Georgette Heyer Fans discussion

The rake's tend to reform their way of life after meeting the heroine, so don't write them off completely, however there are definitely books which fit your description, including some of my favourites:

Cotillion
Sylvester
The Reluctant Widow
The Talisman Ring
Cousin Kate
The Grand Sophy

Also, The Quiet Gentleman

& The Nonesuch
The Unknown Ajax
& next month's read The Black Moth although (view spoiler)[There is a rake (hide spoiler)]

Define "rake". I don't know of any novel in which the *hero* has been in the practice of debauching innocents, which is where I draw the line.

But, in addition to the books listed previously, the heroes of Civil Contract, Charity Girl, Regency Buck, Sprig Muslin, Toll Gate, and Bath Tangle also seem to have pristine pasts.

Actually, I don't think that there are all that many in which the *heroes* are described as having had mistresses: Venetia, Black Sheep, Lady of Quality, and Frederica are the only ones I'm sure of off-hand.

Come to think of it, I don't think any of the heroes of her mysteries are described as having had mistresses.

I'm having a hard time thinking of many of her books with rakes in them. That isn't her style. (I haven't read all her books yet though.)

The only rake type characters I can think of are:
Sherry (Friday's Child) - a passing mention of an opera dancing
Dameral (Venetia) - had a wild past
Dominic (The Devil's Cub) - a total rake
Miles Cavendish (The Black Sheep) - I suppose he'd be considered a rake but that just strikes me as funny!

For the most part I think of GH's heroes as men I'd like my daughter to marry. Except Waldo. I might have a literary crush on him myself.

I tried to find a definition of rake that wasn't a garden implement & found this

a fashionable or wealthy man of immoral or promiscuous habits.

libertine is a person, especially a man, who freely indulges in sensual pleasures without regard to moral principles.

I think maybe only Dominic could be described as both. (view spoiler)[ without Mary he would totally have gone down a vicious path (hide spoiler)]

Erika wrote: "Thanks for all those suggestions!! I think I checked out a couple of the only few that have mistresses. lol. That's why I thought it might be common for Heyer. I am going to look at all of those an..."

The only one who probably is a virgin is Gilly, in The Foundling. My least favourite hero, so clearly my tastes are very different!

There was a discussion a while back in one of the Jane Austen groups as to whether Mr Darcy was a virgin, the point being that you can make the argument either way but what does it really matter if it does not feature in the story.

I think we might be able to make the same argument about some of Heyer's hero's, the ones that Amy mentioned clearly aren't and some others might have a casual reference to past experience but it's not really a feature of the story or their characters.

Erika wrote: "Th first few books I looked up by Heyer were: Friday's Child, Frederica, The Convenient Marriage and These Old Shades

Powder & Patch (view spoiler)[ don't recall Phillip having a mistress but it's a while since I read it (hide spoiler)] This is our Group Read in July.

If you want a non-GH Regency that has a non-rake hero, try The Naturalist by Christina Dudley (but don’t read the second book in the series, because that hero is a rake).

Erika
I really don't think Heyer does "rakes" and she certainly doesn't laud them if they do appear. A hero sometimes has a slightly colourful past, but as has been said, there are almost no forcers of women and where they appear, they are very clearly villains or at the very least capable of remorse.

I cannot think who would be a 'rake' in Frederica btw .

Plus mistresses do not abound, and are minor characters if they do, all heroines may be safely assumed to be virgins and in any case, sexuality absolutely does not feature in GH, if you are concerned about it in general , so if a hero was a virgin, GH would not be likely to tell us so, not her style .

Just reading the comments here it strikes me as amazing how differently we all view books and plots and rakes and so on. I suppose we'd have some very dull discussions if we all thought the same. But I have to agree that to me GH didn't really write about rakes and there's definitely no overt sex or anything like it in her novels.

Barbara, I assumed the reference to Frederica was regarding the presence of a mistress rather than a rake. The hero in that is clearly not innocent and has for sometime after meeting the heroine no intention to reform his way of life.

That being said there's absolutely nothing in that book to make anyone blush, it is almost a comment in passing, and I would highly recommend it.

