Georgette Heyer Fans discussion
Group Reads
>
Georgette Heyer:A Critical Retrospective Group Read Jul-Sept 2019 Part 3
The obits were lovely tributes - all British. Respected the fact that GH was a very private person, but still honoured her.
F-T in the Reference Works section starts to do some analysis. According to F-T's research, GH first appears in a reference book from 1971. The book is called A Catalogue of Crime
& for me the book has really improved. I have just read & loved A.S. Byatt article. The start of the article is quite brilliantly funny.Byatt & F-T herself both make the very good point that some detractors/researchers select just one book & base their analysis on that. Unfortunately they often chose Regency Buck. With that title they are sure they have the right time period, but I don't think Worth is many readers favourite Heyer hero.
Not only that, but Regency Buck was Heyer's first venture into the Regency period, and there are a few places where that shows ("I researched this book and you are going to know that!"). Her later books set in the Regency do much better at integrating the period into the story.
Margaret wrote: "Not only that, but Regency Buck was Heyer's first venture into the Regency period, and there are a few places where that shows ("I researched this book and you are going to know that!..."Exactly.
Germaine Greer. Oh boy.
1970, so GH may have seen this. Greer just picked up Regency Buck & a Barbara Cartland from a supermarket & made a whole bunch of generalisations based on that. I'm going to check my Kloester later. I certainly hope GH never saw this. Being compared to the plagiarist who made her life a misery...
I was wondering what she was doing writing about Georgette Heyer! I am hopping to that as soon as I get home today.
The essay by A.S. Byatt was very enjoyable to read, as it was respectful and brought up some points about several of the regency titles. She writes about A Civil Contract, which is September's group read, so I won't talk too much about it here.Boredom is discussed, and how it is used as motivation for character's personalities or actions, and how that was accurate for the time period. I had never really thought about the boredom of the characters other than to be annoyed and/or envious of having a life in which one had the leisure to be bored. I agree with Byatt: many of Heyer's heroes are bored and seeking something because their pampered, indulged and indulgent lives are lacking.
Alverstoke is bored to the point of amusing himself by annoying his sisters in Frederica. Sale is bored and eager to experience the world for himself in the Foundling. Richmond is bored and kept kicking his heels in Unknown Ajax, which leads to trouble. Rule is so bored that he decides to marry someone on the spur of the moment because she is unusual and exciting in A Convenient Marriage. Beaumaris is bored by his perfect life in Arabella. Even Sarah Thane in Talisman Ring is thrilled to encounter something, anything, to alleviate her boredom.
There are Heyer characters who are not bored, and in fact are quite the opposite. Charlesv in Grand Sophy, is working overtime to care for his family. Waldo devotes his time to helping others, and really enjoys doing that. Tristam, who might have been bored if Ludovic were not so wild, is like Charles, much put upon. In Cotillion, Freddy has cured his boredom by taking extra interest in fashion and gossip, while Jack runs recklessly through life in an attempt to do the same.
And those are only a few examples.
Germaine Greer's essay is pure second wave feminism, seemingly belittling women for the choices they make IF they choose to read romance. That she purports to know exactly how women should act and what choices they should be making is exactly like anyone telling any other adult how they should act and what the correct choices must be, irregardless of their feelings on the matter. I dislike her lumping Heyer and Cartland into the same box, and lazily attempting to explain away or critique all of Heyer's work based on one title, Regency Buck, which was written 35 years before Greer's essay. If writing something so critical about an author, please read more of the author's work before labeling it all "romantic trash" and comparing the ability of regency women to be independent to modern women as if it were equal. And holding Heyer responsible for men's inability to communicate with women in intimate situations is absurd. "preparing the way for seducers", indeed!
I do agree with her that often there is a disconnect between men and women regarding intimacy and sexuality, but there have always been men who are somehow able to figure out how to communicate successfully and to respect and seek consent from women. It is neither fair nor accurate to believe that "Boys, unless they are consciously exploiting female susceptibility, have little idea what the kiss means..." and therefore unable to have mature, consenting encounters. That belief is dated, as more and more men, many of the younger generation, are aware of the need to and willing to respectfully seek understanding and consent.
Well, that essay really pushed my buttons, but it is valuable to see how some people thought or wrote about Heyer and others.
Good point about the boredom! It was very hard for aristocratic men and women in those days to have a purpose in life unless (in the case of the men) they were in Parliament, and even then, the House of Lords was a pretty somnolescent place. One could run one’s estates well, but mostly that was outsourced.
