The Fever and the Flame
Sep. 23rd, 2007 07:47 pmSuch an unappealing title - this is the 'Special Omnibus Edition' of Mary Hooper's At the Sign of the Sugared Plum and Petals in the Ashes, set in London in 1665 (Great Plague) and 1666 (Great Fire) respectively.
I did a very short review of At the Sign of the Sugared Plum back in August, but didn't say much about it, other than thinking that the fluffy chick-lit-esque girls => fashion+boys element in the beginning was fun enough, but didn't go well with the horrific times portrayed. I did more note-making on my copy of Petals in the Ashes, and wanted to toss around a few thoughts about it here, in hope of interesting input from my flist. This isn't a rant, btw - a few things annoyed me, some seemed silly, but it's not -- well, I've read much worse historical fiction and bits and pieces were good.
As I said about The Sugared Plum, there are a few inaccuracies, of what appear to me to be several different sorts. In many ways, the straight incorrect details are the least interesting, but one of them (linguistic) coincides with what seems to me to be an error of mindset (or two or three), so I'll consider it first. Behind a cut so as not to mess up my flist's friends' pages, but please read if you have any interest in historical fiction. It's long, but you can skim the sections about the book and just give your denomination-of-choice's worth at the end. (I'll even throw in a virtual cup of tea to anyone who reads behind the cut!)
*![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
fjm - I couldn't find your entry about I, Coriander, and would like to give a link to it if you don't mind.
I did a very short review of At the Sign of the Sugared Plum back in August, but didn't say much about it, other than thinking that the fluffy chick-lit-esque girls => fashion+boys element in the beginning was fun enough, but didn't go well with the horrific times portrayed. I did more note-making on my copy of Petals in the Ashes, and wanted to toss around a few thoughts about it here, in hope of interesting input from my flist. This isn't a rant, btw - a few things annoyed me, some seemed silly, but it's not -- well, I've read much worse historical fiction and bits and pieces were good.
As I said about The Sugared Plum, there are a few inaccuracies, of what appear to me to be several different sorts. In many ways, the straight incorrect details are the least interesting, but one of them (linguistic) coincides with what seems to me to be an error of mindset (or two or three), so I'll consider it first. Behind a cut so as not to mess up my flist's friends' pages, but please read if you have any interest in historical fiction. It's long, but you can skim the sections about the book and just give your denomination-of-choice's worth at the end. (I'll even throw in a virtual cup of tea to anyone who reads behind the cut!)
( Read more... )
*
fjm - I couldn't find your entry about I, Coriander, and would like to give a link to it if you don't mind.
