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

61–70 of 93 posts

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

#61

Post by desas »

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.

Bridgerton at least was written by an American novelist and then made into a TV show by an American director / writer / producer team for an American media company.

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

#63

Post by ashtonkem »

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 don’t actually need to use other people’s categories, you know. It’s not a personal attack against your interests.

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

#64

Post by ashtonkem »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #54
macspoofing wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

It’s generally agreed upon by constitutional scholars that the 25th amendment wasn’t designed for that, and that trying to use it in that way creates some nightmare scenarios. Specifically it gives the president the ability to challenge their removal and have the senate adjudicate, which would be decidedly not great.

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.

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

#65

Post by dsr_ »

ameister14 wrote: post #48
arbitrage wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>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.

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.

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

#66

Post by rsynnott »

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

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.

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

#67

Post by rsynnott »

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.

That's an... interesting view of history. I think people do downplay it these days, but there was significant unrest for most of the 19th century.

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

#68

Post by rossdavidh »

Am I just missing something, or did this article not really even attempt to answer the question? I guess there's nothing wrong with that.

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.

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

#69

Post by mymythisisthis »

Restoration periods are always really fun. The Napoleonic wars were ending, which meant peace and prosperity.

By the 1820s you get into the electrical age, with Faraday. First" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/6Ns5tRyvoHY?t=92">First electric motor, 1822, Fraday.
Now you're into the Steampunk aesthetic.

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

#70

Post by 0xffff2 »

dsr_ wrote: post #65
ameister14 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

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 S…

>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.

Post reply on HN