Reading the Detectives discussion

Welcome to our September group read, Thunder on the Right by Mary Stewart published in 1957.

Jennifer Silver has come to the picturesque, secluded Valley of the Storms in the French Pyrenees to meet with a young cousin who is about to enter the convent there -- only to discover that the young woman has died in a dreadful car accident. Or did she?

Lies abound in this strange and frightening place, but seeking the truth could lead Jennifer to her own violent death.

Please feel free to post spoilers in this thread.

Susan wrote: "I have to admit I didn't much like this. It was a bit of a melodrama - too many flashing eyes and boys on wild horses for me."

you aren't alone in saying this, Susan.

Mary Stewart is a wonderful writer and what I enjoy more than anything is her descriptions of the awesome settings.

But right up there is also the drama she creates.

Her first book, Madam Will You Talk, is an example of that. So much more controlled in the drama! and then some humor, thrown in; I can't wait to re-read that one.

But Thunder on the Right does go over the edge a bit.

I rolled my eyes when the heroine literally faints away after the villain kisses her against her will; and then amnesia as a plot device!
I've hear Mary Stewart herself admits she strayed from drama into melodrama.

But I still really enjoyed this book.

It's very much of its period, and I find the stereotyped gender roles somewhat annoying, and a lot of the plot preposterous. But I just decided to relax and have a good time, silliness and all.

That's pretty much how I felt too, Abigail.

I find it's always interesting to read authors whom I have eagerly devoured in my more youthful years and that I've fond memories of. I still enjoy reading the same genres as I did, but 60 odd years later (as in this instance) the modern writing is often strikingly dated. Because of that I often find books of yesteryear don't capture me immediately. Not this one! Even though as has been said by others, it was rather melodramatic, I was taken straight away by Mary Stewart's ability to describe create an atmospheric scene which made the slightly weak plot and dialogue more tolerable. However, as I raced toward the end I came to really enjoy the characters and suspense without the 'blood and guts' of today's modern romantic suspense/mysteries.

Yes, I liked this return to Mary Stewart and will look out more by her.

I agree with most, or all, of the prior comments. Stewart did a wonderful job of portraying the evil not-a-nun Spanish lady, especially compared to the kindly Mother Superior. There was no doubt who the villain would be. Like Abigail I relaxed and enjoyed the silliness, though I did groan when amnesia was introduced. Later I wondered if Gillian's childlessness was important only to establish she was alone in a 'foreign' country or because there would be no fear of pregnancy after her time with the smuggler. That could be quite a surprise if she hadn't recovered those memories. While I rather enjoyed the smuggler character, I found him entirely unrealistic.

Finished. I found Stephen & Jenny's relationship & the machinations of Jenny's mother quite odd at the start.

I didn't think the scenery descriptions were as evocative as usual.

The whole Gillian amnesia thing - also odd - & for Stewart very clumsily written.

The interplay with Brussac was weird.

But once again Mary Stewart wrote a really thrilling finale.

I think I have missed something though. How was Dona Francisca able to describe Gillian's appearance?

My favourite Mary Stewarts are The Moonspinners & (especially) This Rough Magic

But I think The Ivy Tree which is sort of a homage to Brat Farrar could be a good fit for this group

I agree with all of the above, Carol! Haven't read Ivy Tree in decades and would love to do so again.

As for describing Gillian's appearance, surely Dona Francisca had seen her partner-in-crime's new "wife" before Jenny turned up, right? And if not, I seem to recall some passing mention of the similarity in appearance between Gillian and the woman who died at the convent, sufficient for that woman to claim Gillian's identity after the accident. The telling difference was the color blindness.

I guess that is the explanation, but it was certainly unclear to me. I may do a quick skim before I write my review.

Dona Francisca was a wonderful villain - & that twist with the Mother Superior was marvellous.

This is the first book I have read by this author and I quite liked it. There were some eye-rolling slushy romance scenes, but I did feel Jenifer was very plucky for a young woman at this time, and felt her frustration at finding Gillian had died. I liked the description of the convent and countryside, and I think she handled the portrayal of the villains well.

Dona Francisca was a wonderful villain

I so agree with this; she was scary, and juxtaposed with the good nuns, she was evil.

Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "Finished. I found Stephen & Jenny's relationship & the machinations of Jenny's mother quite odd at the start...."

I found this part quite intriguing and was rather wishing we had more of the story set in Oxford, although I loved the descriptions of the Pyrenees.

I do agree that whole business of Gillian's amnesia is oddly handled, especially when Brussac becomes more sympathetic - the fact that he has tricked a vulnerable woman into a sexual relationship never really seems to be addressed.

I want to eventually read everything Mary Stewart wrote - slowly, not in a gulp! - but Wildfire at Midnight is high up on the list. Also her trilogy about King Arthur.
It's so satisfying to find an author you like and know there's plenty more where that came from!

The only books by her I've read so far are this one and The Ivy Tree - in both of them I really enjoyed her writing style but there were some plot twists that I found unbelievable. I will still read more by her though - thanks for recommending those titles, Cphe and Jackie.

