Even though it was entertaining, I was so frustrated with season three and wrote about it in my newsletter (yes I’m plugging myself here lol) and felt that the writers took too many unrealistic liberties with the world and particularly with the characters - I blamed this on the Shondaland / Grey’s Anatomy syndrome of over writing and exaggerating more of the facets audiences responded to - sex, fashion, high stakes romance, drama - to hell with the rules of the world, with believable character and even with a good hook for the story.
Speaking of which, have you seen the trailer for season 4? I don’t understand what the stakes are there!
Also, I haven’t read Heyer before and was SO intrigued that Diana Wynne Jones’ Wizard Howl originated from one of her books - which book was it? I adore Jones and that Howls Moving Castle is one of my favorites!
Not saying at all that Howl is not a very original creation. But I was reading something about Diana Wynne Jones and it mentioned she was a big Heyer fan. At that point something clicked in my head, that both Chrestomanci and Howl are very much like certain Heyer heroes: suave, aloof and very well-dressed. (And preoccupied with their appearance.) Howl and Sophie do remind me of the hero/heroine of Heyer's novel Frederica: slightly distant, powerful and well-dressed hero and practical, resourceful heroine, with a "family" of younger characters that they have to look out for.
I love this line of thinking 😊. Wouldn’t you say, though, that Howl and Chrestomanci are both more public-spirited than the hero in Frederica?
I have a pet theory that it all comes back to Dorothy Sayers. Howl to Lymond (in Dorothy Dunnet’s books) to Peaceable Sherwood (in Elizabeth Marie Pope’s The Sherwood Ring), even as far as Elizabeth Peter’s John Smith character all feel like a direct line of descent from Sayers’s Peter Wimsey.
I think Howl and Alverstoke (from Frederica) are both lazy, vain, and egotistical - apparently - but turn out to be generous/heroic prompted by the heroine. So not sure either is public-spirited but reluctant heroes?
I can't imagine anyone but Howl throwing a tantrum and covering himself with green slime though.😊
I can see Peter Wimsey/Lymond (though I've only read one Lymond). Harriet says Peter is like an Elizabethan wit at one point! So Peter Wimsey is the model for elegant/witty but it's all bit of a facade for something deeper? Haven't read Pope/Peters. Does PG Wodehouse come in as an influence too?
What fun! Don't want to fill up your comments section too much, so please tell me when to stop😊
Alverstoke turns generous — for individuals he cares for. But he remains completely uninterested in the public good beyond those he knows himself. Most of Heyer's characters are — that is, they often care about individuals, or the people they have direct responsibility for, but not much beyond that. (Kit in False Colours — the diplomatic — is an exception, and one or two others. When the others do care, like Selena in Bath Tangle [? — one of the Bath books, anyway], their views might not be what I, at least, would likely agree with.)
I'd argue that Howl is actually engaged in the public good (at the request of the king) before Sophie comes along — he's trying to avoid getting out of doing more, but it's clear from the beginning he doesn't really mean it —? What do you think —?
Lymond does the equivalent of green slime from time to time 😊. Peter Wimsey doesn't, precisely, but he had a bad war in WW1 and is highly sensitive. Definitely deep as a character, though I suppose that we don't really see that until Gaudy Night, which is the only Sayers I still reread from time to time.
If you haven't read Elizabeth Marie Pope, do give her a look. She was a scholar — an Elizabethan, I think — and wrote just the two novels. I loved The Sherwood Ring as a kid, and then came across The Perilous Gard, which is probably the better of the two, much later. Her language is impeccable.
I think that Wodehouse's characters are in line with Heyer's, but not with Howl, Wimsey, Lymond, etc. Those are all people of substance underneath all of the frivolous exteriors. Wodehouse's characters are often very nice, and even clever, but they're not substantial.
Thanks for answering,and for the great Bridgerton/Heyer piece that set this conversation going!
I think I am understanding the public-spirited thing now. I guess it is that there's more at stake for those characters than their personal relationships/gain, something else values-wise they really care about? I think that does make a lot of sense. I agree with you about Peter Wimsey and Gaudy Night too - that's the one I reread too. Admittedly I've only read some of the others, but he does seem a lot more PG Wodehouse-like in those. From what I've read - there's lots of Heyers I haven't - I would agree about the PG Wodehouse/Heyer similarity too. Peter Wimsey tells Harriet in Gaudy Night that if you put a real, rounded character into the kind of novels she's been writing then it throws off the rest of the book and maybe that is the case (maybe she's reflecting on writing Gaudy Night!)
I love that Gaudy Night theory. Yes, i think that the Sayers line of descent, as I think of it, includes people for whom the good of society as a whole is a major concern. They also all look alike (seriously, including Howl), and so forth. It sometimes feels as though the later writers consciously or unconsciously pretty much take over all of the character's main characteristics amd then reworkmit for their own purposes.
