After wading my way through virtually every writer out there, who writes in the Roman period now, a thought has occured to me . . .
I have come across several authors of historical fiction now, that seem to be so hell-bent on historical accuracy, that plot fails victim to it. I've read two supposed spy thrillers now that are neither spy novels or thrillers, if I see another book charting Roman battle tactics I will gouge my eyes out [lets be honest, Roman tactics where so successful, it's boring to read] and when reading a different 'political' thriller I endured a treatise on the Roman agricultural year.
So, has anyone else noticed this? I do confess I have moments when I'm so engrossed in the research, that I can't tell if the plot is 'good' anymore, but that soon passes, and much of the research is never used. Is it a case of an author thinking: 'look at how much research I've done', and sacrifice story?