Georgette Heyer Fans discussion

https://www.goodreads.com/blog/show/2...

Of course someone has already made the comment about GH being an anti-Semite. GH is believed to have some Jewish blood herself.

Carol She's So Novel꧁꧂ wrote: "https://www.goodreads.com/blog/show/2...

Of course someone has already made the comment about GH being an anti-semite"

She did write some anti-Semitic comments to her American editor and a bit in Sophy but I think many people were at that time. That doesn't take away from her writing. I'd rather seen a honest portrayal of the past, warts and all, than an overcorrected world.

In 1944, my grandfather felt the need to "confess" to my grandmother before they were married that his mother was Jewish- even though she had converted when he was a baby. (My grandmother didn't care. She's from suburban New York and her father was a college educator with Jewish friends but obviously he feared she WOULD or he wouldn't have said anything.)

Yes, if you read pre 1960 twentieth century fiction, a lot of the writers have values that post of us don't - & people don't realise a lot of later editions of popular works have been cleaned up - the most well known example would be And Then There Were None which had what would be now considered a wholly unacceptable title.

I'd rather read the uncleaned up versions & accept that my idols have feet of clay.

It's not even having feet of clay - it's all about the past which frankly was a totally different world. I wonder what future generations will get horrified by?
Also in Georgian times Jews were not on the whole really regarded as respectable people - but then again, only the wealthy were really respected. I reckon you'd find that among the poor of London etc no-one would care very much if their neighbour was Jewish. Although having said that, one of my great-grandmothers was ashamed that her father was Jewish and she sometimes lived under a different surname to hide it. Although as he was a bit of a rascal I would have thought his being Jewish was the least of her worries!!!
I hate it when books get re-written to suit modern sensibilities - at some point I expect Black Beauty will be edited to remove all the animal cruelty scenes and then where will we be?

I don't think Black Beauty would be a problem, because the book (by implication) criticises animal cruelty, so is aligned with current values.

If Georgette Heyer had an unpleasant character being anti-semitic, and the author's voice/characters we are set up to admire disapproving of their views/behaviour, it wouldn't be a problem.

It is a tricky one, when an otherwise lovely book has something small and relatively unimportant sentences (in the context of the book) has something so offensive. I think the offensive bits need to be addressed, maybe by a note/forward, maybe by being included in an appendix. Not whitewashed, but not ignored either.

Similar to someone on another site asking what to do with a first English edition of Mein Kampf that they had inherited from a grandfather who had collected it as a historical artefact. She didn't want it, and felt deeply uncomfortable with making money by selling it, especially if it was bought by a neo-Nazi. The suggestions were largely around seeing if any museums/university libraries would like it, where it could be seen and read in an environment that acknowledged the wider context.

I was very uncomfortable a few months ago with a Margery Allingham (I think) book, where a plot twist was that one of the characters was blackmailing another because they knew that there was a black ancestor in the family, and this was shocking and socially damaging. Not even a major plot twist. And all the characters understood that OF COURSE you would allow yourself to be blackmailed rather than have the shame of a black ancestor being generally known. Yes, it probably reflected the white, middle class attitudes of the time... but... I think of my (black, trans-racially adopted) daughters reading the book and then suddenly coming across that, such casual racism with no warning or acknowledgement of the failings of the past. (bearing in mind that they still face plenty of racism today, my younger daughter was racially abused on the bus on the way to school by a random stranger)

To put it more concisely:

For those publishing (and presumably making money) from books with 'problematic' aspects today, I think it is important to acknowledge the damage and pain these attitudes have had, and continue to have.

Either ' we have removed a few sentences that do not materially affect the book', or 'we have left them in as we recognise that this book is of its time' - I think both are valid points of view.

But I would rather there is an acknowledgement that this book would be unlikely to be published with these aspects included today, and that those publishing it cared enough about the matter to make a considered decision about whether to include or exclude.

I've heard there are bowdlerised versions of The Grand Sophy around - but I haven't read them and I don't see how you could remove the part with the money lender without materially affecting the book - it's a big plot point.

I suppose you could simply remove the word Jew wherever it appears and leave him just as a money-lender. But anyone with any knowledge of the time period would immediately recognise the character. Anything you can read in The Grand Sophy, you can also read in the letters of Lord Byron about the Jews who lent him money when he was underage (and after). As always with Heyer, the facts are accurate.

