Hello, I loved your post. It was remarkably witty and incisive. It was well set out. Besides, I agree with it. Plus, a silly reason: Sophie is one of my favourite names.
I plan to write an article on Heyer in the future on the theme that Heyer’s reactionary view of history has done a great disservice to popular understanding of the Regency, and I hope we can keep in touch.
I'm a writer of historical fiction from the UK, and a history geek. I am only posting under 'anonymous' because of problems with my Google account. One of my pen names is Marianna Green.
Yours is one of the few articles on the internet I can find which depicts why Heyer's vision of my country in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century is a sparkling, sanitized alternative reality, even for the upper classes about whom she writes as virtually the only people worthy of notice.
Her novels bear about as much resemblance to historical reality as do the Bertie Wooster stories of P G Wodehouse.
Don't get me wrong; I enjoy the Bertie Wooster stories. Harmless escapism is fine if it is regarded in just that light.
But it does concern me that many readers (particularly some from outside the UK) for whom European history is often not a strong point, confuse a glittering, make believe world with the real UK of that era, and take no exception to Heyer’s sexist, socially oppressive views.
The politically and socially reactionary slant, and the insistence on allocation to stereotypical sex roles is subtle; you may have to be familiar with the UK class system to understand it (I note you detect it excellently).
Readers seem to have no objection, for instance, in Venetia, to Venetia describing Damerel’s first love as ‘a slut…with the mind of a courtesan with a wedding ring upon her finger’ (I paraphrase freely) . They don’t mind that he thinks it is fine to force a kiss on her when he mistakes her for ‘a village maiden’. Droit du signeur!
There is a mistaken view that Heyer's views on sex roles were advanced, because her heroines were sometimes spirited, argumentative, and could often shoot and ride well; but they only ever revolt within strict limits. In real life she didn't think women should work and hated writing romances, but had no choice as she wanted to keep up a certain lifestyle with servants, her son at an expensive boarding school, etc, and her male relatives seem to have been pretty hopeless.
All this perturbs me, to the point where I am planning to write an article about it. I do think there needs to be an opposing voice to this trend.
I am also pre-empting the criticism that I have not read enough of her novels by ploughing my way through twenty. I on number sixteen: ‘Faro’s Daughter’.
There is a large amount of savage criticism of such popular books as ‘Twilght’, so I am puzzled as to why Heyer is exempt. I cannot believe that ninety-nine per cent of those who read her books love them. I suspect that a lot of reviewers, say on Amazon, seem hesitant to criticize Heyer, for fear of cyber bullying by strident Heyer fans, yet, are they so much more alarming than ‘Twilight’ fans? Plus, there is a mistaken view among ‘the Romance Community’ that all criticism is bad. But if we are to retain our freedoms, a critical approach to all experience is necessary.
For instance, Pamela Regis’ section on her in ‘The Natural History of the Romance Novel’ amounts to a panegyric.
Few dare to mention her over use of exclamation marks; I have often counted twenty on a page, and not in a dramatic part of the action. Few comment that she had a a limited number of basic plot points and stock characters and moved them about, using them like building blocks. All cleverly done; but not the great literature her dedicated fan base insist.
It may even be the case, that serious writers avoid the era because it is equated with the triviality and fluff of Heyer and the awful rash of badly written, poorly researched Regency Romances.
On these, I saw one recently with the most absurd cover, depicting a ‘Scots laird’ standing outside his castle in the snow. He had no shirt. It couldn’t have been taxes. Perhaps a feisty lassie had it from his back…
Because she was an expert on the details of the upper class lifestyle, she is hailed as a great historian who depicts the society at that age 'as it was'.
I am frankly appalled by the view of the UK in the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century as perpetuated by Heyer in her invention of the 'Regency Romance'. You would think at that time the population consisted of aristocrats, gentry, a few vulgar 'cits', subservient or anyway, devoted retainers, content bumpkins and the odd nasty subversive to be thrown out of the big house.
