Georgette Heyer Fans discussion

Hi

As there is interest in discussing the new editions of Georgette Heyer's works. I am opening up this thread.

This is the original (now locked) thread.
https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

I'll now look at moving the relevant comments from the introduction thread.

I'll just mention that messageboards on Goodreads, moderators don't have a button they can click to easily move things - we have to cut & paste. So that is why the comments will look a bit strange.

Sandi: "After The NY Times piece about The Grand Sophy last week, I'm interested to see what people think about changing the anti-Semitic content in new editions."

QNPBear: "We've been discussing it here and there and largely it's an unpopular decision designed to sell books to a younger audience that lacks the context and understanding of the historical setting. An introductory note could explain the language and include the history of money lenders."

Susan in Perthshire: "Since I live in Scotland, I don’t read the NY Times.

However, over the years, we’ve had lots of discussions in this group about that specific passage in The Grand Sophy.

As QNPoohBear said, we’ve discussed more recently, the changes to the new editions of The Grand Sophy.

I agree with those of us who were against the changes. If this cancel culture continues, new generations will be entirely unaware of the realities of life and attitudes in the past. Removing what was said in the past, especially depicting events centuries before because we are hopefully more aware today, is in my opinion counter-productive and unhelpful.

Leaving it as it was written, but with an explanatory note would make it a learning experience for those readers who have no appreciation of historical realities."

Susan in NC: "Amen, Susan, I agree totally! Being ignorant of history only makes it more likely we will repeat it."

Jackie: "Yes, I totally agree!

Teresa: "Well said Susan and I totally agree!

So this thread is now ready for business!

& please no personal attacks on the person that started the other thread as she left the group.

& thank you Susan of Perthshire for saying it better than I could. :)

So sorry to hear a person felt they had to leave over this.

Yes thanks to Susan I think she has said exactly what I feel about the cancel culture. This also includes the pulling down of statues etc because they no longer fit our perceptions of political correctness.

While all the discussion on this was taking place in the previous thread, I couldn't help thinking of the closing statement made by the author of a branch of my family tree.

"When reading this family tree remember we transverse more than 400 years. Over that time society, morality, mores, ethics, and laws have changed considerably, so don't judge your ancestors for how they lived. In that regard I leave you with this thought -
"If you could see your ancestors all standing in a row,
There might be one or two of them you wouldn't care to know.
Now turn the question right about and take another view,
When you should meet your ancestors, will they be proud of you.""

I think this statement is so true, with the last line of the poem she included being most pertinent. So, you can change, sanitize any and everything you might see as a wrong, but in time to come your own behaviour will be judged.

ETA: Just imagine the future critics trying to 'fix up' our present day literature with all the blasphemy on every second line. In removing all that language a 400 page book will reduce to 200 pages if it is lucky! :)

Lesley wrote: "While all the discussion on this was taking place in the previous thread, I couldn't help thinking of the closing statement made by the author of a branch of my family tree.

"When reading this fa..."
Yes, the sanitising may leave people things in the old days were better than they were. I found it quite dangerous.

It is often hard to tell between authors who are just using authentic language attitudes of the times. I got quite a shock when I read uncensored Ngaio Marsh although a crashing snob she wasn't believed to be racist. & I can't find it now, but I remember reading an article perplexed at the often contemptuous attitude to female servants Agatha Christie often showed to female servants, when she had a close & warm relationship to servants from her childhood. In other words, they were showing attitudes of their characters, not their own.

& people who have known me for a while, know that after reading the believed-to-be-at-least-partly-autobiographical Helen that I couldn't read Heyer for eight years after that. I don't remember racism, but among other things I certainly remember classism.

I "gave my vote" in the previous thread. I agree with all of you (above).

I am so relieved I am not alone in my views. Susan summed it up so perfectly. And it is pertinent not only for GH's books. The same goes for Agatha Christie, Ian Fleming, Roald Dahl and all other authors whose works are getting "pruned".

I am both saddened and perturbed that the person who initiated the discussion has decided to leave the group. Why?
Did she give a reason?

I am not intending to make any kind of a personal attack on the person but I cannot help but wonder why someone would seek our opinions on an issue and then not even bother responding to them?

I’ve been involved in several discussions on this issue - in this group, - and on different Heyer groups on FB.

We have certainly not all agreed and as always, we’ve mostly managed to disagree in our usual polite, civilised way. So I am puzzled as to why she left so fast and yes, a little perturbed at what appears to be an inability to cope with opinions different to her own. But I am of course assuming a lot here.

Susan in Perthshire wrote: "I am both saddened and perturbed that the person who initiated the discussion has decided to leave the group. Why?
Did she give a reason?

