonable number of typographical errors of a careless
kind. The 1960s and 1970s Pan paperbacks are very close indeed to the
Heinemann hardbacks, with about ten typos in total over the thirty-eight or
so that can be easily compared, whereas the Arrow ones have more than that
per book. In one case (called back after an outcry, I think) the List
found more than ten mistakes in the first chapter.
>>though I did
>>decide to get rid of some of the more historical ones that I didn't
>>think were as entertaining like Simon the Coldheart, My Lord John, and
>>The Great Escape).
>That would probably be _much_ more fun than either Royal Escape _or_ The
*Royal Roxhythe* really doesn't work at all. It's like *Spring Muslim*
the well-known typo. And two of the books are known as *Lady of Sheep*
collectively by people who think they're the same book really.
Most things are more fun than *The Great Roxhythe*. :-) I even find
*Penhallow* easier to read.
Actually, if someone who wasn't type-cast as a Romance writer had produced
*Penhallow* it would probably be part of the Eng Lit course at universities
ObDWJ, she is a Heyer reader and owns all the regencies and historicals;
she used to have the detective ones as well but her sister 'borrowed' them.
And every so often she has to buy a new regency because one of her
grand-daughters has 'borrowed' one.
More information about the Dwj