Worst HF you've ever read

[JMJacobsen]

Now I know Misfit has a great list of these, but I'm curious about the rest of you....what's the worst HF you've ever read and why?

For me it was One Thousand White Women: The Journals of May Dodd, by Jim Fergus. I simply could not get past the disgusting premise of sending the dregs of post-Civil War women out west to marry/pro-create with the Native Americans to assimilate the "savages." I was offended on so many levels.

This is followed closely by The Favored Child, by Philippa Gregory, where she took the incest theme to entirely new and yukky levels. :rolleyes:

[SonjaMarie]

Gregory's "The Other Boleyn Girl", I read it and then promptly threw it at my wall and her "The Queen's Fool", I skipped large segments of it, but since it wasn't my book, I couldn't toss that one at the wall.

SM

[Tanzanite]

Dublin (also published as The Princes of Ireland) by Edward Rutherford - couldn't finish it. Followed closely by Rosalind Miles book Guenevere, Queen of the Summer Country.

[Ash]

Recently, Pillars of the Earth. I am sure there were others but I have by this time erased their memory from my mind.

[Misfit]

Oh dear, my reputation for that wall bangers list continues to grow :o:p:):D

I'm with Ash, Pillars of the Earth is tops.

[SonjaMarie]

Oh dear, my reputation for that wall bangers list continues to grow :o:p:):D

I'm with Ash, Pillars of the Earth is tops.

You have no idea Misfit! I actually mentioned wallbanger on the forum for Booksfree and explained what it meant and a few people said that they liked the term and some started to use it as well!

SM

[Misfit]

You have no idea Misfit! I actually mentioned wallbanger on the forum for Booksfree and explained what it meant and a few people said that they liked the term and some started to use it as well!

SM

Well, I'm finally a trend setter, although I can't take credit for it, I stole it from another commenter or two somewhere on amazon :D:D

[Divia]

1,000 white women is on my list and on my shelf. One day I will read it...

For me it would have to be The Luxe. A HF novel for teens that takes place in 1899 but somehow the author decided not to be bothered with the way people acted back then so we had a lot of teens sleeping with each other. :rolleyes:

[MLE]

If it's really bad, I don't finish it. I try not to remember it at all. Usually over the top gross or perverted sex scenes will get me to ditch a book pronto. This does not mean that I want books to avoid difficult subjects, but there are ways to write them that are tactful and serious and other ways that remind me of conversations in the military that I had to listen to because I was stuck in the same barracks... mostly for shock value.
Pillars of the Earth got chucked at the first one of those.

Poorly researched history and just downright lousy writing will lose my interest pretty fast, too. I can stand a mediocre book with good history getter than good writing with poor research. I know I'm in the minority there.

[pat]

I read one about HenryVIII. It was so bad I cant even remember the title or author! I dont think I got to the first quarter of the book before I gave up. There was so much that was wrong in the story, and it was so poorly written! If it wernt a library book, it would have been a wallbanger too!

[SonjaMarie]

Oh another was "The Lady In The Tower" by Jean Plaidy, I didn't get very far, once it said that her mother was already dead, it totally turned me off, cause her mother died after Anne's execution!

SM

[boswellbaxter]

Oh another was "The Lady In The Tower" by Jean Plaidy, I didn't get very far, once it said that her mother was already dead, it totally turned me off, cause her mother died after Anne's execution!

SM

In Plaidy's defense, that seems to be a common error in older novels about Anne Boleyn. Margaret Campbell Barnes makes the same mistake (she gives Anne a stepmother) and I believe Norah Lofts does also. The error must have originated in some nonfiction work relied upon at the time--perhaps Agnes Strickland?

I have a dire feeling that if I listed some titles from my own hall of shame, it'd come back to haunt me some day, so I won't give specifics. Save to say that most are either so full of historical errors or written in such purple prose that I couldn't finish them.

[Carine]

Dublin (also published as The Princes of Ireland) by Edward Rutherford - couldn't finish it. Followed closely by Rosalind Miles book Guenevere, Queen of the Summer Country.

I know what you mean about Dublin ! I'm reading this now and having difficulties not to put it aside and start another book !! In my opinion it's draging and I feel as if it sidetracks if you know what I mean, not really to the point of the history of Dublin, what it is supposed to be after all isn't it ?! For instance the chapter about Strongbow is other people's stories and Strongbow is mentioined somewhere in it. I suppose that is just another way of telling "history" but it's not really my cup of tea.

Pitty about Guenevere, Queen of the Summer Country, I've got that one on my TBR pile !! :(

[JMJacobsen]

Oh another was "The Lady In The Tower" by Jean Plaidy, I didn't get very far, once it said that her mother was already dead, it totally turned me off, cause her mother died after Anne's execution!

SM


Yikes...I just bought that one. I'm on a mission to read every Jean Plaidy novel, which may very well take the remainder of my natural life, given how much that woman wrote if you include all of her other pen names.

[SonjaMarie]

Yikes...I just bought that one. I'm on a mission to read every Jean Plaidy novel, which may very well take the remainder of my natural life, given how much that woman wrote if you include all of her other pen names.

While I couldn't get passed it, it doesn't meant it's a bad book if others can.

SM

[Telynor]

Hmm. That could be a very lengthy list!

Wideacre, The Queen's Fool and The Other Boleyn Girl by Philippa Gregory.
Most of Bertrice Small's recent works
Most historical romances written in the 1970's & 80's.
Margaret George's novel about Mary Magdalene and the one about Helen of Troy
Versailles by Kathryn Davis
The Reluctant Suitor by Kathleen Woodiwiss
Love and Honor (can't remember the author, but it was set in 1780's Russia)
The White Night of St. Petersburg by Prince Michael of Greece
Two Crowns for America by Katherine Kurtz
Down the Common by Ann Baer
Mademoiselle Victorine by Debra Finnerman
The Crimson Petal and the White by Michael Faber (I know, people love it, but I hated it...)
Lies and Lust in the Tudor Court by Margaret Doner
Push Not the River by James Martin
Ruslan (another author I can't remember but it was horrible!)
The Sultan's Harem by Colin Falconer

[SonjaMarie]

What was it about the book by Prince Michael that you didn't like?

SM

[Telynor]

What was it about the book by Prince Michael that you didn't like?

SM

http://www.epinions.com/content_160409882244

The White Night of St. Petersburg by Prince Michael of Greece. Just because you happen to be a descendant of the Romanovs doesn?t mean that you can actually write about them. This is a dreadful historical novel, telling the story of a very obscure Grand Duke, who was a bit of a thief, sexual adventurer and all-around-no-goodnik. Eventually his bad behaviour got him banished to Central Asia, where he was ignored by most of the family and generally forgotten. It sounds interesting, but the writing is so superficial and dull, the characters two dimentional and flat, that I was just happy to see the novel end.

[SonjaMarie]

http://www.epinions.com/content_160409882244

The White Night of St. Petersburg by Prince Michael of Greece. Just because you happen to be a descendant of the Romanovs doesn?t mean that you can actually write about them. This is a dreadful historical novel, telling the story of a very obscure Grand Duke, who was a bit of a thief, sexual adventurer and all-around-no-goodnik. Eventually his bad behaviour got him banished to Central Asia, where he was ignored by most of the family and generally forgotten. It sounds interesting, but the writing is so superficial and dull, the characters two dimentional and flat, that I was just happy to see the novel end.

Eek, will avoid that!

SM

[Alaric]

I'm another who couldn't finish Pillars of Earth, never got into it.

[diamondlil]

Madamoiselle Victorine was pretty dire!

I would probably have to say Music and Silence by Rose Tremain. I thought I would totally love that book - it had an interesting setting in Denmark in the 1600s, but oh boy.....

It's not often that I don't finish a book, but this was one of the few that have that honour!

[sweetpotatoboy]

My all-time worst HF read (in fact, one of my all-time worst reads full stop) was 'Soldier of God' by Diane Brenda Bryan. What could have been an interesting story about a family of secret Jews in Mexico was ruined by some of the worst writing I've ever read and just so many things that were downright wrong.

[Ariadne]

I read one book so long ago that I can't give specifics, even as to the author and title, save that it was a mainstream historical romance set in New England at the time of the witch trials. (I don't think it was set in Salem.) The author made a point of calling an accused local witch a devil-worshipper and a "Wiccan," and equated many of the witch's beliefs with those of modern neo-Paganism. There are so many things wrong with this; I was horrified.

[Ash]

If it's really bad, I don't finish it. I try not to remember it at all. Usually over the top gross or perverted sex scenes will get me to ditch a book pronto. This does not mean that I want books to avoid difficult subjects, but there are ways to write them that are tactful and serious and other ways that remind me of conversations in the military that I had to listen to because I was stuck in the same barracks... mostly for shock value.
Pillars of the Earth got chucked at the first one of those.

Poorly researched history and just downright lousy writing will lose my interest pretty fast, too. I can stand a mediocre book with good history getter than good writing with poor research. I know I'm in the minority there.

I'm pretty much the same way which is why I don't remember other titles. I think I remember Pillars because there was such acclaim for the book, and it still seems like its popular. Go figure, I only read half of it btw. 500 pages was enough And no, you are not in the minority. Lousy writing, poorly researched, over reliance on gratuitious sex and violence that do little to move the plot, stereotypical characters with no depth, 21st century thinking, are things that have changed a book to a wallbanger (and Misfit, you need to copyright that soon, coz I'm using it!)

[Misfit]

a wallbanger (and Misfit, you need to copyright that soon, coz I'm using it!)

Ash, don't worry. I'm pretty sure I stole the phrase from someone else. :):p:o

[princess garnet]

I didn't like The Innocent by Posie Graeme-Evans so didn't read the rest of the trilogy

[ellenjane]

Hmm. That could be a very lengthy list!

...
Margaret George's novel about Mary Magdalene
...
The Crimson Petal and the White by Michael Faber (I know, people love it, but I hated it...)...

I'm with you on these two. I enjoyed some of George's other novels, but the Mary Magdalene one was bad enough that I never even picked up Helen of Troy. I don't remember quite why I didn't like it, but just that I was really ready for it to be done.

I think The Crimson Petal and the White was well done, but I hated reading it. It's one of those novels where you can tell that the characters are on a huge spiral into disaster, and the overall mood is bleak.

[LCW]

It's a tie between Helen of Troy by Margaret George (I wanted to slap Helen and that wimpy little Paris so bad!!) and The Other Boleyn Girl (just an awful novel!!).

[Ludmilla]

No one has ever done Helen of Troy to my satisfaction. Not sure why.

I agree about Pillars of the Earth being a wall banger. I only read around the first 200 pages before discarding it and later gave the book away to someone who could appreciate it better than I did.

[Volgadon]

(I wanted to slap Helen and that wimpy little Paris so bad!!)
That's the impression I get when reading the Illiad.....

[JaneConsumer]

Sandra Worth's first Richard III novel. I forget the title. Purple prose and a character portrayal that was OTT.

Telynor, Although I usually agree with you, I have to say I liked Wideacre. I have a thing for disturbed characters, it seems. :)

[JMJacobsen]

I'm sitting here now casting dirty looks at the unread copy of Mary Magdalene on the bookshelf.

I agree about Helen of Troy. I finished it but Helen and Paris are difficult subjects to write about. You have to be able to make the reader feel that they were actually worth a war and George didn't (or couldn't) quite do that. Paris came across as a little boy -- not the man he needed to be -- and Helen as a self-indulgent little twit.

[EC2]

Sandra Worth's first Richard III novel. I forget the title. Purple prose and a character portrayal that was OTT.

[

That would be the one with the 'violet orbs' where Anne Neville's eyes should have been.:eek: I had to stop reading there. I think with a stiff edit it could have been a fine novel though.

[EC2]

Telynor, I loved Down the Common by Ann Baer, but I agree with you re the Crimson Petal and the White.
My wallbanger list consists of:

Pilgrim by James Jackson
Pillars of the Earth -Ken Follett
Jewel Under Siege by Polly Forrester (obscure Mills and Boon set in 1097 Unintentionally hilarious).
The Last English King by Julian Rathbone
Labyrinth by Kate Mosse

Mostly I don't care enough to wall bang. I just think 'meh' and go on to the next. On the above list I have different emotions about different books. The Jewel under Siege one I'm quite fond of because it's too silly for words but in a way that make me laugh. Pillars of the Earth irritates and annoys me. Pilgrim, which I recently reviewed for the HNS is so stunningly bad I cannot believe it's a published novel. It's also offensive. I know the Jews were hated in the middle ages by the European Christians, but if an author touches on interraction with Jews in a novel set in the Medieval period, I would expect him or her to see that villiification through the attitude and mindset of the character. To have the author's voice intrude, talking about one of the characters interracting with a 'greedy, hook-nosed, Jewish money lender' was too much. It's stereo-typing at its worst. And that was without a gang of murderous Cathar perfecti (absolute pacifists in the historical record) out to do away with little children and the pope, and a 16 year old noble boy setting off on crusade on his own and hooking up with a bunch of 12yr old peasants as if they were all greate mates together and off for a day's surfing. I half expected the 16yr old to call his new found friends 'Dude.' There was one set of silliness after another. If this book had positives it was the pace and the breakneck speed of the adventure. It's supposedly about the Children's Crusade but the subject matter is interpreted very loosely.
Cough, and after that rant I'd better retire!

