Heyer vs. Austen
A discussion the other day led to this riff about the differences between the two.
Another point that I don't go into in the BVC riff, as I try to keep those reasonably short, is that the discussion also illustrates why I don't much take to the various Austen pastiches, though I love Austen's work enough to reread every single year. It's not that these folks aren't good writers--heck, P.D. James is a knockout mystery writer.
But all the pastiches I've seen come at Austen from the silver fork angle, many times with too many tiny errors of useage because the writer is a contemporary person, and hasn't been reading period for decades, but sometimes with such carefully researched respect that they take on a lugubrious tone. Austen is funny--her insights about human motives and emotions acute--her sentences demonstrating this whip-sharp sting or snap that set people rocking with laughter during her time. But one thing she did not make fun of was moral principle: it breathes through her work with absolute conviction.
Another point that I don't go into in the BVC riff, as I try to keep those reasonably short, is that the discussion also illustrates why I don't much take to the various Austen pastiches, though I love Austen's work enough to reread every single year. It's not that these folks aren't good writers--heck, P.D. James is a knockout mystery writer.
But all the pastiches I've seen come at Austen from the silver fork angle, many times with too many tiny errors of useage because the writer is a contemporary person, and hasn't been reading period for decades, but sometimes with such carefully researched respect that they take on a lugubrious tone. Austen is funny--her insights about human motives and emotions acute--her sentences demonstrating this whip-sharp sting or snap that set people rocking with laughter during her time. But one thing she did not make fun of was moral principle: it breathes through her work with absolute conviction.