Ive been curious about this book ever since reading all these hot-tempered reviews on Amazon. Im a university student with a researching streak, and found an older copy of this book in the stacks. Finals, you know -- what better time to research something completely unrelated to your work. Now:The Good: witty, anecdotal, and really brings across a real love of the period.
The Bad: the schizophrenic indexing, the unprofessional mistakes.
Now, you have to ask yourself, whats more important to you: accuracy or readability? Ive read any Regency England history book I can get my hands on at my university library. Many of them, quite frankly, are written in a torpid, dull manner that completely fails to do homage to the spirit of the Regency period.
This book has been criticized for being inaccurate. True. Now get over it. It has also been criticized for depicting unpleasant people. Because apparently the Regency was a time of sweetness and light? Because those were the Good Olde Days? Please. The sinners at least have more fun, and had better clothes.
Murrays book is bright, sharp, smart, effervescent, and ironic, just like the period it depicts. Im usually a stickler for accuracy in historical novels, but Murrays voice makes up for it. She comes across as an intelligent witness, winking at the reader before she dashes off to relate another wonderfully gossipy tale.
This book is not 100% correct, yes, but any true afficionado would probably read other books in the same vein as well as go over some primary resources. And for the novice or visitor, they are still going to come away with a clear understanding of the era and a small percentage of its people.
In the end, youll enjoy and youll learn, and if you want more (and its hard to imagine anyone not wanting more), you can go read the very accurate, very dry stuff and derive the gossip on your own. All in all an interesting work. Dont let the critics get ya down.