I think it's unreasonable to expect publishers to apologise for 'problematic' depictions in their books. After all, there are stereotypically stupid peasants, stereotypically lazy rich wives, stereotypically ugly and practical bourgeois, stereotypically silly young girls, etc. etc. etc. Does every maligned demographic get an apology?

It seems much more practical to me to accept that romantic comedies are going to have broadly drawn characters for dramatic and comedic effect, and if you are actually hurt by this, then it's up to you to limit your reading.

BUT - We are not talking about Byron's times here. The Grand Sophy was published in 1950!

1950 - just 5 years after the end of WWII, and the Holocaust. Everyone knew, everyone had seen pictures. And the stereotype of the filthy, hook-nosed Jewish usurer had been used copiously in Nazi propaganda.

GH was good at creating a phantasy Regency period - glossing over the misery, the hunger, the workhouses, the unrest among the working classes of the era, etc. She could have taken her phantasy a little further for this case - but she chose not to, despite the genocide that was so close to her own time. This is not just a "maligned demographic" - it is a tortured and murdered one.

For my part, I think that Mrs. Heyer was an anti-semitic reactionary. I can enjoy her writing nonetheless, bearing in mind to what degree she herself was a product of *her* time and class - including persistent anti-semitism. Anti-semitism will not be defeated by changing a few lines in a book, but a footnote (which should not excuse the author) would be welcome.

I was talking about Byron's time because the book was set in Byron's time - Jewish usurers did exist at the time, they were known to illegally lend to teenagers, they did so for Byron.

Poverty isn't left out of Heyer books because it's fantasy - it's left out because it doesn't effect her characters. She's writing light comedy about aristocratic characters, not gritty realism about the working class. By the same logic, a Jewish money-lender is relevant to the lives of Heyer's characters - since it was well known that teenage aristrocatic boys could get illegal loans from them (and many did). So I can't agree that it would be the same to leave out money-lenders as to leave out workhouses.

We can all agreed that the Holocaust was terrible, and that the caricature in Grand Sophy is particularly ugly.

But I can't agree that any demographic who have suffered torture and murder should be exempt from ever being stereotyped, laughed at, or cast as the bad guy in fiction. Other 'maligned demographics' that Heyer laughs at have been the targets of torture and murder: The Red Terror targeted the bourgeois, The Reign of Terror targeted the French aristocrats, women are targeted for intimate partner violence and femicide.

And I can't agree that a footnote would be welcome. It isn't needed by any reader who isn't an anti-semite, and it wouldn't change the mind of any reader who is an anti-semite. So it's pointless.

Nick wrote: "I was talking about Byron's time because the book was set in Byron's time - Jewish usurers did exist at the time, they were known to illegally lend to teenagers, they did so for Byron.

Poverty is..."

I think you make some salient points.

It’s interesting to note that GH uses the term ‘Jews’ only once - when Hubert talks about his choices (suicide or the moneylenders). Since for centuries, Jews had been the major moneylenders in GB, that is exactly the term that would have been used.

She also uses the term ‘Semitic’ to describe his nose and her depiction of Goldhanger is very much in line with Dickens’ depiction of Fagin in Oliver Twist.

From reading the book it is impossible to be certain whether she intended to be anti-Semitic, or was simply referencing the historical reality of 1817.

However, I don’t see why a wee statement about that segment in the book couldn’t be included if it helps clarify things for the reader and makes folk more aware.

But no-one has said that 'any demographic' who has suffered should be exempt from being stereotyped, laughed at etc.

I do think that demographics who are still living with discrimination and abuse because of being that demographic are a different case.

My daughter got called a n****r by a random man on the bus a few months ago - it was incredibly intimidating and distressing for her. So I would like her to have the choice of screening out books with racist content if she chooses to. Or she may choose to read it, and is prepared for what she reads.

The Margery Allingham I mentioned earlier would be one example - I haven't come across any particular attitude to race in the other books of hers I have read, so it was unexpected coming towards the end of that one.

Nor have I said that publishers should 'apologise' for the content. I said they should provide the information about the contents, and explain their decision - as I said, including it as the book is 'of its time', and excluding a few words/sentences if they do not fundementally alter the book are equally valid approaches.

Please stop misrepresenting what I said in order to try to 'win' an argument you have created out of a discussion.

