View Single Post
Old 05-07-2014, 12:32 PM   #65
HarryT
eBook Enthusiast
HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.HarryT ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
HarryT's Avatar
 
Posts: 85,557
Karma: 93980341
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blossom View Post
Jane Austen is Traditional Regency.
A misnomer. "Regency" novels refer to historical novels. Austen didn't write historical novels - her novels are contemporary to their time of writing.

You say in a previous post that Harlequin "invented" the romance genre. I would respectfully suggest that the British publisher Mills and Boon, who long, long predated Harlequin, actually did that. (Yes, I know that Harlequin now own M&B!) M&B started specialising in women's romance novels in the 1930s; Harlequin didn't start doing so until the mid 1950s.

Last edited by HarryT; 05-07-2014 at 12:35 PM.
HarryT is offline   Reply With Quote