Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by cassandra67b07
Wilde in Love by Eloisa James
2.0
Perhaps I was a bit grumpy over this book as my notes will indicate, but I had a difficult time suspending disbelief over the ahistorical characters and situations. The early references to characters by using incorrect titles and addresses set me off and by the time this was explained, I was really annoyed at the book and the author.
I realized that for some readers historical romance is an escape. They don't want to see the grimy bits of Georgian England or recognize the enormous wealth and power of an English duke compared to even other members of the aristocracy much less ordinary people of the time. But if it becomes too much of an escape then you have modern attitudes and speech in your characters and the whole thing becomes too much like Disneyland.
On the other hand, if you want more realism...well, Jane Austen only wrote six complete novels and what can you do once you've read those?🤷♀️
I think there has to be some middle ground. I can accept a lot but not a young woman inheriting her father's estate and money and left with a female friend as a guardian. The law simply did not work that way in the 18th century for women. Sleeves were pinned to a stomacher in women's dress, she could not unbutton a bodice because they didn't wear those at the time. And on and on...
Considering the author is well-educated in literary history, this has to be a choice. And I didn't like it. Historical romance is interesting to me because I like to see women push against the restraints of their position and their time. If the woman already has her own money and estate and freedom, then where is the tension? Where is the risk if she makes a wrong choice or endangers her reputation?
I think Eloisa James is writing a kind of historical lite comedy and there were witty exchanges and some humorous situations in the book. I liked Willa and her friends although Diana was pretty obscured.
But I really prefer more realistic situations for the time. I think Mary Balogh, Meredith Duran, Julie Anne Long, Courtney Milan, Lisa Kleypas, Mary Jo Putney, Joanne Bourne etc handle that middle ground kind of historical romance much better. All IMHO, etc..
I realized that for some readers historical romance is an escape. They don't want to see the grimy bits of Georgian England or recognize the enormous wealth and power of an English duke compared to even other members of the aristocracy much less ordinary people of the time. But if it becomes too much of an escape then you have modern attitudes and speech in your characters and the whole thing becomes too much like Disneyland.
On the other hand, if you want more realism...well, Jane Austen only wrote six complete novels and what can you do once you've read those?🤷♀️
I think there has to be some middle ground. I can accept a lot but not a young woman inheriting her father's estate and money and left with a female friend as a guardian. The law simply did not work that way in the 18th century for women. Sleeves were pinned to a stomacher in women's dress, she could not unbutton a bodice because they didn't wear those at the time. And on and on...
Considering the author is well-educated in literary history, this has to be a choice. And I didn't like it. Historical romance is interesting to me because I like to see women push against the restraints of their position and their time. If the woman already has her own money and estate and freedom, then where is the tension? Where is the risk if she makes a wrong choice or endangers her reputation?
I think Eloisa James is writing a kind of historical lite comedy and there were witty exchanges and some humorous situations in the book. I liked Willa and her friends although Diana was pretty obscured.
But I really prefer more realistic situations for the time. I think Mary Balogh, Meredith Duran, Julie Anne Long, Courtney Milan, Lisa Kleypas, Mary Jo Putney, Joanne Bourne etc handle that middle ground kind of historical romance much better. All IMHO, etc..