- Pronouns
- he/him
Discuss this article here
-
Hi Guest!
The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Interview: Katy Moran
- Thread starter Gary Oswald
- Start date
What a brilliant idea for using an AH setting in a different genre. Does show what @Meadow says about AH being a setting that can be applied to any number of genres, rather than a genre itself, is true.
It occurs to me that you could do the same with Restoration period pieces but set in a world with different outcomes to the War of the Grand Alliance and so on.
It occurs to me that you could do the same with Restoration period pieces but set in a world with different outcomes to the War of the Grand Alliance and so on.
The separation of plausibility and convincing is interesting, as that level of research into what people ate and rhythms of speech feel like caring about plausibility - like the term "plausibility" for historical/AH gets seen as meaning something else.
- Pronouns
- he/him
The separation of plausibility and convincing is interesting, as that level of research into what people ate and rhythms of speech feel like caring about plausibility - like the term "plausibility" for historical/AH gets seen as meaning something else.
It's something we've been chatting about elsewhere.
The Hester and Crow books play fast and loose with a lot of details, Cornish survives as a language another 100 years so the rebels can talk in a language that the French don't understand, Josephine survives her otl death so she can become Napoleon's regent in England and a relatively large character and the POD is that a Napoleon killing Blucher at Ligny and then winning Waterloo (which is very detailed and convincing) then leads to Napoleon in London which rather ignores the royal navy.
I don't think Napoleon winning at waterloo would plausibly lead to napoleon ruling England but because we focus on Napoleon winning the land battles and then georgian england with added french police but never mention the actual crossing, you can ignore it.
The things that are covered in detail are well researched and feel convincing, it does feel like it captures the time period, but there are very unlikely things, it's just they're handwaved and not the focus.
I honestly do recommend the books and I think it does what all good ah does, which is focuses on the bit it can justify. It's a lot easier to ignore the bits that don't work when the author also ignores it.
Other than Waterloo being more famous, I would assume the logic is that if it's mainly playing on the OTL Regency period as a setting for romances, it's easier to get it closer to recognisable people/settings/tropes etc. if you're talking about a post-1815 invasion rather than a more plausible 1803 one.It's something we've been chatting about elsewhere.
The Hester and Crow books play fast and loose with a lot of details, Cornish survives as a language another 100 years so the rebels can talk in a language that the French don't understand, Josephine survives her otl death so she can become Napoleon's regent in England and a relatively large character and the POD is that a Napoleon killing Blucher at Ligny and then winning Waterloo (which is very detailed and convincing) then leads to Napoleon in London which rather ignores the royal navy.
I don't think Napoleon winning at waterloo would plausibly lead to napoleon ruling England but because we focus on Napoleon winning the land battles and then georgian england with added french police but never mention the actual crossing, you can ignore it.
The things that are covered in detail are well researched and feel convincing, it does feel like it captures the time period, but there are very unlikely things, it's just they're handwaved and not the focus.
I honestly do recommend the books and I think it does what all good ah does, which is focuses on the bit it can justify. It's a lot easier to ignore the bits that don't work when the author also ignores it.
Besides, one could just say it's in character for the AH actually written during that period.
Other than Waterloo being more famous, I would assume the logic is that if it's mainly playing on the OTL Regency period as a setting for romances, it's easier to get it closer to recognisable people/settings/tropes etc. if you're talking about a post-1815 invasion rather than a more plausible 1803 one.
Making the setting to fit the story is what most "ordinary" fiction does, especially if you know your target audience isn't going to know or care much about the technical details behind Operation Lion de Mer.
- Pronouns
- he/him
These books sound delightful, I shall have to investigate.