Georgette Heyer Fans discussion
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Archived
>
2023 Editions on the Way [closed]
Welcome, and thanks for the heads-up about these editions! I am concerned about them editing the moneylender scene because I think such scenes are opportunities for education. And this instance is a good example of what I mean: the reference to the “Semitic” nose is certainly offensive, but moneylending was indeed related to his religion: in the Regency, there were very few professions open to Jewish people in England, and moneylending was one of them (they could also be itinerant tinkers, for instance). It was a case of society relegating a minority to an invidious position and then demonizing individuals for occupying a position they were forced into. I would prefer that editions leave that material in and include a historical note explaining it.
Agree, Abigail. I wonder when Shylock will be "edited out" of Shakespeare.
(... and pogromes were by preference instigated by those who owed them money, including princes. 120 jews were burned in 1420 not one mile from where I live, on flimsy accusations by the reigning duke. There were 'good' financial reasons for demonizing them)
Oh, I cringed when reading about the money lender scene being edited. I totally agree with Abigail--a historical note in an afterwords would hav e been much better.As for the new covers--meh. Certainly inoffensive, but slanted to the YA market. The Sourcebooks and Arrow covers using period paintings have their flaws, but at least they are interesting.
My favorite (bad) Frederica cover is
, for the 1966 paperback edition. It's a direct repurposing of a My Fair Lady movie poster. So bad!
I don't mind the new look covers. Seems odd that theses classic books are being promoted on Netgalley though. What's next? Pride and Prejudice on Netgalley? LOL.My least fav Heyer cover is this one for These Old Shades. Justin looks horrible!
I did like this style of cover that appeared briefly in 2019.
Not sure how I feel about the editing of The Grand Sophy. I certainly felt uncomfortable in that section last time I read it. I agree that perhaps a historical footnote would be appropriate?
Not a fan of those modern YA style covers. I'm sure the market is YA /casual Bridgerton fans and that's why Sophy was edited. I totally agree with Abigail and everyone who thinks a historical note would be better. That's why I always go for the original hardcover books at the library. I want to know what the author wrote and how they intended it, even if it seems offensive by today's standards. At least Eloisa James wrote something about the Jewish moneylender issue so it's not just removed and vanished without comment.
Abigail, I totally agree. It’s much better if people are aware of the historical reality and thus be warned about how important it is that we don’t allow the mistakes of the past to reappear.
Barb in Maryland wrote: "Oh, I cringed when reading about the money lender scene being edited. I totally agree with Abigail--a historical note in an afterwords would hav e been much better.As for the new covers--meh. Cert..."
Oh, my. A My Fair Lady cover is...interesting. I think the funniest cover for The Grand Sophy has Sophy in the background. As if that's plausible!
Jan wrote: "I don't mind the new look covers. Seems odd that theses classic books are being promoted on Netgalley though. What's next? Pride and Prejudice on Netgalley? LOL.My least fav Heyer cover is this o..."
I think there are a lot of "competitive" readers now, perhaps due to Storygraph promoting reading statistics so heavily and people wanting to share their numbers on instagram and tiktok? There's also a bit of an obsession with ARCs and being ahead of the other bookstagrammers and booktokkers. I could see NetGalley being a tool to get a book in front of people who aren't apt to pick it up without an incentive (and I kind of cringe writing that).
Those 2019 covers are really sweet and they pick up on some really delightful details!
Jeannine wrote: "I think there are a lot of "competitive" readers now, perhaps due to Storygraph promoting reading statistics so heavily and people wanting to share their numbers on instagram and tiktok? There's also a bit of an obsession with ARCs and being ahead of the other bookstagrammers and booktokkers. I could see NetGalley being a tool to get a book in front of people who aren't apt to pick it up without an incentive."So that is what reading books is coming to? - I am glad I am blissfully unaware of what has become of books in the age of social media. 'bingo' and 'challenges' here on GR are already more than I am ready to cope with.
sabagrey wrote: "Jeannine wrote: "I think there are a lot of "competitive" readers now, perhaps due to Storygraph promoting reading statistics so heavily and people wanting to share their numbers on instagram and t..."I think there have always been people who love tracking their reading and get satisfaction form meeting their reading goals. Storygraph just gives people a lot more data about their reading habits. I can't link to an example, but if you google "storygraph statistics," the first thing you get is an example page of the graph. I love statistics so much that I had to leave Storygraph...playing with the data was distracting!
I agree with Abigail 100% and think the "Semetic" scene should not be altered, it should instead be a chance for education.