I am not intending to make any kind of a personal attack..."

Message 36 in the original thread. I believe she left as soon as or shortly after she made that comment.

I just went through the other thread and could not see any animosity, just a polite exchange of honest opinions.

Melindam wrote: "I just went through the other thread and could not see any animosity, just a polite exchange of honest opinions."

There may be some comments deleted now (I know Saba deleted one of hers) but no one was rude to the op. There were even people (or maybe just one person) who agreed with her.

Concerning tweaking and cancel culture, what really disturbs me is the false idealism that seems to be going around. People are not satisfied with loving books, but have these high expectations of authors (past and present) to live up to their ideals w/o realising how hypocritical it is, b/c both them and authors are only human.
Once the idols turn out to have feet of clay, they are in a rush to "distance" themselves left, right and centre, instead of having this healthy distance in the first place.

Christmas Carol ꧁꧂ wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "I am both saddened and perturbed that the person who initiated the discussion has decided to leave the group. Why?
Did she give a reason?

I am not intending to make a..."

Sorry Carol, but that post #36 refers to Jeannie who posted and left the group in June 2023, not Sandie (?) who posted yesterday and initiated the discussion which led to this new thread. Did she say why she was leaving?

Melindam wrote: "Concerning tweaking and cancel culture, what really disturbs me is the false idealism that seems to be going around. People are not satisfied with loving books, but have these high expectations of ..."

Yes, I'm afraid Helen made me discover my idol had feet of clay! 😁 & like I said in post 8, I couldn't read her for years after that! But I got over that.

I don't think GH & I could ever have been friends, but I still love her books.

Eloisa James apparently said in her afterward that she thought GH would have approved of the changes. Anyone who knows anything about GH knows she hated anyone interfering in her work. As I said in the other thread that is revisionism.

Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Christmas Carol ꧁꧂ wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "I am both saddened and perturbed that the person who initiated the discussion has decided to leave the group. Why?
Did she give a reason?

I..."

Oh, sorry not to be clear. I was referring to Jeannine. I linked to the old thread in message #1 of this thread. Sandi is still a member of this group.

Christmas Carol ꧁꧂ wrote: "...I don't think GH & I could ever have been friends, but I still love her books...."

For years, I have been using such descriptions about people. I find it very explanatory. Not only about writers but about all people (e.g. content creators on the Internet, artists, politics, etc.) I sometimes felt odd saying "I love his YT channel", but when I add "but I would not want to be his friend" - all is clear ;-)

LOL, Carol. I feel this way about Dickens, especially as I just finished the excellent biography by Claire Tomalin. Love (most of) the books, but not the man. :)

The reason I don't mind about GH is that I discovered her only a few years ago, so there was no youthful ardour & enthusiasm to disappoint in me when I read J. Koestler's biography about her.

Christmas Carol ꧁꧂ wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Christmas Carol ꧁꧂ wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "I am both saddened and perturbed that the person who initiated the discussion has decided to leave the group. Why?..."

Duh…. I’m confused. In message 3, I assumed the ‘person who started the other thread’ was the person who started this discussion and which you subsequently moved. That’ll teach me to engage before my brain has woken up! My comments in message 11 are clearly redundant!

Melindam wrote: "I just went through the other thread and could not see any animosity, just a polite exchange of honest opinions."

I did the same, and it felt like she was just saying hi, found these newly issued Heyers, feels like they’re trying to get them to a new audience by jumping on the coattails of Bridgerton’s popularity, what do you all think, as regular Heyer readers?” I’m paraphrasing, but that was the way I read the introduction comment.

Then again, I think some people like to “stir the pot” on social media, get worked up about an issue, and like to throw out what they think will be an incendiary comment, and watch the fireworks. I have no idea why, but I have seen it. If that were the case, (and I’m making a big assumption here), I imagine the serious, courteous, thoughtful discussion would have not been the response sought!

Melindam wrote: "Concerning tweaking and cancel culture, what really disturbs me is the false idealism that seems to be going around. People are not satisfied with loving books, but have these high expectations of ..."

Thank you!

I agree with Susan that the original poster’s intent was merely to tell us about new editions of the books, and she was being responsible in mentioning the afterword about the edits. It could be said that my subsequent comment, calling into question the practice of editing a text to eliminate uncomfortable elements, was what kicked off the controversy. That was intended as a comment on the editorial decision, not the poster, and I hope she didn’t take it as some kind of attack on her. Frankly, I don’t see how it could be taken that way—unless of course she was affiliated with the publcations and joined our group just to publicize them. I’ll say immediately that I have no evidence of that; I have no idea who she might be.

