5 ms·

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 m

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.
        0xffff2 6y ago
        >I read 203 books in 2019. That is really remarkable! Can I ask how you go about selecting what to read? Compared to the ~20 books I read every year that seems like an absolute firehose. I wouldn't even know where to start assembling such a long list.
        dsr_ 6y ago
        The vast majority of my reading is SF/F, history, biography, autobiography, and sciences. Each of these have excellent reviewers who I treat as sources of recommendations. e.g.: for current SF/F, James Nicoll, Locus, and John Scalzi's posts which are nothing but "here's what publishers sent me as ARCs which they are hoping I will blurb" are all good sources. I have access to NetGalley and some insider-baseball publishing sites thanks to my wife, who used to be a professional reviewer for Publishers Weekly. When I read a book by an author I really like, I try to add their blog or website to my RSS reader. I think the 203 in 2019 was not a record for me, but it was certainly much larger than in 2020, where I had several multiweek periods of not wanting to read. This year is looking up. One of my long-term tactics is to have some reserve books that I know I want to read but haven't, yet. Currently that pile includes a Walter Jon Williams, a Steven Brust, and an Elizabeth Bear. If I see a long run of not-so-great books, I know I have those to pull me out.
    - Peritract 6y ago
      Genres are complex and fuzzily-defined, but they're definitely both useful and widely-used. You don't have to make it incredibly strict and granular, but subgenres give an easy way to say 'these works are similar', and that's helpful in all kinds of situation.
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      You don’t actually need to use other people’s categories, you know. It’s not a personal attack against your interests.
- 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.

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.
      - 0xffff2 6y ago
        >I read 203 books in 2019. That is really remarkable! Can I ask how you go about selecting what to read? Compared to the ~20 books I read every year that seems like an absolute firehose. I wouldn't even know where to start assembling such a long list.
        dsr_ 6y ago
        The vast majority of my reading is SF/F, history, biography, autobiography, and sciences. Each of these have excellent reviewers who I treat as sources of recommendations. e.g.: for current SF/F, James Nicoll, Locus, and John Scalzi's posts which are nothing but "here's what publishers sent me as ARCs which they are hoping I will blurb" are all good sources. I have access to NetGalley and some insider-baseball publishing sites thanks to my wife, who used to be a professional reviewer for Publishers Weekly. When I read a book by an author I really like, I try to add their blog or website to my RSS reader. I think the 203 in 2019 was not a record for me, but it was certainly much larger than in 2020, where I had several multiweek periods of not wanting to read. This year is looking up. One of my long-term tactics is to have some reserve books that I know I want to read but haven't, yet. Currently that pile includes a Walter Jon Williams, a Steven Brust, and an Elizabeth Bear. If I see a long run of not-so-great books, I know I have those to pull me out.
  - Peritract 6y ago
    Genres are complex and fuzzily-defined, but they're definitely both useful and widely-used. You don't have to make it incredibly strict and granular, but subgenres give an easy way to say 'these works are similar', and that's helpful in all kinds of situation.
  - ashtonkem 6y ago
    You don’t actually need to use other people’s categories, you know. It’s not a personal attack against your interests.
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.