Comments on: Opinions Please? Improvements?

By: Hayden

Hayden — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 17:01:01 +0000

Fiona, I've got a couple more books to read and review that were written between the 1940s and the 1960s. Lord Dismiss Us was written in the 1960s, and I'm still digging around for more obscure titles that were written in the more recent past.

By: Fiona Glass

Fiona Glass — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 16:55:46 +0000

Yes to the films (I might even get time one of these days to review a couple for you… *g*) and yah boo to the Historical Novel Society.

I’d love to see slightly ‘newer’ historical books on here from the 50s and especially the 60s when homosexuality was becoming more acceptable. That’s such an interesting and key period….

By: gynocrat

gynocrat — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 02:32:17 +0000

1. Wow, this brings up something I hadn’t considered–I guess I didn’t think of the 60′s/70′s as ‘historic’ enough for this blog. To be honest, I’d love to see you rate books set in these eras.

2. Stars are a nice touch…

4. I’d rather see historic graphic novels reviewed, instead of films. :/ But that’s just me. ^_^

By: Erastes

Erastes — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:06:26 +0000

Mark: I tend to agree with you. We have an opportunity here to create our own rules and not ride on the back of anyone else. I do think that 60′s and 70′s are key. England and America – pre-Wolfenden and Stonewall. I then worry about the fact that we are making a stand as to “england” and “america” though – but i do think that they were pretty much breakthrough events.

By: Mark R. Probst

Mark R. Probst — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 21:58:21 +0000

Want my opinion? Of course you do! I say to heck with The Historical Novel Society and their “rules.” There is always flexibility in all genres. To me, most historical novels that were written contemporarily are MORE authentic than those written by authors who weren’t alive during the events about which they write.
Personally, I think even the 1960s and 1970s should qualify as the social unrest and turmoil of the civil rights/Vietnam era is a very vivid historical setting.
As for including films, well… it’s okay but it dilutes it from being a literary website. If you do include films, they should be segregated (that’s 60′s history, wink wink.) to a seperate wing.

By: Hayden

Hayden — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:24:00 +0000

1. I don't think there's any need to differentiate though that's a good point you raise. Frankly, it doesn't matter to me either way since a book's time of inception's never been an issue with me though I do keep it in mind when I review it. I always find the differences in approach and attitude that are reflected in the books pretty fascinating. 2. It's going to be a monumental task to go back and update those pages, given the number of reviews we've already done. I think we're fine the way we are right now. Visitors can always click on the tags and browse. 3. I've already got so many things on my plate as it is, but I really hope this changes soon. I'd like to see this blog expand and be more representative of historical GLBT fiction, but it really is a lot of work. We definitely need more people. 4. I'm committed to posting film reviews on my blog, so I don't mind doing what I've been doing so far, which is repost historical gay film reviews here as well (Another Country and Death in Venice are on my plate next).