Oh, I'm so glad you enjoyed it! Well, except for the ending. One thing I really like about the book is how it offers both sides of the historical conflict--there's Keith being less than impressed by the Jacobites, Ewen's loyalty and idealism, Keith's horror at what his own side is doing at the end even as he still doesn't sympathize with the other side politically...it's just a really good set-up for the enemies-to-lovers plot and offers a lot of opportunity for fic.
I am not getting over the incredibly gay string of classical allusions in the earlier novel any time soon
I wish I was better at classical allusions and Latin citations, I feel it's a limitation in my fic-writing. Ah well.
One writer who I feel is not in the Jacob/Broster/Renault/Sutcliff lineage (if one can call it that), despite living in the same time period and writing historical books that have same-sex relationships in them, is Naomi Mitchison. I mean, I love her books dearly, but despite occasionally portraying same-sex relationships, they are not at all slashy IMO. Some of the differences in writing may be because Mitchison was a socialist (not that one can't combine socialism and slashiness). I mean, I don't explicitly know Broster's political opinions, but I am 110% sure she was not a socialist. All those French royalists probably do say something about her opinions, even if she probably also wrote them because they offered tragic and honour-laden storylines. And Renault was, um, definitely not a socialist. No idea about Sutcliff.
no subject
I am not getting over the incredibly gay string of classical allusions in the earlier novel any time soon
I wish I was better at classical allusions and Latin citations, I feel it's a limitation in my fic-writing. Ah well.
One writer who I feel is not in the Jacob/Broster/Renault/Sutcliff lineage (if one can call it that), despite living in the same time period and writing historical books that have same-sex relationships in them, is Naomi Mitchison. I mean, I love her books dearly, but despite occasionally portraying same-sex relationships, they are not at all slashy IMO. Some of the differences in writing may be because Mitchison was a socialist (not that one can't combine socialism and slashiness). I mean, I don't explicitly know Broster's political opinions, but I am 110% sure she was not a socialist. All those French royalists probably do say something about her opinions, even if she probably also wrote them because they offered tragic and honour-laden storylines. And Renault was, um, definitely not a socialist. No idea about Sutcliff.