Jackie wrote: "I agree with Abigail 100% and think the "Semetic" scene should not be altered, it should instead be a chance for education."Education on two time periods would be needed: the one, the period GH wrote about - the other, the period GH wrote in, i.e. in 1950. The Holocaust lay just 5 years back, and the state of Israel, founded on the (officially promoted) motivation of giving a homeland to Jews from everywhere, to end persecution, had been in existence for 2 years.
The question how such a text could be written and published at that time could be uncomfortable even today, but it should not be evaded.
Mod
Leaving them in, and even more so leaving them in with a footnote, just distracts from the story, which is supposed to be light entertainment. It's the wrong moment for readers to be invited to contemplate the evils of anti-Semitism - obviously, this is not something that should always be ignored, but there's a time and a place for thinking about the troubles of the world and I don't think reserving some of your time for entertainment and frivolity is unreasonable.
In fact, the Jove paperback of The Grand Sophy that I used to have, which must have been published decades ago, already had a revised version of the Goldhanger scene along the lines that Jenny just mentioned. So it's hardly a new idea ... and it's not as if the moneylender's ethnicity is important to the story. The scene would work just as well if he were a dodgy Englishman calling himself Smith.
Mod
Er ... as far as we know, Goldhanger is a dodgy Englishman. Being Jewish doesn't make you foreign!
Jenny wrote: "No, I haven't seen the revised edition, but in principle I think it was right to tweak Sophy's meeting with Mr Goldhanger. It's no major alteration, is it? Just removing one remark about his nose a..."Tweaking the scene without comment means exculpating Mrs. Heyer. In whatever way the scene got into the book - thoughtlessness, stereotypes still around in the 1950s, genuine antisemitism, or a mixture of all three - it should not be silently erased. Mind that I love GH's novels as everyone else in this group does, but I do not want to be left in the dark about the mindset of the author.
re: 'Goldhanger is a dodgy Englishman' - no, he is not, strictly speaking, i.e. in terms of citizenship, civic rights, naturalization. That only came about around the middle of the 19th century.
Perhaps when the book comes out, some will be interested in reading Eloisa James’ afterward in full, but here are two interesting paragraphs. Revision is part of publishing and has been for centuries (book antiquarian Tom Wayling has a great series about how so many of the classics are revised on his Tiktok). Adding a note about what was done hasn’t always been the practice, but this is how they are informing readers of what was there, who was involved with the changes, and why.
“While many living authors have taken the opportunity to repair their own biases by rewriting early works, Heyer is not here to do it herself. Therefore, with the support of the Heyer estate, we have engaged in what’s called “literary repair” of the Goldhanger scenes, changing adjectives and some sentences to move away from damaging stereotypes. For example, we deleted references to Goldhanger’s “semitic nose,” and to “the instinct of his race.”
Without complete rewriting, the scene can never be considered entirely inoffensive. Yet small repairs lessen Heyer’s dependence on both Shakespeare and prejudicial stereotypes. Georgette Heyer was a tremendously thoughtful writer, but we all see through the lens of our time and place. We are confident that she would approve these emendations.”
Mod
I don't think the mindset of the author should intrude on the story, though, where it's not essential to it (I realise it would be hard to eliminate her assumptions about social class from These Old Shades for example). I think those who want to know more about the author can go to the biographies, or to an introduction. We don't need to be taken out of the story for it.
he is not, strictly speaking, i.e. in terms of citizenship, civic rights, naturalization.."
Catholics had severely restricted civil rights too, but we were still English! Goldhanger's ancestors would have moved to or back to England when allowed, but there's nothing to say his family hadn't been there for several generations and he speaks perfect English.
Jenny wrote: " there's nothing to say his family hadn't been there for several generations and he speaks perfect English."of course you're right - I just wanted to make the fine point about 'being English' (replace with any country) vs. 'being a citizen' (of that country).
In times of massive migration, and all the polemics about it, methinks the fine point has to be made. In my country, there are now huge groups in the population who have been living here for ages and still don't have the right to vote, for example.
I don't think the mindset of the author should intrude on the story, though, where it's not essential to it
but it does. It enters massively in GH's fantasy Regency world as she conceives it, in particular in what she chooses to leave out. And she takes care to give us clues to where she stands: there's Burke's 'French Revolution' lying around in a drawing room (can't remember in which book), and whenever her lords dabble with politics, they are of course Tories (e.g. BT), while the only more 'radical' family is ridiculed (TQG)
[but I am possibly a bit too much of a 'zoon politicon' ... just yesterday I talked with someone about War and Peace. I read it decades ago in my teens - and the only character I clearly remembered was Kutusow, the commander of the Russian army. In my teens! Obviously I was not very romantic even then]
I am very firmly against any edits to the authors original text, teach people why it's wrong by all means but don't try to hide it, or change the authors words.They're doing this with too many things and no matter how minor, it does change the intent and meaning.