In The Convenient Marriage, when Mrs Maulfrey and the Winwood girls are discussing Lord Rule, Mrs M remarks "For my part I like a rake", so in the terms of the novels it obviously doesn't necessarily mean anyone worse than a man with more mistresses than average and certainly not a rapist.

Venetia ("The only man for me is a rake!") is surprised to hear that 'even so kind and correct a gentleman as Sir John Denny' had not always been faithful to his wife, and even the upright and virtuous Sir Waldo (The Nonesuch) 'has experience'. I doubt very much whether any GH hero is a virgin apart from Gilly (The Foundling - though I wouldn't put it past Captain Thingy to have arranged something for him on his Grand Tour as a part of his education) and possibly 'not much in the petticoat line' Freddy (Cotillion).

Alverstoke (Frederica) is clearly as much a rake as Rule, as is Rule's alter ego Cardross (April Lady) who was previously connected with Lady Orsett.

I think if you want a hero absolutely guaranteed to be untouched, you'll be out of luck, but there are plenty whose past in that respect is never mentioned.

"I doubt very much whether any GH hero is a virgin apart from Gilly (The Foundling - though I wouldn't put it past Captain Thingy to have arranged something for him on his Grand Tour as a part of his education)"


omg, I LOL'd :-)

Louise Sparrow wrote: "Barbara, I assumed the reference to Frederica was regarding the presence of a mistress rather than a rake. The hero in that is clearly not innocent and has for sometime after meeting the heroine no..."

Heavens yes, I don't object to the presence of rakes and mistresses ,I don't personally enjoy reading about sex, but I'm not averse to the very idea of it in print as Erika is, lol

Anyway the rakiest rake that ever raked is in this month's group read(Black Moth spoiler ahead) (view spoiler)[ He isn't the hero though (hide spoiler)]

Carol ♔ Type, Oh Queen! ♔ wrote: "Anyway the rakiest rake that ever raked is in this month's group read(Black Moth spoiler ahead) [spoilers removed]"

Rakiest rake that that ever raked , lol!

Carol ♔ Type, Oh Queen! ♔ wrote: "Anyway the rakiest rake that ever raked is in this month's group read(Black Moth spoiler ahead) [spoilers removed]"

Too true!

Carol ♔ Type, Oh Queen! ♔ wrote: "Anyway the rakiest rake that ever raked is in this month's group read(Black Moth spoiler ahead) [spoilers removed]"

..the rakiest rake! Love it!

I like stories with rakish heroes because the push-pull relationship and witty dialogue makes for a better story than love at first sight. I don't care for it when the mistress is part of the plot (revenge) or if the hero goes off to visit his mistress after he's met the heroine.

Heyer's big rake heroes are Damarel in Venetia but his past is in the past and not on the page; and also the same with Miles in Black Sheep. Actually Miles visits an old friend for help but it's not for the usual reasons. (view spoiler)[His old friend is now a Madame and he wants a girl to help trick his wayward nephew into leaving the young heiress niece of the heroine. (hide spoiler)] There's a few mentions of "baseborn" children.

I recommend giving Judith A. Lansdowne's rakes a try. They have full back stories that have given them a reputation they haven't actually earned. The few books I've read by her are very clean- kisses only and funny too. I also love Chas in The Unflappable Miss Fairchild by Regina Scott.

Damarel is one of my favourite GH heroes. Rake or not I think he's brilliant. And another one is Sir Waldo Hawkridge. The scene where Ancilla gets the wrong end of the stick about 'Waldo's Brats is one of the funniest pieces I ever read.

Teresa wrote: "Damarel is one of my favourite GH heroes. Rake or not I think he's brilliant. And another one is Sir Waldo Hawkridge. The scene where Ancilla gets the wrong end of the stick about 'Waldo's Brats is..."

Those are my top two favorite Heyer-oes too. Also, Alverstoke in Frederica. He's just so thrown off his orbit by the Merrivilles!

I’ll put in a vote for Hugh Darracott as favorite hero.

Believe me Erika, GH would rolling in her grave like a rotisserie chicken at some of the modern Regencies! In personality she was very conservative & straitlaced.

Ugh, yes, I remember the birth of the bodice rippers. I was just starting out as an editor and doing some work for Harlequin, and the new wave of sexualized romance seemed so contrary to the genre! Violating the rules (up till then) of the marriage plot, with its five-hundred-plus-year history, and so historically inaccurate. Not to mention that by many of the bodice-ripper authors, it was deliberately devised as a way to undermine the principles of feminism. I had a knock-down, drag-out war with Barbara Cartland’s editor on the subject (and got switched to editing men’s adventure novels, much to my relief—would rather read about splattered brains than her crap).

I basically stopped reading any romance except for Heyer and some of the older English (Thirkell, Goudge, D. E. Stevenson) and American (Emilie Loring) authors.

Mills and Boon are real bodice rippers now. I was reading them in the 70's and early 80's when they had brilliant stories in them. I gave them up when it became apparent that the story was second place and the sex first. My daughter's call the ones I used to read, 'Mammy's hand holding' books lol! They wouldn't touch them. Oh how times have changed!

I agree with you, I like stories with something more bringing them together than physical attraction.

I do read some modern (non clean) romances however, there are some enjoyable ones out there, that is they could take the description of the bedroom scenes out and still be good.

Erika- by definition of the genre a traditional or "sweet" Regency is what you want. The Signet and Zebra Regencies published before 2000 are mostly low on sensuality/sexuality. The rakish heroes that have mistresses either forget about the mistress once they meet the hero; are thinking of breaking up with said mistress; have broken up with the mistress and haven't found a new one. OR if the mistress appears it's as a plot device to cause conflict. The heroes tend to be rakes because they're bored, it's expected of them or something happened in their past to cause trauma and their raking is a way to forget the trauma.

You might take exception to the meet cute in Venetia but I like it. It's supposed to be funny based on V's reaction. Also, orgy doesn't exactly mean what you think it might mean. It literally means wild, drunken party and in this case the party guests were gentlemen and women of easy virtue or at least that's what what neighborhood gossip says anyway.

Some of the early Harlequin Candelight Regencies are good - more romantic comedy than romance. I like alpha heroes and rakes who are done raking. I like heroines who can stand up to the hero and exchange witty banter. I can't stand alpha heroes who bully innocent doe eyed young heroines.

The bodice ripping type is known as Regency Historical. They can be found on the New York Times bestseller lists and are sold in drugstores and grocery stores.

Check out my Kisses Only shelf for some Heyeresque Regencies. Clare Darcy is Heyer-lite and many of the books published by Walker House are Heyer copycats and Heyer-lite stories. Many of them are coming back as e-books.

There are a few new traditional Regencies. I highly recommend My Fair Gentleman. The hero is introduced in a low tavern with women surrounding him. He's been a sailor but he's not a rake and the relationship grows from mutual distrust and dislike to mutual trust to friendship and finally to love.

I always thought a rake was a man who took advantage of women, mentally manipulating said innocent women into believing he cared for them to get the women to act contrary to how they would normally behave.

I do not mind romances where either lead has had previous experience.

It is absolutely fascinating how very varied are our different perceptions of what a rake or libertine is like. For me, a rake would never attempt to seduce an innocent; he plays his games with women who understand the 'rules' of the sexual game in which so many aristocrats dabbled. The libertine on the other hand had no rules, no compunction and absolutely no morals. The Earl of Rochester - a real life libertine - embodies the latter. Many bodice rippers use that role model for a 'hero' (not my cup of tea!)
Many of GH's heroes embody the former - the rake - he is not unfaithful- (as he is not married) - and he dallies with women who are not virgins, but who totally understand the relationship they are having. GH's romantic notions see him being captivated by the virginal heroine and no longer needing the pleasures of the mistress or opera dancer. I like the fact that sexual activity is not at the forefront of GH novels. She demonstrates that love, romance, and sexual attraction can be conveyed in a clever phrase and needs not to be explicit. It leaves so much to one's own imagination!

Nicely put Susan

Louise Sparrow wrote: "Nicely put Susan"

Thank you Louise!

Susan in Perthshire wrote: "It is absolutely fascinating how very varied are our different perceptions of what a rake or libertine is like. For me, a rake would never attempt to seduce an innocent; he plays his games with wom..."

I agree with you Susan, completely.

Erika wrote: "To me, a rake is just someone who has been somewhat-to-very promiscuous. Same as a manwhore in contemporary romance. Or player. Or playboy. I have no moral judgment about it (that is not my issue w..."

Absolutely your choice Erica - but you will find it hard to escape the 'experienced' man and 'virginal' woman in GH's books. It is a pretty prevalent theme!

I look forward to seeing what you think of them then Erika, and I can't help thinking that Cotillion would be a good one for you to start with.

Cotillion is a good one to start with, for everyone!

I love Cotillion myself, but I contend that if you start with that one, you'll lose the sense of surprise and rather spoil the joke. To say more would be entering spoiler territory.

Erika wrote: "I just don't like reading about men who have already had a lot of sexual experience before the heroine. I like her to be new and special for him. :) Historical romance is the only type of romance I sometimes will read books where the H and h don't have equal types of sexual pasts.

I know most women prefer to read about virgin heroines and sexually experienced heroes. Just not my thing, but I really want to try Georgette Heyer! ."

In the rules laid out of Heyer, a rake is exactly as Susan described. He dallies only with women who know the rules- opera dancers, actresses, high flyers, incgognitas, courtesans whatever you call them- they know how to play the game and have already had a number of protectors and will drive a hard bargain. Libertines set out to deliberately seduce innocents and are able to get away with it because of their social status and/or money.

Erika You really won't like the genre if that's how you feel. Try Inspirational Regencies. They might suit you better than even the normal traditional variety. You have to look carefully at the reviews to find a hero that doesn't have a past and then that's a fantasy world conjured up by the author.

It's just not historically accurate for a man to not be experienced. Ladies were supposed to be passionless and not have liaisons before marriage. They risked getting pregnant and illegitimate children couldn't inherit by law and unmarried women with children were social outcasts for breaking the rules. Some women did have lovers before marriage but the expectation was always that the man would marry her. Men, on the other hand, were encouraged to spread their wild oats as far and wide as possible. It was believed that a man NEEDED to be sexually active. It showed he was virile and it kept him from whatever wacky theory doctors warned would happen if they didn't.

Heyers romances feature some pretty modern heroines but she wouldn't go that far as to put them beyond the pale.

I'm an historian. If it's not accurate I don't want to read about it.

QNPoohBear wrote: "Erika wrote: "I just don't like reading about men who have already had a lot of sexual experience before the heroine. I like her to be new and special for him. :) Historical romance is the only typ..."

I totally agree with you QNPoohBear - my degree was in History and I do get very upset about lazy research and historical inaccuracies in books, films and television programmes. Additionally, I get really annoyed by writers who transpose a 21st century woman (or man), complete with their attitudes, behaviours and language into what is supposed to be a character in a historical novel, and then have them behaving in a totally inauthentic way. GH's characters behave in a way that is totally authentic and reflective of the narrow segment of society that GH writes about.
Time travelling stories are obviously different - Outlander for example hangs on the very fact that Claire is a 20th century woman trying to survive an 18th century environment!
Historical authenticity is one of the reasons that I have always loved GH. She does not attempt to cover all aspects of life, politics, economics or religion in her books; but those areas she does engage in - are well researched and amazingly accurate by and large.

Erika wrote: "To me, a rake is just someone who has been somewhat-to-very promiscuous. Same as a manwhore in contemporary romance. Or player. Or playboy. I have no moral judgment about it (that is not my issue w..."

Authors rarely call someone a rake - instead, characters do. And various well-written characters have various definitions and standards. And assumptions.

Susan in Perthshire wrote: "I totally agree with you QNPoohBear - my degree was in History and I do get very upset about lazy research and historical inaccuracies in books, films and television programmes. "

I totally agree, historical accuracy is a very important part of whether or not I enjoy a book. Especially with colloquialisms! Hearing a 18th century heroine exclaim in the voice of a 1950s teeny bopper really destroys my enjoyment.

Also, my degree was in History! I wonder how many of us GH readers have studied history more than the normally required amount.

As an aside, sometimes I am irked by Fantasy authors who create a world, and than later include some term or item or action that clearly would not have existed or happened in that world. Not very tolerant, I know, but you would think that if authors create a world carefully and then describe it in so much detail, that they would stay true to their own outline.

