Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Are So Many Romances Set in the Regency Period?

daily.jstor.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 93 posts

Re: Why Are So Many Romances Set in the Regency Period?

#31

Post by macspoofing »

travisgriggs wrote: post #15

Today I learned there was a short period of history called Regency and I demured on the fact that British society could put a psycho executive in restraint while my country, a supposed enlightened democracy (the US), can not. 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…

>I demured on the fact that British society could put a psycho executive in restraint while my country, a supposed enlightened democracy (the US), can not.

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.

Re: Why Are So Many Romances Set in the Regency Period?

#32

Post by arbitrage »

naringas wrote: post #7

because this period of history is being rewrriten in the public culture to reifnorce myths about the present and so influence (softly control) the future edit: the first sentence gets downvoted. I both expected and felt bad about it.

if you feel that badly being disagreed with, perhaps you should go back to a safe content/context bubble on reddit, where your views can be constantly reinforced, and any challengers to your domain can be proudly assailed and repulsed by your impeccable logic and unassailable wit.

Re: Why Are So Many Romances Set in the Regency Period?

#33

Post by [deleted] »

Mizza wrote: post #26
travisgriggs wrote: post #15

Today I learned there was a short period of history called Regency and I demured on the fact that British society could put a psycho executive in restraint while my country, a supposed enlightened democracy (the US), can not. 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…

That literally just happened, and democracy was the process by which it occurred.

[deleted]

Re: Why Are So Many Romances Set in the Regency Period?

#34

Post by milesskorpen »

arbitrage wrote: post #27
Planktonne wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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, popular…

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?

Re: Why Are So Many Romances Set in the Regency Period?

#35

Post by neaden »

jacobolus wrote: post #6
Planktonne wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.

Re: Why Are So Many Romances Set in the Regency Period?

#36

Post by neaden »

naringas wrote: post #10
naringas wrote: post #7

because this period of history is being rewrriten in the public culture to reifnorce myths about the present and so influence (softly control) the future edit: the first sentence gets downvoted. I both expected and felt bad about it.

so I expand: 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…

I honestly am having trouble understanding what you are trying to say here, I think the reason you are encountering so much resistance isn't necessarily because of what you are trying to say, but how you are saying it.

Re: Why Are So Many Romances Set in the Regency Period?

#37

Post by stereolambda »

heavenlyblue wrote: post #20
travisgriggs wrote: post #15

Today I learned there was a short period of history called Regency and I demured on the fact that British society could put a psycho executive in restraint while my country, a supposed enlightened democracy (the US), can not. 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…

The supposedly enlightened democracy is currently heavily polarised and the British society back then was not.

I don't know, it was the sort of a period when regular people in England where ran over by cavalry for demanding suffrage rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre The whole Europe's elites were busy putting down the post-French Revolution upheaval.

Re: Why Are So Many Romances Set in the Regency Period?

#38

Post by Nasrudith »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #9
naringas wrote: post #7

because this period of history is being rewrriten in the public culture to reifnorce myths about the present and so influence (softly control) the future edit: the first sentence gets downvoted. I both expected and felt bad about it.

I was surprised this article didn't mention British colonialism at all.

Why would it be worth emphasizing in a very home island bound setting which doesn't even address the middle class residents of the isle. Colonialism went on for over a century before and after.

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.

Re: Why Are So Many Romances Set in the Regency Period?

#40

Post by Nasrudith »

arbitrage wrote: post #30
lkbm wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That explains nothing whatsoever as to what's so special about the Regency period? As the article notes, it's nine years . Why not when George III was still in command? Why not during Victoria's reign?

because the constituencies involved (of both the characters in the book, and the modern audience that consumes them) prefer the absence of a strong federating remote figure, to the ability of being able to imprint/insert themselves as participatory observers of the events. 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 o…

There really wasn't much of a difference for them in terms of actual actions aside from more gentry officers actually being in the field. They still could and did have those parties before and after. It would be a matter of being upshown instead of controlled.
Post reply on HN