Louise Sparrow wrote: "I am very firmly against any edits to the authors original text, teach people why it's wrong by all means but don't try to hide it, or change the authors words.They're doing this with too many th..."
Yes me too!
With Golden Age mysteries it can be interesting trying to figure out if they are racist/sexist/crashing snobs themselves or if they are depicting characters of their time. An example of this would be Ngaio Marsh while undoubtedly a snob, she wasn't believed to be racist - & you ought (you really ought!) to read what some of her characters come out with when they aren't censored.
@Jeannine. This discussion has really widened. Would you like to change the thread title? (you don't have to if you don't want to.)
There are more now:
I am not a fan of these new covers. I already didn't like Arrow republishing all of their editions with photographs.
Julia wrote: "There are more now: I am not a fan of these new covers. I already didn't like Arrow republishi..."
I was ‘on the fence’ when they first started - but now I do like them. Although since I read almost exclusively on my iPad, I don’t actually see the covers as much as when I read a hard copy. I think generally they’ve chosen good images - unlike the raunchy covers that most modern romantic fiction has.
But in any case, today’s covers are not aimed at us (Heyer fans), they’re aimed at new, younger readers and the publishers use what works to get them to pick up the books and buy them.
Totally agree with Susan. I think it's safe to say that these covers are designed to generate NEW interest in Georgette Heyer and get people who didn't know these awesome books before to give them a try. I support it...even if there are other editions that I prefer. :)
I was just hoping the fashion for beheaded (or half headed) people on the cover had passed!
Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "I was just hoping the fashion for beheaded (or half headed) people on the cover had passed!"yes, why would they do that?
What an interesting discussion this is! While it may seem to be going in several directions at once, I'm sure there's a subtle link between the trend to edit out controversial scenes, and the nearly headless females on the covers ;-).For me it would have to be a female with two heads, like the freaks Selina mentions in Black Sheep. I used to be of the "let them read what they want" and "don't edit" school, and I still tend that way. However, I'm currently re-reading a book I read as a child and realizing what an influence it had on me, and I've been wondering.
I spent large chunks of my childhood in continental Europe, and I knew about the Holocaust; it felt as if I'd always known about it. So when I read that scene in The Grand Sophy as a late teen, I just rolled my eyes and thought, Et tu, Georgette? But if I'd been younger – if my values hadn't been formed by the time I read that – might they have been influenced by it? I hope not; I hope I'd have thought, Hang on there, what's his nose got to do with his job? And have gone to ask Mum about it. But I don't know.
And while it says in the Good Book that there's a time and place for every thing, Jenny, I don't know about that, either. I tend to see evil – but that is too harsh; fallibility? wrongheadedness? but that is too weak – like the bones at the bottom of some of Edvard Munch's Madonna paintings, or the skulls in medieval sculpture: remember that you, too, are only human, and fallible.
Jackie wrote: "Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "I was just hoping the fashion for beheaded (or half headed) people on the cover had passed!"yes, why would they do that?"
It lets the individual reader compose the character based on the text instead of being influenced by a cover model.
It's easy to produce images and reuse them for different books when there aren't faces.
Our brains naturally look at faces and perhaps removing them makes us focus on the text on the cover?
Anyway, pretty sure the marketing teams have extensive research about it or you wouldn't see so many "woman walking away from camera" images on historical fiction covers.
Jeannine wrote: "It lets the individual reader compose..."
An interesting idea!
But given Arrow's lack of interest in making covers historically accurate (this one for The Quiet Gentleman
is a prime example) GH fans are used to ignoring covers. :)
Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "I was just hoping the fashion for beheaded (or half headed) people on the cover had passed!"That was actually a task in a challenge I did a few years ago - read a book with a person who's head was not on the Cover!
Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "Jeannine wrote: "It lets the individual reader compose..."
An interesting idea!
But given Arrow's lack of interest in making covers historically accurate (this one for The Quiet Gentleman [bookc..."
I think they are trying to draw in people who aren't GH fans. I may have mentioned this above, but these covers are similar to other covers this year - especially the reissued Bridgertons and some Minerva Spencer covers.
[bookcover:An Offer From a Gentleman|59340141]
Mod
At least one GH book has been censored already - & has been for quite some time.Why Shoot a Butler? originally had a line something like 'work like a n***** in it.
It was a group read in a murder mystery group I belonged to in my early days on GR. Of course everyone who liked to read uncensored got the cleaned up version. Everyone who preferred censored got that word.
It was a very interesting discussion - one of the best I ever participated in on GR. & everyone remained respectful of other people's views.
I would make exceptions for covers. No one should ever have to walk into a shop & see the original title of And Then There Were None for example. (apparently Christie was told it was a very offensive title in the States & still insisted on it being used.)
Mela wrote: "You all said what was to say. I just want to add: I agree with you. I don't like those new covers, and it is a scandal to change Heyer's book, even one word! I didn't like the mentioned scene but I..."Well said Mela! I think I learned the reason Jews became moneylenders in this group!
I'm worried that people longing for earlier, simpler times have read up cleaned up older books.
I didn’t see this discussion including justification for using slurs when I started it. Imagine how unfriendly and unwelcoming this group is to someone who has been the target of these words if they see you casually talking about how important they are to a romance novel.
Jeannine wrote: "Imagine how unfriendly and unwelcoming this group is to someone who has been the target of these words if they see you casually talking about how important they are to a romance novel. ."do you mean me? - I admit I don't understand.
I delete my post if I offended anyone without knowing by what and how: differences in language, culture, and age seem to make us talk at cross-purposes. And such things are not easily clarified in writing bits and pieces.
... so off with my post ...
Jeannine wrote: "I didn’t see this discussion including justification for using slurs when I started it. Imagine how unfriendly and unwelcoming this group is to someone who has been the target of these words if they see you casually talking about how important they are to a romance novel..."
It is nearly midnight where I am so I really don't want to get into this too deeply.
I'm sorry you felt the need to delete your post saba.
"justification for using slurs" I'm not sure where you saw that, but speaking only for myself I do prefer to read work uncensored.
I do think it is important to not present the past in some idealised way, so that people don't think the past was better than it was.
I read somewhere that GH was believed to have some Jewish blood herself, but I can't remember if she herself realised it. I'll have to look up my reference books tomorrow to see if I can find that reference - unless someone else can recall it?
Sorry as Critterbee is not around this weekend & I'm going to bed I'll close this discussion until tomorrow.
Ok, discussion now reopened.I've just done an experiment & I can edit my comment in a closed thread. I just want to say my piece first.
Firstly, I discovered after I closed the thread that Jeannine has left the group. I have no way of knowing if she left directly after making her post in #36 or after saba or my comments. I have temporarily blocked her rejoining the group until Critterbee is around again. Critterbee is very busy atm & for those who don't know, Christy B founded this group, but went off GH's books shortly afterwards. So, atm it is just me & I am on a different time schedule from most of you.
Secondly, saba has deleted her post & I can't remember exactly what she said (sorry saba)
While I would have a lot of problems with someone making a racist remark as their own opinion I have no problem with discussing what would now be considered racist remarks in a book.
I like Abigail's ideas in message #2. & I would dispute Eloisa James apparent suggestion that
GH would be happy with the changes (this remark has been edited out of the post concerned) From what I remember of GH's biographies, she most certainly didn't like interference in her work & the publishers had to be very careful how they dealt with her.
Also, please remember not everyone in this group has English as their mother tongue. & even those of us that do, may use words in a different way.
Discussion opened now. :)
Edit; I know I can count on members of this group not to make personal attacks on Jeannine herself since she is no longer here to defend herself (although since this is an open group she can still read here) But it is fine to have discussion on her opinions.
Thank you, Carol, for your efforts. I'm really sorry that Jeannine left the group possibly because of something I wrote - I admit I did not fully understand her comment. I had no intention to be offensive or to utter 'slurs', and as I had no idea what may have offended her in what I wrote, I thought it better to delete the comment. It's no loss to posterity ;-)
sabagrey wrote: "Thank you, Carol, for your efforts. I'm really sorry that Jeannine left the group possibly because of something I wrote - I admit I did not fully understand her comment. I had no intention to be ..."
Thanks saba.
Carol, I am glad we have you to do the work of this group so that we can all benefit. I have enjoyed reading this thread and think it is very useful to talk about these things - and especially the more people who disagree communicate the better.
Jackie wrote: "Carol, I am glad we have you to do the work of this group so that we can all benefit. I have enjoyed reading this thread and think it is very useful to talk about these things - and especially th..."
Thanks Jackie
I doubt very much if the clean up of GH's works will stop at the offending lines in The Grand Sophy.
There is a GH conference in Australia in September. Because I attended a previous one, one of the organisers sent me an email.
Here is the list of proposed topics;
The day will begin at 9am for 9.30 and will include a great range of fascinating talks - on 'Vapours, Vinaigrettes and Restorative Pork Jelly', on Heyer's use of names, on what 'sensitivity readers' are planning to do to Georgette's novels, on 'The Art of Flummery and Heyer and contemporary fiction.
Bolding mine.
Carol wroteI doubt very much if the clean up of GH's works will stop at the offending lines in The Grand Sophy.
so, we should be able to figure out what else might be a problem. classism?
I'm still re-reading Friday's Child and he does, after all, marry a girl who is 16 and "box" her ears.
"sensitivity readers"?
Sensitivity readers;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensiti...
I don't object to a writer/publisher in 2023 using a sensitivity reader to make sure s/he isn't going to cause unintentional offence, but I do have a problem with 'correcting' older books.
& I have seen some nasty pile ons on Goodreads. A popular reviewer reads a book, finds it racist/sexist/classist. No problem with the reviewer telling it like it is - but his/her followers promptly 1★ a book that they haven't read.
When we had a rare (partial) book banning in NZ (some of you may remember it) of Into the River I made sure I read the book before I gave my opinion.
This opinion piece was free to read for me, so I hope it will be for others:https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...
On the whole I agree with their points. And it's interesting to see several examples of this rewriting laid out.
no, I can't read it unless I subscribe. could you summarize?
Jackie wrote: "no, I can't read it unless I subscribe. could you summarize?"That's interesting, because I can & I'm not a subscriber. A friend of mine gifted me an article - maybe it includes extra reads.
Here is the first paragraph;
A number of beloved novels, for both children and adults, are being “retouched” — updated to remove overtly racist, sexist or otherwise offensive language. Publishers and literary estates — including those of best-selling mystery writer Agatha Christie, children’s author Roald Dahl and James Bond creator Ian Fleming — argue these changes will ensure, in the words of the Dahl estate, that “wonderful stories and characters continue to be enjoyed by all children today.”
After giving an example it goes on to;
But it’s a threat to free expression, to historical honesty and, indeed, to readers themselves for contemporary editors to comb through works of fiction written at different moments and rewrite them for today’s mind-set, particularly with little explanation of process or limiting principles. The trend raises uncomfortable questions about authorship and authenticity, and it ignores the reality that texts are more than consumer goods or sources of entertainment in the present. They are also cultural artifacts that attest to the moment in which they were written — the good and the bad.
This is not to say that applying these principles is easy. Some changes are understandable and publishers should consider how to address flagrantly offensive language, particularly in books young children might read. Doing so is not some new “woke” phenomenon, as conservative critics often insist; nor does it necessarily amount to “censorship,” as writers such as Salman Rushdie have contended. The original title of Christie’s “And Then There Were None,” first published in 1939, contained a racial expletive. The title appeared in Britain until the 1980s, but no American edition of the book has ever borne it.
I won't put any more up as I would be worried about infringing copyright. But it really does sum up a lot of how I feel, so thanks so much for sharing it, Sheila.
Pressure from Queen Camilla looks to mean there will be both original & censored versions of Roald Dahl's books available in the UK.
https://www.vanityfair.com/style/2023...
I should note that I have never read Dahl & I'm overweight myself. Describing a character as fat doesn't bother me. I have to say I'm more understanding of censorship of children's books though, as their ideas aren't formed yet.
& I have to say that Eloisa James allegedly saying that she thought GH would be happy with the corrections bothers me a lot more than the removal of those phrases themselves. (although I applaud the publisher for at least acknowledging the work has been altered) To me that is revisionism.
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
Georgette Heyer Fans
Books mentioned in this topic
King Kobold (other topics)Into the River (other topics)
And Then There Were None (other topics)
Why Shoot a Butler? (other topics)
The Viscount Who Loved Me (other topics)
More...
Three Georgette Heyer books (Frederica, Arabella, and The Grand Sophy) came up on NetGalley in the last month. I was surprised since NetGalley is where publishers attempt to generate buzz for new books through advance reads, but decided to use them as a way to read some classic Heyer books while adding to my NetGalley score.
The covers have a vaguely historical romance look and seem to be borrowing from the more modern style of the recent Bridgeton reissues. I'm going to attempt to get the covers to show up below. They also have forwards by Eloisa James (aka Mary Bly, chair of the English department at Fordham).
The Grand Sophy also had an afterward about how this 2023 edition has a revision in the moneylender scene. They removed reference to the moneylender having a "Semitic" nose and his profession being related to his race. Eloisa James wrote about a connection between how Heyer wrote the scene and one in a play by Shakespeare (her academic area of expertise).
Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see reissued Heyer books. There are only three so far and I clicked around to see if there are any 2023 editions for other books registered on goodreads, but nothing yet. Fingers crossed this bring a new crop of readers to Heyer's work!