Obviously, I'm biased, but being a Victorianist is just the most splendid thing in the world. More seriously, as Sharleen Mondal observes, it sounds very logical, given her interests. It may also be very practical--having fields in multiple national literatures or, for that matter, time periods, can be a Good Thing. I know of whereof I speak, as I spent my first year teaching in my secondary fields (Restoration & 18th c., Romantic), which, granted, produced some odd reactions when I went job-hunting the second time ("Why are you teaching British Romantic prose, exactly?"), but positive cash-flow is positive cash-flow. Of course, as Ms. Mondal rightly points out, the Victorian period is somewhat overpopulated with Bad Novels which are, shall we say, of a less than aesthetically exciting nature--not to mention, occasionally a trifle longer than can quite be reconciled with the 21st century reader's toleration for preachy didactic tales--but, like Chicago winters, Bad Victorian Novels build Character. (In other words, Bad Victorian Novels are really a Good Thing, not a Bad Thing, even if, like Picts and Pitts, they come in Waves.*) However, if it's a secondary field, you can stick to Great Victorian Novels, which not only build Character (because even Great Victorian Novels tend to run on for 800 pages or so) but also are Wonderful and Conducive to Happiness.
*--The uninitiated should quickly grab themselves a copy of 1066 and All That.