Blood & Gore in Regencies?

[Kathryn Kane]

I read a Regency blog post recently which was discussing the Duchess of Richmond’s ball on the eve of Waterloo. I was shocked to read a comment to that post from a woman, at least, the name was obviously female, who said that she wanted more “heat of battle” scenes in Regency romances. Personally, I was appalled at this sentiment, as I abhor violence, especially in war, which always seems to me so senselessly brutal.

My recreational reading is primarily Regencies, and I want to enjoy the interplay between the characters. I prefer it when those interactions take place in pleasant surroundings, like balls, balloon ascensions, or an evening at the theatre. I do not mind a bit of spying thrown into the mix, as, done well, that can add a bit of spice without darkening the overall tone of the novel. I am not at all interested in reading about characters suffering in the horrendous battle conditions of that time. Neither Jane Austen nor Georgette Heyer had to resort to such brutal scenes to craft their thoroughly engaging and delightful novels.

I was just wondering if I am alone in this opinion, or if there are others who prefer their Regencies to be free of blood and gore?

Regards,

Kat

[RegLit]

I cannot understand how anyone would want gore in a Regency. Regencies are meant to be light-hearted and humourous (in my opinion). I wouldn't mind a little drama, because often that's what it takes to get our hero and heroine together, but there's no need for overt or explicit tragedy. That's better left for the Gothics, which is another genre that I enjoy. However, I do like to keep the two separate.

[Penfeather]

This is one of my big pet peeves as well! Today's popular culture seems to take ever more delight in bloody, violent, sadistic entertainment and this element seems to be creeping into every genre. There is actrocity enough in real life all over the world; not my idea of a blissful escape to read about or watch torture scenes, unflinchingly realistic enactments of war that go on and on until one's senses are all but numbed.

It could also be argued on esthetic grounds that gore and violence are out of place in romantic fiction. As I see it, a genre which makes its main fare the fine intricacies of society, like a carefully choreographed dance, in which the slightest nuance of manner can carry with it the weight of the world -- a word misspoken or misinterpreted, an eyebrow raised, a clumsy overture or first impression -- heightens the reader's emotions and ultra-sensitizes her to subtle shades of feeling. Any violent or gratuitously graphic passage is like raw chafing on exposed nerves. It's worse than shocking; it causes the very sensitivity aroused by the story to recoil defensively. The story can't be savored further until this reaction subsides; sometimes the damage is permanent and the book must be set aside.

I'm not a prude and there's a place for graphic violence in other genres. While I'm an admitted newcomer to the Regency genre, I can't help having this rather definite idea about it -- I'm drawn to it to escape from the cruelties of the world, not to wallow in them.