Review: Now, I've heard everything
Rating: 1 out of 5
Date: 06 3, 2014
Usually, when I read a wildly inaccurate historical novel, I assume that the author just didn't understand the importance of research. He or she didn't understand that having 21st century people in costumes did not a historical novel make, so to speak.  And that's the sort of review I'd have posted here, until I read Mr. Burns' afterward. But let's let Mr. Burns speak for himself. 'This book is many things, but one thing it is not is a history lesson. Reading this book should be entertaining, and while history is very entertaining, it is not the intent of this novel to follow a series of historical events.' Hmm. If history is entertaining, why does it need to be adapted so that it 'does not become arduous to read'? Perhaps because the author is unwilling to take the time? The author goes on to proclaim that he used 'real' people as models for his characters...that is, he took their names, and changed the details of their lives enough that the poor souls wouldn't be able to recognize themselves. Why not just use a fictitious name, too? Why acknowledge that a character was portrayed as an evil stepmother type, when historical accounts do not describe her as being so harsh? I'd mention a few more anachronisms, such as the heroine having sex with the hero while they are still basically strangers, but I'm still boggled at the idea of someone admitting that he simply doesn't care about historical accuracy if it makes the story 'better'. Sorry, Mr. Burns, but a great many of us who read historical fiction DO care about the details. Knowing that I can't trust any details in your story to be true vastly decreases the enjoyment and entertainment I would get from your books.Oh...and George Washington as the personal deus ex machina of the hero? Bad choice. George had more important things to be doing.