[Tanzanite]

Yikes...I just bought that one. I'm on a mission to read every Jean Plaidy novel, which may very well take the remainder of my natural life, given how much that woman wrote if you include all of her other pen names.

I really liked The Lady in the Tower, and was willing to overlook that inaccuracy involving Anne's mother since I believe Boswell is correct about it being a prevelant notion at the time it was written. If I remember correctly, Norah Lofts' The Concubine includes a statement (as part of one of the chapter headings) out of Strickland's non fiction book about either the mother's death or her stepmother.

And I forgot about Helen of Troy - didn't like that one much either.

[Ash]

I would probably have to say Music and Silence by Rose Tremain. I thought I would totally love that book - it had an interesting setting in Denmark in the 1600s, but oh boy.....It's not often that I don't finish a book, but this was one of the few that have that honour!

Oh my, I loved that book! It was slow at first (and the description of where those musicians had to play had me shivering, and it was 100 degrees outside when I was reading it), but it soon sped up and I could see how the different parts were connecting. But then I like her other books, so maybe I'm just used to her style.

>Pilgrim,

Everytime I see that book mentioned I immediately think of the excellent Pilgrim by Timothy Findley. Its not HF (well, if you stretch it), but its one of my all time favs.

[chuck]

Well, I'm finally a trend setter, although I can't take credit for it, I stole it from another commenter or two somewhere on amazon :D:D

Hello Misfit....I think M.A. George, a very to the point and straight shooter poster from the Amazon HF forum may have coined the Wallbanger term, but you have made the term; even more enjoyable .....In college, I broke more than few backs of those hated text books.....Worst...Clive Cussler....can't remember....something about findina Viking ship in a Iceberg....totally absurd....I do remember it flew like a frisbee....and it was birthday gift.....

[Telynor]

Pilgrim, which I recently reviewed for the HNS is so stunningly bad I cannot believe it's a published novel. It's also offensive. I know the Jews were hated in the middle ages by the European Christians, but if an author touches on interraction with Jews in a novel set in the Medieval period, I would expect him or her to see that villiification through the attitude and mindset of the character. To have the author's voice intrude, talking about one of the characters interracting with a 'greedy, hook-nosed, Jewish money lender' was too much. It's stereo-typing at its worst. And that was without a gang of murderous Cathar perfecti (absolute pacifists in the historical record) out to do away with little children and the pope, and a 16 year old noble boy setting off on crusade on his own and hooking up with a bunch of 12yr old peasants as if they were all greate mates together and off for a day's surfing.

Rant away. Thank you for the warning -- if an author slipped in that comment into a book, I would have have been screaming with rage. Anti-semitism is one of the things that will guarantee that I will not pick up an author's book again. I had to grow up with too much of that, and it's bad enough to see in the real world, I don't need to see it in my escapist reading. And making the Cathars murderous? Oy....

[diamondlil]

Hello Misfit....I think M.A. George, a very to the point and straight shooter poster from the Amazon HF forum may have coined the Wallbanger term, but you have made the term; even more enjoyable .....In college, I broke more than few backs of those hated text books.....Worst...Clive Cussler....can't remember....something about findina Viking ship in a Iceberg....totally absurd....I do remember it flew like a frisbee....and it was birthday gift.....



I've known people who used this phrase for a number of years. It would be very hard to go back now and track who first used it in this context!

[Volgadon]

I'm sitting here now casting dirty looks at the unread copy of Mary Magdalene on the bookshelf.

I agree about Helen of Troy. I finished it but Helen and Paris are difficult subjects to write about. You have to be able to make the reader feel that they were actually worth a war and George didn't (or couldn't) quite do that. Paris came across as a little boy -- not the man he needed to be -- and Helen as a self-indulgent little twit.

I just don't see how Paris and Helen could come across as much different, although Helen probably matured a bit.
Not sure that one needs to make the reader feel that they were worth a war, because, at least for me, the 'face that launched a thousand ships' doesn't ring quite true and there are many factors to figure in.

Here's my own take on it. Pretty boy Paris, a vacous and self-centered playboy, goes abroad to play. He stays at Menelaus's place, falls in lust with M's young wife, the gorgeous Helen. This pretty socialite is utterly bored by life with the greatest bore this side of of the Dardanelles, whose interests hardly extend further than hunting and getting drunk with his buddies once a fortnight. She longs for someone who would dance and flirt with her, not some mannerless lout whose idea of romance is one, two, three you have a new baby, oh and don't forget to do the dusting and my sleeve is ripped, mend that, won't you.
Paris, a charming ladies man, instantly wins her heart and they decide to run away together. They flee to Troy, neither thinking of any consequences.
Menelaus is furious. He has been hurt where it hurts most- his pride. He is now the laughing stock of all Greece. He sends Troy an ultimatum, hand over the pair or prepare for war.
Back home, Paris, had he expected a hero's welcome, was sorely dissapointed. His elder brother, Hector, the sensible one, is furious. He has to pick up the pieces yet again. War is looming, which Hector doesn't want. Bad for trade and agriculture, and life in general. Paris, needing allies, whips up the anti-Greek factions in a frenzy of patriotic fever.
Meanwhile, Menelaus calls on his allies, bound by treaty to help him. It's as tangled a web as WWI!! Some are quite keen to stick one to the Trojans, their main rivals in commerce, others aren't quite as keen.
And there you have it, war begins.

[Kailana]

Wideacre by Philippa Gregory is the first one that comes to mind. That was an atrocious book! I also didn't like The Queen's Fool by her. And then, like Marg, I did not like Madame Victorine. That disappointed me because it sounded promising and just did not work.

[Divia]

I agree with the first two you mentioned. I also tried to read them and while I did finish Queen's Fool I asked myself why I finished it because I'm sure I could have foundsomething far better to read.

Wideacre was just an incest mess. I know she likes it in her books, and it shows, but it just a little much for me.

[Ash]

Its probably not fair, but when an author puts that much incest into her books, it makes me wonder about the author. Same for Pillars of the Earth; how much fantasizing and description about rape is to please the audience, and how much of it says something about him. Ew.

>Clive Cussler....

Hee, he's one of my husbands favorite author, but even he knows that he is not reading HF, and takes much of it with a grain of salt, but still likes the writing and books.

[donroc]

There is one popular contemporary author who writes about Rome. It may have been his first book in the series. I read the first paragraphs in a bookstore and found them to be so poorly written I put it back.

[Telynor]

There is one popular contemporary author who writes about Rome. It may have been his first book in the series. I read the first paragraphs in a bookstore and found them to be so poorly written I put it back.

Go on! Name names -- I tend to read a lot about Rome, and it always helps to know who to avoid.

[donroc]

Go on! Name names -- I tend to read a lot about Rome, and it always helps to know who to avoid.


Conn Iggueldin (sp?).

I should add Mika Waltari's The Roman.

[Mara]

There have been lots but not many spring to mind at the moment. From the distant past I can remember The Mists of Avalon by Marion Zimmer Bradley (tedious), and more recently Remittance Man by Nara Lake (confusing). Both tested my patience and I didn't get very far with them.

But I did like Pillars of the Earth and The Queens Fool, strangely enough (if you suspend your historical belief).

[Perdita]

'Scandal of the Season' by Sophie Gee was disappointing. It's set in 1711 and it's about a jacobite plot to kill Queen Anne. There's a bit of romance in there as well but the writing was too dry. The writer is an academic and I felt that that she was giving a history lesson rather than telling a dramatic story.
Main criticisms are,

1 - scenes that focus too much on characters that will never appear again.
2 - POV changes in the same scene
3 - telling not showing
4 - stilted dialogue

I stopped reading halfway through when I realised that the story wasn't really going anywhere.

[Carla]

Conn Iggueldin (sp?).

I should add Mika Waltari's The Roman.

I've read Conn Iggulden's Emperor series. I don't think I'd be quite so harsh :-) It depends what you're looking for in a novel. I'd rate Iggulden's series as an action film in book form, complete with superheroes, cast-of-thousands battle scenes and all Hollywood's usual respect for historical accuracy. More detailed review here (http://www.carlanayland.org/reviews/emperor.htm) and cross-posted to the reviews forum.

[donroc]

'Scandal of the Season' by Sophie Gee was disappointing. It's set in 1711 and it's about a jacobite plot to kill Queen Anne. There's a bit of romance in there as well but the writing was too dry. The writer is an academic and I felt that that she was giving a history lesson rather than telling a dramatic story.
Main criticisms are,

1 - scenes that focus too much on characters that will never appear again.
2 - POV changes in the same scene
3 - telling not showing
4 - stilted dialogue

I stopped reading halfway through when I realised that the story wasn't really going anywhere.


Interesting regarding #1.

When Exodus was released, I was in grad school, and a Lit. professor trashed it because Mike, the journalist, who is important in the opening chapters, was unceremoniously dropped and never heard from again. The prof's negs did not impede our enjoyment of the book or that of millions.

[Alaric]

I've read Conn Iggulden's Emperor series. I don't think I'd be quite so harsh :-) It depends what you're looking for in a novel. I'd rate Iggulden's series as an action film in book form, complete with superheroes, cast-of-thousands battle scenes and all Hollywood's usual respect for historical accuracy. More detailed review here (http://www.carlanayland.org/reviews/emperor.htm) and cross-posted to the reviews forum.

I've read the first two in that series, but his one on Genghis Khan is much improved overall. Certainly more historically accurate as he followed The Secret History of the Mongols as close as the story would allow, although the superhero complex is still there with Genghis (particularly if the narrative is with one of his brothers). Mind you, Genghis does very much that superhero feel about him anyway given the things he accomplished.

[donroc]

I've read the first two in that series, but his one on Genghis Khan is much improved overall. Certainly more historically accurate as he followed The Secret History of the Mongols as close as the story would allow, although the superhero complex is still there with Genghis (particularly if the narrative is with one of his brothers). Mind you, Genghis does very much that superhero feel about him anyway given the things he accomplished.

An entertaining HF based on the life of Genghis was popular in the 1950s, The Earth is the Lord's, and was the basis for that "turkey" of a film starring John Wayne as the main man.

[LCW]

The Horse Goddess by Morgan Llewelyn is now on my list for worst HF ever. It was just really awful!! The language she gave to her characters made them sound like mentally challenged cave men. It grated on the nerves each time one of them spoke. The author was trying to portray that they were speaking in accents but it was just a big flop. Another one for my "hated" list!!

[Misfit]

The Horse Goddess by Morgan Llewelyn is now on my list for worst HF ever. It was just really awful!! The language she gave to her characters made them sound like mentally challenged cave men. It grated on the nerves each time one of them spoke. The author was trying to portray that they were speaking in accents but it was just a big flop. Another one for my "hated" list!!

I tried ML's The Wind from Hastings and finally gave it up. Not bad, but rather dull.

[Perdita]

Interesting regarding #1.

When Exodus was released, I was in grad school, and a Lit. professor trashed it because Mike, the journalist, who is important in the opening chapters, was unceremoniously dropped and never heard from again. The prof's negs did not impede our enjoyment of the book or that of millions.

Now I come to think of it that's probably not a bad fault, per se. It's just that in the case of Scandal of the Season it grated on me because the actual storytelling felt too leisurely. I just wanted the author to get on with it!
I don't mind a few non-essential characters popping up as long as they add something to the overall reading experience

[Andromeda_Organa]

Well- just what it says! What's the worst HF you've tried to read? For me, the one I remember recently is "The Other Queen." Also, "Kathryn the Wanton Queen" by Maureen Peters.

[JMJacobsen]

Off the top of my head, I can recall The Pirate Queen by Alan Gold just about did me in. One Thousand White Women by Jim Fergus probably rates a close second.

And despite my ranting lately, The Jewel of Medina doesn't even make my top 5 worst hf reads. Okay, make that top 3. :p

[Alaric]

I have to say I really didn't enjoy The Pillars of the Earth.

[Carine]

For me it was a dutch book, I mean by a dutch writer, it was called Setna and was a celtic story set in Ireland. It just didn't go anywhere so halfway it was thrown aside.

