I mostly don't do regencies either - though I keep looking in hopes of finding another Heyer. I've been reading Austen since I was eight, and by now really do have them all memorized to such an extent that rereading can occur without even really looking at the page.
I know a lot of people who read Heyer "because Miss Austen only wrote six novels." One of my advisors, who is an Austen "Authority" does this. For me though, Heyer is very different, and scratches a slightly different itch. Austen writes beautifully acerbic social commentary; Heyer is actually building a world, which while wonderfully researched is still very much a fantasy. What they do have in common, and what I find profoundly lacking in most Regency romances, is an original sense of humour. They are both really witty, although again, in very different ways.
I find the genre of Regency Romance particularly interesting because of the way they all play with this fictionalized never-never land somewhere between 1790 and 1810. It is truly tragic that this genre is disappearing; I also don't understand why it is, when Austen and Napoleonic-era stuff is experiencing such a revival in popular culture.
I have to say my biggest complaint are the weird American anachronisms that proliferate in the genre! I know Heyer's language wasn't a 100% accurate either (she was really using a lot of Edwardian era tropes in a regency setting) but at the same time, she really seems to be inventing a new language and a new world - that fits! There's nothing more off putting than an endearment that rightfully belongs in the pages of some 1980s harlequin with a ranchhand and a secretary, or just a purely American, modern cadence.
I've actually also started to read silverfork novels as well; they are the "regency romance" of the actual regency - unlike Miss Austen who didn't usually pepper her novels with descriptions of wealth, and high end nobility. Your wife might enjoy some of them also. At least they usually get the peerage right. ;-)
Re: .
I know a lot of people who read Heyer "because Miss Austen only wrote six novels." One of my advisors, who is an Austen "Authority" does this. For me though, Heyer is very different, and scratches a slightly different itch. Austen writes beautifully acerbic social commentary; Heyer is actually building a world, which while wonderfully researched is still very much a fantasy. What they do have in common, and what I find profoundly lacking in most Regency romances, is an original sense of humour. They are both really witty, although again, in very different ways.
I find the genre of Regency Romance particularly interesting because of the way they all play with this fictionalized never-never land somewhere between 1790 and 1810. It is truly tragic that this genre is disappearing; I also don't understand why it is, when Austen and Napoleonic-era stuff is experiencing such a revival in popular culture.
I have to say my biggest complaint are the weird American anachronisms that proliferate in the genre! I know Heyer's language wasn't a 100% accurate either (she was really using a lot of Edwardian era tropes in a regency setting) but at the same time, she really seems to be inventing a new language and a new world - that fits! There's nothing more off putting than an endearment that rightfully belongs in the pages of some 1980s harlequin with a ranchhand and a secretary, or just a purely American, modern cadence.
I've actually also started to read silverfork novels as well; they are the "regency romance" of the actual regency - unlike Miss Austen who didn't usually pepper her novels with descriptions of wealth, and high end nobility. Your wife might enjoy some of them also. At least they usually get the peerage right. ;-)