girlyswot: (curiouser and)
[personal profile] girlyswot
Since [livejournal.com profile] megan29 is just discovering the joys of Heyer for the first time, and also since reading this ridiculous article (HT: [livejournal.com profile] coughingbear) about her, I have been pondering the merits of Heyer a lot this week. Inevitably the comparison always comes, 'But of course, she's no Jane Austen.'

It seems to me that there are two important pragmatic reasons why Heyer's writing is different from Austen's. First, Austen wrote contemporary novels while Heyer is best known for her historicals. That Heyer's historical period often coincides with Austen's lifetime does not make this point any less significant. Austen wrote her world from the inside, as she lived and breathed it, for a readership who also lived at that time and in that social circle. Heyer has to create that historical reality for herself and her readers. There is a necessary consciousness of this in her work. I'm never certain with Heyer how far her depictions of various historical settings are accurate. What matters to me as a reader is that they are internally consistent and externally plausible.

And second, Heyer wrote to earn a living. I don't know how much Jane Austen earned from her books during her lifetime, but I'm fairly sure it wasn't a lot. Certainly she did not depend on them to keep a roof over her head or food on her table. Heyer wrote to support herself and her family. She had to keep to strict deadlines and to produce books that would sell. This seems to have been increasingly the case, so that her later novels are a mixed bag indeed. She matured as a writer, producing some of her most accomplished work later in life, but she also learned the tricks of writing potboilers at speed to pay the bills. For many years she wrote one romance and one detective novel every year. Other similarly prolific authors (yes, Barbara Cartland, I'm looking at you) paid for their quantity of output by sacrificing all pretensions to quality.

And yet, given these constraints, Heyer's achievements were extraordinary. She established, practically single-handedly, the genre of Regency romance (and more widely, the genre of historical romance) and the associated vocabulary (some of which she literally invented and some of which was the fruit of her research). Her books have been continually reprinted for almost 90 years with only one (The Great Roxhythe) having fallen into complete obscurity.

She's not Jane Austen, it's true. But she is Georgette Heyer and that is no mean achievement.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 02:37 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] bookish327.livejournal.com
Interesting entry. I haven't read any Heyer so far, but I do love reading Jane Austen. (Like you wrote in your entry, it's not a good idea to equate the work of these two authors. However, it can be fun to try reading something new set in the same approximate time period.) I will have to look into the availability of Heyer books on audio.

Because I remembered a mention of Jane Austen's total earnings as an author on the second DVD of the BBC version of SENSE & SENSIBILITY (2008), I was curious to that amount and googled it. According to www.uwosh.edu/faculty_staff/shaffer/350SYL.htm, "Austen's total earnings from her novel publication: about 700 pounds, less than 2 years' worth of income on which she, her mother, and her sister lived." So, that supports what you wrote about her earnings for her writing not being a lot.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 04:12 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] megan29.livejournal.com
Why did you find that article ridiculous? It contains a lot of the same facts I found about her on wikipedia. The 2nd paragraph is, indeed, needlessly superior, especially since I don't remember any heroine fainting, and I specifically noticed the absence of heaving bosoms.

To me, the main reason to say "Heyer is not Austen" is the scope of their books. Heyer's focus is usually a very narrow, 'she and he' world that is so typical of romance books. Austen is much less concerned with romance, and more with a broad depiction of society. Neither is particularly thought provoking, but reading Austen is more satisfying for me.

In terms of raw writing skill, though, I don't know that I would put Austen ahead. Heyer wins hands down on descriptions, and I give Austen a small edge on dialog and characterization.

Of course, your point that Austen wrote about her contemporaries, while Heyer had to research the period, is well made. In that light, Heyer appears quite the higher achiever. I wish, though, that she had cared less about money, and more about plotting her books (from what I read, her mysteries are generally dismissed b/c of weak plots; I haven't read any, though).