You would never think that there was widespread sympathy for the French Revolution, to the point where the authorities banned meetings of more than a few persons for fear of public disorder.
You would never believe that this was the age of the Corn Laws, disasterous harvests, and public unrest leading up to the Peterloo Massacre in 1819...
Heyer presents her High Tory view of the French Revolution, which equate the whole with the violence of the Terror. (That is true of the sixteen I have read so far; ‘An Infamous Army’ is next on my list; it may be that she manages to be more impartial there).
Heyer was out of fashion over here since her death circa 1976 , until the development of amazon seems to have become enormously popular again, particular in the US.
I have been trawling about the internet, trying to find objective criticism about Heyer, and ninety-nine per cent of the posts consist of fulsome praise by uncritical fans who seem to spend their free time reading all her novels over and over.
Oddly, many assume that if they had been alive and in the UK then, they would have been members of the minute aristocracy, not servants, farm workers or artisans.
To give an idea of how far UK people often have to go back to find a direct link to a titled ancestor, a relative of mine did that for one side of our family. She had to go back to the late sixteenth/early seventeenth century, Sir Hugh Myddleton (and he was only a baronet).
I am particularly appalled at the way that so many modern readers give glowing reviews of 'Devil's Cub' which features a 'hero' who semi throttles the heroine at one point and threatens to rape her at another (he thinks she's a low floozy, so that makes it all right). No...Just, No....
If anything, you are too kind about Heyer's character. From what I've read, the views she expressed about the 'Jews and the w****' at the end of the Six Day War were typical, and even her own ‘set’ avoided mentioning politics because of her views.
I've only liked four so far. I like what I have read of Deborah in ‘Faro’s Daugher’. I liked ‘The Grand Sophy’ (apart from the anti-Semitism you mention, that is),’Cotillion’ and ‘The Foundling’. I hated ‘Devil’s Cub’ ‘ Venitia’ and ‘The Talisman Ring’ most. Those idiots Eustacie and Ludo Lav (he of that cringe making speech: ‘Is that a tear, little cousin?’) were probably two of the most idiotic characters I have ever had the misfortune to come across in any bad novel.
Very few reviews dare to mention her over use of exclamation marks (I have often counted twenty on a page, and not in a dramatic part of the action) or that she had a few basic plot points and stock characters
I even think that serious writers don't write about the era because it is equated with the triviality and fluff of Heyer.
I am frankly appalled by the view of the UK in the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century as perpetuated by Heyer in her invention of the 'Regency Romance'. You would think at that time the population consisted of aristocrats, gentry, a few vulgar 'cits', subservient or anyway, devoted retainers, content bumpkins and the odd nasty subversive to be thrown out of the big house (as in 'The Unknown Ajax').
You would never think that there was fairly widespread sympathy for the French Revolution, to the point where the authorities banned meetings of more than a few persons for fear of public disorder.
You would never think this was the age of the Corn Laws, disasterous harvests, and public unrest leading up to the Peterloo Massacre in 1819...
Heyer presents a High Tory view which equates the whole of the French Revolution with the violence of the Terror.
Heyer was out of fashion for decades here, but with the development of amazon seems to have become enormously popular again, particular in the US. I have been trawling about the internet, trying to find objective criticism about Heyer, and ninety-nine of the posts consist of fulsome praise by uncritical fans who strangely seem to assume that if they had been alive then, they would have been members of the minute titled aristocracy.
To give people an idea of how far UK people often have to go back to find a direct link to a titled ancestor, a relative of mine did that for one side of our family. She had to go back to the late sixteenth/early seventeenth century, Sir Hugh Myddleton (and he was only a baronet).
I am particularly appalled at the way that so many modern readers give uncritical, glowing reviews of 'Devil's Cub' which features a 'hero' who semi throttles the heroine at one point and threatens to rape her at another (he thinks she's a low floozy, so that makes it all right). No...jut, NO....
At the moment I am doing research, with the results I mention above. I am also precluding the criticism that I have not read enough of her novels by reading twenty. I am up to sixteen so far.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Why I don't like Georgette Heyer
I plan to write an article on Heyer in the future on the theme that Heyer’s reactionary view of history has done a great disservice to popular understanding of the Regency, and I hope we can keep in touch.
I'm a writer of historical fiction from the UK, and a history geek. I am only posting under 'anonymous' because of problems with my Google account. One of my pen names is Marianna Green.
Yours is one of the few articles on the internet I can find which depicts why Heyer's vision of my country in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century is a sparkling, sanitized alternative reality, even for the upper classes about whom she writes as virtually the only people worthy of notice.
Her novels bear about as much resemblance to historical reality as do the Bertie Wooster stories of P G Wodehouse.
Don't get me wrong; I enjoy the Bertie Wooster stories. Harmless escapism is fine if it is regarded in just that light.
But it does concern me that many readers (particularly some from outside the UK) for whom European history is often not a strong point, confuse a glittering, make believe world with the real UK of that era, and take no exception to Heyer’s sexist, socially oppressive views.
The politically and socially reactionary slant, and the insistence on allocation to stereotypical sex roles is subtle; you may have to be familiar with the UK class system to understand it (I note you detect it excellently).
Readers seem to have no objection, for instance, in Venetia, to Venetia describing Damerel’s first love as ‘a slut…with the mind of a courtesan with a wedding ring upon her finger’ (I paraphrase freely) . They don’t mind that he thinks it is fine to force a kiss on her when he mistakes her for ‘a village maiden’. Droit du signeur!
There is a mistaken view that Heyer's views on sex roles were advanced, because her heroines were sometimes spirited, argumentative, and could often shoot and ride well; but they only ever revolt within strict limits. In real life she didn't think women should work and hated writing romances, but had no choice as she wanted to keep up a certain lifestyle with servants, her son at an expensive boarding school, etc, and her male relatives seem to have been pretty hopeless.
All this perturbs me, to the point where I am planning to write an article about it. I do think there needs to be an opposing voice to this trend.
I am also pre-empting the criticism that I have not read enough of her novels by ploughing my way through twenty. I on number sixteen: ‘Faro’s Daughter’.
There is a large amount of savage criticism of such popular books as ‘Twilght’, so I am puzzled as to why Heyer is exempt. I cannot believe that ninety-nine per cent of those who read her books love them. I suspect that a lot of reviewers, say on Amazon, seem hesitant to criticize Heyer, for fear of cyber bullying by strident Heyer fans, yet, are they so much more alarming than ‘Twilight’ fans? Plus, there is a mistaken view among ‘the Romance Community’ that all criticism is bad. But if we are to retain our freedoms, a critical approach to all experience is necessary.
For instance, Pamela Regis’ section on her in ‘The Natural History of the Romance Novel’ amounts to a panegyric.
Few dare to mention her over use of exclamation marks; I have often counted twenty on a page, and not in a dramatic part of the action. Few comment that she had a a limited number of basic plot points and stock characters and moved them about, using them like building blocks. All cleverly done; but not the great literature her dedicated fan base insist.
It may even be the case, that serious writers avoid the era because it is equated with the triviality and fluff of Heyer and the awful rash of badly written, poorly researched Regency Romances.
On these, I saw one recently with the most absurd cover, depicting a ‘Scots laird’ standing outside his castle in the snow. He had no shirt. It couldn’t have been taxes. Perhaps a feisty lassie had it from his back…
Because she was an expert on the details of the upper class lifestyle, she is hailed as a great historian who depicts the society at that age 'as it was'.
I am frankly appalled by the view of the UK in the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century as perpetuated by Heyer in her invention of the 'Regency Romance'. You would think at that time the population consisted of aristocrats, gentry, a few vulgar 'cits', subservient or anyway, devoted retainers, content bumpkins and the odd nasty subversive to be thrown out of the big house.
You would never think that there was widespread sympathy for the French Revolution, to the point where the authorities banned meetings of more than a few persons for fear of public disorder.
You would never believe that this was the age of the Corn Laws, disasterous harvests, and public unrest leading up to the Peterloo Massacre in 1819...
Heyer presents her High Tory view of the French Revolution, which equate the whole with the violence of the Terror. (That is true of the sixteen I have read so far; ‘An Infamous Army’ is next on my list; it may be that she manages to be more impartial there).
Heyer was out of fashion over here since her death circa 1976 , until the development of amazon seems to have become enormously popular again, particular in the US.
I have been trawling about the internet, trying to find objective criticism about Heyer, and ninety-nine per cent of the posts consist of fulsome praise by uncritical fans who seem to spend their free time reading all her novels over and over.
Oddly, many assume that if they had been alive and in the UK then, they would have been members of the minute aristocracy, not servants, farm workers or artisans.
To give an idea of how far UK people often have to go back to find a direct link to a titled ancestor, a relative of mine did that for one side of our family. She had to go back to the late sixteenth/early seventeenth century, Sir Hugh Myddleton (and he was only a baronet).
I am particularly appalled at the way that so many modern readers give glowing reviews of 'Devil's Cub' which features a 'hero' who semi throttles the heroine at one point and threatens to rape her at another (he thinks she's a low floozy, so that makes it all right). No...Just, No....
If anything, you are too kind about Heyer's character. From what I've read, the views she expressed about the 'Jews and the w****' at the end of the Six Day War were typical, and even her own ‘set’ avoided mentioning politics because of her views.
I've only liked four so far. I like what I have read of Deborah in ‘Faro’s Daugher’. I liked ‘The Grand Sophy’ (apart from the anti-Semitism you mention, that is),’Cotillion’ and ‘The Foundling’. I hated ‘Devil’s Cub’ ‘ Venitia’ and ‘The Talisman Ring’ most. Those idiots Eustacie and Ludo Lav (he of that cringe making speech: ‘Is that a tear, little cousin?’) were probably two of the most idiotic characters I have ever had the misfortune to come across in any bad novel.
Very few reviews dare to mention her over use of exclamation marks (I have often counted twenty on a page, and not in a dramatic part of the action) or that she had a few basic plot points and stock characters
I even think that serious writers don't write about the era because it is equated with the triviality and fluff of Heyer.
I am frankly appalled by the view of the UK in the late eighteenth/early nineteenth century as perpetuated by Heyer in her invention of the 'Regency Romance'. You would think at that time the population consisted of aristocrats, gentry, a few vulgar 'cits', subservient or anyway, devoted retainers, content bumpkins and the odd nasty subversive to be thrown out of the big house (as in 'The Unknown Ajax').
You would never think that there was fairly widespread sympathy for the French Revolution, to the point where the authorities banned meetings of more than a few persons for fear of public disorder.
You would never think this was the age of the Corn Laws, disasterous harvests, and public unrest leading up to the Peterloo Massacre in 1819...
Heyer presents a High Tory view which equates the whole of the French Revolution with the violence of the Terror.
Heyer was out of fashion for decades here, but with the development of amazon seems to have become enormously popular again, particular in the US.
I have been trawling about the internet, trying to find objective criticism about Heyer, and ninety-nine of the posts consist of fulsome praise by uncritical fans who strangely seem to assume that if they had been alive then, they would have been members of the minute titled aristocracy.
To give people an idea of how far UK people often have to go back to find a direct link to a titled ancestor, a relative of mine did that for one side of our family. She had to go back to the late sixteenth/early seventeenth century, Sir Hugh Myddleton (and he was only a baronet).
I am particularly appalled at the way that so many modern readers give uncritical, glowing reviews of 'Devil's Cub' which features a 'hero' who semi throttles the heroine at one point and threatens to rape her at another (he thinks she's a low floozy, so that makes it all right).
No...jut, NO....
At the moment I am doing research, with the results I mention above. I am also precluding the criticism that I have not read enough of her novels by reading twenty.
I am up to sixteen so far.
Rant over. Do contact me on Goodreads.