Review: A Historical Novel that's sadly lacking in History
Rating: 2 out of 5
Date: 05 9, 2014
Ms Driscoll's novel was supposed to be about Waterloo, a British Military man, a woman disguised as a male physician. The premise itself is somewhat thin - a lady of quality disguises herself as a man to be a doctor.  As I began to read the story itself, I began to wonder if I was anywhere near a battlefield. Ms Driscoll gave us no sense of the place to inkling of the times. Her hero turns out to be a spy, and yes England had spies, but by the time the battle of Waterloo was engaged, the 95th Rifle Company was doing most of the scouting which is something quite different.Then there is Ms Driscoll's offhand remark that most of the nurses were prostitutes-- hummm.  Some were camp followers, yes, but many were also the wives of the common soldiers who fought there that day. Some of them were so near the battlefield with their children that they dashed out onto the battlefield in an attempt to pull their husband or common law husbands to safety after being wounded (this comes from eyewitnesses to the battle). Others were Officer's wives who came down the next morning from Brussels to look for their husbands.  And camp followers--official camp followers--were paid by the Army to wash and cook. The unofficial ones probably made a living selling their body among other services but there were not the only "nurses" at WaterloolThe immediate sexual encounter was rather over the top, given who this woman is supposed to be, but the author still gave me no sense of the place or time. I could have lifted her characters right out of the pages and slapped them into 1898 or 1920 or 1950 and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference. I probably would have found her female lead more believable if she had been born in 1986 and transported back in time to the battle, but then the book would have been fantasy and not historical fiction.And, finally, there's "Scots Whiskey."  I serious doubt it was every referred to as "Scots" but I'm not prepared to research that so I'll  let it go, but I am darned certain that it has never been "Whiskey."  "Scots" or Scotch - made exclusively in Scotland -- has always been Whisky -  please note there is no "e" in Whisky. Only Irish Whiskey gets the "e" and this was because of the way the tax laws were written. You can look it up.