Quote:
Originally Posted by FizzyWater
Not Blossom, but I think the term you're looking for is "wallpaper historical".
|
Thank you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blossom
Okay it seems my library had this book so I decided to see how bad it was. OMG! I got to page 14 and could go no further. Romantic times gave it 4 stars. 
The water crescent sandwiches was just too much. Two pages full of babble about them. The dialogue is clunky and the writing is all over the place. How far did you get before you gave up? |
Not a lot further than that! All the sentences starting with "so" and "anyway" just irked me too much. So I curled up with a Lorraine Heath and stayed up way past bedtime reading!
DA has it right, there needs to be a way to easily separate the meta-regency from the really historically accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keslynn
I DNF Season for Surrender by the same author. I can't comment on the historical accuracy since my expertise is the Early Modern period. I can however say that the book failed for me on many levels.
Do I always mind these things? No. I think they stick out more when the book is badly written or just doesn't click.
|
Lords and billionaires, the grass-must-be-greener for us mere mortals. lol I totally agree, I don't always even notice many an inaccuracy that I'm sure would drive a historian to distraction - but it needs to at least make an attempt, and be well written!
Quote:
Originally Posted by FizzyWater
Doesn't Sourcebooks release the Grace Burrowes ebooks? I would put them in the same category as Julia Quinn. She's actually a favorite of mine, although some might not like her men (which I consider more beta than alpha for the most part).
|
Oh good to know! I've been collecting her books but have yet to read one, maybe I need to do that before hoarding more of them - I'm not sure how I feel about betas. lol