Why Are So Many Romances Set in the Regency Period?
daily.jstor.org
daily.jstor.org
It occurs to me that the "Old West" books, movies, etc. in the U.S. are nearly as small a period in terms of both time and people, and they have been subject to a similarly obsessive focus, although more male-oriented.
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.
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.
Thought distinction (originally at least) was whether fantasy happening on imagined realm or here on Earth?
When you read several hundred books a year, categorization goes from being tedious and childish to being necessary and useful.
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.
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.
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.
Honest question, there’s a couple assumptions in my napkin calculation :)
FWIW I don't read slower when I need to absorb serious content, but I do reread repeatedly -- flipping back and forth to make sure I understood the argument, critiquing it in my head, and so forth. Pleasure reading doesn't get that treatment unless I catch the author doing something egregious.
Interesting. I found that when selecting books, it's helpful for me to see how people have tagged them. That way I avoid some of the cliches I really don't care for and can narrow focus a bit. It's unusual for that to be wrong for me, where I actually like one of the books I had initially excluded based on category.
For example, if you really aren't into steampunk noir, I think it's helpful to know that the book you're about to read is a steampunk noir. Same goes for space opera, litrpg, gun porn, hard sci fi, hack and slash, harem stories, overpowered heroes, etc.
When you've got the best version of something you generally dislike, you'll see that in reviews.
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.
> 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.”
The ethnicity is largely ignored. There's one interesting passing reference to it -- the idea that it's a recent phenomenon that could easily be reversed -- but they spend little time on it.
It's not authentic, but of course nothing about Bridgerton is authentic. Queen Charlotte's skin color is no wronger than her clothing, which is more 1770s France than 1810s England (and not really authentic at that, either). The Duke of Hastings' skin exactly matched that of the real Duke of Hastings -- since Hastings was a Barony.
This seems rather applicable to now as well.
I actually found the article wanting. I could not turn to a colleague after reading it and explain why this period was an ideal setting for romances. I learned who some of sources of romance in this period are. I learned that perhaps modern romances set in the period aren't true to the original form. And I got a glimpse at some of the attributes of said era (fictional or not so). But I did not see much that told me why this was an appealing backdrop for romance novels. What about this era makes it ideal for romance vs other eras?
Ephron's genius, as with Austen's, was not simply the fact that she seemed to have come up with a winning formula, there was also an enormous amount of craft, wit, originality and compassion involved.
To be clear, this is a partisan political opinion that borders on authoritarianism. You may not like Trump, but he was democratically elected. So prey tell, what would "restraining" a democratically elected 'executive' look like? Remember, any rule you define has to be measured against past presidents and apply to future presidents.
If Trump had been intubated with Covid or suffered a stroke, then the 25th amendment would have been an appropriate choice. Otherwise the proper avenue to remove a misbehaving president is impeachment.
Why not? Sounds like it's roughly tantamount to giving the cabinet the power to impeach the President. Given the natural restraint on that power in that the cabinet is appointed by the President, I'm not sure I see any problem there.
Congress also the ability to impeach the President. Congress couldn't get the votes to do remove the President from office ... so your partisan solution is for the cabinet to find a reason to remove the President? Why? Because you don't like how your fellow citizens voted?
How about this: Vote him out in the next election? Oh that actually happened! And Democracy survived!
For all the talk about Trump, the opposition is perfectly willing to destroy every single norm and democratic institution just to get him.
What’s bad is having a very much awake and ambulatory Trump arguing in front of the Senate that he should be back in power. That’s a political nightmare, and far worse than Congress using its powers to expel the president on their own initiative. It’s much better for our body politic for Congress to impeach and save the 25th amendment for less politically ambiguous situations.
Well, we sure had a bunch of "constitutional scholars" saying that the 25th should be invoked for exactly that. If you want to claim that those people were random people pushing their viewpoint rather than actual scholars, I could accept that. But if you're saying there's a general consensus among the experts, I wouldn't mind seeing a credible source to that effect.
Insanity.
That "psycho executive"—George III—reigned during the period of the American War of Independence, which, if you recall, he lost, so it seems both nations managed to restrain his power.
The UK's mechanisms for restraining Naughty Monarchs, back when it was relevant, were largely unwritten but pretty extensive; 150 years previously, Charles I had, ah, lost his head about it. The US's mechanisms are limited, written, and, as it turns out, don't work.
It's probably best to keep in mind, though, that George III had a lot less power than the US president; the monarch had basically lost the royal assent (veto) by then, for practical purposes. I'm reasonably sure that by that point the monarch had nothing similar to an executive order, either.
By the 1820s you get into the electrical age, with Faraday. <a href="https://youtu.be/6Ns5tRyvoHY?t=92">First electric motor, 1822, Fraday.</a><br> Now you're into the Steampunk aesthetic.
edit: the first sentence gets downvoted. I both expected and felt bad about it.
It would be like emphasizing that Edgar Allen Poe married his thirteen year old cousin when discussing his horror influence. Terrible but hardly germane to the topic.
