Why Heyer is not Austen
Mar. 19th, 2009 12:11 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Since
megan29 is just discovering the joys of Heyer for the first time, and also since reading this ridiculous article (HT:
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.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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)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)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)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-19 11:04 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-19 10:15 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-20 05:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-19 04:28 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-19 07:05 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-19 07:18 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-19 08:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-19 09:44 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-19 09:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-19 10:30 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-19 10:26 am (UTC)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)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)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)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-19 10:45 am (UTC)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)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-19 06:57 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-19 11:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-19 11:25 am (UTC)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)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-20 05:12 am (UTC)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)(no subject)
Date: 2009-03-21 11:13 am (UTC)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)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)