regshoe

Oh, that's a pity that For the White Rose didn't live up to its premise! Will you digitize it, do you think? If you think you will, I'll wait and proofread it for you, but otherwise I'll go ahead and read it soon.

I don't mind certain types of changes to history when they are needed for plot reasons (I mean, in my current fic I had BPC arrive in France in late July 1746 rather than in September, because it suited my plot). But the Highlandization of the Jacobites isn't that kind of thing. Perhaps, in 1905, her access to sources wasn't as good as Broster's, who worked at Oxford and presumably had access to their libraries? Or maybe she just didn't care as much.

I found it a good way to re-read an old favourite book, though it certainly wouldn't have worked for a new book—between thoughts wandering off, my auditory processing being what it is and the general loudness of the outside world, I definitely missed quite a lot of detail.
I also find it easier to listen to audiobooks of books I've read before, than to read new books. I can listen to new books, too, but it’s more effort. Glad you enjoyed Karen Savage!

a parallel and equally condemnable overreach on the part of scientists into the moral sphere of religion, using their interpretation of Darwinian evolution to support eugenic ideas).
Hmm. My sympathy with this example relies heavily on my view of eugenics as a morally bad thing. I'm pretty sure it would also be possible to come up with an example of science impinging on the moral sphere which I would approve of. Perhaps climate scientists urging societal change? Or the discovery that drinking lots of alcohol during pregnancy has bad consequences for the child, and doctors thus urging pregnant people not to drink?

But then, I suppose I don't think morality exclusively belongs to the sphere of religion, regardless of whether science is involved or not--atheists can have a moral system just as well as religious people.