Abigail wrote: "Good point about the boredom! It was very hard for aristocratic men and women in those days to have a purpose in life unless (in the case of the men) they were in Parliament, and even then, the Hou..."Or the military, but wasn't that really reserved for younger sons, so as not to endanger the heir? Some of Heyer's heroes are first/oldest sons and in the military (Civil Contract, Unknown Ajax, The Quiet Gentleman) but mainly the military men are younger sons or cousins who are further off from the succession. With Hugo, he didn't expect to inherit, Gervase was escaping from his father, and I think Adam was also escaping his father.
Yes, I think the military, the diplomatic corps (thinking of Kit Fancot), and the clergy were all considered appropriate for younger sons only, at least at the level of the aristocracy. In gentry families of constrained means it was more common for older sons to pursue a profession to supplement or enlarge their income from property.That makes me wonder why she never had a clergyman hero. Maybe not viewed as romantic enough?
Viewing things from a modern perspective, it's kinda sad that the big aspiration for so long in Britain was to be rich enough to be idle.
Abigail wrote: "...That makes me wonder why she never had a clergyman hero. Maybe not viewed as romantic enough?..."I think she had a more modern view of clergy=morality=not romantic, like her portrayal of Hugh in Cotillion being a dampening, disapproving man.
Abigail wrote: "...Viewing things from a modern perspective, it's kinda sad that the big aspiration for so long in Britain was to be rich enough to be idle..."That is the same view most people have in the US, too!
And, everyone, I found an essay written by the reincarnation of Eugenia Wraxton, Marghanita Laski! Either that, or she was channeling Miss Wraxton's energy. Unfortunately, she has passed, so we cannot investigate this more deeply.Ms. Laski cannot comprehend why or how anyone with a brain can enjoy Heyer.
"The Regency novels of Georgette Heyer constitute another and more difficult case. Their appeal to simple females of all ages is readily comprehensible. But why, alone among popular novels hardly read except by women, have these become something of a cult for many well-educated middle-aged women who read serious novels too?"
No doubt, she would gently correct your mistaken belief that Heyer was a skilled writer who created books filled with sparkling wit and dialogue.
I am just itching to drive her down St. James Street!
Abigail wrote: That makes me wonder why she never had a clergyman hero. Maybe not viewed as romantic enough?In The Private World of Georgette Heyer, Jane Aiken Hodge observes that Heyer didn't really "get" genuine religious faith, something that reportedly stands out more in her medieval books than in her Regency ones. If that's true, it would probably have been a mistake for her to try to write a clergyman hero.
Critterbee❇ wrote: "And, everyone, I found an essay written by the reincarnation of Eugenia Wraxton, Marghanita Laski! Either that, or she was channeling Miss Wraxton's energy. Unfortunately, she has passed, so we can..."OMG, now I am also "itching to drive her down St James Street"!!
Even knowing roughly what to expect with the Laski hatchet job this was still pretty awful.Ladies, if (like me) you didn't go to university & read GH Regencies you must be simple. (I think Laski is using simple in the sense of not too bright rather than mentally handicapped) My late father would have been surprised to learn that men didn't read GH at all. My father was an accountant. She has no explanation on how an educated woman can read them. You can feel the contempt.
I remembered vaguely who Laski was, but I'm consoled by the fact she is fading into obscurity whereas GH is as popular as she ever was.
Edit; I think M F-T got a lot of pleasure putting sic where this unpleasant woman made a couple of typos!
I then read A.S. Byatt's second article. This was delightful. She was able to interview Sir Ronald who came across as sweet & very reserved. All people interviewed still wanted to respect GH's wish for privacy but you did get a sense of a very complex & remarkable woman.
I'm going back to the reviews tomorrow. Look to be mostly AIA which was her most critically acclaimed book & I hope they will wash the bad Laski taste out of my mouth!
Not a fan of those who have to belittle others in an attempt to make themselves seem better. I will happily avoid any of Laski's writing, if I ever encounter any more of it. Looking forward to reading the second Byatt piece!
Critterbee❇ wrote: "Looking forward to reading..."
You will love it! :)
I notice some of Laski's titles have been picked up by the well regarded Persephone Press. But I still won't be reading them.
What a great piece by Byatt!I am only disappointed in that the photos referenced are not in the book. That must have been the first glimpse of Heyer's private life. How funny that she did not realize how intimidating she appeared to others. But then again, I guess most people never realize how they come across to others.
Back to more reviews...
Critterbee❇ wrote: "What a great piece by Byatt!I am only disappointed in that the photos referenced are not in the book. That must have been the first glimpse of Heyer's private life. How funny that she did not rea..."
Photo reproduction must have been outside of M F-T's budget.
