|
|
amyheartssiroc (![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} amyheartssiroc) wrote in ![[info]](http://www.journalfen.net/img/community.gif){kind=small} fandom_wank,@ 2007-01-12 21:08:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Bad Review = Personal Attack!
Found this over at Smart Bitches Trashy Books and thought it was wanky enough to share. Over at Amazon.com, M.A. Bechaz reviews Evangelynn Stratton's novel Lady Blue. Her review is less than kind, and focuses mostly on the novel's historical inaccuracies.
The author of this book writes on her website that she is a history buff for whom the medieval era has always held a fascination. She says that while reading her books "the reader actually learns history." Well, I hate to break it to you, but there are so many historical flaws in this book that most of the time all the reader will learn is utter balderdash. I mean, the book is supposed to be set in the late medieval era, but many of the props, places and plot twists in it could not have existed in medieval times -- most are from the Regency through to Victorian eras. I'm sorry, but you can't fob off a Regency novel as a Medieval one; it's like painting stripes on a dog and calling it a zebra -- no matter what you tell people it is, it's still a dog. And so is this book! In case you're interested, here are just a few of the historical innacuracies: The book opens in a big, bustling harbour town called Hunstanton in the year 1499...only, in reality, Hunstanton was nothing more than a tiny rural village until the mid 1800s, when the developers moved in. The heroine, Willow, claims to be a huge fan of Michelangelo. But how could she, a girl living in a small rural English town who has never been abroad, ever have seen his work? On ye olde medieval internet, perhaps? Willow is supposed to have learnt to paint at a travelling art show, and sells her work through the local art museum...except that England didn't have any museums at all until at least the late 1700s, and there certainly wouldn't have been travelling art shows, either! Willow serves tea from a teapot. However, tea wasn't available in England until at least the 17th century, and teapots weren't invented yet either. Willow is worried that if she is disobedient her father will send her away to a stuffy boarding school for girls...but schools like that didn't exist until centuries later (schooling for girls really wasn't a medieval priority!) Willow is given a dowry by her new husband of fifty thousand pounds. That's a really huge amount for that era. I mean, taking into account what the average yearly English working wage was back then compared to what it is now, in modern times that dowry would probably be worth about 67 million pounds. I doubt that any man back then would have that sort of money to give away, least of all a youngest son in a family! Willow withdraws this money from her bank account using a bank book, and walks away with it in her bag...but not only did they not have bank books back then, they also didn't have paper money. They only had coins. Can you imagine trying to carry 50 thousand pounds worth of COINS? You'd need a wagon or ten to haul it all away in. Later, Willow goes to France, and feasts on such foods as potatoes, tomatoes, wild rice and chocolate mousse...none of which were available in Europe at that time. She also catches carriages in Paris...but Paris didn't have carriages until much later in the 16th century. (Even in 1550, they only had 3 in the whole city.) I also doubt medieval Paris had prison wagons or local police stations, either. Furthermore, the ship Willow's father owns has an insurance policy on it...even though marine insurance didn't exist in England until the late 17th century. And so the list of historical flaws goes on and on...
There is a lot of tl;dr wank on both sides, beginning when Anne Hope responds quite maturely with a review entitled M. A. Bechaz from Australia is a bitter hag.
I have read all of Evangelynn's books and have been totally enthralled. I seriously enjoyed this particular book; I would say it is my favorite of the series. Granted, since I have a family, a job, and a LIFE, I didn't cross-reference every single historical fact as Bechaz apparently did, but most I found to be accurate according to my college education in medieval history. As most don't have time to counter each detail in Bechaz's review, one can only hope that the author will/can take the time to do so.
No, I don't recommend using works of fiction as textbooks, as Bechaz seems to deem necessary, but even complete fabrications such as the DaVinchi Code can be entertaining (though, personally I find Mr. Brown's characters one dimensional and his plots predictable...but that is for another review).
Samantha also jumps in to defend the author:
Please ignore the bitter and vicious "review" which is more of a personal attack than book review. I loved this book. I loved the whole trilogy. I find errors in many books, even in ones by Danielle Steele and Anne Mccaffrey. If I read everything with a critical eye rather than for enjoyment, I probably would not like anything I read. Like the other reviewer A. Hope points out, The DiVinci Code has been taken apart and reviewed for "errors" when the author only intended it to be a work of fiction. That, I believe, is the same for this series. I love Ms. Stratton's characters (I believe that is her strong point) and I don't care if the sword Pet uses is not historically accurate. Good Grief! How nit-picky can you get? I don't believe that this book was meant to be a history lesson. I looked up some facts that M.A. Bechaz pointed out. She (I am assumming she is a she) says that Hunstanton didn't even exist, but I found a web site for a Sir Thomas Le Strange that states he was born in Hunstanton in 1493. So apparently the town did exist. She complains that Michelangelo spoke English. Actually, in the story, Paul was interpreting for Willow. Was the author supposed to have the whole conversation in French? Come on! And the complaints about the carriages not existing--please! I found websites that state the nobles DID have covered carriages. Since the man Willow gets a ride from was rich and worked for the King, it is entirely plausible that he would have a carriage. But that's not the point. Willow had a teapot. Who cares? Does anyone but M.A. Bechaz care? I thought this book was funny and it kept me enthalled. I love the way it tied everything up at the end when all the characters come together from all three books. I liked it. The mean-spirited attack by M. A. Bechaz was unwarranted. I don't believe that is what this review process is supposed to be about. I would give this book 4 stars, but am giving it 5 just to offset the cruel attack by M.A.Bechaz.
