One of Heath’s books from another series, Once More My Darling Rogue includes /several/ defences of trickle down economics (coming out of the mouth of the born-poor-but-adopted-by-aristocrats hero) and it is wild to me that no one ever mentions it in any reviews.
All of these books really also endorse a bootstrap attitude to life and imply that is what the heroes have done, and ignore that they were all adopted by this old man with oodles of money! The lack of context in the reviews is baffling.
I'd only ever read The Earl Takes it All (the gorilla twins book) and I think Heath's willingness to Go For It on the concepts of her plots hides a lot of the more insidious things she writes. That book everyone talks about the gorilla, but I was aghast when the heroine realizes she is attracted to the hero because he bullies the tenants into getting their rents!
Honestly, the fact that her books are /constantly/ recommended in romance communities as examples of “class difference romances” or “working class representation in romance” really highlights a) the underlying conservatism of a lot of the romance community, and b) how most people think they understand class a lot less than they actually do if they think this is what passes for good representation.
(Sorry for the rant, I’m perpetually at least a bit frustrated with Lorraine Heath)
you're completely right with both of your points! I see quite a few lists of "historical romances with working class rep" or "class solidarity" and it's a book with a surprise inheritance or it turns out a character was actually an aristocrat all along . . . and this rings very hollow to me especially because explanation of how this materially relates to class solidarity is lacking from the list or posts.
Her books reveal a very cruel view of the world and it’s wild to me that more readers don’t clock it … or seem to mind? I just saw you posted your podcast about this and I can’t wait to listen later.
We talk about the cruelty being baked in both the plot and the character development! It seems like a consistent position, maybe one that assumes that "back then" this is just what aristocrats are like, but falls into a trap that I find very grating in lots of historical romance: the assumption that "back then" has a problem that is somehow totally solved now, so we can depict something and the historical setting implies the critique.
YES - that is exactly it. The assumption that these problems haven’t follow us on into the modern day and the author’s use of a historical setting sitting in for the moral judgement that is still so needed.
One of Heath’s books from another series, Once More My Darling Rogue includes /several/ defences of trickle down economics (coming out of the mouth of the born-poor-but-adopted-by-aristocrats hero) and it is wild to me that no one ever mentions it in any reviews.
All of these books really also endorse a bootstrap attitude to life and imply that is what the heroes have done, and ignore that they were all adopted by this old man with oodles of money! The lack of context in the reviews is baffling.
I'd only ever read The Earl Takes it All (the gorilla twins book) and I think Heath's willingness to Go For It on the concepts of her plots hides a lot of the more insidious things she writes. That book everyone talks about the gorilla, but I was aghast when the heroine realizes she is attracted to the hero because he bullies the tenants into getting their rents!
Honestly, the fact that her books are /constantly/ recommended in romance communities as examples of “class difference romances” or “working class representation in romance” really highlights a) the underlying conservatism of a lot of the romance community, and b) how most people think they understand class a lot less than they actually do if they think this is what passes for good representation.
(Sorry for the rant, I’m perpetually at least a bit frustrated with Lorraine Heath)
rant welcome! I have been ranting about these books for a week now and will continue ranting about them on the episode this weekend!
you're completely right with both of your points! I see quite a few lists of "historical romances with working class rep" or "class solidarity" and it's a book with a surprise inheritance or it turns out a character was actually an aristocrat all along . . . and this rings very hollow to me especially because explanation of how this materially relates to class solidarity is lacking from the list or posts.
*my plea for no more lists!
Her books reveal a very cruel view of the world and it’s wild to me that more readers don’t clock it … or seem to mind? I just saw you posted your podcast about this and I can’t wait to listen later.
We talk about the cruelty being baked in both the plot and the character development! It seems like a consistent position, maybe one that assumes that "back then" this is just what aristocrats are like, but falls into a trap that I find very grating in lots of historical romance: the assumption that "back then" has a problem that is somehow totally solved now, so we can depict something and the historical setting implies the critique.
YES - that is exactly it. The assumption that these problems haven’t follow us on into the modern day and the author’s use of a historical setting sitting in for the moral judgement that is still so needed.