M—

This cropped up on one of my book-drama feeds. As near as I can figure, Ashe has authored a work of historical fiction with plot basis in a historical theory of royal parentage. An amateur (I presume) historian/researcher conversant in that historical period read this book and wrote a lengthy review focusing on that historical theory; namely that it is not considered a creditable one. Ashe commented her displeasure about this, which apparently kicked off a review upvote war between the fractions of, 'You know, this reviewer has a point' and 'How dare you be mean on the Internet!' And this has lead me to conclude that historical fiction is srs bsns, y'all, and that I would prefer looking elsewhere for my next historical fiction fix. ([b:Falls the Shadow|77448|Falls the Shadow (Welsh Princes, #2)|Sharon Kay Penman|http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1298193016s/77448.jpg|991472] seems recommended instead.)

YMMV -- This detail bothers me, but Ashe's novel seems perfectly valid as a work of fiction and the positive reviews indicate it's reasonably well-written and engaging.

Influencing reviews:
Original Amazon review, heavy in comments
Duplicate Goodreads review, additional comments