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

51–60 of 93 posts

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

#51

Post by rebolek »

throwaway2245 wrote: post #47
Nasrudith wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Le bon ton" likely had a very direct hand in shaping colonialism, given that they were aristocrats and landed gentry, and given the "season" spent in London was shaped around political networking. 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.

People are free. This notion of collective guilt - "the British are allowed" - is terrifying.

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

#52

Post by Chris2048 »

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…

> in order to be taken seriously I must provide sources, backing, it is not enough to explain my thoughts cogently

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!

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

#53

Post by Chris2048 »

seneca wrote: post #13
naringas wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

HN, for all of its claims of intellectualism, is pretty unforgiving to any thoughts that don't fit one of a couple of echo chamber themes. I hang around because I think it's important for people (including me) to hear other ideas, but you should expect to be downvoted.

Which thoughts? Are you talking about the liberal echo-chamber downvote squad, the americana/patriot downvote squad, or something else?

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

#54

Post by AnimalMuppet »

macspoofing wrote: post #31
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…

It would look like the 25th Amendment being exercised.

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

#55

Post by naringas »

seneca wrote: post #13
naringas wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

HN, for all of its claims of intellectualism, is pretty unforgiving to any thoughts that don't fit one of a couple of echo chamber themes. I hang around because I think it's important for people (including me) to hear other ideas, but you should expect to be downvoted.

> is pretty unforgiving to any thoughts that don't fit one of a couple of echo chamber themes.

sounds better in ther converse: "it's pretty forgiving of thoughts that do go along the predilect tropes"

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

#56

Post by Planktonne »

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…

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.

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

#57

Post by [deleted] »

rebolek wrote: post #51
throwaway2245 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Le bon ton" likely had a very direct hand in shaping colonialism, given that they were aristocrats and landed gentry, and given the "season" spent in London was shaped around political networking. 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.

People are free. This notion of collective guilt - "the British are allowed" - is terrifying.

[deleted]

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

#58

Post by naringas »

the_af wrote: post #11
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.

Can you elaborate? Which myths are being reinforced, how can they be used to influence the future, and who is trying to influence it and for what? I'm not asking for hard references, like your other comment implied. Just trying to make sense of your comment.

I'm not talking about myths under a precise definition (as in stories to make sense of the world), rather mythology in the rougher sense of the way we think about our ancestors and people from the past (in the vein of "the good ol' days" or in contrast "the dark ages")

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

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

#59

Post by the_af »

naringas wrote: post #58
the_af wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate? Which myths are being reinforced, how can they be used to influence the future, and who is trying to influence it and for what? I'm not asking for hard references, like your other comment implied. Just trying to make sense of your comment.

I'm not talking about myths under a precise definition (as in stories to make sense of the world), rather mythology in the rougher sense of the way we think about our ancestors and people from the past (in the vein of "the good ol' days" or in contrast "the dark ages") 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…

But how does this relate to the article?

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

#60

Post by ska »

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.

> the first sentence gets downvoted.

Pretty sure that's because it's a mix of unsubstantiated, controversial, and incoherent.

Post reply on HN