However, I also meant that it was a sort of cultural neo-colonialism: that the British are allowed to present the history of this period as a romantic drama.
but of course, this is not an answer; it's an explanation in the style of the surreal way in which I have chosen to make sense of the larger world around me.
however, who am I to chose how to make sense of the world? who am I to say that mytholgy-engineering has anything to do with the reason for the creation lots and lots of romances set in the british pre-victorian era?
in order to be taken seriously I must provide sources, backing, it is not enough to explain my thoughts cogently. I must show other ideas that support what I say. I must acquire a reputation and then, only then, I can say whatever I want.
But how does one gather a reputation such that whatever I say will be read mindfully and not just dismissed right out when I start to make reasoning leaps all around? the most direct way is to simply repeat what other people with a reputation have said; to preach to the choir.
As a reaction, the "with me or against me" mantra was increasingly strong for the last four and a half years.
I hope people calm down again now that that its over.
The Luke-in-Yoda’s-hut scene pops to mind.
Even after looking up the script, I have no idea what you are saying.
Yoda challenged Luke by telling him he was too old to begin the training, and that a Jedi "craves not" things like adventure and excitement. People have varying degrees of awareness about how much work it is and how long it takes to gain meaningful knowledge and experience. They are impatient, they want shortcuts, they think "likes" are important, they give up. Luke says: "you want the impossible", but of course it's not impossible, just profoundly abstruse.
sounds better in ther converse: "it's pretty forgiving of thoughts that do go along the predilect tropes"
Under those circumstances, it's perfectly coherent for strangers to dismiss the allegation if it doesn't conform to their preconceived view. It is also perfectly coherent for strangers to agree with it if it does.
Now, if you wish for strangers to come to agree with your world view then you'll have to make some effort to convince them. Whether or not you can be arsed to do that is, of course, up to you.
No one here is actually asking for your sources, so far as I can see. The people who are taking umbrage at your comment are most likely (like me) those who do not see your explanation as cogent but instead an assertion that doesn't even fully explain what is asserting. You're promoting a conspiracy theory--a shadowy "They" who are conspiring to do something--without explaining what the conspiracy actually is. What are the myths being enforced? Why are "They" doing this? Who even is "They"?
> But how does one gather a reputation such that whatever I say will be read mindfully and not just dismissed right out when I start to make reasoning leaps all around? the most direct way is to simply repeat what other people with a reputation have said; to preach to the choir.
In my experience on HN, that reputation is gathered mostly by being seen to speak authoritatively on topics. The highest upvote comments I have gathered are generally when I can put together thorough, concise explanations quickly. It doesn't have to agree with the current zeitgeist, but you do generally want to provide stronger argumentation for your viewpoints in that situation.
You must at least provide reasoning, for the thoughts to be cogent. Your assertions are vague - you allude to things without clarifying what you mean, and why you believe it to be so.
> in order to be taken seriously I must...
> I must show...
> I must acquire...
You must do theses things? According to who. again, assertion without explanation. Understand, your thoughts don't explain themselves!
I'm not asking for hard references, like your other comment implied. Just trying to make sense of your comment.
also, "who is trying to influence" seems to imply some sort of distinct actor (with agency) doing it based on some definite agenda.
but I don't think this is the case; as some other comments point out, it's closer to a dynamic. it gets fashionable so everybody does it never mind the fact that the next generation of people will inform their beliefs about our ancestor's lives based on this romanticized versions. so in a sense "cultural ideology" is the "agent" behind this.
finally, answering how does this affect our future is not so easy. I said it because knowing our past (our history) allows understanding our present circumstance. and based on this we are able to visualize our future. If I could explain this better I could probably also answer why is there historical revisionism
I'm not sure how much I'd say that's why so much romance is set in a particular era, but I'd buy that's why they are promoted so much and heavily influences their tone and themes.
"Who control the past controls the future. Who controls present controls the past." essentially.
It is absurd black and white thinking to declare that anything which reflects its source culture is propaganda even if it embeds the bullshit influnces of propaganda of the day like the classics obsession of the Enlightenment.
Calling a work propaganda merely because it reflects a source culture is propaganda in itself. Used to justify suppression of anything not actively promoting their world view as actively in service of evil. That has been used by amongst many others evangelical fundamentalists and the Party in basically every nation which called themselves Communists.
lack of a strong central nexus gives fantasy writers and readers the opportunity to engage with the story and period on their own terms, instead of being subjugated to what some accidental monarch wants the era to have been.
Slavery is being acknowledged now, but the Enclosures still don't figure in the national narrative.
But Regency Romance has been a money spinning genre for a very long time, and it's not more popular now than it used to be.
Nor is there any evidence of conscious narrative control by editors and publishers. There's far more evidence of that elsewhere - for example in both the mytho-feminist and techno-dystopian ends of contemporary SF.
But it's actually most obvious in period and class-specific movies and soaps, which the UK specialises in, and which are a very different genre to romantic fiction.
Here's the creator of Downton Abbey. He's now working on a US equivalent called - unsurprisingly - The Gilded Age. Could he possibly have an angle to sell?
Pretty sure that's because it's a mix of unsubstantiated, controversial, and incoherent.