This may or may not sound odd, but I was unaware that the prime audience for historical novels was male.

Same here. If anything, I'd have guessed the opposite, as a general trend. But with any category as broad as historical, it's going to depend on the book/author.

As a reader, I get furious when it is assumed by editors, reviewers, etc that I read romance because I don't have a brain in my head and can't handle anything thicker than a Harlequin novel and no words over 4 syllables. No, I read what intrigues and what I care about.

t nods I could be wrong, but I get the impression that many reviewers, critics, etc. think that reading for pleasure and relaxation is somehow inferior. In my own way I'm a picky, snooty, God-is-in-the-details sort of reader--for example, I recently chucked a book by an insanely popular romance writer aside after one chapter for inserting what were to me obvious and intrusive Americanisms in an Irish character's dialogue, because things like that knock my suspension of disbelief right offline. But good writing is good writing, no matter the genre.

t nodding madly at Deb.

MM and I had a discussion about reading a couple of weekends ago when I admitted that I didn't care for the film "Rosencrantz and Gildenstern are Dead" because I don't care for Shakespere. After he put his eyes back in his head and closed his gaping mouth (for which I cannot blame him - an English Lit major that doesn't like Shakespere? Does not compute.) I told him it was style. I also reminded him that I don't like poetry and then it made sense.

I get the impression that many reviewers, critics, etc. think that reading for pleasure and relaxation is somehow inferior.

Totally. And I don't get it. And also? I have learned PLENTY from romance novels. So there.

I am a forgiving reader. I don't mind so much if things are wrong or don't fit if the story is tight and I like the characters. If neithe of those things are going on, I'll chuck the book cause I didn't like what colors the heroine was wearing.

And my real pet peeve is how when an author manages to write a romance or mystery or historical sea adventure story that's so good that even the crustiest critic or reviewer has to acknowledge its merit, 99% of the time the critic then engages in all kinds of mental gymnastics to prove that the book in question isn't really part of its genre.

(Yes, I know this is Susan's Irresistible Debating Topic #17.)

I think women "cross over" and read war-historicals,

A big, big part of the O'Brian audience is women. This is why I was so furious when all the reviews of the movie said it was only for boyz. In my circle, many women adore Sharpe; some of us did before it was Sean Bean.

In my circle, many women adore Sharpe; some of us did before it was Sean Bean

Word.

Whereas I know other women who have no interest in Master & Commander (edit:the movie) because there aren't any female characters in it. Which...I don't really get, not in the least because Paul Bettany is hot, but also because I'm apparently really easy to please, story-telling wise.

an English Lit major that doesn't like Shakespere? Does not compute.) I told him it was style. I also reminded him that I don't like poetry and then it made sense.

Aimee is me. I still have scarring from when my English Lit profs shot laser beams at me from their eyes on hearing that I didn't particularly care for Chaucer OR Conrad very much, and while I'd write their papers for my grade, I could write one ten times more stunning on the value of Valley of the Dolls or Harry Potter.

I didn't fit their mold very well.

Well there were the native chicks on the boats that came out to trade with them...Huh. I liked the movie and didn't really think about it not having any female characters.

I could write one ten times more stunning on the value of Valley of the Dolls or Harry Potter.

AMEN!!

Lords how I wish there was a "Biographies of Silver Screen Stars 1920-1960" major. I'd have the frickin PhD.

the book in question isn't really part of its genre.

It TRANSCENDS, dearie. All good genre fiction is transcendent. Hah.

What's funny is, I couldn't get into O'Brien very well because of [what I perceive as] guyish tendencies in the prose -- it felt like shopping in the tools section of Sears, and seemed very short on plot. (I imagine his first is also his weakest novel, but I haven't tried any of the others yet.) Whereas I liked the movie fine.

I'd actually call Cornwell a crap writer, despite my reading and enjoying the first few Sharpe novels. Because I also read more than the first few, and after a while it was like, Okay, he can't have triumphed at all the battles in Napoleonic Europe, or else he would be named Wellington, not Sharpe. (To say nothing of the Mary Sueism that crept in like a stalking cat.) Part of my definition of a good writer is knowing when to stop.