Abigail, while we do not know for certain, I'd say that your "suspicion" sounds reasonable.

Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Christmas Carol ꧁꧂ wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "I am both saddened and perturbed that the person who initiated the discussion has decided to leave the group. Why?
Did she give a reason?

I..."Hi, I'm the Sandi who initiated a post this past week after seeing The NY Times article and learning this group even exists! I'm new to this type of posting, which led to me putting the question in entirely the wrong place (and have had a busy week) so please know I'm not ghosting anyone!

Sandi wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Christmas Carol ꧁꧂ wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "I am both saddened and

Hi Sandi! This is a discussion that happens all the time now, and I'm glad you didn't take the debate personally.

I find it strange that so many people get really excited about what is written about "minorities" of various types, but completely ignore that most of these Golden Age authors write the most shocking things about working class people. And it's not as if working class people were a minority!

I realised when I discovered GH's detective novels (which were set in the 20th century) that she was an appalling snob. However, it didn't reduce my enjoyment of her regency romances!

Ditto Dorothy L Sayers. I love the Lord Peter Wimsey books. I notice in them, rapacious moneylenders tend to be Scottish. That doesn't seem to be an issue for publishers, however!

Susan in NC wrote: "Then again, I think some people like to “stir the pot” on social media, get worked up about an issue, and like to throw out what they think will be an incendiary comment, and watch the fireworks. I..."

Bingo! One of many reasons I don't do social media. It makes people feel they can be nasty and get away with it. I follow pets sometimes but not people. If we change the language of the past, it's a slippery slope. What language do we change? Where does it end? I think Gen. Z spends way too much time thinking about what's trending on social media (and this includes political issues) and not enough about empathy and tolerance towards others. I say this as an aunt of a "woke" Gen. Z who is a very nice girl but knows and cares nothing about what ideas and values shaped the minds of people of the past. She's still young but looks up to college students as the "cool kids".

I don't think I'd want to be friends with Georgette Heyer or anyone from her generation but that's OK because they're all long dead and I don't have to. I can enjoy her books without enjoying her.

Personally, most kids of that generation I know won't even pick up a Georgette Heyer "romance." Too old-fashioned for them so I think the issue of changing the language is a moot point and the publishers will figure it our soon enough when their target audience fails to buy their books. Bridgerton on Netflix is popular for a reason and not for the history.

You are wise beyond your years…

Well said!

QNPoohBear wrote: "...Personally, most kids of that generation I know won't even pick up a Georgette Heyer "romance." Too old-fashioned for them so I think the issue of changing the language is a moot point and the publishers will figure it our soon enough when their target audience fails to buy their books. Bridgerton on Netflix is popular for a reason and not for the history."

Exactly!

QNPoohBear wrote: "I don't think I'd want to be friends with Georgette Heyer or anyone from her generation "

as much as I agree with the tenor of your comment, I feel I *have to* object to this statement which is way too general. There were of course people of all ideological colours in her generation. Literature shows a whole range of beliefs from nostalgia of the lost pre-War order to hopes of revolution and a new world order.

There are lots of people I would have loved to meet in that generation. They probably would not have included GH and her circles.

sabagrey wrote: "QNPoohBear wrote: "I don't think I'd want to be friends with Georgette Heyer or anyone from her generation "

as much as I agree with the tenor of your comment, I feel I *have to* object to this st..."

Oh, yes, I would love to have met Frances Faviell (pseudonym), who wrote a lovely WWII memoir of life as an artist/VAD during the Blitz called A Chelsea Concerto First person who comes to mind, culled from my reading this past year - a wonderfully sensitive-without-being-sentimental storyteller, and seemed like someone I’d love to have a cup of coffee with, to hear her reminiscences, if she’d share them. She comes across as very caring, kind and decent - plus able to inject humor and humanity into what was clearly a horrific time - Greatest Generation indeed.

sabagrey wrote: "QNPoohBear wrote: "I don't think I'd want to be friends with Georgette Heyer or anyone from her generation "

as much as I agree with the tenor of your comment, I feel I *have to* object to this st..."

Totally agree! I cannot read her contemporaries or crime thrillers for that very reason. Her contempt for the “lower orders” is utterly disgusting, even for the period!

I too am often shocked by the rampant snobbery/classism/ racism in older books. One reason I continue to read books actually written a century or more ago is to see how people spoke, thought, behaved in the actual time period, as opposed to contemporary authors who set their books in the past. There’s a huge difference, in my experience. Modern authors do not accurately express the very real class divide that existed, the snobbery, entitlement, that was then readily accepted.. Back then, the English language included commonly used derogatory and judgmental terms and phrases that have since faded from the vernacular.

