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
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.