To some extent, what you say about Heyer learning tricks to produce books quickly for commercial reasons reminded me of Nora Roberts. I think she also has a strong eye for characterization, and even a good head for plots, but she only developed her writing skill to a comfortable level that allows her to write very quickly. She has several handy tricks, but that's that. And it's too bad, b/c every now and then I read a page by her that is truly beautiful - but only a page.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 08:54 am (UTC)
ext_9134: (Default)
From: [identity profile] girlyswot.livejournal.com
I'm slightly shocked that you don't think Austen is thought-provoking.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 11:04 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] megan29.livejournal.com
Well, I don't. I see her as an acerbic observer of her times and mores. But when I compare her books with one of my favorites - East of Eden - which also records a period and place in human history, but with characters that evolve, face and make unexpected choices, and sometimes rise above their flawed nature - well, that's what I call thought-provoking. I feel like Austen is a photojournalists, whereas Steinbeck knows his characters' psyches, and uses them to teach his readers about their own.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 10:15 pm (UTC)
ext_9134: (Default)
From: [identity profile] girlyswot.livejournal.com
Austen's characters evolve, make difficult choices and, sometimes, rise above their flawed nature. They just do it on a much smaller scale. I don't think anyone has ever before suggested that Austen doesn't know her character's pysches. I have learned more about who I am from reading Austen than any other author I can think of.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-20 05:19 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] megan29.livejournal.com
To each her own. Literary tastes are just as varied as any other tastes. I guess we pay attention to different things in books, so we perceive them differently.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 04:28 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tdu000.livejournal.com
The article read as if it had been written by someone who hasn't actually read her books. Heyer's heroines seldom faint (unless they are pregnant - I think Jenny might have) although other, sillier girls do occasionally. I do see why she is compared to Austen, although i agree that the comparison is unfair. One of the reasons I started reading Heyer was because A. s. Byatt said she read Georgette Heyer because Jane Austen only wrote 6 books. (The other was that I stayed three months at an Aunts in my cousin's room. Both cousin and aunt had all of them. I think it was that Katie liked them enough to buy her own copies when they were all downstairs for her to read tha impressed me.) Georgette Heyer was extremely good at what she did even if the need to keep the pay cheques coming in meant that the standard wasn sometimes uneven.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 07:05 am (UTC)
aella_irene: (Default)
From: [personal profile] aella_irene
Even Jenny didn't faint- she felt sick! It was Julia who fainted.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 07:18 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tdu000.livejournal.com
I couldn't remember how Jenny's pregnancy effected her, although I knew she wasn't well. I knew Julia fainted and Jenny was very prompt in smoothing things ove.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 08:54 am (UTC)
ext_9134: (Default)
From: [identity profile] girlyswot.livejournal.com
Quite right. Which shows exactly what Heyer thought of fainting misses.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 09:44 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tdu000.livejournal.com
Absolutely! That's why I thought the writer hadn't actually read any Heyer. Heaving bosoms and fainting heroines indeed!

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 09:45 am (UTC)
ext_9134: (Default)
From: [identity profile] girlyswot.livejournal.com
Not to mention his assumption that she is a forgotten author! He clearly hasn't looked on the shelves in a book shop recently.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 10:30 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tdu000.livejournal.com
Yes! I thought that he hadn't noticed that there was a new addition 10 years ago and then another new edition more recently - not something that happens to a writer of small appeal. These aren't low-interest novels at all. They may be mostly fluff but Heyer is a very intelligent writer and, when she pulls out the stops, she is a very talented one. We had a radio show host dismiss her as "trash" recently and I almost rang in to defend her. Just because she writes romance, and mostly fluffy romance, it makes her an easy target but she is far better than that, even if not all her novels are top-notch.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 10:26 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dogstar101.livejournal.com
I didn't see the comparison in that article. It seemed quite supportive of Heyer to me, so I don't understand why it's ridiculous. She sounds like an interesting woman, but I don't go for flashing eyes and Dukes and what-not, so I haven't (so far) read any of her books. I do like comedies of manners though, and didn't realise that was something she did well. It seemed to me the writer of the article was attempting to broaden her appeal to different markets, perhaps to people like me who are not fans of historical romances (I didn't even like Frenchman's Creek) but might be intrigued by descriptions such as 'almost parodic' and 'well-written'.