These old books help to put the past in context, highlight the reason prejudice still exists today, and showcase how far societal norms have come.

The classic authors (Heyer, Sayers, Hill, Dickens, Austen, etc etc) were all products of their own times, yet they vary in how they portray different classes or races in their novels. That says something.

Kathleen wrote: "I too am often shocked by the rampant snobbery/classism/ racism in older books. One reason I continue to read books actually written a century or more ago is to see how people spoke, thought, behav..."

I absolutely agree Kathleen.
And that’s why it’s wrong to categorise everyone in the past as if they were all unworthy or all behaved with the same disdain.
. Dickens did as much to raise awareness about the inequalities of 19th century society and the exploitation and abuse of the working classes as any of the radicals such as Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill and Charles Booth etc.

I can just about tolerate Heyer’s depiction of the rough working class in These Old Shades but only because I know that 18th century aristocrats actually believed in the whole ‘blue blood’ superiority. They didn’t know any better - but Heyer should have.

Maybe Heyer was accurately depicting the people/mores/social mileau about which she wrote?

"Today we are less accustomed to look for universal norms in what we read ... partly because we tend to see life, and therefore literature, mainly in terms of individual experience. Jane Austen's own standards were, like those of her age, much more absolute; and as a novelist she presented all her characters in terms of of their relations to a fixed code of values" Ian P. Watt

I copied this quote here, because it perfectly sums up what readers dismissive of non-contemporary authors and in an age that promotes individualism to an extreme fail to notice a lot of the time. (not everyone and not always, of course)

Of course Heyer is removed from JA, but in her own way she tried to reflect this in her books.

Kay Webb wrote: "Maybe Heyer was accurately depicting the people/mores/social mileau about which she wrote?"

She probably was, as best she could. But of course, she wasn't presenting the entire culture in every book, and the culture was in any case more ... open ... about class differences than ours is. Even in ours, for all the angst about using the correct terminology and respect for the individual, class differences exist. The older books might treat servants as fools, or, at the other extreme, as wise but primitive types. Today - look how people talk about those who, say, work all their lives in one of the service industries like a store or fast food place! They don't even have a place in modern fiction (not that I read much modern fiction, so I may be over-generalizing there).

Kay Webb wrote: "Maybe Heyer was accurately depicting the people/mores/social mileau about which she wrote?"

She did a tremendous amount of research on any historical times she was writing about, which most modern romance authors utterly fail to do even in the most cursory way and with the internet at their fingertips (who seem to be churning out books undeservedly tagged historical romance without the least ideas or cares about the actual era).

She collected a huge reference library about military history, manners, fashion, housekeeping, language and all imaginable specific subjects (hunting, postal system, sports, biographies, etc.). She had more than 2000 books of the kind.

She kept all the useful details in reference notebooks, compiled alphabetical lists of slang terms and popular expressions.

Right, Melindam! Was it true that the British military used Heyer's "An Infamous Army" to teach their officer candidates about the Battle of Waterloo?

This is what I read in the biography by Jennifer Kloester. :)

I don’t actually remember it being on the formal reading list - but a couple of lecturers suggested it as leisure reading for cadets at Sandhurst. We have a couple of friends who attended in the 1990s and it wasn’t recommended during their stint. Heyer’s view of the Battle has been superseded in academic circles by historians with a different take on Waterloo. Doesn’t make Heyer’s version wrong - simply unfashionable - which sadly happens in academia I’m afraid!

Thank you both, Melindam and Susan.
Kay

Just checked my notes (was a while I read the biography), indeed as Susan said "it was recommended reading" not actually "taught". :)

Melindam wrote: "Just checked my notes (was a while I read the biography), indeed as Susan said "it was recommended reading" not actually "taught". :)"

Yes, I think it’s sometimes difficult for folk to appreciate the distinction! 😉. I can quite see why they’d “recommend” it. For giving youngg people the strategic aspects of the battle, it is also superb in conveying the utter horror of war - especially that which is done almost face to face. No matter how many times I re-read it, I am always left horrified and miserable.

Cheryl wrote:

She probably was, as best she could. But of course, she wasn't presenting the entire cu..."

You're absolutely right, Cheryl. The people who work the hardest and longest are the worst paid, yet illness or unemployment are treated like moral flaws instead of misfortunes that could happen to anyone. And that comes from the top. I think the UK is more snobbish and judgemental now than it was when I was growing up in the 1970s.

Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Kathleen wrote: "I too am often shocked by the rampant snobbery/classism/ racism in older books. One reason I continue to read books actually written a century or more ago is to see how people spok..."

Yes, spot on Susan!