Elizabeth Peters — that's a pen name; I'm blanking on her real name at the moment — was a scholar who wrote light fiction. She has a kind of spoof of the Wimsey character in one of her stretches of books. But I'd feel pretty confident that it's a Wimsey spoof, not a Heyer hero spoof, if that makes any sense…
Season 3 was rather disappointing once one looks at it objectively. And in great part due to the reasons you mention here. It seemed like the script writers were drafting a wild card in every episode where the most unlikely behaviours seemed normal, like Penelope being so unfazed by Colin's sexual adventures. Or Benedict embracing with open arms a threesome. I'm not saying that didn't happen at the time, but it seems a bit of a stretch of the imagination for the Bridgerton lot. Quite forced. Season 2, on the other hand, handled romantic entanglements rather well and in a far more realistic (for Regency standards, that is) way. I appreciate invention and departure from the norms, otherwise this wouldn't be a work of fiction, but sometimes it seems that the contemporary mindset looms over Bridgerton more than it should and creates implausible scenarios even for the most ardent fans.
Another wild card is Cressida Cowper. According to Regency mores she should find a partner easily - she's pretty, rich and respectable. Admittedly I still enjoyed her storyline but again it felt random. It must be a hard act though for the writers to keep that balance between historical/fantastical/ contemporary .
Oh yes, Cressida! Completely agree. I hoped she and Eloise would become friends and that she ended up with Lord Debling, as there seemed to be a bit of interest on both sides, but her character was very erratic this season.
I haven't read any Georgette Heyer, so I've been clueless and really baffled by the strange exaggerations that seem to define movies and books marketed as "inspired by Austen." Now you've got me thinking about how Austen got substituted for Heyer. The more highbrow the reference, the more people are willing to own up to it?
It does seem like the films/TV series have been Austen adaptations, not Heyer. But Heyer has a passionate following. I don't know why Heyer hasn't been dramatized in the same way: she's a very good writer, of clever, well-plotted, witty books. Maybe in some ways a mash up of Austen and PG Wodehouse. She described her books as "good escapist literature" and maybe there is a snobbery that has kept her comparatively out of view.
Thank you! Unfortunately, the back story brought in for the colourblind casting was not just unnecessary (why not just have colourblind casting?), it was profoundly reactionary and also quite insulting to the memory of actual black Georgians, and the complexity of their history.
Interesting! I don't know much about black Georgians - apart from the film Belle, which I enjoyed. I can imagine the history is indeed very complex. I feel Bridgerton tries to have its cake and eat it: sometimes race matters, sometimes it doesn't, which feels a bit convenient. I also think it's maybe interesting that Season 1 - where race doesn't matter – is the only one which looks at class.
Thank you so much for writing this.
Even though it was entertaining, I was so frustrated with season three and wrote about it in my newsletter (yes I’m plugging myself here lol) and felt that the writers took too many unrealistic liberties with the world and particularly with the characters - I blamed this on the Shondaland / Grey’s Anatomy syndrome of over writing and exaggerating more of the facets audiences responded to - sex, fashion, high stakes romance, drama - to hell with the rules of the world, with believable character and even with a good hook for the story.
Speaking of which, have you seen the trailer for season 4? I don’t understand what the stakes are there!
Also, I haven’t read Heyer before and was SO intrigued that Diana Wynne Jones’ Wizard Howl originated from one of her books - which book was it? I adore Jones and that Howls Moving Castle is one of my favorites!
Not saying at all that Howl is not a very original creation. But I was reading something about Diana Wynne Jones and it mentioned she was a big Heyer fan. At that point something clicked in my head, that both Chrestomanci and Howl are very much like certain Heyer heroes: suave, aloof and very well-dressed. (And preoccupied with their appearance.) Howl and Sophie do remind me of the hero/heroine of Heyer's novel Frederica: slightly distant, powerful and well-dressed hero and practical, resourceful heroine, with a "family" of younger characters that they have to look out for.
Will have a read of your newsletter!
I love this line of thinking 😊. Wouldn’t you say, though, that Howl and Chrestomanci are both more public-spirited than the hero in Frederica?
I have a pet theory that it all comes back to Dorothy Sayers. Howl to Lymond (in Dorothy Dunnet’s books) to Peaceable Sherwood (in Elizabeth Marie Pope’s The Sherwood Ring), even as far as Elizabeth Peter’s John Smith character all feel like a direct line of descent from Sayers’s Peter Wimsey.
I think Howl and Alverstoke (from Frederica) are both lazy, vain, and egotistical - apparently - but turn out to be generous/heroic prompted by the heroine. So not sure either is public-spirited but reluctant heroes?
I can't imagine anyone but Howl throwing a tantrum and covering himself with green slime though.😊
I can see Peter Wimsey/Lymond (though I've only read one Lymond). Harriet says Peter is like an Elizabethan wit at one point! So Peter Wimsey is the model for elegant/witty but it's all bit of a facade for something deeper? Haven't read Pope/Peters. Does PG Wodehouse come in as an influence too?
What fun! Don't want to fill up your comments section too much, so please tell me when to stop😊
Alverstoke turns generous — for individuals he cares for. But he remains completely uninterested in the public good beyond those he knows himself. Most of Heyer's characters are — that is, they often care about individuals, or the people they have direct responsibility for, but not much beyond that. (Kit in False Colours — the diplomatic — is an exception, and one or two others. When the others do care, like Selena in Bath Tangle [? — one of the Bath books, anyway], their views might not be what I, at least, would likely agree with.)
