Georgette Heyer: Seminal Author or Anti-Semite

In May 1926, Georgette Heyer published These Old Shades. Some argue that the book cemented her place as the founder of historical romance. Over a century, Heyer’s books have sold over 30 million copies, and over 50 of her novels are still in print.

Heyer’s fans argue that the historical accuracy of her work is without comparison in fiction and created the foundation for the historical romance genre. But is it true?

While researching this blog post, one thing became obvious: Heyer’s work has a controversial legacy, but one can’t deny that her writing still attracts readers and she remains what many modern writers can only dream of — a continuous bestseller.

What inspired this post?

When I started writing historical romance, I’d read nothing by Heyer 😱. In all honesty, despite her work being recommended repeatedly, I’ve still only read 2 of Heyer’s novels. But it’s impossible to hang out in the world of historical romance readers without knowing that Heyer is both revered and reviled.

When I discovered this year was the centenary of the publication of These Old Shades, it sparked my interest. What better chance to find out for myself whether Heyer was indeed the “undisputed queen of regency romance” (Dr Jennifer Kloester) or a writer of “antisemitic, white supremacist, heteronormative fiction that is neither accurate nor just” (Felicia Grossman)?

My relationship with Heyer

About 20 years ago, I read The Convenient Marriage. It did not leave a good impression, despite the title being my favourite trope. I found it dull (so dull). The heroine was both childish and melodramatic, the plot a little farcical and the dialogue chaotic.

Back then, I was at the beginning of my writing journey; I was trying to immerse myself in the genre and read a wide range of historical romance authors. Of course, that had to include Heyer. I had done little research at that point, and I cannot deny I found Heyer’s world immersive, where the historical details felt true to the period. However, I had not intended to read another Heyer again until now.

Trying again

First, it’s not clear exactly when Heyer published These Old Shades in 1926. I’ve struggled to find an exact date. However, and I use caution when stating this, at the end of a Wikipedia post (always double-check — always) it says the book was published during the General Strike between 3^rd and 12^th May that year. With no other sources to confirm or deny that fountain of knowledge, I’ve posted this blog in May.

To write this post, I thought it only reasonable that I actually read the book, but after The Convenient Marriage, I wasn’t looking forward to it.

These Old Shades

These Old Shades is set mostly in France around 1755, so not one of her regencies. It was originally intended to be a sequel to her first book, The Black Moth, published in 1921. But it was set aside until 1925, when Heyer renamed the characters and made them ‘shades’ of their former selves, hence the title.

This novel contains lots of recognisable tropes, including a rakish, morally grey hero, a cross-dressing heroine, a hidden identity, a glorious glow-up, an age-gap, a ward/guardian relationship and Cinderella vibes.

What did I think?

Once again, I struggled to get into the story because of the chaotic dialogue. More often than not, there were several characters on the page, and working out who was saying what was mind-boggling. Plus, there were lots of French phrases and character names dropped every 5 seconds, which I found distracting.

Once again, we have an immature heroine, but this time around I found her more endearing than Horatia, if a little overly enamoured of the hero. Leonie is not a damsel in distress either.

Our hero, the Duke of Avon, is the epitome of the Georgian dandy and Regency rake with his debauched lifestyle, jaded outlook and flamboyant wardrobe. He’s omniscient too, and oh so droll.

There is virtually no internal monologue. The reader learns what the characters know through dialogue only. I felt this created a distance between the reader and the characters, making it difficult to connect with them on a deeper level.

And where was the description? Yes, we got a lot of description about the fashion, but what about the wider scene? I felt like scenes took place in a white room or a bland landscape that I had to furnish myself.

Finally, the melodrama. Avon’s quest for revenge concludes in a scene reminiscent of gothic fiction for mystery and terror. Our hero stands in a Paris salon (we do not know what the room looks like, but every detail of his mien and attire is given) where he reveals the secrets of his enemy to high society (also gloriously attired).

His enraptured audience is scandalised by his tale of villainy. The emotionally distraught females are swooning with shock, the men are outraged, and an honour-induced suicide provides a dramatic conclusion, leaving our hero and heroine (who have somehow fallen in love with each other during this adventure and the reader is told why by the other characters) are free to marry. Avon and Leonie enjoy a single kiss.

In short, I enjoyed this more than The Convenient Marriage, but it still didn’t have me swinging from the chandeliers in praise of Heyer’s writing.

Meticulous research

Heyer’s fans always wax lyrical about her attention to historical detail to the point where they claim her meticulous descriptions of fashions, furniture, entertainment and domestic arrangements are unquestionably accurate.

