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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(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.