the blow by blow of Waterloo, leading up to it and the days following, had me in the kind of suspended state of "ogodogod" that Thackeray never managed to pull up in me.

I think Thackeray knew he couldn't pull it off. That's why the narrative of Vanity Fair is so elliptical around Waterloo. I mean, it's also about Becky (and Missy Milksop), and not about Idiot George, which is another reason to follow them and not him; but really, I think he didn't feel he could hack battlefield description without losing his arch tone.

OK, Susan just brought up a humongous bugbear of mine.

Memo to aspiring writers, published writers, any writers of fiction at all: You can't ride other peoples' research.

And Susan, Heyer is beautifully researched. She just winnowed it down to meld with her presentation. And the result, for me, is that she got me interested in the early 19th century, particularly the late Peninsular campaign, to the point where I went and found a copy of "Random Shots From A Rifleman", and devoured it, and then moved on to various memoirs. And I'm a medievalist; that was what I tutored, that's my period. I end at Bosworth, basically. Anything after that is modern.

So Heyer managed to get me interested in a period I would otherwise never have touched. Thackeray didn't do that for me, Austen didn't do that for me, Byron didn't do that for me. But Heyer did. She triggered my interest with her writing to the point where I wanted to go do my own research on that period.

I call that effective period writing.

DH and I have a running joke about how very crowded the Duchess of Richmond's ball would be if every fictional character that's ever been put there on the eve of Waterloo really existed and was there. Only DH, being DH, has the place exploding from the unworkable physics of the thing while I'm still having fun mixing the characters.

I love Heyer's voice to death. The little observational things about the characters which make me smile in delighted recognition, her throwaway asides which can be so snarky and fun , the facility of her description. And she writes with wit--I haven't found another Romance writer who seems as smart and as funny as she does. (I admit I have only tried 8 or 9 before giving up in despair).

I think Thackeray knew he couldn't pull it off

I think you're right. You can't handle something like that with that sort of one-eyebrow-up sensibility, at least I don't think so.

There's a scene in An Infamous Army that was so vividly perfect in summing up the characters involved that it's burned into my memory. Judith and Barbara have been out on the street, helping the wounded as they trickle into Brussels. Neither has ever come into contact with anything more bloody than a child's scratched finger, and they've been out there, helping in the streets in a torrential downpour (historically accurate; the weather had been godawful). They get back to the Worth's house and Judith looks at Barbara and Barbara is standing there, just standing there, swaying. And Judith says, are you all right, and Barbara says, very detached, well, no - I feel sick. Or faint - I'm not sure which. And Judith says no, no, if you're sick I'll never forgive you and if you're faint, wait, let me get my smelling salts - and she stops and says I forgot - I gave them to that boy whose ear had been shot off. And they melt down.

That scene is engraved in my brain. The first 200 pages, the scenes on the battlefield, everything is right there in that scene, the biggest thing of all: the effect on the people not fighting.

Killer stuff. I had to consciously try not to let her affect me when I was writing Weaver, since the ghosts were in that period.

So Heyer managed to get me interested in a period I would otherwise never have touched. Thackeray didn't do that for me, Austen didn't do that for me, Byron didn't do that for me. But Heyer did. She triggered my interest with her writing to the point where I wanted to go do my own research on that period.

I call that effective period writing.

True, but it's effective for you. My childhood library had a ton of Heyer, and I read most of it, but it's not what spurred me to my own research and writing. Though of course I realize the subgenre wouldn't exist, at least not in its current size and form, without her, just like fantasy as we know it wouldn't exist without Tolkien, regardless of whether an individual fantasy fan/writer happens to enjoy his style/tropes or not.

And I like Heyer better in her military stories than in the "standard" Regencies.

And I like Heyer better in her military stories than in the "standard" Regencies.

Well, that's effective writing for you, then, surely? Because if you're consciously avoiding The Spanish Bride, then you know she could affect what you write, and you wouldn't be worried about it if she was an ineffective writer.

Actually, thinking about it? My favourite Heyers aren't the Regencies at all; they're the earlier ones. The Black Moth, These Old Shades, Devil's Cub, The Talisman Ring, Faro's Daughter, Beauvallet. I like her best when she's writing the earlier stuff.

That's why I call her writing on An Infamous Army effective. I didn't give a flaming crap for the period and she yanked me. So for me, whether her research was effective or not is irrelevant. I go by the effect she had. And another effect? I have a bookcase of nothing but Heyer, and she's the only Regency writer I have on my shelves at all.

I feel like I'm accidentally casting myself as Heyer-hater, when that's not what I am at all. I like her writing. I even like it a lot. It's just that my reaction to her stories is: "These are interesting. These are good fun." But that's all. She doesn't grab me by the throat and sweep me off my feet. So I get puzzled by the adulation. And when I feel like people are telling me I must study Heyer, must write like Heyer, etc., I get prickly, because doing that would mean stepping back from the kind of storytelling that does grab me.

And when I feel like people are telling me I must study Heyer, must write like Heyer, etc., I get prickly, because doing that would mean stepping back from the kind of storytelling that does grab me.

blink

Someone told you had to write like Heyer? the FUCK? That's nuts.

Read her stuff, yes, definitely. I write ghost stories, I read Shirley Jackson. She's the gold standard of that genre. Luckily for me, I adore her and everything she's every written. I write mysteries, unusual cozies, and I have a custom bookcase with nothing but mystery novels, from Aird to Yorke. The gold standard is probably Christie, and I love her, but she isn't my gold standard.

But Heyer is the gold standard for a particular genre. So yeah, if I was writing in that period, I'd read her. I don't think you (or I, or any other period writer: this is the universal You I'm talking about) gain anything by consciously deciding to avoid the leading seller in the field. There's a reason she's in that position.

But write like her? Why on earth? Only an idiot would tell you to do that, and besides, why bother? As Robin pointed out, Heyer has her own very distinctive voice. Your voice is, and should be, your own.

Sometimes I think I do ride too many coattails, what I don't just take, wholly that is. Not the same ones, obviously. But I asked a lot of questions and have been reading a lot of books myself. But because I'm new at it, everything does feel like fic of those who came before me.