Lee C. is also quite valiant in her efforts:
Granted, Ms Stratton's books are not a history textbook....nor do I think they are meant to be. However, if one is looking for a history textbook on medieval times (like perhaps M.Z.Bechaz is), Im sure you could access the reference section of your local library!
It think it's upsetting that a reviewer would be so harsh as to place an author under personal attack.
The battle continues in the comments for both reviews, where M.A. Bechaz shows up to defend herself:
I don't know how you found the time to type out all those personal insults, given that you have 'a family, a job, and a LIFE'. (Gosh, I'm so jealous, I only have a loving boyfriend, a heap of fun hobbies and a fulfilling writing career to keep me busy! You've really rubbed salt into my wounds -- NOT!)
Or did you perhaps learn about him [Mark Twain] in the same college that taught you medieval history so inaccurately? (Seriously, most picture books written for four to eight year olds about medieval life seem to be more informative and accurate than that college course you did must have been!)
say what you want about my review, but I am standing by it. It's way more accurate and unbiased than your review! I do not know the author (unlike you and the others who have condemned my reviews!) and therefore have no personal bias or reason to malign her unnecessarily. The author is probably a lovely lady, for all I know, and I wish her well. I reviewed her book and her work as an author, not her. I was not being cruel, I was being honest.
But hey, why bother with all that pesky research, right? Why not just do what you seem to want to do, and get writers to do away with research...why not just have knights in teflon-coated armour, riding on motorbikes, wearing digital watches and eating Hershey bars and Big Macs? And nothing says ye olde medieval times like a damsel who's in distress because she's lost her i-Pod and needs her daily caffeine fix from a big bottle of coca cola, right?
Personally, I think historical fact is important in an HISTORICAL novel - that's why they're called historicals, dear, because they have historical facts and historical settings in them, or are supposed to, anyway. If there are no, or next to no, historical facts involved, and they are instead full of things that the author just IMAGINED to be so, then they are called FANTASY books, not historicals. If an author is going to write an historical novel, they need to do some historical research...that's just the way it is. And if they don't do the basic research, they shouldn't get upset when a reviewer criticises them for it, and get all their friends to go online all on the same day and say rude and libellous things about that reviewer...which is exactly what has happened here!
Found this over at Smart Bitches Trashy Books and thought it was wanky enough to share. Over at Amazon.com, M.A. Bechaz reviews Evangelynn Stratton's novel Lady Blue. Her review is less than kind, and focuses mostly on the novel's historical inaccuracies.
The author of this book writes on her website that she is a history buff for whom the medieval era has always held a fascination. She says that while reading her books "the reader actually learns history." Well, I hate to break it to you, but there are so many historical flaws in this book that most of the time all the reader will learn is utter balderdash. I mean, the book is supposed to be set in the late medieval era, but many of the props, places and plot twists in it could not have existed in medieval times -- most are from the Regency through to Victorian eras. I'm sorry, but you can't fob off a Regency novel as a Medieval one; it's like painting stripes on a dog and calling it a zebra -- no matter what you tell people it is, it's still a dog. And so is this book! In case you're interested, here are just a few of the historical innacuracies: The book opens in a big, bustling harbour town called Hunstanton in the year 1499...only, in reality, Hunstanton was nothing more than a tiny rural village until the mid 1800s, when the developers moved in. The heroine, Willow, claims to be a huge fan of Michelangelo. But how could she, a girl living in a small rural English town who has never been abroad, ever have seen his work? On ye olde medieval internet, perhaps? Willow is supposed to have learnt to paint at a travelling art show, and sells her work through the local art museum...except that England didn't have any museums at all until at least the late 1700s, and there certainly wouldn't have been travelling art shows, either! Willow serves tea from a teapot. However, tea wasn't available in England until at least the 17th century, and teapots weren't invented yet either. Willow is worried that if she is disobedient her father will send her away to a stuffy boarding school for girls...but schools like that didn't exist until centuries later (schooling for girls really wasn't a medieval priority!) Willow is given a dowry by her new husband of fifty thousand pounds. That's a really huge amount for that era. I mean, taking into account what the average yearly English working wage was back then compared to what it is now, in modern times that dowry would probably be worth about 67 million pounds. I doubt that any man back then would have that sort of money to give away, least of all a youngest son in a family! Willow withdraws this money from her bank account using a bank book, and walks away with it in her bag...but not only did they not have bank books back then, they also didn't have paper money. They only had coins. Can you imagine trying to carry 50 thousand pounds worth of COINS? You'd need a wagon or ten to haul it all away in. Later, Willow goes to France, and feasts on such foods as potatoes, tomatoes, wild rice and chocolate mousse...none of which were available in Europe at that time. She also catches carriages in Paris...but Paris didn't have carriages until much later in the 16th century. (Even in 1550, they only had 3 in the whole city.) I also doubt medieval Paris had prison wagons or local police stations, either. Furthermore, the ship Willow's father owns has an insurance policy on it...even though marine insurance didn't exist in England until the late 17th century. And so the list of historical flaws goes on and on...