It’s impossible to deny that Heyer clearly did her research. Her home was crammed with hand-written notes drawing from primary and secondary sources, including tracings of fashion plates, carriages and money, and a wealth of Georgian fiction, including Austen. As a history nerd who takes copious written notes and stores them in files, all to the lamentations of Mr White, I obviously admire this approach.

However, even to someone who has only read two of her novels, it’s clear that Heyer was selective regarding the research she applied. While fashions are described in detail, the wider scene is often neglected.

What secondary sources did she use, and how accurate were they (most likely Victorian, so perhaps romanticised)? Let’s not forget, her parents were Victorian and her work appears to be more influenced by 19th-century standards, rather than those of the Georgian era.

Heyer’s dialogue

“Today her period dialogue had become a byword among historical novel readers and writers.”
Dr Jennifer Kloester

Sorry, but I disagree. While I find Heyer’s dialogue witty, it often becomes rambling and frustrating to follow. Once again, little action is described, and the characters become nothing more than talking heads.

I also don’t think her dialogue is as accurate to the era as her fans argue. Again, my reading is limited, but Heyer was clearly using the vernacular of her time. In These Old Shades she has aristocrats using cockney rhyming slang, which didn’t emerge until the 1840s.

In one of Heyer’s biographies, her son is mentioned as saying that his mother wrote just as she talked. Therefore, while we know Heyer used Grosse’s Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue (1811) to add an authentic touch to her dialogue, I dare to suggest that Heyer’s already century-old language automatically feels historical to the modern reader but is not quite on par for the period in which she wrote.

Prejudice

In recent years, Heyer’s work has been widely criticised for its anti-Semitic, racist and classist prejudice. Heyer’s fans immediately argue that her work merely represented sentiments that were accurate for the time in which her books were set.

The Grand Sophy (1950), cited as the worst offender featuring anti-Semitic stereotypes, is also hailed as the foundational work for Regency romance.

In her biography, Kloester does not ignore the fact that Heyer’s private papers reveal personal opinions that included anti-Semitism and class snobbery. Heyer’s work maintains a narrow focus on the world of the aristocracy, and is certainly idealised (a standard most modern historical romance continues to follow, but we’re talking about escapist fiction at the end of the day).

Class assumptions are clearly evident in These Old Shades because Leon/Leonie was recognised by Avon based on her appearance of ‘obviously’ being too good to be the daughter of a farmer. 🙄

In its review of The Grand Sophy, Smart Bitches, Trashy Books described the novel as “offensive to the point of horror”. And they are not alone. In 2023, publishers released new editions of Heyer’s books with any offensive content removed or altered, and once again sparked controversy regarding censoring historical literature.

Surely removing the offensive content only supports ignorance. How am I to form an accurate opinion of Heyer and her writing if I’m not allowed to read it as she intended?

Warning: opinions incoming

Okay, this has been a fairly rambling post and, I’ll admit, based on my narrow reading of Heyer’s work.

The debate about the quality of newer historical romance fiction in terms of its accuracy keeps coming up repeatedly. Heyer is always cited by some readers as being the epitome of accuracy, which new historical romance writers fail to achieve, and hence has led to the current lull in popularity of the genre.

The title of this blog asked whether Georgette Heyer’s writing is seminal to the historical romance genre or anti-Semitic. In my humble opinion, it is both. Can we say that the genre would even exist without her? At the very least, would the genre be the same if she had not written in it? I don’t have enough evidence to answer either of those questions. Perhaps I should look into it for another post (ugh, I love creating more work for myself). I had written her off as an author that was not for me, but now I’m intrigued to read more. Well, perhaps I’ll at least read The Grand Sophy, if I can find a non-redacted copy.

While I didn’t come across examples of racism in the two books I’ve read, I feel Heyer shouldn’t be cited as the perfect example of historical accuracy in romance. She was as selective as the rest of us in the application of her research, and in what she bothered to research.

What is a shame is that the misnomer regarding Heyer’s accuracy means that when a modern writer who has done their research and writes something that is accurate but contradicts Heyer, the modern writer is labelled as being inaccurate. Please remember to take nothing written in a work of fiction as fact. If you’re unsure, always double-check before slamming an author for being wrong.

Another thing to remember when reading this post: I am a modern reader and a historical romance writer. My research means I spot things the average reader would not. My modern tastes and personal writing style have influenced my opinions regarding Heyer’s prose.

I refuse to tell others what to read, but it’s important to note that while Heyer has left an unquestionable mark on historical romance, her legacy to the genre is complicated and should not be glossed over.