Ah wrote: "But no-one has said that 'any demographic' who has suffered should be exempt from being stereotyped, laughed at etc.

I do think that demographics who are still living with discrimination and abuse..."

Sorry - to whom are you addressing your accusation of misrepresenting what you said?I don't think I've I actually responded to you until now - so I am puzzled.

Ah wrote: "Nor have I said that publishers should 'apologise' for the content [...]
Please stop misrepresenting what I said in order to try to 'win' an argument you have created out of a discussion."

Ah, did you mean me? I think you might've done, since I was the one who said I didn't think publishers should 'apologise'.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you; I'm afraid I don't see much difference between "acknowledge the damage and pain these attitudes have had, and continue to have" and "apologise", but if it's an important difference to you then I'm sorry for not getting it.

I was also not aware that this discussion had turned into an argument. That certainly wasn't my intention. My only intention was to share my opinion in the discussion.

I was quoting Nick:
"But I can't agree that any demographic who have suffered torture and murder should be exempt from ever being stereotyped, laughed at, or cast as the bad guy in fiction."

I have no problem with stereotyping or making fun of French aristocrats murdered by the Reign of Terror - it doesn't affect anyone today. Women and intimate partner violence - no, I don't think it is a subject for humour/being dismissive of that experience. Because all too many women are still suffering.

Silly young things, male or female? Fine, we're all young and silly, we grow out of it without significant damage.

But people are being attacked and abused and damaged, and the associated stereotypes are part of that attack. So, in those cases I think it does need a warning and explanation.

Just as news stories (or other TV programmes) will give a warning that an item may contain distressing/offensive language and images.

Thank you for clarifying, Ah.

Let me see if I can be clearer, too. I didn't mean to imply that you had said that every demographic deserves an exemption. I meant to say that the end logic of the argument in favour of warnings and footnotes is that every demographic deserves it.
Take the example above from The Grand Sophy: there is a brief stereotypical depiction of a Jewish moneylender. You say that because Jewish people are still abused today, and because the stereotype is associated with the attacks, it should have a warning. (If I understood you correctly?)
But by that same logic, women today are still murdered by their boyfriends for being 'annoying'. The 'annoying woman' stereotype is one that men use to justify violence. So according to this argument, we would also have to include a warning for all the silly young females (like Tiffany Weild!) because that's a stereotype that is used to justify violence.

You seem very clear on which demographics you think are deserving or not, but the example above is just one where someone might disagree with you (apologies if I've misunderstood you!). As soon as we say that warnings are necessary in some occasions then somebody at the publisher has to decide when and where it is necessary, which means judging other people's pain and oppression, which is just distasteful to everyone.

At any rate, I'm honestly not trying to 'win' an argument with you - I do see this as a discussion where I'm trying to explain one reason why it seems like a bad idea to me.

I agree that the modern editions need to state in the introduction that the books are products of their time about a different time/place and may contain content that is offensive. I'm an archivist and from what I'm hearing at conferences, university archivists who teach with primary sources have to warn the students ahead of time about what they are going to see/read. Trigger warnings.

We older adults who have read widely and studied history understand where the content in the story is coming from but if we want classic literature (including Heyer in that category) to be read by the next generation or two, they need warnings and explanations or Heyer will be written off and her books will go out of print. (Lucky us if we can get them cheap but sad for the readers who will miss out).

Already they're talking about the "problematic" elements of her world and changing that up with representation of queer people and people of color. Color blind casting and color conscious casting, the revisionist history of Bridgerton are all a few examples.

QNPoohBear wrote: "I agree that the modern editions need to state in the introduction that the books are products of their time about a different time/place and may contain content that is offensive. I'm an archivist..."

I worry that things are too cleaned up now. Many reader of Christie will not realise how much has been removed from more modern texts of And Then There Were None I can certainly understand the title being changed as no one should have to walk int a shop & see that.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/1...

& I'm wondering if this is why the Movie (or was it a TV programme?) of the Grand Sophy seems to have stalled for good.

I'm betting Sophy is stalled for a multitude of reasons: funding, casting, script. Regency romance has changed a lot in the last few years so doing it right/straight will seem uninspired and problematic to those who do not know and love the book.

The moneylender scene shouldn't be any kind of a deal-breaker. Just tweak the character so he's something other than obviously Jewish; he can be plenty sketchy without that, and it wouldn't really affect the scene at all.