Another historian here as well :D

Critterbee wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "I totally agree with you QNPoohBear - my degree was in History and I do get very upset about lazy research and historical inaccuracies in books, films and television pro..."

I'm a bit lenient here. If I'm reading a book about that takes place in Chaucer's England, I want the language to be converted into current English. And I don't get upset if a novel that took place in ancient Babylon had someone say "fire" instead of "loose", as he's not speaking English anyway. (Others will disagree with me strongly here). Here's a link showing how Shakespeare had puns that we don't get with modern pronunciation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gPlpp...

That said, I enjoy reading correct vocabulary in something as recent as Regency fiction, at least it was past the great vowel shift!

Howard wrote: "Critterbee wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "I totally agree with you QNPoohBear - my degree was in History and I do get very upset about lazy research and historical inaccuracies in books, films..."

Howard, I hear what you're saying and agree there has to be some tolerance for language shifts which facilitate accessibility. . However, I do think there is a real difference between making (for example), Chaucer's English understandable to our 21st century ears - whilst still retaining the character and voice of the time; - and setting a character (for example) in 16th century Scotland and have the characters using expressions and vocabulary which are not only 500 years too early but originate on a different continent entirely! We expect some adjustment in language to accommodate our modern ears and to help us understand what would otherwise be inexplicable; but I personally do not like the trend to transpose 21st century patterns of speech and vocabulary (not to mention behaviour), to an entirely different historical context. That's why I like GH - she gives a nod to regency-speak and yet makes it (mostly) totally accessible.

What a good discussion Erika's comment produced. And I really enjoyed Susan careful description of what a rake is, as compared to a libertine and the ensuing discussion on historical accuracy etc. Erika's catch -all description is much closer to the libertine idea I think, and (sorry Erika) I cannot agree with " I know most women prefer to read about virgin heroines and sexually experienced heroes" . I don't know, of course, what most women like, but I doubt it's a preference , rather a trope of the genre.

Susan in Perthshire wrote: "Howard wrote: "Critterbee wrote: "Susan in Perthshire wrote: "I totally agree with you QNPoohBear - my degree was in History and I do get very upset about lazy research and historical inaccuracies ..."

Oh yes. A compromise is necessary. I'm reminded of a compromise made for the TV show "Deadwood". Apparently characters in it used quite a bit of modern profanity. The profanity was not at all technically accurate. But it was emotionally accurate. They *did* use a lot of profanity then - but with words that modern viewers would find amusing, distracting from their flavor.

I want my historical books to show the cadence of the language. I want to taste the flavor of the language. But don't say call a little boy a "girl", even if that was historically the right word for a particular time.

An interesting thread! I agree that the inexperienced heroine and experienced hero is a trope rather than something I prefer in my romances. It's one of the bits I like least about GH's books, in fact, and I always assumed (as already mentioned by some) that it was in there for historical accuracy.

I am very curious though, that you mentioned Powder and Patch in your initial list, Erica. (Unlike many, I know) I always really enjoyed Powder and Patch and, from memory, would have thought Philip a candidate for virginhood rather than being a rake or having mistresses! (Given that he's presented at the beginning as completely inexperienced with women and then he's devoted to Cleonie.) Did I miss something in this one? Admittedly my memory isn't what it once was!

Erika wrote: "Thanks for all those suggestions!! I think I checked out a couple of the only few that have mistresses. lol. That's why I thought it might be common for Heyer. I am going to look at all of those an..."

possibly freddy in Cotillion, who is described as being 'not in the petticoat line' and maybe Gilly in The Foundling, who has led a very sheltered life.

Erika wrote: "To me, a rake is just someone who has been somewhat-to-very promiscuous. Same as a manwhore in contemporary romance. Or player. Or playboy. I have no moral judgment about it (that is not my issue w..."

i wouldn't say i prefer virgin heroines particularly, but it was usual for upper class women to be virgins when they married in those days - a sexually experienced unmarried upper class heroine would be a bit unusual. Some upper class women had affairs after marriage, but since all heyer's heroines are in love with the heroes they marry, i think you can assume they probably won't be having affairs.