The title, On Reading Trash by Lillian S. Robinson didn't give me a lot of hope. But it wasn't too bad. Another writer who thinks readers are too stupid to perceive the differences between Austen & GH. I've never minded GH's detailed descriptions of clothing & social customs. Austen didn't do it as she was writing for her contemporaries. & of course, GH was a bit of a snob.
James P. Devlin analyses all of GH's mysteries, including the Regencies. He is dismissive of The Quiet Gentleman (& I agree with his reasoning) He doesn't like all her detective books but can justify his thinking. A good, solid read.
Still reading - most of the 1980s analysis is far more positive.
Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "Even knowing roughly what to expect with the Laski hatchet job this was still pretty awful.Ladies, if (like me) you didn't go to university & read GH Regencies you must be simple. (I think Laski ..."
Well I must be at the bottom of the scale of simple. I left school at fifteen to go working and I love Heyer. I make this Laski no apologies.
I don't have this book and I could only find it at an expensive price to buy but I'm enjoying reading all the comments about it. Maybe we could do a group read of one of the other biographies in the future. (I have the rest of them:))
Teresa wrote: "I don't have this book and I could only find it at an expensive price to buy but I'm enjoying reading all the comments about it. Maybe we could do a group read of one of the other biographies in th..."Hi Teresa we have only just finished the Kloester biography. The Jane Aiken Hodge one- I bumped up an old thread in 2016, but at that time wasn't much interest.https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/.... Feel free to add your thoughts. :)
I would like to read Georgette Heyer's Regency World at some stage though. (I own a copy)
Thanks Carol I'll take a look. Georgette Heyer's Regency World is a good read though it's been a long time since I last read it.
Teresa wrote: "Thanks Carol I'll take a look. Georgette Heyer's Regency World is a good read though it's been a long time since I last read it."Critterbee & I were talking about this title yesterday! We would like to read it, but maybe next year. :)
I have been wanting to read that for a while, so, something to look forward to next year!
Still wading through. The Teresa Chris extract was a bit of a disappointment. I may see if I can interloan this book rather than buying my own copy.Edit; anything comparing GH & Barbara Cartland as equals sets my teeth on edge!
Definitely with you on that one Carol.
Last night I got to some Good Stuff with this bookKathleen Bell's essay Cross Dressing in Wartime. Next time I read The Corinthian I will want this essay by my side. It explores the significance of cross dressing & Pen's whole character in relation to the time it was written.
Georgette Heyer Made Me a Good Judge of Character by Cassandra Jardine. An interview with Justice Rougier. This essay makes the whole book worthwhile. Delightful reading his thoughts on his mother and his own writing aspirations. It does sound like at least part of GH's research library was intact during his lifetime.
I have not gotten to those yet, still slogging through the reviews, and I have been giving up after a few at a time. I think I will jump ahead to the essays.
Critterbee❇ wrote: "I have not gotten to those yet, still slogging through the reviews, and I have been giving up after a few at a time. I think I will jump ahead to the essays."Very few of the reviews are worth reading, honestly. I would just read some of the detective ones & the Atlantic Monthly one of My Lord John.
I must try to find the Civil Contract one where the writer obviously hadn't read the book - just assumed it would by a standard romance!
Yay! Finished. I'll admit I skimmed the film/play reviews. Hard to feel any interest when the actors were unknown to me.Barbara Bywaters article - most interesting & gave me a different view of Bath Tangle.
Helen Hughes article was interesting but she asserts not one but twice that GH wrote books for Mills & Boon. GH (writing as Stella Martin) wrote a book for Mills & Boon. Possibly Ms Hughes was confused by the retitling of The Transformation of Philip Jettan to Powder and Patch But given M F-T put sic by quite minor errors, not footnoting this seems sloppy.
I think my rating will be 4⍟ because some things were invaluable for a serious Heyer fan. But M F-T's defensiveness about her Heyer love & the very boring reviews mean I have to knock at least a ⍟ off!
Hello, fellow GH fans. I've just discovered this group (and promptly joined it!). I hope I can 'pitch in' with my thoughts to add to all of yours. :) Many thanks!It's interesting about the AS Byatt comments about boredom, and reading the posts here does seem to ring true, indeed, with the GH heroes so listed.
As regards the bored GH heroes, do they not, in a way, echo Mr Darcy, who, though clearly a good landlord (an essential commendation) at Pemberley, doesn't seem to have any other particular interests than his family and friends. Like Mr D, the bored heroes of GH are awaiting (though they don't at first realise it!) the arrival in their lives of the one woman who will 'entertain' them for the rest of their lives. The women who, alone, will banish boredom for them.
We know Mr D will never be bored of Lizzie Bennet, and ditto surely for all the other bored GH heroes.
