Log in

No account? Create an account
Mama Deb
.:::.:....... ..::...:
Mama Deb [userpic]
Georgette Heyers

I've been reading a lot of Georgette Heyer lately, in no particular order. And while I truly enjoy her Regencies, there's something about her earlier Georgian ones - okay, it's slashability. I just finished These Old Shades, and it's amazingly...gay. I mean, the hero, who is supposedly this dark and evil guy, except we only see him as rather sweet and proper and loving his pretty clothes and jewels (yes, normal for the day, I know.) has a houseguest who basically bitches at him and who buys a pretty young boy (who turns out to be a girl but he doesn't know that at the time) because he looks like someone whom he hates. Except it's entirely possible to read that as someone he used to love. (Not to mention that it really felt like his bitchy friend thought he'd picked a catamite when he brought his new purchase home.)

And even when she's revealed as a girl and dressed in women's clothing and all that, his page remains quite boyish and even keeps her hair short.

And yet, the most fun aspect of this particular book is The cover.

Look at it. Look at what the young woman is wearing, given that the book is set in 1760 or so. And then look at the painting. Look closely at the painting. It's a rather famous one.

Current Mood: amusedamused
(no subject) - (Anonymous)

Thank you! That looks wonderful.

Thanks for this link. I enjoyed it.

_These Old Shades_ and _The Masqueraders_ are my favorite romances of hers. For much the same reasons. ;)

I can't make out what the painting is, though, in that image. Help?

Montserrat's Sunday in the Park, in all it's late 19th/Early 20th C pointilist glory.

i couldn't quite see the painting, but, hee! (except, point of order: Georges Seurat. and i was going to say "Sunday Afternoon" [A Sunday on La Grande Jatte, actually, as long as we're i'm being pedantic] was early 19th c., but no, 1884 -- so, never mind. what is early 19th is the girl's costume, though, eh? something more 1815 than 1760? something a little jane austen, perhaps?)

Most of Heyer's books *are* Regency, so the dress would work. Except that this one so isn't Regency.

While on the anachronism watch:

I swear that lamp looks like it's electric. Can't see a cord, but it's *very* bright for something from the 1700s or even early 1800s!

Re: While on the anachronism watch:

Yes. I thought the same. And we couldn't figure out the reflection.

I've never read that one. My mother has it, and I could have read it any time, but I never quite did. Now I have to go seek it out.

great book, terrible cover!

some of her stuff is pretty slashy, especially this book, and The Masqueraders; but there are lovely undertones in many of her titles. that's one reason (of several) she's been a favourite author since high school in the 70s.

Aaaahhh, I suppose anything is worth having Georgette Heyer republished, even bog-ignorant art on the cover (the editors' fault, of course; this is, as you rightly point out, about 60 years out of time.)This
is what the art from the original edition looked like. (The rescue of Léonie from the clutches of Saint-Vire by Rupert, natch.)

Have you read the These Old Shades sequel, Devil's Cub?

Damn, I didn't even have to look closely to see that the painting was the wrong century. I've been a Seurat fan since high school.

Here via the friending frenzy, and friending you on the premise that anyone who likes Snape/Lupin and Heyer must be worth knowing!