Judy wrote: "The only books by her I've read so far are this one and The Ivy Tree - in both of them I really enjoyed her writing style but there were some plot twists that I found unbelievable. I ..."

I've read all of her adult fiction now except for The Prince and the Pilgrim The only one I really disliked was Stormy Petrel but Thornyhold was pretty average - for completists only.

I think I'm harder on favourite writers like Stewart, Christie & Heyer, because I know what they are capable of when they are on their game.

Well I’ve finished and have very mixed feelings about it. As a thriller/mystery, it definitely moved into melodrama and soap-opera! Amnesia? Such an overused trope although possibly not in 1954. It is still well written, evocative and well executed. It’s nowhere near as good as my favourites: roughly her first dozen books, in particular Madam Will you Talk, This Rough Magic, The Gabriel,Hounds et al.

It’s one of the few of Mary Stewart’s that I haven’t re-read a gazillion times before so it was interesting that for most of it I really felt I was reading it for the first time as I had forgotten most of the plot. It held my attention and I was riveted in the last few chapters.

I was okay with the third person POV. - it certainly allowed the reader to have a much better understanding of the hero’s thoughts. I found the heroine Jennifer rather odd and unsympathetic. Her inability to sense Stephen’s feelings or desire for her struck me as somewhat unbelievable. She was exceptionally strong, forthright and brave for an innocent 22 year old. I need to have a little more thought before I post my thoughts on the ‘crime’ and the ‘villains’.

The experiences of poor Gillian were kind of abandoned at the end of the book and I found that somewhat frustrating.

Good point about Jennifer--now I think of it, she did seem more designed to suit the plot than an integral person in her own right.

Susan in Perthshire wrote: "The experiences of poor Gillian were kind of abandoned at the end of the book and I found that somewhat frustrating...."

Definitely agree with you there, Susan - it seemed as if everyone was relieved that Gillian had lost the other part of her memory and didn't know she had been abducted and presumably sexually abused by the guy claiming to be her "husband". I know this is a thriller/entertainment and couldn't go into this aspect in depth, but it does seem to be dismissed incredibly quickly!

I was wondering about what happened to Gillian. I wondered if because she had once been married, the author thought that her being abused didn't matter.

Jill wrote: "I was wondering about what happened to Gillian. I wondered if because she had once been married, the author thought that her being abused didn't matter."

yes, that and since she didn't remember it was all fine. creepy.

But I remember waiting for most of the book for the reunion between cousins and was shocked when Gillian didn't remember her - and then we never did have a happy reunion, did we? weren't they as close as sisters when they were young?

I thought she was probably 5 or 6 years older? I don't think the actual age gap is given though.

Jackie wrote: "Jill wrote: "I was wondering about what happened to Gillian. I wondered if because she had once been married, the author thought that her being abused didn't matter."

yes, that and since she didn'..."

I agree that the implied rape and abuse was not handled well. I thought it was very naive of Jennifer to ask Stephen at one point, but when were they married? Not the major problem at hand. Perhaps it's a product of its time -- I don't think a 21 year old today would ask that.

The actual age gap isn't given, but Jennifer is 13 when Gillian leaves home to be married. There is no suggestion that Gillian was doing war work (nursing, or air-raid-wardening, or making munitions ...) before her marriage, so she may have still be very young. I do however find it rather grating that when they see her at Bussac's cottage, the narrative voice refers to her as 'the girl', since she must be at least 25 by then, and probably older - older, that is, than Stephen at 26, who isn't referred to as 'the boy'.

I have just reached the point where Stephen 'explains' the book's title, and am now worried for Jennifer ...

"He slid his hands up to her shoulders, and shook her gently. [...] 'This isn't going to be a tragedy after all!" [...] "Thunder - on the right," said Stephen. "There's your omen, Jenny, and not on the sinister side."

But since they are facing each other when the thunder is heard, if it's on Stephen's right it's on Jennifer's left ...

Rosina wrote: "The actual age gap isn't given, but Jennifer is 13 when Gillian leaves home to be married. There is no suggestion that Gillian was doing war work (nursing, or air-raid-wardening, or making munition..."

Oh, good catch about thunder on the right or left and whose omen it is!

Oh, but surely you understand that a man's right is the real right, and a woman's right is irrelevant? 😄

A woman has a right to her own right and the man should be left (behind).

Sandy wrote: "A woman has a right to her own right and the man should be left (behind)."

Hahahaha!

Sorry, I meant "girl's," of course!

Good one, Sandy!

good post, Rosina!

and LOL at the rest of you. ;-)

I quite like this one, though not as much as some of her others, it is a bit melodramatic. I would have liked to know what Gillian thought about it all.

I'm not sure if I've ever read any Mary Stewart before (it would likely have been in my teens which is 40+ years ago) but, given how many other great books I still have on my list, I don't know if i'll read any more.

This was a very exciting read, but I agree that it felt dated and with some clunky plot devices and uncomfortable situations, which you've all touched on. Back to Christie and Allingham for now!