I finished Madeline Hunter's Lord of Sin, over the weekend. I now know more than I ever wanted to know about 19th century engravings. I'm one of those readers who likes historical info in a book, but for me this was a little overkill. She (MH) keeps adding characters who will probably will get "stories/books" in the future. I guess she's not going back to writing Medievals.
It was a good book, but I think there may have been to much mixing of the classes for the time period. I'm not really sure this would have been very accurate, but it did make the book different. And, no one will ever be able to accuse MH of writing fluff. She also dealt with the sad subject of the "clearances", which I may blog about separately.
After finishing LOS, I started Jane's Warlord by Angela Knight. It's a little out there, but so far it's a fun read. The talking wolf threw me, at first I was expecting him to turn into a werewolf, probably because the only other AK book I've read was a werewolf story. I also think the cat's name was thrown in for shock value, which all things considered isn't really shocking and just seems a little silly and immature.
The pool is finally open, of course, our weather has now gone from early spring like to mid-summer, in less than 10 days. Which is typical for the North East. The air temperature will be between 85-90 degrees and humid today, but the pool is only 66, as of this morning, a little cold for swimming.
I'm feeling a little guilty about my comments about bad reviews in my last blog. I do enjoy reading these reviews, they can be funny, but I should have qualified it by saying I don't like to see writers insulted and hurt. Of course, reviews are individual, but writers must know that it's only one persons opinion. If a reviewer rips a book, it doesn't necessarily mean they are ripping the author, but I guess it would be hard to differentiate (spell check says I spelled that correctly, but it looks wrong--LOL) between the two.
Have a great day, and happy reading.
3 comments:
Now, I have to head over to RT to check this out. I bet I know who it is--Ms. Garwood...
I really think her (M. Hunter's) medievals are better than her regencies, but that is only my opinion.
I guess being catty is one thing, but personally insulting the author would be another, I also think sometimes an author can't necessarily see the difference.
I agree with Tara on her guess as to whom Anne is speaking of. And as a reader who just about cut her romance teeth on all of this author's backlist, I feel a slight sense of loyalty. However, I've "matured" as an historical reader since then and consider her books to be something to read when my attention span is being compromised. lol.
I've enjoyed all of Ms. Hunter's Regencies, but I have to agree that her medievals are much better. I wonder if it has something to do with the fact that good medievals seem to be difficult to come by, while the Regency has just about been done to death. Hm. Something to ponder.
Hey Jenster,
I have to say I too feel somewhat loyal to Ms Garwood. She may not be my favorite author, but I still read and enjoy her books.
Tara
Post a Comment