[Vanessa]

The Volcano Lover by Susan Sontag. Interesting in parts but just too philosophical and long winded!

[sweetpotatoboy]

For me, it has to be "Soldier of Gold" by Diane Brenda Bryan.
http://www.amazon.com/Soldier-God-Diane-Brenda-Bryan/dp/1563152479

A potentially interesting novel about a family of conversos in Portugal/Mexico, but the writing was dreadful and she got SO many things so completely wrong it was almost laughable. Just goes to show you can't rely on a slew of 5-star ratings on Amazon. I wonder if these people read the same book as me.

[Ash]

I rarely read books that have nothing but a slew of 5 stars, unless its been recommended elsewhere to me. I usually don't trust them much, esp if there are several in a row of close to the same date. (we've had this conversation before but I can't find the thread)

[Misfit]

I rarely read books that have nothing but a slew of 5 stars, unless its been recommended elsewhere to me. I usually don't trust them much, esp if there are several in a row of close to the same date. (we've had this conversation before but I can't find the thread)

I have so learned not to trust those five stars, unless its a fellow reader/Amazon friend I'm familiar with. I like the new drop down box on the profiles - if someone's only written one or two reviews I treat them as suspect. I've seen many a circumstance where its most likely family/friends, etc. posting gushing reviews. If I'm not sure I go for it at the library, it's easier to wall bang one you've not paid dearly for.

[Leo62]

Yikes everyone's really hating on "Pillars of the Earth" :eek: I loved it - and I loved "Crimson Petal and the White" too. :D

One of the worst openings of a HN I've ever read was Ben Elton's "The First Casualty". Don't know if it's the worst ever cos I never got past chapter 1. It managed to tick every WW1 cliche in the book - and that was just on page 1! And really badly written too. Stick to Blackadder mate.

I've tried several Phillippa Gregory books and never been able to get into any of them.

Oh yes, and both "Labyrinth" and "Sepulchre" by Kate Mosse (though only got a couple of chapters into Sepulchre. It was, um, sepulchral :rolleyes:)

[Ash]

One of the worst openings of a HN I've ever read was Ben Elton's "The First Casualty". Don't know if it's the worst ever cos I never got past chapter 1. It managed to tick every WW1 cliche in the book - and that was just on page 1! And really badly written too. Stick to Blackadder mate.)

One of my favorite books from college reading was This Other Eden by Ben Elton. A look at an environmental catasrophe, and how a media mogul is able to guide the course of events. Some of the reading towards the end is a little too much hammering the message home, but I thought it quite excellent. I haven't cared for his other ones tho. Did love Black Adder. Did you know there is a Black Adder Christmas? Not to be missed!

[Carine]

Yikes everyone's really hating on "Pillars of the Earth" :eek: I loved it

I didn't hate Pillars of the Earth Leo, and neither did my partner, in fact we quite liked it :)
Have you read the sequel "World without End" ? I haven't read it yet but my partner did and he says it's even better then Pillars of the Earth.

[AuntiePam]

Does The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova count as HF? Whether it does or not, I think it's an awful, awful book. There's no there there, as they used to say about Oakland, CA. Heavily hyped by critics who must have been impressed by a book's weight. "My gosh, a first time author and she wrote all that? It must be really good!"

I didn't make it very far into The Religion by Tim Willocks, because of an unnecessarily graphic rape scene. It was obvious the author enjoyed writing that scene so I figured he'd be doing it again and I dumped it.

I dumped A Conspiracy of Paper by David Liss when one of the characters broke into someone's house and ransacked it in the middle of the day while servants were present.

The Last Town on Earth by Thomas Mullen had a promising plot -- a flu epidemic in a logging community in 1918, but the dialogue was awful, and Mullen would have us believe that the characters didn't know how far it was to the nearest town.

I didn't finish The Brothers of Gwynedd Quartet by Ellis Peters/Edith Pargeter -- entirely too much traveling.

That's enough for now. You guys'll think I don't like anything. :)

[boswellbaxter]

I didn't finish The Brothers of Gwynedd Quartet by Ellis Peters/Edith Pargeter -- entirely too much traveling. :)

I couldn't finish it either, I'm afraid. I wouldn't call it a bad book by any means, but it could have used something--maybe more dialogue? I found the characters rather stiff too, and I could have done without the fictional ones altogether. Compared to Sharon Penman's novels set in the same period, it just didn't bring it for me.

[Carine]

Boswellbaxter and AuntiePam :

I'm sorry to hear that The Brothers of Gwynedd by Edith Pargeter is not a good read.
Although in a way I'm glad to learn it now, because I'm reading Here Be Dragons at the moment by Sharon Penman and was looking for more books on Wales. In this search I came across The Brothers of Gwynedd and was already looking for the best way to get my hands on it, but I think I'll skip it now.
Thanks for letting us know, you saved me some money here !

[Ariadne]

The Brothers of Gwynedd quartet was one I sincerely wanted to like and continue with, but it just didn't happen. I made it a couple hundred pages in, but that's only because I'd brought it with me on a boring temp job and there was nothing else to do all day. It wasn't the worst I've ever read, but the prose was dry, with far too many narrative descriptions.

Willocks' The Religion, though - it hit all the buttons for things I'd normally never read (war novel, tons of gory battle scenes, etc.), but I loved that book and would read the sequel in a heartbeat. Vive la difference :)

[EC2]

I ploughed my way through all of the Brothers of Gwynedd quartet, although sometimes in terms of going it was very heavy clay. Rather like pieces in Captain Corelli's Mandolin (a DNF for me), however, there are moments of absolutely beautiful prose that paint such wonderful mind pictures you want to hang them on a wall. But way too much weight in between. The Heaven Tree stuff was a bit that way, but the BOG quartet was definitely a lot more 'bogged' down!

[Leo62]

I didn't hate Pillars of the Earth Leo, and neither did my partner, in fact we quite liked it :)
Have you read the sequel "World without End" ? I haven't read it yet but my partner did and he says it's even better then Pillars of the Earth.

Carine - glad I'm not alone ;) Yes I've both read and enjoyed World Without End - it's a very clever sort-of-but-not-really sequel to PotE. More fascinating architectural stuff, this time about bridge-building, and a really powerful sense of a community in flux.

[Leo62]

Does The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova count as HF? Whether it does or not, I think it's an awful, awful book. There's no there there, as they used to say about Oakland, CA. Heavily hyped by critics who must have been impressed by a book's weight. "My gosh, a first time author and she wrote all that? It must be really good!"



God yes that was a turkey! I'd forgotten about it - must have been so bad I blocked it out. I was really annoyed that I ploughed through the whole d%$m thing - kept thinking that soon it would really get going. It never did.

[Leo62]

Rather like pieces in Captain Corelli's Mandolin (a DNF for me)

What's a DNF?? ;)

[Carla]

DNF = Did Not Finish, I think.

[Leo62]

Thanks :)

I really liked Captain Corelli :cool: The film was a turkey though.

[Ash]

Does The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova count as HF? Whether it does or not, I think it's an awful, awful book. There's no there there, as they used to say about Oakland, CA. Heavily hyped by critics who must have been impressed by a book's weight. "My gosh, a first time author and she wrote all that? It must be really good!"

It counts in my book and you are not alone. Its a book that should have been up my alley given the topic, but a few pages in I knew I was in trouble. Hee, I love the idea that critics were impressed by the books weight, that sounds about right sometimes!

Like you, I was unimpressed with The Brothers of Gwynedd Quartet. I thought my problem was just that I loved Sharon Penman's take on the story and so couldn't read another. Glad that EC spoke up as well! It really wasn't the same.

[Ash]

I really liked Captain Corelli :cool: The film was a turkey though.

I saw the movie before reading the book, and so I liked it. Then I read the book. Oh my. The book was excellent, till the moment when he returns. Oh I was furious with the author for making that character do something that was so out of character, and for causing the girl such heartbreak for years. I forgave him after reading Birds Without Wings (which is good if you can get through the rather dry historical passages that he did so much better in Corelli), but it still leaves me with a very bad taste in my mouth.

[Tanzanite]

Like you, I was unimpressed with The Brothers of Gwynedd Quartet. I thought my problem was just that I loved Sharon Penman's take on the story and so couldn't read another. Glad that EC spoke up as well! It really wasn't the same.

I tried to read the Gwyneed Quartet before I read Penman and I couldn't make it past about 50 pages. I still have the book and maybe some day I'll give it another try. But I think you're right - no one will be able to live up to Penman's Welsh trilogy.

[EC2]

Yes DNF is 'Did not finish'. The older I gets the more it seems to happen.
There are two much lauded books, both DNF's for me that I much prefer as films but I know I'm in the minority. I really enjoyed Captain Corelli the film - much better than the book, and I much preferred The Name of the Rose the film, but couldn't get on with the book. In fact I've just bought the latter film on DVD as a Christmas prez to self.
The Historian was a DNF for me, as was Jonathan Strange and Mr Norel. I tried reading them one after the other and it nearly did for me!

[Leo62]

I'm with you on the Name of the Rose - film was great, didn't make much headway with the book... yep another DNF (so nice to learn a new acronym ;)) though I really enjoyed Foucaults Pendulum.

I was very annoyed with Elizabeth Kostova as I ploughed all the way through the Historian waiting for a payoff that never came. I suppose you could call it a FBRI - Finished But Regretted It.

On the film/book front, I think a lot depends on which you see first. If you see an adaptation of a book you've really enjoyed, you're much more likely to be disappointed. Whereas the other way around, you can watch the film without any prior expectations.

Jonathan Strange - I did finish that and I didn't regret it. I think this is a book that people either love or hate. It's very dense - I happened to be just in the mood for it at the time, and it really did pay off persistence with a satisfying ending IMHO :D

[Madeleine]

I quite liked The Historian! It did sag a bit in the middle but on the whole it wasn't a bad read.

didn't like Corelli at all, skipped some pages and think it's one of the most over-rated books I've read. Film looks beautiful but is probably the worst-cast movie I've seen in ages, only John Hurt can hold his head up in that one!

[AuntiePam]

Yes DNF is 'Did not finish'. The older I gets the more it seems to happen.

Me too. Life's too short. I usually give a book 50 pages or so, but I've dumped some after just a few.

I much preferred The Name of the Rose the film, but couldn't get on with the book.

Same here. Usually I can tell the meaning of a word from its context, but not with this book. I had my dictionary at hand but stopping to look up a word on every page really slowed things down. I finally gave up. Loved the movie.

The Historian was a DNF for me, as was Jonathan Strange and Mr Norel. I tried reading them one after the other and it nearly did for me!

I started and stopped Norell a couple of times, and then I read a review that laid out what Clarke was trying to do. It changed my attitude about the book and I was able to finish it. I still wish it had been something else though. I'm sort of a backseat driver/reader sometimes -- I want the author to do it MY way or I get antsy. :) Norell needed more magic, more action, more of the fluffy-haired man. How was it she described his hair? Thistledown? Something like that.

[chuck]

Stopped and started a couple of times, and finally dnf Edward Rutherfurd's "The Dublin Sagas".....I tolerated ER's "Sarum" and will add a wallbanger "Mists of Avalon"

[Amanda]

The Name of the Rose - FBRI

Dublin - FBRI (though I enjoyed London, Sarum and Russka very much)

Crime and Punishment - DNF (mind you it probably wasn't a great choice to take on a holiday!)

[SonjaMarie]

FBRI? Explain.

SM

[Leyland]

Jonathan Strange - I did finish that and I didn't regret it. I think this is a book that people either love or hate. It's very dense - I happened to be just in the mood for it at the time, and it really did pay off persistence with a satisfying ending IMHO :D
Good to know! I started the hardcover not long after it was first published and realized I needed to concentrate a lot more than I was able to at that particular time in life. So it's been patiently waiting for another go since I only got a hundred or so pages in. I did buy the paperback for a dollar at a church sale earlier this year which might be easier to hold and will move it up in the TBR pecking order. I'll start from the beginning.

I didn't think it was the worst HF I've read, but not the usual sort though. Love the footnotes and the magic!

[Carine]

The Name of the Rose - FBRI

Dublin - FBRI (though I enjoyed London, Sarum and Russka very much)

Crime and Punishment - DNF (mind you it probably wasn't a great choice to take on a holiday!)

I never read The Name of the Rose, but I liked the film.

Last summer I read Dublin and that was FBRI (Finished But Regretted It) for me too !!! And now I don't know if I want to read another book by Edward Rutherfurd even though I have Sarum on my TBR pile !!

[Vanessa]

I loved both The Historian and Jonathan Strange. With JS, when I first started to read it I abandoned it as I wasn't in the mood. I don't know whether it might have been something to do with the fact it was the hardback version, it being so huge. I bought it later in paperback and then tried again in a few months - I thought it was fabulous second time round!

