Top critical review
8 people found this helpful
Fun, but needs to be fully Anglicised
on 18 June 2011
I found this book very entertaining, as I did the first title. It has good reviews on here, with which I concur as to plot, atmosphere and characterisation. It is clearly written by a Brit, but someone has tinkered with it to its detriment, as I shall show.
As to verisimilitude, there is room for improvement because it seems that someone has gone and Americanised it, which jars when you consider that the narrator is supposed to be quintessentially British and writing in her own diary. Examples:
"The queen" - it should be capitalised as Queen every time. The same goes for King, of course (and Prince/Princess if used with a Christian name or if "the" precedes it).
"Royal Highness" cannot be shortened to Highness - no person of the Blood Royal like Lady Georgiana would possibly make that mistake.
The date is Americanised every single time, which simply wouldn't happen in Lady Georgiana's diary. So, it should be "23rd June 1932" not "June 23rd".
These and other glaring Americanisms detract from authenticity and could so easily be put right, especially in Kindle editions (and I'd be very pleased to download them in corrected version from my archive to read again another time).
I also noticed a mistake in Chapter 28. Lady Georgiana asks an elderly gentleman in the Wren library who the "apostles" are. He replies, "I take it you don't mean Matthew, Mark, Luke and John?" A scholar would be unlikely to make that mistake: St Mark was not an apostle.