Way back when, she was one of my favorite authors. I'd wait on pins and needles for her new books to come out, and was so sad when she passed away. Rather than laughing at her old covers, they made me rather nostalgic for her books, I've not reread one in years, I wonder if it's even possible to find her oldies but goodies. They may not hold up well through time, but they really were favorites back then.
I'm done being melancholy.
On to something else...
I loved Lydia Joyces description of "wallpaper" historicals, and thought LLG was being rather dense through the whole thing.
Then I saw a little post by Maili, that got me thinking...
Well, for me - for what it's worth - GUILTY PLEASURES is a wallpaper historical and TO DREAM AGAIN is not.
Doesn't perspective also determine whether or not a historical is "wallpaper" or not?
Guilty Pleasures is set in England. If I'm not mistaken To Dream Again is set in America, ***edited--I'm wrong, it's set in Victorian England, thanks, Wendy*** it's been years since I've read this book and to be honest, I have no memory of what it's about, so there is no way I can say whether or not it's historically strong or accurate, I'll take Maili's word for it. But, I did reread Guilty Pleasures last month, and I didn't think it was a wallpaper historical and I wonder if it's because of where it was set and the use of a Roman archeological site as a backdrop. Clearly I'm clueless when it comes to British history, but I found the "dig" rather interesting, of course, I have no idea how accurate it was or wasn't.
During the recent plagarism scandal many people found fault with the inaccuracies of the writer's Indian heritage. If I had read this book, I'd have no idea whether or not it was correct and would assume it was.
Am I, as an American, more likely to take for granted the history in a book set in America? Probably not. Am I going to nit pick the historical inaccuracy? Probably, so I do think perspective matters.