There is a lot of tl;dr wank on both sides, beginning when Anne Hope responds quite maturely with a review entitled M. A. Bechaz from Australia is a bitter hag.
I have read all of Evangelynn's books and have been totally enthralled. I seriously enjoyed this particular book; I would say it is my favorite of the series. Granted, since I have a family, a job, and a LIFE, I didn't cross-reference every single historical fact as Bechaz apparently did, but most I found to be accurate according to my college education in medieval history. As most don't have time to counter each detail in Bechaz's review, one can only hope that the author will/can take the time to do so.
No, I don't recommend using works of fiction as textbooks, as Bechaz seems to deem necessary, but even complete fabrications such as the DaVinchi Code can be entertaining (though, personally I find Mr. Brown's characters one dimensional and his plots predictable...but that is for another review).
Samantha also jumps in to defend the author:
Please ignore the bitter and vicious "review" which is more of a personal attack than book review. I loved this book. I loved the whole trilogy. I find errors in many books, even in ones by Danielle Steele and Anne Mccaffrey. If I read everything with a critical eye rather than for enjoyment, I probably would not like anything I read. Like the other reviewer A. Hope points out, The DiVinci Code has been taken apart and reviewed for "errors" when the author only intended it to be a work of fiction. That, I believe, is the same for this series. I love Ms. Stratton's characters (I believe that is her strong point) and I don't care if the sword Pet uses is not historically accurate. Good Grief! How nit-picky can you get? I don't believe that this book was meant to be a history lesson. I looked up some facts that M.A. Bechaz pointed out. She (I am assumming she is a she) says that Hunstanton didn't even exist, but I found a web site for a Sir Thomas Le Strange that states he was born in Hunstanton in 1493. So apparently the town did exist. She complains that Michelangelo spoke English. Actually, in the story, Paul was interpreting for Willow. Was the author supposed to have the whole conversation in French? Come on! And the complaints about the carriages not existing--please! I found websites that state the nobles DID have covered carriages. Since the man Willow gets a ride from was rich and worked for the King, it is entirely plausible that he would have a carriage. But that's not the point. Willow had a teapot. Who cares? Does anyone but M.A. Bechaz care? I thought this book was funny and it kept me enthalled. I love the way it tied everything up at the end when all the characters come together from all three books. I liked it. The mean-spirited attack by M. A. Bechaz was unwarranted. I don't believe that is what this review process is supposed to be about. I would give this book 4 stars, but am giving it 5 just to offset the cruel attack by M.A.Bechaz.
Lee C. is also quite valiant in her efforts:
Granted, Ms Stratton's books are not a history textbook....nor do I think they are meant to be. However, if one is looking for a history textbook on medieval times (like perhaps M.Z.Bechaz is), Im sure you could access the reference section of your local library!
It think it's upsetting that a reviewer would be so harsh as to place an author under personal attack.
The battle continues in the comments for both reviews, where M.A. Bechaz shows up to defend herself:
I don't know how you found the time to type out all those personal insults, given that you have 'a family, a job, and a LIFE'. (Gosh, I'm so jealous, I only have a loving boyfriend, a heap of fun hobbies and a fulfilling writing career to keep me busy! You've really rubbed salt into my wounds -- NOT!)
Or did you perhaps learn about him [Mark Twain] in the same college that taught you medieval history so inaccurately? (Seriously, most picture books written for four to eight year olds about medieval life seem to be more informative and accurate than that college course you did must have been!)
say what you want about my review, but I am standing by it. It's way more accurate and unbiased than your review! I do not know the author (unlike you and the others who have condemned my reviews!) and therefore have no personal bias or reason to malign her unnecessarily. The author is probably a lovely lady, for all I know, and I wish her well. I reviewed her book and her work as an author, not her. I was not being cruel, I was being honest.
But hey, why bother with all that pesky research, right? Why not just do what you seem to want to do, and get writers to do away with research...why not just have knights in teflon-coated armour, riding on motorbikes, wearing digital watches and eating Hershey bars and Big Macs? And nothing says ye olde medieval times like a damsel who's in distress because she's lost her i-Pod and needs her daily caffeine fix from a big bottle of coca cola, right?
Personally, I think historical fact is important in an HISTORICAL novel - that's why they're called historicals, dear, because they have historical facts and historical settings in them, or are supposed to, anyway. If there are no, or next to no, historical facts involved, and they are instead full of things that the author just IMAGINED to be so, then they are called FANTASY books, not historicals. If an author is going to write an historical novel, they need to do some historical research...that's just the way it is. And if they don't do the basic research, they shouldn't get upset when a reviewer criticises them for it, and get all their friends to go online all on the same day and say rude and libellous things about that reviewer...which is exactly what has happened here!
Post a comment in response:
