7 ms·

I guess the snarky answer would be "because Austen and the Brontës"

Peritract 6y ago
Georgette Heyer is the originator here, not Austen or the Brontës. Obviously those authors do have imitators, but the focus and aesthetic is very different to modern Regency romances.
- jacobolus 6y ago
  Georgette Heyer was explicitly inspired by Austen, and presumably many of her readers were Austen fans hungry for more stories from the same era. In a similar way we might say that Tolkien was the progenitor of a line of pulp fantasy novels, even though they have a significantly different character.
  - Peritract 6y ago
    Sure, but I think you have to draw a line somewhere between proximal and ultimate inspirations; modern Regency romances are very like Heyer (albeit generally much more explicit) and rather unlike Austen. We subdivide modern fantasy into 'epic', 'sword and sorcery', 'low', and so on, even though they have common ancestors.
    - arbitrage 6y ago
      > We subdivide modern fantasy into 'epic', 'sword and sorcery', 'low', and so on, even though they have common ancestors. that's news to me. i personally consider that meticulous categorization of fiction to be tedious and childish. Consider that there are no good definitions of "high" vs "low" fantasy, and that there a few books that are both a) successful (whether you measure this in terms of profitability, popularity, or a combination of both) and b) regimented enough to hold themselves to a dictionary-style definition of what the author is supposed to be writing about. you're using a definition of fantasy that is frankly not supported by the reality of how we consume and produce said literary works.
      - milesskorpen 6y ago
        You can disagree without attacking the original poster. It’s obviously not news to you, since you present a counter argument, and nothing in your comment suggests thinking there are subgenres is childish. Why resort to ad hominems?
      - bear8642 6y ago
        >"high" vs "low" fantasy Thought distinction (originally at least) was whether fantasy happening on imagined realm or here on Earth?
      - ameister14 6y ago
        >i personally consider that meticulous categorization of fiction to be tedious and childish When you read several hundred books a year, categorization goes from being tedious and childish to being necessary and useful.
        ghaff 6y ago
        I don't read much fantasy but I do read a fair bit of science fiction and categories like cyberpunk, soft, hard, space opera, etc. while fuzzy are something I tend to find somewhat useful (as is the distinction between SF and fantasy). There are probably books in every category I like but I generally favor some categories over others.
        dsr_ 6y ago
        Ooch. In my experience talking to professional reviewers, they will generally say that genres are marketing, not objective categories. Ilona Andrews's books are marketed to romance (three series) and to urban fantasy (one series). Two of the romance-marketed series could get new covers and be sold as SF. The urban fantasy novels could get romance covers put on and be sold that way. Repeat ad infinitum with literary SF, magic realism, respun fairy tales, space opera, epic fantasy, issekai, portal fantasies, hard SF, character-driven gay romance post-apocalyptic cyberpunk action fantasy (that was a very good one)... I read 203 books in 2019. I assure you that the marketing categories are not helpful in my basic quest, which is to determine if the book is good. Nothing short of starting to read the book can do that.
  - neaden 6y ago
    Pulp fantasy started before Tolkien, Howard and Burroughs are more important for that genre. Tolkien is what took fantasy out of the pulps and started the hard cover doorstopper fantasy series.
science4sail 6y ago
Sort of. From the article: > For the origins of the modern Regency romance, look to the works of Georgette Heyer. Starting in 1935, Heyer wrote over two dozen meticulously researched historical books, all set in Jane Austen’s era, with an obsessive focus on London’s tiny upper class. According to literary scholar Diana Wallace, it was the incredible popularity of Heyer’s historical novels that helped transform historical fiction into a more feminine space that continues to “centralise female subjectivity, desires and apprehensions to an unusual extent.”
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

Georgette Heyer is the originator here, not Austen or the Brontës. Obviously those authors do have imitators, but the focus and aesthetic is very different to modern Regency romances.

jacobolus 6y ago
Georgette Heyer was explicitly inspired by Austen, and presumably many of her readers were Austen fans hungry for more stories from the same era. In a similar way we might say that Tolkien was the progenitor of a line of pulp fantasy novels, even though they have a significantly different character.
- Peritract 6y ago
  Sure, but I think you have to draw a line somewhere between proximal and ultimate inspirations; modern Regency romances are very like Heyer (albeit generally much more explicit) and rather unlike Austen. We subdivide modern fantasy into 'epic', 'sword and sorcery', 'low', and so on, even though they have common ancestors.
  - arbitrage 6y ago
    > We subdivide modern fantasy into 'epic', 'sword and sorcery', 'low', and so on, even though they have common ancestors. that's news to me. i personally consider that meticulous categorization of fiction to be tedious and childish. Consider that there are no good definitions of "high" vs "low" fantasy, and that there a few books that are both a) successful (whether you measure this in terms of profitability, popularity, or a combination of both) and b) regimented enough to hold themselves to a dictionary-style definition of what the author is supposed to be writing about. you're using a definition of fantasy that is frankly not supported by the reality of how we consume and produce said literary works.
    - milesskorpen 6y ago
      You can disagree without attacking the original poster. It’s obviously not news to you, since you present a counter argument, and nothing in your comment suggests thinking there are subgenres is childish. Why resort to ad hominems?
    - bear8642 6y ago
      >"high" vs "low" fantasy Thought distinction (originally at least) was whether fantasy happening on imagined realm or here on Earth?
    - ameister14 6y ago
      >i personally consider that meticulous categorization of fiction to be tedious and childish When you read several hundred books a year, categorization goes from being tedious and childish to being necessary and useful.
      - ghaff 6y ago
        I don't read much fantasy but I do read a fair bit of science fiction and categories like cyberpunk, soft, hard, space opera, etc. while fuzzy are something I tend to find somewhat useful (as is the distinction between SF and fantasy). There are probably books in every category I like but I generally favor some categories over others.
      - dsr_ 6y ago
        Ooch. In my experience talking to professional reviewers, they will generally say that genres are marketing, not objective categories. Ilona Andrews's books are marketed to romance (three series) and to urban fantasy (one series). Two of the romance-marketed series could get new covers and be sold as SF. The urban fantasy novels could get romance covers put on and be sold that way. Repeat ad infinitum with literary SF, magic realism, respun fairy tales, space opera, epic fantasy, issekai, portal fantasies, hard SF, character-driven gay romance post-apocalyptic cyberpunk action fantasy (that was a very good one)... I read 203 books in 2019. I assure you that the marketing categories are not helpful in my basic quest, which is to determine if the book is good. Nothing short of starting to read the book can do that.
- neaden 6y ago
  Pulp fantasy started before Tolkien, Howard and Burroughs are more important for that genre. Tolkien is what took fantasy out of the pulps and started the hard cover doorstopper fantasy series.

science4sail 6y ago

Sort of. From the article: > For the origins of the modern Regency romance, look to the works of Georgette Heyer. Starting in 1935, Heyer wrote over two dozen meticulously researched historical books, all set in Jane Austen’s era, with an obsessive focus on London’s tiny upper class. According to literary scholar Diana Wallace, it was the incredible popularity of Heyer’s historical novels that helped transform historical fiction into a more feminine space that continues to “centralise female subjectivity, desires and apprehensions to an unusual extent.”

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]