For me, it was reading Jane Austen's works. She lived during the Regency period, even though, technically, not all the stories were written at the time of the Regency. She also did not include much of the Regency court; however, the feel of the period was what made me interested in these historical novels.

My introduction was through the novels of Georgette Heyer. Though I read These Old Shades first, that is a Georgian, rather than a Regency novel, as it is set in the mid-1750s. But the next Heyer novel I read was The Nonesuch, which, in my opinion, is one of her best Regencies.

Heyer's work has much the same flavor as Jane Austen's, primarily because she did so much research for all of her novels. Jane Austen didn't have to do any research since she was living in those times. I think that one of the main reasons that Austen did not write of the English court during the Regency was because she had no experience of it. She was an impoverished parson's daughter and did not circulate in the world of the beau monde. In addition, from what I understand from reading biographical information about her, she was not particularly impressed by Prinny and the Carlton House set. Austen wrote about what she knew, which was the lives of everyday people.

Heyer often writes about the lives of everyday people in the Regency as well, but she is more likely to include members of the ton, since she would know of that world through her research. I enjoy her stories about Regency society more than those set in the court, as I don't think I would like to have been part of Prinny's set. But Sir Waldo Hawkridge? Oh, be still my heart!

I read Jane Austen in high school, but never explored any regency romances until I fortuitously discovered Georgette Heyer. And I did not even discover her through her romances, but through her mysteries. (I love mysteries and Gothics) I later found out about the romances when I was collecting her books. I don't remember which was the first romance, it might have been The Masqueraders, and I have not finished reading all of them. (In fact, I'm almost afraid to finish them because it's like eating a whole box of chocolates in one sitting - though, you can re-read, but can't re-eat.) Not all Heyer's romances are Regency, but they retain their humor. The Nonesuch is one of my favorites, as is Faro's Daughter. As for other non-Regency historical romances, The Talisman Ring was excellent.

(03-01-2009 12:53 AM)Kathryn Kane Wrote:  Heyer's work has much the same flavor as Jane Austen's, primarily because she did so much research for all of her novels. Jane Austen didn't have to do any research since she was living in those times. I think that one of the main reasons that Austen did not write of the English court during the Regency was because she had no experience of it. She was an impoverished parson's daughter and did not circulate in the world of the beau monde. In addition, from what I understand from reading biographical information about her, she was not particularly impressed by Prinny and the Carlton House set. Austen wrote about what she knew, which was the lives of everyday people.

But Austen seemed to have known about some aspects of court. Prinny was a big fan of hers and she dedicated Emma, I believe, to him. He had invited her to Carlton House, but that probably came much later. To get an authentic flavour of the Regency period, I would like to find more books written at the time. When you read Austen, you can see how the characters seem to prose on and on in their dialogues, unlike writers of today.

(03-03-2009 12:42 PM)hopeless Wrote:  But Austen seemed to have known about some aspects of court. Prinny was a big fan of hers and she dedicated Emma, I believe, to him. He had invited her to Carlton House, but that probably came much later. To get an authentic flavour of the Regency period, I would like to find more books written at the time. When you read Austen, you can see how the characters seem to prose on and on in their dialogues, unlike writers of today.

She dedicated Emma to him at his "request." She did not want to, as she did not approve of Prinny or his set at all. But she needed money, and knew the book would sell better if it was dedicated to a royal personage. I think she went to Carlton House about 1814, when she was just finishing Emma, at Prinny's invitation. It was then that it was "suggested" to her that he would welcome a dedication to himself in her next novel.

If you don't like prosing, you probably won't like other Regency-era novels. Prosing was in in those days. Keep in mind that there was no intenet, no television, radio or telephones. People had long stretches of quiet time in their day and were perfectly happy to while away that time reading such novels. They also talked like that, as they were in no rush to check email or text messages or go out to the mall, and conversation was considered an art.

You can try doing an advanced search on Google Books and enter the years of the Regency in the publication date fields. That should bring up a number of titles that were published during that time. You may even be able to read some of them online there.

I don't really have a problem with the prosing on. It does point to a difference between the writers of the age and today's writers trying to capture the flavour of the era. I know many Austen novels have had sequels written and you can see that difference. I don't have a problem with today's "Regency" romances, either. It's just that I don't think any of them can really capture that prosing. I can enjoy both for their own merits. If you want a fun quick read, you probably wouldn't turn to a novel written back then.

I think you have hit that nail squarely on the head. There weren't really any "quick fun reads" back then. In fact, nearly all novels until well into the reign of Victoria were typically published in three volumes. Sometimes all three were published at the same time, and some times there were gaps of weeks or months before all the volumes of the novel were available. To avoid the frustration of waiting for the ending, some might buy them as they came out but wait till they had the full set before starting to read. I tend to do that today with books issued as trilogies. I wait till I have them all, then read them one after the other.

I have enjoyed reading historical fiction for years, mostly swashbucklers and Gothic romance. Recently, through Jeffery Farnol's novels of romantic adventure, I've discovered the Regency genre.

I'm very much a neophyte to this genre but am very excited to delve into it.

I love regencies too but haven't been reading them lately. I still prefer Georgette Heyer to all new ones. I'm going to check out the sites you mentioned--Golden Heart? I gave up after a few tries and self-published my book The Kiss. I knew it was a little off the formula. I have a P and P sequel I'm trying to sell before doing it myself. Persuasion is my favorite Austen book--I iguess because I'm older. I loved P and P best for years.