[Kasthu]

I know I'll probably get a lot of hate mail for this (:D), but I really didn't like Gone With the Wind. The romance there seemed too overblown.

Diana Gabaldon doesn't do too much for me, either, though I got through Outlander and the second book in the series without too much trouble. By the third book, I thought the series dragged.

Another not so favorite is Mistress of the Art of the Death; I gave up on it about 100 pages through because of all the anachronisms. It was disappointing, considering that's the type of HF I generally like.

[EC2]

Another not so favorite is Mistress of the Art of the Death; I gave up on it about 100 pages through because of all the anachronisms. It was disappointing, considering that's the type of HF I generally like.

The Anachronisms are massive in that aren't they? The author's website makes a point of claiming historical accuracy for the series but I think it's rather wishful thinking. I enjoyed the novel once I'd managed to stuff my disbelief in a trunk with three padlocks and cast it overboard!

[nona]

so I read from the first post to the last. All I can say is some of my questionable must haves are confirmed with a 'no' and others I'm going to give it a go to decide it's fate on my own opinions. Sadly but true, there are a few on this list that I have to read so I don't know where this list leaves them. Only time will tell I guess.

[gyrehead]

I'm not sure if I can come up with the absolute worst book. But this year I know the worst book was proably Traci Slatton's Immortal. I did not care for it at all. And yes it had tomatoes!

I also was really disappointed with Jeri Westerson's Veil of Lies. This is one of those books where I was left feeling that all she did was take a story and insert it into a medieval setting. Way too trite and derivative and it really felt completely unoriginal. And silly. It was like watching a bad television P.I. show and all they did was dress everyone up in tights. And while it was not the worst example of what I loathe, it was a prime example. Not anachronisms, but that stretching ot credibility beyond the breaking point. Follett is probably the worst. But it is when an author uses the extremely rare exception and then applies it as if it is the rule. Westerson, again not the worst offender this year, still employs reading and writing as if it was not as rare and utilizes in a way that totally ignores even the rarity of writing materials, let alone how many across the social spectrum could read.

[nona]

Pillars of the Earth, what is it about and why is it so horrific? I remember it was a big thing when it first came out but I never checked into as my nose was buried in another book.

[Misfit]

Pillars of the Earth, what is it about and why is it so horrific? I remember it was a big thing when it first came out but I never checked into as my nose was buried in another book.

Oh where do I start? The violence? The rapes? The historical inaccuracies? The 20C characters transplanted into medieval times? All together for me it was simply awful. Ash and EC can pick it up from here. :o

[Ash]

Its about a man who builds a cathedral. That alone should be the driving factor to chosing this book. Many people loved it. But some people could not get passed the poor writing, the cardboard characters, the dull descriptions of building, or the over the top details of rape and torture, several times, or the inaccruacies and anachronisms that Misfit mentions. You may love it, so try it and see. I'll be interested in your take.

[EC2]

Oh where do I start? The violence? The rapes? The historical inaccuracies? The 20C characters transplanted into medieval times? All together for me it was simply awful. Ash and EC can pick it up from here. :o

My experience of POTE has been mixed and ongoing.
I first read it in about 1989/1990 from the library. I thought it was a pacy page turner if in need of an edit here and there. There were some sloppy bits of history and the sex scenes seemed to owe a lot to modern male breast-obsessed fantasy
A few years ago an online reading group I'm part of, chose it as their book of the month, so I took it out of the library again to refresh my memory. I'd moved on a great deal in the approx 15 years since I'd last read the book and this time the historical errors shrieked at me, especially of mindset. Most of the novel could not have happened in the 12thC. The sex was more disturbing this time around. The book still had pace and page turning quality, but at the same time it was a severe wall banger.
I would say that if you can read it on the surface and not go deep, then, depending on your tastes, you might enjoy it. If you know the Middle Ages beyond a passing glance and pause for thought, it will be intensely irritating.
Your tolerance to sex and violence will also have to be taken into consideration. There are worse books about. In my case, I think it was the way the latter was written that really made me feel uneasy.
A couple of e.g.'s of historical errors that you might not notice unless you pause for thought are:
When a character dies in the woods, her husband, who is involved in building a cathedral, buries and leaves her there. This is totally alien to 12thC mindset. He'd want her buried in hallowed ground and to be shriven. He'd be worried about the state of her soul - especially if he's working in a cathedral with reminders of God's will all around him.
A castle is taken by the opposition in the Stephen/Matilda war, but instead of occupying it, they just leave the heroine and her brother to knock about it in it alone for ages when the reality is that it would be grabbed and garrisoned quick and fast.
The whole Brother Philip back story would never have happened - too long to go into, but it wouldn't!
However, if you can go with the flow - like watching an Errol Flynn Robin Hood film on a Sunday afternoon, then these numerous flaws might not bother you.
POTE demands a suspension of disbelief and a certain mindset to enjoy, and not everyone is the same in their tastes. The above is why I didn't go for it.

[gyrehead]

Yeah Follett's two books TPOTE and WWE are what I call "waterskiing books".

1.If you can just skim across the surface and not really think about it too much you might just enjoy the ride.

2.If you acheive one, it makes for rather quite simplistic fast paced reading.

3.If you don't, you'll probably stumble and hit the water hard

4.Once you fall and plunge below the surface you might realize just how nasty the water is you have been so blissfully skimming along.

Beyond the historical inaccuracies (Follett's notion of how the nobility works is pretty laughable), it just isn't a well thought complex story. Now soap operic trash has its place. And this is definitely soap operic. Thirty years ago Joan Collins and Linda Evans would have been cast to play the female leads complete with a "chick fight" in the mud.

What I find amazing is that since it is Follett writing it, critics seem to give it much more of a pass. Had it been a female writer, I think it would have been sneered at much more and probably had a shirtless Fabio on the cover with an uncompleted cathedral looming in the background and a couple of medieval wenches with heaving bosoms gazing in adoration at one or the other.

When WWE came out it simply amazed me how many people seemed proud to point out that they were going to read it.

[Kasthu]

[QUOTE=gyrehead;15849]I'm not sure if I can come up with the absolute worst book. But this year I know the worst book was proably Traci Slatton's Immortal. I did not care for it at all. And yes it had tomatoes! [QUOTE]

Geez, what is it with authors who put tomatoes in novels set in 15th century Europe? Is there some kind of new research out there that proves for certain that they were known there that early? I too didn't care for Immoratal, though I think it was the subject matter itself that was so disturbing.

[Kveto from Prague]

Yeah Follett's two books TPOTE and WWE are what I call "waterskiing books".

1.If you can just skim across the surface and not really think about it too much you might just enjoy the ride.

2.If you acheive one, it makes for rather quite simplistic fast paced reading.

3.If you don't, you'll probably stumble and hit the water hard

4.Once you fall and plunge below the surface you might realize just how nasty the water is you have been so blissfully skimming along.

Beyond the historical inaccuracies (Follett's notion of how the nobility works is pretty laughable), it just isn't a well thought complex story. Now soap operic trash has its place. And this is definitely soap operic. Thirty years ago Joan Collins and Linda Evans would have been cast to play the female leads complete with a "chick fight" in the mud.

What I find amazing is that since it is Follett writing it, critics seem to give it much more of a pass. Had it been a female writer, I think it would have been sneered at much more and probably had a shirtless Fabio on the cover with an uncompleted cathedral looming in the background and a couple of medieval wenches with heaving bosoms gazing in adoration at one or the other.

When WWE came out it simply amazed me how many people seemed proud to point out that they were going to read it.

I know this thread is kind of a dog pile on Pillars of the earth, and i read it over 10 years ago so dont remember much. the biggest "what the--?" moment for me was when the noblewoman with a newborn baby walked the camino de santiago from england to galicia! I walked half of the camino as a healthy young lad and it was not easy. I know midevil women were hardy lasses but come on, walking across france and spain with a baby on your back?! ok, maybe im just a wimp.
:-)

[Leo62]

Oh where do I start? The violence? The rapes? The historical inaccuracies? The 20C characters transplanted into medieval times? All together for me it was simply awful. Ash and EC can pick it up from here. :o

I can understand objections to POTE because of historical innaccuracies or anachronistic behaviour/attitudes.

But to object to a book set in C12th because it's too *violent*... :eek: ...that I don't get.

[Misfit]

I can understand objections to POTE because of historical innaccuracies or anachronistic behaviour/attitudes.

But to object to a book set in C12th because it's too *violent*... :eek: ...that I don't get.

Oh, but the violence was described in such minute excruciating detail -- let alone the rapes. There was one with the prostitute that went way beyond the pale, it seemed like the author got his kicks on it. A better author can let the reader know what is going on without having to go into such excruciating detail.

[Ash]

I can handle violence, I can handle rape scenes - I can't handle first the graphic lead up to the rape, a lead up that starts practically at page one, then the rape itself, the description of which was way over the top. There was nothing in the story that would have been enhanced by this description. Yes, the 12 century was violent; I did not need the graphics to understand that. It sounded like it was more a fantasy that the author had, and that he enjoyed writing about it. By the time I got to the prostitues rape, I was done.

[Leo62]

It's years since I read it. Must admit I don't remember any rape scenes at all :eek: Will have to revisit sometime...

[Volgadon]

A rape in the 12th c is no more violent than one in this age, but there is no need to go into sickening detail!!!

[Margaret]

Okay, I think I said somewhere earlier in this thread that I wasn't going to post a candidate. But at that time I had not read Gladiatrix.

This is a novel that has already been published in the U.K. and is coming out in April 2009 in the U.S. If it were not a LibraryThing "Early Reviewers" book that I had specifically requested (I have been kicking myself black and blue for that judgment lapse), I would have banged the wall with it very early on. I will not detail all of the many wall-banging moments in this book, at least one per chapter, but will simply say that, compared to Gladiatrix, the sexual violence in Pillars of the Earth is sparse and if not tame, at least well-written by comparison (and I'm no huge fan of Follett's prose style, which I find competent but certainly not literary). I have a high tolerance for sex and violence in novels if it's historically and psychologically authentic and integrated with the overall plot in a way that provides at least some degree of enlightenment about history and human nature. The author clearly did some research for this novel (he mentions Wikipedia in the author's note), but the historical details (where accurate) are only a thin cover for a lot of ugly, violent sex and silliness reminiscent of the XXX "women in prison" movies of decades ago. Plus, the one black character in the novel is an ugly, violent, stupid brute with no redeeming qualities (much like the novel) of whose skin color much is made - I'm surprised an American publisher would accept this without edits.

This is the first real "pan" I have done for my website. If anyone's interested in a more formal review, it's at http://www.HistoricalNovels.info/Gladiatrix.html.

[SonjaMarie]

The author of "Gladiatrix" was a member of the older forum for a short time, and I remember him talking about the book, but even then I wasn't interested in it, and now I know for sure I'm not!

SM

[gyrehead]

I think I picked this up in a bookstore on a read the first twenty-fifty pages and see if it takes and then buy it (so far I'm doing pretty good on this gamble -- I end up buying most and as I am a very fast reader I'm not bogarting a section of the shelves).

Isn't the main character a Spartan? A female Spartan warrior. No matter how convoluted the author's attempt at justifying the premise this alone made it go back on the shelf.

[Ash]

The author clearly did some research for this novel (he mentions Wikipedia in the author's note),

ROTFLMAO!!!!! (rolling on the floor laughing my a off. much better as an acronym :)

[Telynor]

Gladiatrix sounds pretty horrible. I think I will give it a miss, despite my fondness for things Roman. On a side note, one of my favourite bits of film when it comes to gladiators is the scene in I, Cladius where Livia is haranguing a bunch of gladiators before the games. If you haven't seen it, it's a great bit of schtick.

[Margaret]

Isn't the main character a Spartan? A female Spartan warrior. No matter how convoluted the author's attempt at justifying the premise this alone made it go back on the shelf.


Yes, a female Spartan warrior and former priestess of a Spartan religious-military sect the author made up for purposes of the novel (to his credit, he does admit it's completely imaginary in his author's note). This is why she takes to the life of a gladiatrix so readily (despite the humiliation of being a slave), because she's already been trained from childhood for a life of single combat. There's a lot of nonsense about how Spartans don't approve of slavery - apparently the Helots didn't qualify as slaves because they were called Helots rather than slaves. One of the annoying things about this novel is the way the author tosses in unlikely attitudes on the spur of the moment and then twists himself into a pretzel justifying them - when he does justify them. He's constantly mentioning how unusually tall this Spartan woman is, although he also mentions she was deprived of food while she was growing up, part of the Spartan toughening process. In one of her early gladiatorial combats, she's matched against a "typical" Celtic woman from Gaul, who is "short and solidly built." Never mind that all the classical Roman writers were in awe of the height of Celtic women.

[EC2]

One of the annoying things about this novel is the way the author tosses in unlikely attitudes on the spur of the moment and then twists himself into a pretzel justifying them - when he does justify them.

Oh ROTFLOLMAO Margaret, what a wonderful turn of phrase!
Carla thought it wasn't too bad. (sorry, outing you Carla, but I remember your review!)
http://www.carlanayland.org/reviews/gladiatrix.htm
(http://www.carlanayland.org/reviews/gladiatrix.htm)
From your review it sounds as if the target audience will be young males who read the likes of Nutz and FHM.

[Volgadon]

Even those rags probably have more redeeming features than Gladiatrix by the sound of it.

[Alaric]

From your review it sounds as if the target audience will be young males who read the likes of Nutz and FHM.

More like fans of 300 :p (which I liked as a movie anyway).

[Misfit]

the sexual violence in Pillars of the Earth is sparse and if not tame, at least well-written by comparison (and I'm no huge fan of Follett's prose style, which I find competent but certainly not literary)

And just like Pillars, the greater public at large (at least on Amazon US and UK) seem to love it. I think I recall that being on Amazon's Vine offerings this month and thankfully wasn't interested.

[Carla]

Carla thought it wasn't too bad. (sorry, outing you Carla, but I remember your review!)
http://www.carlanayland.org/reviews/gladiatrix.htm
(http://www.carlanayland.org/reviews/gladiatrix.htm)
From your review it sounds as if the target audience will be young males who read the likes of Nutz and FHM.

I think I said I thought it would appeal to fans of Simon Scarrow and Bernard Cornwell, didn't I? I think I'd stand by that. Fast plot, lots of brutal cinematic action scenes. I also quite liked the central character's utter tactlessness and (misguided) conviction of her own superiority; I found it quite amusing to watch her congratulating herself on her own astuteness while the other characters were running rings round her.

[Margaret]

twists himself into a pretzel

Can't take credit for that one, EC - it's used fairly often here in the U.S. Maybe pretzels are an American invention?

I also quite liked the central character's utter tactlessness and (misguided) conviction of her own superiority; I found it quite amusing to watch her congratulating herself on her own astuteness while the other characters were running rings round her.

LOL, Carla.

Just got a long, furious message from Whitfield via Facebook about the short review I posted at LibraryThing, accusing me of attacking him personally instead of limiting myself to discussing the work. Of course, since I don't know him personally and all I have to go on is the work, that's something of a pretzel-twister in itself. I can understand why he'd be upset, but I genuinely did find his novel repugnant. It's only one person's opinion, but it is mine.

[SonjaMarie]

Wiki says Pretzels are either a Italian or German creation. I know I've read that the shape is related to monks arms crossing the chest.

SM

[Margaret]

The word pretzel has a German sound, now that I think of it. In any case, Americans really took the pretzel idea and ran with it.

[SonjaMarie]

You know I actually had a dream last night that Mr. Whitfield rejoined the forum and saw what has been written about his book and was not happy. Guess it came true for you in a way!

SM

[Margaret]

Yes. It did give me pause when someone mentioned in this thread that he used to be a member at the old forum. But what good is a reviewer who doesn't give her honest opinion of a book because she doesn't want to hurt the author's feelings?

[SonjaMarie]

Yes. It did give me pause when someone mentioned in this thread that he used to be a member at the old forum. But what good is a reviewer who doesn't give her honest opinion of a book because she doesn't want to hurt the author's feelings?

That was me. Probably why this thread was in my dreams last night!

SM

[annis]

Just stirring the pot here, but I wouldn't have thought the premise of a female Spartan warrior a totally implausible one, putting all other objections aside.
Indications seem to be that a Spartan < girl's education was equally as brutal as the men's; many athletic events such as javelin, discus, foot races, and staged battles were also for both sexes. In many such events, Spartan women would run naked in the presence of their male counterparts and were respected for their athletic feats. Though women in Sparta were not subject to the same training as given by Lycurgus, Spartan women were expected and driven to produce strong and healthy children, and to be loyal to their state. Spartan girls were better fed than their Athenian counterparts, and were taught writing, something which Menander (an Athenian) said, "Teaching a woman to read and write? What a terrible thing to do! Like feeding a vile snake on more poison." A woman was expected in times of war to oversee her husband's property, and to guard it against invaders and revolts until her husband returned; hence many Spartan women are pictured as warriors.>

Interesting point about being better-fed than their counterparts in Athens, though.

Keeping in mind, as Robin Fowler points out in her article (http://ancienthistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_women_of_sparta) , "Women of Sparta", that unfortunately <there is no real historical documentation that spells out the ways of the women of Sparta. Historians rely on the accounts of Archaic Greek (7th century) poets and other subsequent Greek historians and literary figures to piece together the history, and sometimes the mythology, of the lives and culture of Spartan women.>

[Volgadon]

Wiki says Pretzels are either a Italian or German creation. I know I've read that the shape is related to monks arms crossing the chest.

SM

I thought they were Jewish, though maybe we appropriated it.

[Ash]

Hee, I never had the idea they were a Jewish food. Tho we did appropriate bagels, if I recall correctly. And I'm so glad we did (mmmm, lox)

[Volgadon]

We call them little bagels. Oddly enough, bagels are practically unheard of in Israel!!!

[Volgadon]

Turns out that they are German or Alsatian and we adopted them. Oh well.

[chuck]

I think I said I thought it would appeal to fans of Simon Scarrow and Bernard Cornwell, didn't I? I think I'd stand by that. Fast plot, lots of brutal cinematic action scenes. I also quite liked the central character's utter tactlessness and (misguided) conviction of her own superiority; I found it quite amusing to watch her congratulating herself on her own astuteness while the other characters were running rings round her.

Hello Carla....Please explain your Cornwell and Scarrow comments......I hope your not lumping "us" BC and SS fans with Whitfield's work...........Have you had a chance to review Cornwell's website....He is very articulate and fair with his comments about his novels.....:confused::confused:

[EC2]

Yes. It did give me pause when someone mentioned in this thread that he used to be a member at the old forum. But what good is a reviewer who doesn't give her honest opinion of a book because she doesn't want to hurt the author's feelings?

I think you're quite right Margaret. I've had folk on the forum dislike my work and I've not thrown a hissy fit. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion and I think as long as a reviewer gives reasons for why they think so and so, it can only add to the discussion/debate. I'd hate everyone to be muzzled just because the author was on the forum. You have to be able to take the custard pies as well as the champagne and flowers!

[Ash]

We call them little bagels. Oddly enough, bagels are practically unheard of in Israel!!!


Hee, that was quite a surprise to my 17 year old self!

[annis]

This is by no means the worst HF I've read, but it is amongst the most frustrating. "Theoderic" by Ross Laidlaw. The author really knows his subject and it makes an excellent non-fiction history of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires in the late fifth and early sixth centuries. It's thoroughly researched, with copious (albeit distracting) footnotes and additional information at the back of the book. But as HF ? Nowhere did I get any feeling of the person of Theoderic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodoric_the_Great), although the book revolves around his life and times. This was a man of great abilities and charisma, but he remains black & white, a ghost in the pages of a historical text. Where is the passion, the vitality of the man?

My first rant of the year :)

[Margaret]

Just stirring the pot here, but I wouldn't have thought the premise of a female Spartan warrior a totally implausible one, putting all other objections aside.

You know I love it when you stir the pot, Annis! It wasn't so much that I found the idea of a female Spartan warrior implausible as that I found the whole tone of the book had the superficiality and cartoon-like quality of a video game and, like some video games, glorified extreme violence - in this case, particularly sexualized violence against women. In this context, the Spartan woman's background became part of what, to me, seemed a general aura of carelessness and unconcern about whether the historical setting was authentic, so long as it served up a lot of a certain type of violence. People who play video games may be inured to this and less sensitive to it than I am. For a lot of novels, I'm more comfortable than many historical novel fans to overlook some anachronisms and/or some modern-folks-in-fancy-dress errors if the novel nevertheless presents me with a new, plausible, and illuminating angle on some aspect of the time period or on a historical character. I found this novel exploitive rather than illuminating.

I haven't read Scarrow, but I find Cornwell's work to be completely different in tone. The Pale Horseman is full of violence, including violence against women, but the characters and situations felt authentic, true to their time and, most important to me, illuminative of the human psyche in general. In reading The Pale Horseman, I was able to feel compassion and understanding for Uhtred even while he was pursuing activities I did not approve of. I think this is one of the finest things a novelist can do for readers, because it expands one's ability to feel compassion. Gladiatrix didn't do it for me, partly because the cartoon-like characterizations never allowed me to enter their psyches as if they were real people, and partly because the violence seemed to be served up as something for the reader to enjoy purely for its own sake.

[LCW]

Yikes! This book sounds awful! I was thinking about purchasing it since The Light Bearer made me want to read more about gladiators in general but I think I'll pass.

[Carla]

Well, I enjoyed Gladiatrix and I said why in my review, which EC linked to somewhere up the thread. Margaret didn't, and said why in her review. It would be a dull world if we all liked the same things.

LCW, if you enjoyed The Light Bearer by Donna Gillespie, you may like to look at her comment on Gladiatrix quoted on Russell Whitfield's website (http://www.russellwhitfield.com/reviews.htm). It seems she liked it too.

[Misfit]

LCW, if you enjoyed The Light Bearer by Donna Gillespie, you may like to look at her comment on Gladiatrix quoted on Russell Whitfield's website (http://www.russellwhitfield.com/reviews.htm). It seems she liked it too.

If I'm not mistaken I saw a glowing review by Gellispie on the book on Amazon.

[gyrehead]

I definitely found the Spartan Warriorette theme implausible. It was presented in a very modern way as far as I had read and was also presented with non of the incredible sexist and rascist views the Spartas were known to have. Even just doing a little probing into the Classical encyclopedia on Women or Sparta or Cleomenes and the author could have avoided a modern day attempt to do nothing more than tap into a trend. Plus just the comtemporary references as far back as there is written record in the region to the advent of the Roman Empire and the Greek in general and SPartan in particular notion of women actually fighting is pretty much dealt with the same level of distrust and even outrage as the Spartans had for the Greek courtesans. From my understanding it was fine for the Spartans to have their owmen be tough and strong as examples of the overall Spartan way of life. But even with some strong female leaders, women where still way too second class that the premise was just something I had to hoot at. For me the book read very much like a Hollywood pitch:

"It's Lara Croft Meets 300."

But I also see this type of trend in a lot of the historical fiction and also cropping up rather strongly in fantasy fiction. All of which seem incredibly popular across a rather broad base. Scott Lynch (Ocean's Eleven Meets Fritz Leiber) and Joe Abercrombie (David Gemmell meets Conn Iggulden) write fantasy that really has a distinct parallel to much of the action themed historical fiction (I have read with very mixed results) that is very popular today.

[EC2]

"It's Lara Croft Meets 300."

But I also see this type of trend in a lot of the historical fiction and also cropping up rather strongly in fantasy fiction. All of which seem incredibly popular across a rather broad base. Scott Lynch (Ocean's Eleven Meets Fritz Leiber) and Joe Abercrombie (David Gemmell meets Conn Iggulden) write fantasy that really has a distinct parallel to much of the action themed historical fiction (I have read with very mixed results) that is very popular today.

I wonder if it is to do with computer games. There are scads of historical fighting and strategy games around at the moment and from the descriptions I've heard and from the impressions I'm receiving from glancing round the Net (My Google Alerts is set up for William Marshal and I keep coming across gamer sites mentions of him in his military persona), I think there's a certain audience in mind, which may or may not suck in other readers too. I'm reading one at the moment that would very much fit into the above format and it's obvious that the publisher is pumping money into it.

[Margaret]

It would be a dull world if we all liked the same things.

Agreed!

I definitely think Gladiatrix was written with video-game enthusiasts in mind. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a video game exists that is structured around the Roman gladiatorial arena.

One of the things I've told the author is that I am sensitive to overtones of racism (which clearly were not intentional on his part) because I grew up in the American South during the 1950s and 1960s when lynchings of black men suspected of having looked lustfully upon white women or raped them were still a very present and painful memory. I personally remember news reports of the Birmingham church bombings in which three little black girls died, the murders of 3 civil rights workers, George Wallace standing in a school door to prevent a black child from entering, and the murder of Martin Luther King Jr. So when the only black character in the novel is also by far the most vile character in the novel and leads a gang rape of the main character, to me, it definitely evoked memories of America's racist past. For people who are considerably younger than me or who (like the author) did not grow up in the U.S. (and particularly the South), the novel would be less likely to bring up these associations.

I've offered him the opportunity to write a response to my review, which I would post on my website with a link from the review. If I hear from him, I'll also let him know about Carla's review, which I don't think he's aware of.

[annis]

Russell definitely is aware of Carla's review, Margaret, as he responded to it and to the various comments made about it- incidentally you might find some of those comments interesting as well- a few people noted the gamer connection.
http://carlanayland.blogspot.com/2008/03/gladiatrix-by-russell-whitfield-book.html

Indidentally, I have read "Gladiatrix' myself, and though I can understand the objections to it I did agree with Carla's assessment of it.
I should add that I also enjoy really bad martial arts movies, ( and Joe Abercrombie, mea culpa!) so my taste may be suspect :)

[Volgadon]

I haven't read Scarrow, but I find Cornwell's work to be completely different in tone. The Pale Horseman is full of violence, including violence against women, but the characters and situations felt authentic, true to their time and, most important to me, illuminative of the human psyche in general. In reading The Pale Horseman, I was able to feel compassion and understanding for Uhtred even while he was pursuing activities I did not approve of. I think this is one of the finest things a novelist can do for readers, because it expands one's ability to feel compassion. Gladiatrix didn't do it for me, partly because the cartoon-like characterizations never allowed me to enter their psyches as if they were real people, and partly because the violence seemed to be served up as something for the reader to enjoy purely for its own sake.

Bernard Cornwell has a talent for writing violence and brutality. He can bring to life the rather dry references to them in contemporary sources.

Finally thought of a nomination. Milorad Pavich's Dictionary of the Khazars.
There are probably novels worse written but Dictionary has done such damage to the subject of the Khazars. Peopole walk away with the impression that the Khazars were newage mystical shamans. If this weren't enough the book is unbearably turgid.

[Ash]

Bernard Cornwell has a talent for writing violence and brutality. He can bring to life the rather dry references to them in contemporary sources.

Whats interesting is that I can read his books and not have as much of a problem with the violence as I do with others. Perhaps its because he puts as much research and detail in his characters, his stories, his background as he does to the battle scenes, and perhaps because the violence actually makes sense in the context of his stories. That being said, I usually do skim those parts, just coz I really don't like the images I come away with.

[Volgadon]

Whats interesting is that I can read his books and not have as much of a problem with the violence as I do with others. Perhaps its because he puts as much research and detail in his characters, his stories, his background as he does to the battle scenes, and perhaps because the violence actually makes sense in the context of his stories. That being said, I usually do skim those parts, just coz I really don't like the images I come away with.

He does have a formula, but the books are well researched and the characters are pretty good.

[annis]

Bernard Cornwell really brings his characters to life, cf my feelings about Ross Laidlaw's "Theoderic". Having ranted about the lifelessness of the characters in that book, I do realise that writing a biographical novel presents its own peculiar difficulties, in that the writer has to be careful not to get the facts wrong, and that can lend itself to making the story pedestrian.

[Volgadon]

The opening of Gallows Thief, a horrific hanging, is a case in point. Absolutely necessary to give a feel for the times which BC does very well. Among the best depictions of callousness I've read.

The author comments on Gladiatrix sound like yeah I read a lot of facts but decided not to use any of them....

[EC2]

The opening of Gallows Thief, a horrific hanging, is a case in point. Absolutely necessary to give a feel for the times which BC does very well. Among the best depictions of callousness I've read.


Gallows Thief is probably my favourite Cornwell of them all to date. I've always enjoyed Cornwell, but I really felt he raised his game to another level on this one.

[Christina]

The worst HF I ever read - in fact the only book I literally tore to shreds and threw on a bonfire as I thought it utterly unworthy of donating the the OXFAM shop! - was Anthony Lambton's "Elizabeth & Alexandra". I bought it thinking it was a biography as it wasn't listed as a novel and when it arrived (from Amazon) I was so excited. It came with beautiful bookmark with a family tree on it (the only good thing about the book!), and I settled to read it but within 2 or 3 pages was wanting to rip it apart. I never read a book that inspired so much anger at its sheer stupidity and one-dimensional, totally inaccurate portrayal of real people.
For anyone who hasn't seen it (and please don't unless you want to vomit!), it is allegedly the story of the last Tsarina, Alexandra, and her sister, Grand Duchess Elizabeth. In fact, it is more like a projection of the author's own sordid fantasies where the Grand Duchess' husband is into sado-masochism, where there are silly childish arguments about coloured crayons, where everything is distorted and unreal and I utterly, utterly despise this book!! LOL

[LCW]

A few days ago I (finally!!) finished Auriel's Rising by Elizabeth Redfern. This was truly awful! Sad, bleak, and it just kept getting sadder and bleaker. The ending was weak and cemented my feelings about the entire novel. There was so much death, suffering, and sadness, which normally I wouldn't mind if there had been something redeeming or positive to balance it out. This book may just bring my review mojo back just so I can give it the scathing review it deserves!! The only reason I'm giving it two stars instead of one is because it did have lots of interesting information on Alchemy. But the story sucked!!

[Misfit]

A few days ago I (finally!!) finished Auriel's Rising by Elizabeth Redfern. This was truly awful! Sad, bleak, and it just kept getting sadder and bleaker. The ending was weak and cemented my feelings about the entire novel. There was so much death, suffering, and sadness, which normally I wouldn't mind if there had been something redeeming or positive to balance it out. This book may just bring my review mojo back just so I can give it the scathing review it deserves!! The only reason I'm giving it two stars instead of one is because it did have lots of interesting information on Alchemy. But the story sucked!!

I'd never heard of this one. I see Harriet gave it five stars though.

[annis]

Posted by Misfit
I see Harriet gave it five stars though.
LOL. What can you say?

I haven't read "Auriel Rising", though I did read Redfern's "Music of the Spheres" some time ago. It's a story of murder and astronomy set in the late eighteenth century. The period detail was great and the information about the study of astronomy interesting, though I recall it being quite violent, unremittingly gloomy and full of unlikeable characters. It's hard to engage with a story when you don't care about the characters! The ending was a bit of a fizzer and I hate it when I work out too early on in the piece "whodunnit".

[Telynor]

The worst HF I ever read - in fact the only book I literally tore to shreds and threw on a bonfire as I thought it utterly unworthy of donating the the OXFAM shop! - was Anthony Lambton's "Elizabeth & Alexandra".

I remember buying this one when it was first released, and found it to be horrible (pretty much what you would find on the floor of an ill-kept stable, to put it politely). The problem was, there was so little being published about the Romanovs then, that it sold well... But it's one of the big turkeys out there, and I couldn't agree with you more.

[leehow]

The Meaning of Night by Michael Cox,just did not like it at all.

[Vanessa]

I loved The Meaning of Night and have the sequel, The Glass of Time, on my TBR pile.

[leehow]

I guess it is a book you love or hate,and i hated it(proberly to strong a word).

[Misfit]

I guess it is a book you love or hate,and i hated it(proberly to strong a word).

I couldn't get past 100 pages of it either, it must be a love or hate type of book.

[Kasthu]

I loved The Meaning of Night and have the sequel, The Glass of Time, on my TBR pile.

I LOVED The Meaning of Night, and The Glass of Time is just as good! I guess you just have to be in the right mood for it.

[Vanessa]

They both have great websites, too. My copy of The Meaning of Night is a proof copy, which I received to take part in some sort of hge Market Research survey.

http://www.themeaningofnight.com/index.html
http://www.glassoftime.com/

[Kasthu]

They both have great websites, too. My copy of The Meaning of Night is a proof copy, which I received to take part in some sort of hge Market Research survey.

http://www.themeaningofnight.com/index.html
http://www.glassoftime.com/

I wonder why there are two separate websites for Michael Cox's books? You'd think that things might be easier for the author/ website administrator to have everything on one site...

[Vanessa]

Mchael Cox doesn't seem to have a personal website. I wonder if the websites are publisher based?

[diamondlil]

Maybe they will join them all again later. That's what happens with Robert Alexander's websites once there was three books.

[Laura]

I don´t like PG books since her historical facts don´t correspond to real ones.

[Misfit]

For those who are over at Goodreads, here's (http://www.goodreads.com/group/show/426.Books_I_Loathed) an interesting group - Books I Loathed.

[nona]

lol, sounds right up your alley, I'm surprised you didn't write a wall-banger discussion.

[Misfit]

lol, sounds right up your alley, I'm surprised you didn't write a wall-banger discussion.

:D:D:D

I did start a Wall Banger list there though. What's fun at goodreads is anyone can add their own books to your list.

[nona]

I really like goodreads, I love the whole online library thing, discussions and so forth. I see you leave your mark over thee alot.

[Misfit]

I really like goodreads, I love the whole online library thing, discussions and so forth. I see you leave your mark over thee alot.

One of my favorite features is the home page that shows you what your friends are reading and/or adding to the list and that you can comment as well.

[tsjmom]

Uggghhh. I have to add 'The Serpent Garden' by J. Merkley. Hugely disappointing for me.

[chuck]

Just finished, Walter H Hunt's "A Song in Stone" a time slip Templar novel....not quite a wall banger......I can't recommend it.....

[nona]

I have that one on my tbr chuck, darn it.

[chuck]

:(I have that one on my tbr chuck, darn it.

Hi Nona.....It read like a bad TV script....Concept..... A TV Host is visiting Rosslyn Chapel for a TV show and slips back to 1305 and lo and behold he is a Templar Initiate....Huh?....So weak....Doesn't come close to Michael Crichton's "Timeline" and I thought that was a stretch.....The "Timeline" film; a made for TV movie was dreadful.....Have a good weekend....

[Misfit]

:(

Hi Nona.....It read like a bad TV script....Concept..... A TV Host is visiting Rosslyn Chapel for a TV show and slips back to 1305 and lo and behold he is a Templar Initiate....Huh?.......

:p:o:)

I read a time slip once where the hero - an accountant (!!!) - was whisked by to Scotland and lo and behold he can wield a sword like he was born to it. For those of you who have worked with accounts and know the way they have to analyze everything on paper with the debit and credit "t's" on the legal pad you know what I'm talking about..... (it was fairly entertaining, one just had to suspend some disbelief).

[Lauryn]

Without a doubt, The Border Lord's Bride (Bertrice Small) was my idea of awful. Whether it was well-researched, or the main characters reasonably realized, got absolutely lost in the horror of the dialogue. I have no problem with bodice-rippers, which this book clearly was (fun & escapist), but the foul language the characters used routinely was very off-putting. Another point I found quite disturbing was that two of the secondary characters were women so mindlessly in search of sex that their actions were not simply deplorable, but frankly unbelievable.

In the non-fiction category, I find that Alison Weir's writing can be a bit dry - and occasionally harsh. However, that is something I suspect I will see quite a bit more of, as I get further into researching my areas of interest. She is certainly not money wasted though: her bibliographies alone can make the purchase price worthwhile to a newbie :D

[EC2]

Without a doubt, The Border Lord's Bride (Bertrice Small) was my idea of awful. Whether it was well-researched, or the main characters reasonably realized, got absolutely lost in the horror of the dialogue. I have no problem with bodice-rippers, which this book clearly was (fun & escapist), but the foul language the characters used routinely was very off-putting. Another point I found quite disturbing was that two of the secondary characters were women so mindlessly in search of sex that their actions were not simply deplorable, but frankly unbelievable.

LOL. Bertrice Small is something of an acquired taste. I have Skye O'Malley in my collection somewhere and that's an eye popper in places!

In the non-fiction category, I find that Alison Weir's writing can be a bit dry - and occasionally harsh. However, that is something I suspect I will see quite a bit more of, as I get further into researching my areas of interest. She is certainly not money wasted though: her bibliographies alone can make the purchase price worthwhile to a newbie :D

Alison Weir has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Don't trust what she says until you have checked the details out yourself elsewhere and don't trust her sources ditto. I'm on an academic medieval e-list and mentioning her name is like throwing a lit firework into a room full of gunpowder! I have her biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine and it's rife with inaccuracy in that she states opinions as fact and also states various unproven myths as if they are fact too. Caveat Emptor!

[Telynor]

EC, _Skye O'Malley_ is tame compared to her later novels. At times the sex reads as though she just transcribed it from a very bad porn film that caters to those who like their sex to be of the group variety. And the use of foul language is pretty off putting as well. I can cope with some of the stuff, but most of it is pretty dreadful and a waste of paper.

Call me old-fashioned (!!) but when I want a romance, I want a romance -- not porn.

[EC2]

EC, _Skye O'Malley_ is tame compared to her later novels. At times the sex reads as though she just transcribed it from a very bad porn film that caters to those who like their sex to be of the group variety. And the use of foul language is pretty off putting as well. I can cope with some of the stuff, but most of it is pretty dreadful and a waste of paper.

Call me old-fashioned (!!) but when I want a romance, I want a romance -- not porn.

My goodness, she must be going some then!:eek::eek:
Skye O'Malley as I recall has numerous positions and orifices, people getting off watching animal sex, bondage, humiliation, rape, multiple partners. I still remember Geoffrey of the lime green eyes and the enormous .......! I picked SO up from the charity shop because the cover was exactly like a Roberta Gellis cover for her Roselynde chronicles and I thought it would be similar. Yikes! Having said that, Betrice Small can write. I'd love to see what she could do with ordinary mainstream if she desisted from porn.

[Lauryn]

Alison Weir has to be taken with a huge pinch of salt. Don't trust what she says until you have checked the details out yourself elsewhere and don't trust her sources ditto. I'm on an academic medieval e-list and mentioning her name is like throwing a lit firework into a room full of gunpowder! I have her biography of Eleanor of Aquitaine and it's rife with inaccuracy in that she states opinions as fact and also states various unproven myths as if they are fact too. Caveat Emptor!

Good to know. My mother made a suggestion recently that I thought was pretty good for sorting some of the wheat from the chaff in terms of NF sources: she suggested that I cross-reference the sources that you, SKP, and some of the other HF authors I love have recommended, and start with what appears most frequently across the board. If Ms. Weir used it too, then good for her! :D

[Telynor]

My goodness, she must be going some then!:eek::eek:
Skye O'Malley as I recall has numerous positions and orifices, people getting off watching animal sex, bondage, humiliation, rape, multiple partners. I still remember Geoffrey of the lime green eyes and the enormous .......! I picked SO up from the charity shop because the cover was exactly like a Roberta Gellis cover for her Roselynde chronicles and I thought it would be similar. Yikes! Having said that, Betrice Small can write. I'd love to see what she could do with ordinary mainstream if she desisted from porn.

Which would be terrific to see. But she has dwindled so badly in quality over the years, I don't think it would be possible. Sadly, Susan Johnson who could write interesting HF with research (and footnotes, no less!) went down the same path, and her work just turned disgusting. I'm no prude, but there are limits...

[Chatterbox]

I finally have the right word for all of these, tks to Misfit -- wallbangers!!! (I do find it's always better when I pitch the book at the wall, then when the horrors the book contains sends me dashing to bash my head against the wall...)

My current list of pet peeves:

Laurien Gardener (sp?) -- for manifold sins, including alternating between referring to Sir Francis Bryan as Sir Francis and Sir Bryan.

Jeri Westerson's Veil of Lies -- I'm with gyrehead on this one. Appalling writing (I gave it a blisteringly bad review on Amazon, which actually got me hate e-mail...) Anachronisms abound, as well, and by the end of the first chapter, I was reading simply to spot the (a) bad writing, (b) anachronisms and (c) impossible or improbable plot twists.

Carolly Erickson's fiction -- if she wants to be really inventive, why not just invent characters? Why create entirely new lives for people whose real lives were well known and documented?

Suzannah Dunn's books -- the height of improbability. At least the Sixth Wife was a fun read; the other two are tedious, to boot.

Charles Finch's historical mystery, A Beautiful Blue Death. Self-important writing, but sloppy as well, which heaps one sin atop another.

Sandra Worth's book about Elizabeth of York. I just got two or three chapters into it, by which point I had cursed the moment I added it to the Kindle. I believe the final straw was a black Mass involving Elizabeth Woodville.

I could go on, but...

In comparison to those, I can live with POTE. And I did enjoy Brothers of Gwynned. Pargeter has a very distinctive style, and if you can get used to that, the books in the series are very good. I alternated between preferring her to Penman and vice versa for a while. (My only beef with Penman is that she relies heavily on dialogue for exposition and sometimes I feel that the only reason for a particular conversation between her characters is to fill the reader in on what's been happening "off stage" and break the story up with some dialogue. But I do own all her books -- in HC and whatever I can get on Kindle...)

Gladiatrix I will def. pass on. Somehow, Lara Croft meets The 300 just doesn't do it for me...

[boswellbaxter]

I finally have the right word for all of these, tks to Misfit -- wallbangers!!! (I do find it's always better when I pitch the book at the wall, then when the horrors the book contains sends me dashing to bash my head against the wall...)

My current list of pet peeves:



Carolly Erickson's fiction -- if she wants to be really inventive, why not just invent characters? Why create entirely new lives for people whose real lives were well known and documented?

Agreed. She can write quite nicely, and the people she writes about led fascinating lives, so why all of the invention? I'm still shaking my head over her having Katherine Parr give birth during a siege of her home.

[Misfit]

I finally have the right word for all of these, tks to Misfit -- wallbangers!!! (I do find it's always better when I pitch the book at the wall, then when the horrors the book contains sends me dashing to bash my head against the wall...)

:D:D:D

Uh oh, another convert.

[Chatterbox]

why all of the invention? I'm still shaking my head over her having Katherine Parr give birth during a siege of her home.

As if she hadn't had enough drama in her life, trying to outlive Henry?

Not to mention Marie Antoinette's lost week in Sweden with Axel Fersen, Josephine's bizarre misadventures in the Caribbean and Tatiana's escape from the Ekaterinburg massacre?

She knows better! (Her historical non-fiction is respectable, if not brilliant.) And her writing is solid.

[Telynor]

As if she hadn't had enough drama in her life, trying to outlive Henry?

Not to mention Marie Antoinette's lost week in Sweden with Axel Fersen, Josephine's bizarre misadventures in the Caribbean and Tatiana's escape from the Ekaterinburg massacre?

She knows better! (Her historical non-fiction is respectable, if not brilliant.) And her writing is solid.

Wait -- MA in _Sweden?_ And Tatiana escaping Ekaterinburg? That doesn't make sense at all. Whatever she's smoking, i want some... (just kidding) What kills me is that these tend to be touted as 'brilliant' in the HF market, despite all of the innacuracies and all.

[Misfit]

Wait -- MA in _Sweden?_ And Tatiana escaping Ekaterinburg? That doesn't make sense at all. Whatever she's smoking, i want some... (just kidding) What kills me is that these tend to be touted as 'brilliant' in the HF market, despite all of the innacuracies and all.

Erickson really bugged me with the Tsarina book (wall banger). I mean WTF is *historical entertainment* anyway?

[Telynor]

Erickson really bugged me with the Tsarina book (wall banger). I mean WTF is *historical entertainment* anyway?

I suppose that it would fit in with the rest of that lot that writes with modern speaking attitudes and voices with characters in fancy dress and managling history. :P I can tolerate some of it in a light romance, if the author is good, but try to push it on me as serious literature and it'll end up in my discard pile soon enough. (Speaking of which, in a month or two, I should be doing my great book giveaway where I clean out my bookshelves. Stay tuned!)

[SonjaMarie]

Speaking of which, in a month or two, I should be doing my great book giveaway where I clean out my bookshelves. Stay tuned!

Ooh can't wait! Last time I got "Nefertiti" by Nick Drake.

SM

[Misfit]

Heh, I was searching for another thread and found this old one. Have to add a couple to the list.

http://img.amazon.ca/images/I/51kGTASgOxL._SL110_.jpg The Woman Who Would Be Pharaoh: A Novel of Ancient Egypt by William Klein

'Ankhesenpaaten pulled his covering hands apart, pointed to his little peeper and filled the room with her laughter. "It looks like a toad! A dead toad!"'

Ankhesenpaaten took hold of his peeper. She held it between her thumb and forefinger as though it was something fished from the Nile. She gave it several quick jerks. "Little toady goes Peep! Peep! Peep!"'


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XARDAWYSL._SL160_AA115_.jpg Gaveston by Chris Hunt


"Piers stood in his breeches, a sight to be savoured. There was the firmness of his dark-skinned torso, and his muscular arms; the lean slender belly, the little black curls that showed about the navel. But the breeches! The breeches were tight-fitting, hugging arse and thighs to somewhat above the knee,and trimmed with orphrey, as it is called, Phrygian gold, that same rich embroidery that priests use on holy vestments. Luxurious, sybaritic, sensuous....

I licked my lips. "Unpeel, O blessed one."

The book flew right after that quote :o:D

[Margaret]

Ha! I kind of like that quote from Gaveston. It seems to have a self-mocking over-the-top quality that makes me chuckle. Of course, I'm reading it out of context with the rest of the book.

[Misfit]

Ha! I kind of like that quote from Gaveston. It seems to have a self-mocking over-the-top quality that makes me chuckle. Of course, I'm reading it out of context with the rest of the book.

Oh I know it's funny. You guys should be glad the sex is so bad I don't even dare quote it.

[Chatterbox]

I avoid all HR books, typically, because so much of what is normal prose for the genre sounds to me like that Gaveston stuff...

That said, I'll still hang on to sentimental faves, like the Angelique books, or other stuff that I read when I was younger that I now realize is not good reading (and that I prob. wouldn't read if I came across it today). I don't think I'm a snob, it's just that formula fiction bores me witless. But boredom isn't the same as baaaad writing.

[emr]

I licked my lips. "Unpeel, O blessed one."

The book flew right after that quote :o:D

The peel part does make sense if the breeches are that tight. OMG its hilarious.

[diamondlil]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XARDAWYSL._SL160_AA115_.jpg Gaveston by Chris Hunt

I licked my lips. "Unpeel, O blessed one."

The book flew right after that quote :o:D[/QUOTE]

I had just about forgotten about the peeling. Now you have reminded me! Thanks...not.

[Misfit]

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51XARDAWYSL._SL160_AA115_.jpg Gaveston by Chris Hunt

I licked my lips. "Unpeel, O blessed one."

The book flew right after that quote :o:D

I had just about forgotten about the peeling. Now you have reminded me! Thanks...not.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, but your comment just made me laugh my arse off :eek::D

[Jemidar]

Love this thread :D.

Margaret George's novel about Mary Magdalene and the one about Helen of Troy
The Crimson Petal and the White by Michael Faber (I know, people love it, but I hated it...)

Helen of Troy was DNF for me. I nearly got there...but didn't quite make it. Like others have said I found both Helen and Paris hard to care about and wasn't convinced they were worth the war and the heartache.

I bought The Crimson Petal and The White because it came so highly recommended, but it has sat gathering dust on my bookshelf for years now because I'm not really into Victorian stuff, especially bleak Victorian stuff. (Is there any other type? :p) Think I may well just donate it to Vinnies and be done with it!

...and I much preferred The Name of the Rose the film, but couldn't get on with the book.

I'm with you on the Name of the Rose - film was great, didn't make much headway with the book... ...though I really enjoyed Foucaults Pendulum.

I loved both the movie and the book, although admittedly the movie is much more accessible and the book had me wishing I'd paid much more attention in my high school Latin classes :p. The one thing that did annoy me about the movie though, was s that it was never poperly explained why it was so important that he know the name of the girl he...ahem...meets in the kitchen, which is a big issue in the book and where the title comes from.

I haven't liked any of Umburto Ecco's other books nearly as much as TNotR, but the opening scene in Foucault's Pendulum had me riveted by the clarity of the description.

Carolly Erickson's fiction -- if she wants to be really inventive, why not just invent characters? Why create entirely new lives for people whose real lives were well known and documented?

Suzannah Dunn's books -- the height of improbability. At least the Sixth Wife was a fun read; the other two are tedious, to boot.

I'm still shaking my head over her having Katherine Parr give birth during a siege of her home.

I just recently finished Erikson's The Last Wife of Henry Vlll and had pretty much the same reaction. Some of her subject matter is so well documented that I couldn't believe the liberties she took! And yes, the birth scene in the castle tower during the siege ended the book on a somewhat :eek: note for me!

I also disliked Dunn's The Sixth Wife because of all the improbabilities! For me it was what I call a "costume drama" (where everyone is in period dress but espousing modern language, morals and ideas) and it could just as easily been set in a current soap. I think it was in her Author's Note (or was it in the author questions right at the back?) that Dunn admitted she didn't actually like her main character, and by the end of the novel I had to agree with her. Her Katherine Willoughby/Brandon was truly awful.

[Margaret]

The Crimson Petal and the White is not all that bleak, actually, although the opening qualifies. The heroine is very smart and determined and, although she has a tough row to hoe, she is ultimately the mistress of her own destiny. You might want to give it another whirl before you donate it.

[khalleron]

The Pillars of the Earth was highly recommended to me by an old acquaintance I recently reconnected with at a friend's wedding.

She also recommended March by Geraldine Brooks, and oh dear, it would have been thrown against the wall except it was an ebook.

