![]() Because actually, Georgette Heyer, although she did loads of research and everything, when she actually did the bits that are really historically grounded, which is to say An Infamous Army and the other. I would rather read a book where they just sort of throw their hands up and just go, okay, we're Heyer-ing the hell out of this. If I want lice, I'll have young children again. I don't think every historical romance needs to go, "But there was only 28 Dukes, and most of them had syphilis and no teeth, and everyone's got lice." I don't want to read books where everyone's got lice. And although I prefer the second kind, but I don't think the first kind should be dismissed, because it is doing something else. ![]() There's historical romance that gets really down and dirty, intimate, and where the author has really delved into it. ![]() There's historical romance that just have only the vaguest relationship to the actual history of Britain. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |