since I haven't read it I don't know if it would be an useful description. However since I like both Georgette Heyer and Alexandre Dumas, it would make me more inclined to read it. So yeah, useful, I guess. but I'm not changing my vote.
The wording was, in part, riffing off an existing (lighthearted) formula. But I think I could argue that the implication of illegitimacy is warranted given that the result is not what a straightforward marriage of the two bodies of work might predict.
In my case I have heard of only one of the set of names (Dumas, but I have never actually read anything he wrote, but we have some of his stuff translated into Swedish, so I may yet do so, in a manner of speaking) you mentioned, so for me it conveys no meaning at all. However, I am guessing from the way that they are used in the sentence that your target audience is likely to recognize everyone else.
To some extent, my target audience is defined by the set of people who would recognize all three names. :) Not that people outside that set wouldn't enjoy the book greatly -- just that they're not the target audience.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-09-03 06:24 pm (UTC)What about 'the offspring' or such, or more invisibly, 'the product'?
no subject
Date: 2012-09-03 06:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-03 09:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-04 06:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-09-04 08:06 pm (UTC)