That the heroines can entertain them is a true signifier for the readers that they are 'the one' for the hero.
A bored hero is clearly in want of an entertaining heroine!
"That makes me wonder why she never had a clergyman hero. Maybe not viewed as romantic enough?"I would agree it's quite hard to make a minister traditionally romantic. The British retro dectective TV series, Grantchester, makes a good stab of a romantic vicar hero (helped in that the role is played by the actor who then went on to play arch-romantic Prince Andrei in War and Peace!), but he is also a 'tormented soul' (lost his first love, starting to become an alcoholic, etc etc).
Jane Austen clearly states the problem in Mansfield Park, where the worldly Mary Crawford repeated deplores Edmund's profession.
Perhaps ministers are just too 'good' to be romantically heroic?!
(Remember The Thornbirds, where there is a very, very tormented Catholic priest as 'romantic lead'!!)
On dissing women for liking light romantic fiction (eg, Laski), do men, I wonder, come in for the same contempt for liking thrillers and spy stories etc??I suspect not!
I fail to see why having a brain capable of more than reading light fiction of any kind means we can't enjoy any light reading at all!
It's like saying that if we eat healthy protein, fresh veg and fibre meals, we can never enjoying dipping into a box of chox every now and then!
Or that we perpetually have to wear business suits (for our oh-so-high powered careers, darlings!!!!), and never slob around in jeans and a t-shirt!
So I don't see what is so contemptible about relaxing with a light read from time to time!
I don't think men get the same disrespect for their literary tastes. Possibly for reading Westerns? But certainly graphic novels & violent thrillers are aok!
Yes, good point about Westerns! I suppose they are seen as 'silly' and 'juvenile', rather like romance?
But is GH actually 'romance' at all? Or 'romantic fiction'? The subtleties of genres can get very picky! (Let alone when we start adding in contemporary romance/romantic fiction!)
Certainly, I don't think many would club GH with Cartland, would they? (I'm not sure I ever managed to read a BC, but then again, am I doing a Laski by saying that?!)
I do find it a sad comment on the current times that it is AOK to read highly graphically violent/sexual novels, but not something as innocuous as romance/romantic fiction (or even westerns).....
Thinking about Laski's attitude, maybe she was over-sensitive writing a generation or so ago, (or earlier?), when it was just less common for women to be well-educated and have professional careers and go into politics etc etc. Maybe these days women can relax more about 'intellectual slumming' (if one must diss romance/romantic fiction at all that is!)
Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "I don't think men get the same disrespect for their literary tastes. Possibly for reading Westerns? But certainly graphic novels & violent thrillers are aok!"I agree. Things that have been created by or enjoyed by women have historically been seen as less worthy, less artistic, not as good as stuff that men create and enjoy. It is malarkey, and I hate when women subscribe to that belief.
Critterbee, I seem to remember that Jane Austen considers that very point somewhere in, I think, Northanger Abbey, where she launches a broadside starting with 'Only a novel....' which is spirited defence of novels 'even though' they are....oh, the shame of it! ....only written by poor stupid ignorant females.... (!!!!!!)As for the Laskian 'women-beware-women' (ie, women laying into each other), I guess that has always been a constant dilemma for feminism. And maybe still is? After all, how many high powered career women rely totally on 'non-high-powered non-career' women to clean their houses, cook their food and look after their children??? Maybe it's still 'women beware women'??!!! Maybe that's where feminism elides into classism??
Tricky subject!
Yes! And the arguing between 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminism! It affects different races, classes, religion differently.
Yes indeed - Gender vs Race vs Class, and how they all interact and affect each other!Are we truly 'sisters under the skin'.....or does it depend what skin colour we are, and how we make our living??!!!!!!
SUCH a contentious and probably unresolvable (?) topic, and probably best I back off from it, at least in terms of a 'heavy' discussion!!!!
(And yes, I guess Religion - or, perhaps more broadly, 'Morality' is even trickier to 'align' or agree on......)
Over here anyway (I'm in NZ) Westerns seem to be read by mostly older men. So if the readers do get sneered at it may be more ageism.
Oh dear, yes, another divisive issue! That said, I guess at least with ageism those who diss the aged will end up old themselves and know what it feels like by then!!!!
Links for GH reviews from other countries.Australia https://trove.nla.gov.au/result?q=geo... (wonderful site)
New Zealand https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/new...
Georgette Heyer Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
The Transformation of Philip Jettan (other topics)Powder and Patch (other topics)
Georgette Heyer's Regency World (other topics)
The Private World of Georgette Heyer (other topics)
Regency Buck (other topics)
More...
Enjoy!