Why Heyer is not Austen

[girlyswot]

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.

Comments

[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.

[girlyswot.livejournal.com]

I'm slightly shocked that you don't think Austen is thought-provoking.

[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.

[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.

[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.