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.