I'd argue that Howl is actually engaged in the public good (at the request of the king) before Sophie comes along — he's trying to avoid getting out of doing more, but it's clear from the beginning he doesn't really mean it —? What do you think —?
Lymond does the equivalent of green slime from time to time 😊. Peter Wimsey doesn't, precisely, but he had a bad war in WW1 and is highly sensitive. Definitely deep as a character, though I suppose that we don't really see that until Gaudy Night, which is the only Sayers I still reread from time to time.
If you haven't read Elizabeth Marie Pope, do give her a look. She was a scholar — an Elizabethan, I think — and wrote just the two novels. I loved The Sherwood Ring as a kid, and then came across The Perilous Gard, which is probably the better of the two, much later. Her language is impeccable.
I think that Wodehouse's characters are in line with Heyer's, but not with Howl, Wimsey, Lymond, etc. Those are all people of substance underneath all of the frivolous exteriors. Wodehouse's characters are often very nice, and even clever, but they're not substantial.
Thanks for answering,and for the great Bridgerton/Heyer piece that set this conversation going!
No don't stop!
I think I am understanding the public-spirited thing now. I guess it is that there's more at stake for those characters than their personal relationships/gain, something else values-wise they really care about? I think that does make a lot of sense. I agree with you about Peter Wimsey and Gaudy Night too - that's the one I reread too. Admittedly I've only read some of the others, but he does seem a lot more PG Wodehouse-like in those. From what I've read - there's lots of Heyers I haven't - I would agree about the PG Wodehouse/Heyer similarity too. Peter Wimsey tells Harriet in Gaudy Night that if you put a real, rounded character into the kind of novels she's been writing then it throws off the rest of the book and maybe that is the case (maybe she's reflecting on writing Gaudy Night!)
I love that Gaudy Night theory. Yes, i think that the Sayers line of descent, as I think of it, includes people for whom the good of society as a whole is a major concern. They also all look alike (seriously, including Howl), and so forth. It sometimes feels as though the later writers consciously or unconsciously pretty much take over all of the character's main characteristics amd then reworkmit for their own purposes.
Elizabeth Peters — that's a pen name; I'm blanking on her real name at the moment — was a scholar who wrote light fiction. She has a kind of spoof of the Wimsey character in one of her stretches of books. But I'd feel pretty confident that it's a Wimsey spoof, not a Heyer hero spoof, if that makes any sense…
This is absolutely spot on and frankly, is really starting to digress from the books in many ways. I haven’t ready and Heyer, but now I can’t wait!
Thank you. Hope you enjoy - there's loads to choose from!
Season 3 was rather disappointing once one looks at it objectively. And in great part due to the reasons you mention here. It seemed like the script writers were drafting a wild card in every episode where the most unlikely behaviours seemed normal, like Penelope being so unfazed by Colin's sexual adventures. Or Benedict embracing with open arms a threesome. I'm not saying that didn't happen at the time, but it seems a bit of a stretch of the imagination for the Bridgerton lot. Quite forced. Season 2, on the other hand, handled romantic entanglements rather well and in a far more realistic (for Regency standards, that is) way. I appreciate invention and departure from the norms, otherwise this wouldn't be a work of fiction, but sometimes it seems that the contemporary mindset looms over Bridgerton more than it should and creates implausible scenarios even for the most ardent fans.
Another wild card is Cressida Cowper. According to Regency mores she should find a partner easily - she's pretty, rich and respectable. Admittedly I still enjoyed her storyline but again it felt random. It must be a hard act though for the writers to keep that balance between historical/fantastical/ contemporary .
Oh yes, Cressida! Completely agree. I hoped she and Eloise would become friends and that she ended up with Lord Debling, as there seemed to be a bit of interest on both sides, but her character was very erratic this season.
I haven't read any Georgette Heyer, so I've been clueless and really baffled by the strange exaggerations that seem to define movies and books marketed as "inspired by Austen." Now you've got me thinking about how Austen got substituted for Heyer. The more highbrow the reference, the more people are willing to own up to it?
It does seem like the films/TV series have been Austen adaptations, not Heyer. But Heyer has a passionate following. I don't know why Heyer hasn't been dramatized in the same way: she's a very good writer, of clever, well-plotted, witty books. Maybe in some ways a mash up of Austen and PG Wodehouse. She described her books as "good escapist literature" and maybe there is a snobbery that has kept her comparatively out of view.
Thank you! Unfortunately, the back story brought in for the colourblind casting was not just unnecessary (why not just have colourblind casting?), it was profoundly reactionary and also quite insulting to the memory of actual black Georgians, and the complexity of their history.
Interesting! I don't know much about black Georgians - apart from the film Belle, which I enjoyed. I can imagine the history is indeed very complex. I feel Bridgerton tries to have its cake and eat it: sometimes race matters, sometimes it doesn't, which feels a bit convenient. I also think it's maybe interesting that Season 1 - where race doesn't matter – is the only one which looks at class.
How VERY true. Everything's fine until you cross the line between history (which is already great on its own) and, frankly, nonsense fantasy.