Not a good start.
Jun. 18th, 2009 09:43 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
erastesGod - the hayfever was dreadful yesterday, my eyes were like boiled eggs, and running so badly (along with nose,) it looked like I was crying all day. Horrible. As you know I don't like taking chemicals unless it's absolutely necessary, but today I'm going out to get a wodge of Optrex products - apparently there's something you spray over closed eyes, which sounds just what I need. Strangely, there's no itchy throat, and little sneezing, so I'm grateful for small mercies.
The swifts are finally back - a little later than usual. Regular readers will remember that my horrible gamekeeping neighbours pulled their swift nest down and put up a small kite in the eaves to deter them from nesting there again. But the birds are back - I wish they'd nest in my eaves, it's just the same sort of house, and more in the shade.
I spotted this this morning, on my trawl around the publishers sites to see if I'd missed any historicals and I'd like to know your opinions on it, seeing as most of my readers are readers of historical fiction, gay or otherwise:
Dreamspinner Press presents Timeless Dreams: stories of M/M romance in historical settings.
While reaction to same-sex relationships throughout time and across cultures has not always been positive, these stories celebrate M/M love in a manner that may address, minimize, or ignore historical stigma. You can visit the rough and tumble Old West, travel the ancient kingdoms of desert sheikhs, see the black and red lacquer of the Far East, or dance in dramatic Regency England. No matter where or when, in the romantic worlds of Timeless Dreams, our heroes always live happily ever after.
Where does that leave "Speak its Name"? Does this mean that I can't review them? It seems to me that I can't, or at least, I can't then point out that "this or that fact" is inaccurate, because they've already made it clear that the books aren't going to adhere to historical facts.
Personally, I think it's depressing, and actually insulting to gay men who lived in historical times, to treat them like Ken dolls. I know that many heterosexual historicals are (to be polite) "light on accuracy" - but at least they don't deliberately FANFARE it. "Read Mills and Boon historicals - History? We don't need no Steenken history."
*depressed* I've worked really really hard on this genre, and this is a bit of a body blow. I'm sure they'll be really popular too.
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
- 
The swifts are finally back - a little later than usual. Regular readers will remember that my horrible gamekeeping neighbours pulled their swift nest down and put up a small kite in the eaves to deter them from nesting there again. But the birds are back - I wish they'd nest in my eaves, it's just the same sort of house, and more in the shade.
I spotted this this morning, on my trawl around the publishers sites to see if I'd missed any historicals and I'd like to know your opinions on it, seeing as most of my readers are readers of historical fiction, gay or otherwise:
Dreamspinner Press presents Timeless Dreams: stories of M/M romance in historical settings.
While reaction to same-sex relationships throughout time and across cultures has not always been positive, these stories celebrate M/M love in a manner that may address, minimize, or ignore historical stigma. You can visit the rough and tumble Old West, travel the ancient kingdoms of desert sheikhs, see the black and red lacquer of the Far East, or dance in dramatic Regency England. No matter where or when, in the romantic worlds of Timeless Dreams, our heroes always live happily ever after.
Where does that leave "Speak its Name"? Does this mean that I can't review them? It seems to me that I can't, or at least, I can't then point out that "this or that fact" is inaccurate, because they've already made it clear that the books aren't going to adhere to historical facts.
Personally, I think it's depressing, and actually insulting to gay men who lived in historical times, to treat them like Ken dolls. I know that many heterosexual historicals are (to be polite) "light on accuracy" - but at least they don't deliberately FANFARE it. "Read Mills and Boon historicals - History? We don't need no Steenken history."
*depressed* I've worked really really hard on this genre, and this is a bit of a body blow. I'm sure they'll be really popular too.
- - - - - - 