Comparing two writers doing completely different things at different times is just dense. Is Heyer obviously influenced by Austen or something? I can't see any other reason for putting the two of them together, unless it's a not-so-subtle put-down to Austen as well as Heyer. Which wouldn't surprise me, given the way she gets written off by critics who seem to me to be motivated by envy of the fact that she's head and shoulders above most writers even now, never mind what she was doing for the time she was writing...I don't like throw the word 'genius' around, but I can't think of another English novelist I'd put her alongside in terms of skill and achievement up to that point. Defoe...? Interesting, ground-breaking, but ...no. Fielding...? Maybe, although I can't say I madly enjoyed Joseph Andrews.

There may well be writers I would consider her equal from other traditions / cultures if I knew enough about those, but my degree was in English literature. /hedging

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 10:33 am (UTC)
ext_9134: (Default)
From: [identity profile] girlyswot.livejournal.com
First, the major premise of the article is false. Heyer is not a forgotten author and to describe her as 'not entirely out of print' is like describing Shakespeare as 'still occasionally performed.'

Second, the descriptions of her books give a completely wrong impression of them. I cannot think of a single Heyer character who could be described as a 'wicked Duke' (Avon, perhaps? But that hardly does justice to the complexity of his character) or a hearty knight (no idea who he might be thinking of here.) Bosoms do not heave and ladies of quality do not faint. What makes her books so brilliant is in fact the quality of her characterisation.

The article seemed to me to be incredibly patronising and ill-informed.

I think the reason people compare Heyer and Austen is that both wrote romances set in the Regency era. That's it, as far as I can see. It is often intended as a put-down to Austen, I'm sure.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 11:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dogstar101.livejournal.com
First, the major premise of the article is false. Heyer is not a forgotten author and to describe her as 'not entirely out of print' is like describing Shakespeare as 'still occasionally performed.'

I see how that could be misleading to non-fans. Not to apologise for poor journalism, but to me it did also come across that he was positive about her writing (if very condescending, but then, so what's new from the 'quality' press when writing about genre fiction?). I suppose it makes for a better article if there's a hook, however false. I would say the writer seems to be calling for some kind of critical reappraisal / dialogue to open up her work to more readers.

Personally, I'd now like to read a response in the Independent by someone who really knows Heyer's work...

It would be interesting to know how well reprinted Heyers sell, compared to how many get borrowed from libraries. If even a few readers go into a bookshop looking for this so-called 'forgotten' writer, instead of lapping up more of the pseudo-literary contemporary drivel that gets published by the bucketload, something positive will have been accomplished!

Have a good rest of the day!

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 10:18 pm (UTC)
ext_9134: (Default)
From: [identity profile] girlyswot.livejournal.com
I assume they sell well enough. I started reading her about twenty years ago and in that time they've gone through at least three, if not four, new editions. So presumably people are still buying them. And the detective stories which were out of print for a long time have recently been reprinted too. I don't know how well they will do among crime readers, but I suspect a lot of Heyer fans will be buying them. I have a few.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 10:45 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tdu000.livejournal.com
Heyer does comedy of manners extremely well. Why this article seems ridiculous to me is that it describes something (heaving bosoms and fainting heroines) that Heyer most pointedly didn't write and if she did she would disparage it (Julia in A Civil Contract for example). I can understand that she isn't everyone's cup of tea, which is why I seldom recommend her unless asked (as Megan did recently) but the article writer seemed to be describing what he or she expected to find and not what Heyer actually wrote so it felt a if he/she had never read the books. Heyer was very ascerbic in her observations of society and it's hypocracies, which is, I suppose, another comparison with Austen, and tended to be matter-of-fact, at least once she'd got a bit older (her first published novel was written when she was a teenager) rather than going for out-and-out romance.

I think that Austen and Heyer are put together because the majority of Heyer readers read Austen and want more (even if they read Heyer first). In my experience, Heyer is the only one who satisfies my Regency cravings anywhere close to how Austen does. I've tried a couple of other writers and the feeling is all wrong - I couldn't get into them at all. I know Heyer isn't in the same league as Austen but I enjoy (most of) her books anyway. Plus both of them are extremely funny when they want - which I always like.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 11:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dogstar101.livejournal.com
Well, that makes a lot of sense - and makes her sound quite appealing to me at least!

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 06:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tdu000.livejournal.com
If you do try any of her work, ask for recommendations first. Because she was under pressure to write to support her family, some aren't as good as others. Only the first few books are as melodramatically romantic as du Maurier's books and even then, Heyer has more wit and more observation in her books. The Black Moth for example, isn't a particularly good book but when you think the author was only 19 when she wrote it and went on to get it published, it's pretty impressive. But it's still one for the fans to go back to rather than a good one to start with.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 11:14 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] megan29.livejournal.com
Here, here! Methinks we should exchange book rec's more often, since we appear to have similar tastes and opinions.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 11:25 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] megan29.livejournal.com
It seemed quite supportive of Heyer to me, so I don't understand why it's ridiculous.

It seemed quite supportive to me, too, but I think Ros focused on the snotty (and quite inaccurate) second paragraph, whereas you and I, who know much less about this author, paid attention to the general tone of the article. The 2nd para was intended to put her down as no more than a romance writer - which is mostly true - but it put her down for all the wrong reasons. Her books are fluffy, but not silly. It was only her subsequent imitators who wrote the kind of nonsense described in that para.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-19 10:25 pm (UTC)
ext_9134: (Default)
From: [identity profile] girlyswot.livejournal.com
What seemed ridiculous to me was that an article apparently commending Heyer seemed to have been written by someone with no clue at all about her writing, her genre and her current status as an author. So although it's nice that he said nice things about her, they don't carry a whole lot of weight since they come from a position of ignorance.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-20 05:12 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] megan29.livejournal.com
Well, I don't know how popular she is in UK, but in US I had a heck of a time finding "Venetia." I eventually found an old old old edition in a library 2 towns over. The book is basically falling apart at the seam, and the pages look yuck! (As you can tell, I really wanted to read it - and that's b/c I trust TDU's recs - thanks, Bel!)

Some of her books have newer editions, and bookstores sell about 10 titles. But I'm not sure I'd call her popular in US. I pretty much heard of her from my flist.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-20 06:16 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tdu000.livejournal.com
If you want ones that you can't find in the US, you could try buying them from The Book Depository. It has free international postage.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-21 11:13 am (UTC)
coughingbear: im in ur shipz debauchin ur slothz (Default)
From: [personal profile] coughingbear
Oh, somehow I missed this!

When I was at school and 'doing' Pride and Prejudice, we once had to read a Heyer novel and write an essay comparing them. I found it very difficult - I enjoyed the Heyer (Black Sheep - I think I'd already read it, but I didn't read many more Heyers for a few years. I loved the language though, made-up or real) but it seemed so obvious to me that they were doing very different things. Partly, as you point out, one's writing contemporary novels and the other historical, but also that Austen is much more concerned with her character's moral and social growth in a way that I have always found highly relevant. Heyer's characters do grow up and develop (some of them, anyway) but the serious ethical problems that Austen's characters are confronted with aren't present. Though I've just read Instead of the Thorn, one of the early contemporary romances, and that is perhaps an attempt at dealing with a more serious issue than she tries later. Also much less humour, which I think is crucial to her characterisations, so the hero and heroine don't work so well for me.

On fainting - I think Drusilla may faint, but if so it's just after her ?arm's been broken, so I think she had an excuse!

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-21 11:16 am (UTC)
ext_9134: (Default)
From: [identity profile] girlyswot.livejournal.com
Oh, yes - I'd forgotten Drusilla's faint. She does it in a very stoical way, however, and it is clear that the circumstances are extreme. I was going to say Sarah Thane but I think she had concussion which is not quite the same thing.

You're quite right that the moral depth of Austen isn't present in Heyer, even in her more thoughtful books. One of the problems with her properly historical books is the lack of humour, I think. So in some ways, it was probably a good thing that there were constraints around her writing, otherwise she might only ever have produced My Lord John and its putative sequels.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-03-21 11:21 am (UTC)
ext_9134: (Default)
From: [identity profile] girlyswot.livejournal.com
Also, I am really grateful that I never 'did' any Austen at school. I expect that I would have got past that at some point and started enjoying her anyway, but English literature lessons and me were not a very happy combination. I remember once asking my teacher if she thought I could do A-level English (without the remotest intention of doing so) and she very perceptively said that she thought I probably could but that I would hate every minute of it. Now, of course, I think I'd really enjoy it.

Profile

girlyswot: (Default)
girlyswot

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags