It's the anachronisms in this book. I know I should just enjoy the story, which is quite good, and disregard the rest. But it is puzzling to me how these glaring mistakes could have gotten by an editor. Well, they couldn't have, could they? It must have been a conscious decision to let them stand for the good of the story. In that case, how can it be described as a piece of historical fiction when the history part is not accurate? I know this type of thing is wildly popular. Witness the HBO series "Deadwood". I couldn't watch it - it was so violent and the language so awful. Well -- I need to quit obsessing.
It was indeed raining at lunchtime yesterday but I went out anyway and had a decent, albeit slower than usual, run. I can't afford to slack off any more. February 9 is not that far away. I am already resigned to the fact that I'm not going to be breaking any personal records. But I just want to have a decent time.
Another good evening on the Argosy Wrap last night. I've turned the corner and am now working on the end of it. I've still got a good few hours on it but I've already started thinking about what I'm going to cast on for next. I have a good many projects lined up. Or - hey, here's an idea. Why don't I finish up a couple of the nearly done projects? Yeah. Why?
No comments:
Post a Comment