OK, I wasn't happy that she made the spiritual center of Little Women a screaming termagant, or that she made the father a faithless hypocrite, but for Pete's sake, did she have to make him so stupid?

I can roll with it if someone's conception of a character is different from mine, but stupid characters I simply cannot abide.

Not even mentioning the historical errors.

After what I've read here about Pillars of the Earth, I don't think I'm going to be taking any more book recommendations from this friend, either.

[Jemidar]

The Crimson Petal and the White is not all that bleak, actually, although the opening qualifies. The heroine is very smart and determined and, although she has a tough row to hoe, she is ultimately the mistress of her own destiny. You might want to give it another whirl before you donate it.

In that case I will leave it on the shelf for a bit longer then. The real problem is that I always find something that I want to read more...but who knows, one day the mood might strike me.

Thanks Margaret :).

[Vanessa]

I loved The Crimson Petal and the White. Sugar was quite a woman! I found it very compelling and atmospheric reading.

I also loved Pillars of the Earth. It's more of an adventure story than historical fiction, I thought. Indiana Jones meets Robin Hood - a good title would've been Robin Hood and the Cathedral of Doom!:D

[Misfit]

In that case I will leave it on the shelf for a bit longer then. The real problem is that I always find something that I want to read more...but who knows, one day the mood might strike me.

Thanks Margaret :).

There really are times when a book when you can pick up a book at a different point in your life and end of loving it the second time around. Although I am fairly confident that is not going to happen with me and Pillars. No way, no how :D

[Ash]

The Pillars of the Earth was highly recommended to me by an old acquaintance I recently reconnected with at a friend's wedding.She also recommended March by Geraldine Brooks, and oh dear, it would have been thrown against the wall except it was an ebook.

Hee, so much for her book recs. Little Women was a childhood favorite, a book I read so often that I went through two copies. So I was eager to read March, and like you, totally disgusted. I could not understand why she'd think that the character she wrote would have been so loved by Marmee and her girls. I understood that her characterization was based on Alcotts father, since she based Little Women on her and her sisters, but it just didn't fit (btw People of the Book is much better, at least till the final 20 pages or so)

And don't get me started on Pillars of the Earth. But I think you know that :)

[khalleron]

Hee, so much for her book recs. Little Women was a childhood favorite, a book I read so often that I went through two copies. So I was eager to read March, and like you, totally disgusted. I could not understand why she'd think that the character she wrote would have been so loved by Marmee and her girls. I understood that her characterization was based on Alcotts father, since she based Little Women on her and her sisters, but it just didn't fit (btw People of the Book is much better, at least till the final 20 pages or so)

And don't get me started on Pillars of the Earth. But I think you know that :)

I had mentioned to this friend that I had just finished rereading Little Women, a book I've also adored since childhood, and still do. It has much depth, and I always find something undiscovered, no matter how many times I read it.

I'm a bit nonplussed by why Brooks wrote March in the first place - generally when one 'riffs' on another person's work, it's because one admires it, isn't it? Brooks seemed determined to destroy all that was lovely about LW. I didn't finish it, disgust is quite the right word, yes.

Can't understand why it won so many prizes either - it's very poorly researched and the characters are unlikeable. Unless when prize givers say 'literary' they mean 'dark and cynical.' That's the only explanation I can come up with.

Me, I can handle dark, but there has to be light somewhere, or what's the point?

[Ash]

I still think she won the Pulizter because judges confused her title with The March by EL Doctorow, a much better (tho not perfect) book.

I do like her writing nonfiction. Her first book about finding the penpals of her youth was excellent, and Nine Part Desire is her at her best (she is a journalist by trade and it really shows well in this book). But she just doesn't get it in March. If she wanted to take a bio or HF of LM Alcott's father, do so, but don't mess up a favorite book.

That being said, some of my fav books have been stories that take a well known character or person, and turn the story inside out and upside down. Wolf Hall is one, several of Gregory Maguires books (esp Wicked) fit the bill. Shakespear took bits from earlier work to write Hamlet, Macbeth and others. But if an author is going to do this, it has to make sense to the readers.

[Miss Moppet]

That being said, some of my fav books have been stories that take a well known character or person, and turn the story inside out and upside down. Wolf Hall is one, several of Gregory Maguires books (esp Wicked) fit the bill.

I keep hearing about Wicked. I have to get hold of a copy.

[Ash]

Its quite amazing - I read it when it first came out, and my reading group at the time chose it. Not only was it an amazing read, but one of the best discussions of a book I've ever had. I would definitely read it before you watch the musical; it leaves way too much out, and changes the ending, which had both my sis and I aghast. So read the real version, and enjoy!

[Margaret]

I enjoyed Wicked a lot, and I keep meaning to read some of Gregory Maguire's other novels.

I also liked March - but I did not read it with the expectation that it would be similar to Little Women at all. And of course, it's not. To me, it was an exceptional novel because it offers a unique take on the Civil War. March becomes a soldier because of his strong and admirable abolitionist beliefs, but his war experiences almost destroy him. So often, the Civil War is categorized as one of the "good wars" along with WWII, because it was fought to free people from slavery. But while the goal was praiseworthy, there may have been a better way to achieve it than a bloody war whose negative ramifications, it can be argued, are still with us. With March, I think Brooks was demonstrating the sad truth that people often go to war with very naive ideas about its nature and what can be achieved thereby. It's possible that Brooks was also suggesting that the happy ending of Little Women would, actually, have been quite bittersweet if the novel had looked a little farther beyond the time of Pa's immediate homecoming.

[Vanessa]

I loved Wicked and have the two follow ups on my TBR pile - Son of a Witch and A Lion Among Men. I would love to see the show but so far can't get anyone to go down to London to see it with me. Oh woe is me!:(

[Ash]

To me, it was an exceptional novel because it offers a unique take on the Civil War

I'd agree with that; perhaps if she focused on that, and not tried to make a statement about LW, it would have worked. Tho Im not sure that was her fault; in reading about it when it first came out, it was instantly linked to LW, and so expectations were that his story would somehow fit the earlier one. So probably that was a problem with marketing; it was just too hard to see the character of Marmee's husband as just a soldier in the larger picture of the Civil War. Except that she does make reference to March being based on Alcott's father, so it would refer back to the original story.

Vanessa, fwiw, I didn't care for Son all that much, and didn't even attempt to read the other. Let me know what you think tho, I can be persuaded.

[Chatterbox]

Ash, I got the sense that in writing this she was really thinking of the whole Alcott menage and their circle, and what happens when that collides with war. Using March as the main character was a literary device that (alas) raised some expectations among LW fans which would never have been fulfilled -- this wasn't fan fiction but serious fiction about serious issues. To me, it's one of the best novels set in war that I know, and would certainly be in a top 10 list.

[khalleron]

I also liked March - but I did not read it with the expectation that it would be similar to Little Women at all. And of course, it's not. To me, it was an exceptional novel because it offers a unique take on the Civil War. March becomes a soldier because of his strong and admirable abolitionist beliefs, but his war experiences almost destroy him. So often, the Civil War is categorized as one of the "good wars" along with WWII, because it was fought to free people from slavery. But while the goal was praiseworthy, there may have been a better way to achieve it than a bloody war whose negative ramifications, it can be argued, are still with us. With March, I think Brooks was demonstrating the sad truth that people often go to war with very naive ideas about its nature and what can be achieved thereby. It's possible that Brooks was also suggesting that the happy ending of Little Women would, actually, have been quite bittersweet if the novel had looked a little farther beyond the time of Pa's immediate homecoming.

If that were the book I read, I would have loved it, too.

The book I read was about a very well-meaning but stupid man who goes to war and brings about a lot of death and destruction to those around him by being stupid.

Every foul thing March experiences was brought about by his own stupidity, from Grace's whipping in the beginning to the plantation massacre (after which I stopped reading, I admit).

Every few pages I found myself exclaiming, "What a pinhead!"

The book you describe would have been mighty interesting, I agree.

[Chatterbox]

Khalleron, interesting points, but while I thought that made March an anti-hero or even non-hero, it also highlighted that we often have no clue what we're doing when we think we're doing "good"; that a lot of "doing good" addresses our own psychological needs vs the real needs of others. To me, that was part of the point of Geraldine's narrative; that we may feel righteous and be causing catastrophe and that whenever we are tempted to feel good and benevolent, we should stop and question our own reactions.

[Erika Mailman]

I liked March, really liked People of the Book, and **ADORED** Year of Wonders.

I did wonder if March would have been every bit as effective if the main character hadn't been Mr. March from LW, and instead just another fictional man. I get that Brooks was inspired by Alcott's characters, but keeping them as Marches didn't add much since they were so different from the way they were depicted in LW.

And it was of course clever of her since so many of us who loved LW couldn't wait to read her book.

[Gabriele Campbell]

Oh I know it's funny. You guys should be glad the sex is so bad I don't even dare quote it.

I made the mistake to read some LOTR slash fanfiction a few years ago. Belive me, there's nothing that can shock me now. :D

[tsjmom]

I'm going to add 'The Coral Thief'. Painfully slow, boring, and unrealistic.

[Misfit]

I'm going to add 'The Coral Thief'. Painfully slow, boring, and unrealistic.

I think I gave up on that around page 100 or so. It was soooo slow I couldn't even handle it at the gym while doing cardio. And trust me, when that happens that is one slooooooow book.

[SDMomChef]

I have to say, the worst historical fiction book I've read - and perhaps one of the worst books that I have read in a very long time, was Swan Thieves by Elizabeth Kostova. There are so many things that I hated about this book and if I could summarize it in one word, it would be BORING. I loved The Historian, which makes this book even more disappointing.

[SCW]

Well here is my list of HF that I shouldn't have spent my money on
The Potato Factory....depressing tale of poverty, rape and the penal colony of Tasmania. (Not as good a read as Tandia or The Power of One)
Ken Follet's: A Place Called Freedom, overload of smut!
Philippa Gregory: The Virgins Lover...Yawn! The Constant Princess (Was glad when Henry divorced her!)

Margaret George: Helen of Troy! I couldn't finish this, gave up after 200 pages.

That's all I can really think of

[wendy]

Not strictly HF - but the worst book EVER for me was The Shack (William P. Young). It was very badly written - predictable - every chapter followed the same unsophisticated pattern - boring - main character was constantly reduced to tears - and I had to complete it for a book club. Still can't believe it was so successful!

[Michy]

The Shack stands out in my memory because of a curious experience related to it......

I bought it at a bookstore shortly after it came out in paperback. Then I read several reviews on Amazon and talked to a co-worker who had read it, and realized it was something I was NOT going to like (yes, I should have read reviews before buying, but.....). So i took the brand-new still-unread book back to the store, intending to quietly return the book for a refund. However, the store owner asked me why I was returning the book (like he couldn't understand why I would ever want to return it). So I said that I didn't want to read it. And he asked me why? And I said that I had read reviews and could tell it was not something I would like. And then he proceeded to argue with me that I shouldn't pay attention to those reviews, people don't know what they're talking about, it was the most wonder, life-changing book, etc. etc. etc. It was almost as though he was personally offended because I didn't want to read the book and thought he could argue me into changing my mind! (Maybe he was the author? :D) I just stood there and listened and, when he was finished, calmly repeated that I still wished to return the book. Needless to say, I haven't ever gone back to that store. :)

As for worst HF ever read..... it would just be all the books that I couldn't make myself finish. None of then stand out, they are just all lumped together in the murky slush pile of DNF books........

[wendy]

[QUOTE=Michy;73186]The Shack stands out in my memory because of a curious experience related to it......

It must be a love-it-or-hate-it book. The reader who recommended it for book club said it changed her life. So I guess it works for some . . .

[robinbird79]

I'd have to say my worst was Pamela Kaufman's The Book of Eleanor. I can not begin to explain how horrible that one was. The majority of the narrative seems to be completely made up...

PG's The Virgin's Lover is a close second. I can not believe the way she portrayed Elizabeth in it!

[MLE]

I got half-way through the book and was unimpressed with the quality of writing and the story. So I flipped through to see what the fuss was about, and after considering the personal things I knew about those who loved it and the personal things I knew about those who loathed it, came to this conclusion:

Those who absolutely loathe it are offended by the idea that God (the Father, in this case) might present himself as a black woman. It's not that they are necessarily prejudiced; it's that they have a concept of God that is different, and the concept is dear to them, and they don't want it rattled. Others are offended because it doesn't line up with certain parts of scripture (but then, that could be said of many Christian classics) and they are point-pounders. (I too have my points to pound--they just happen to be different from the norm.)

Those who love it do so because it has opened their minds to different possibilities about God than the constricting definition they had been operating under. Which is a good thing, if your God is so small it's giving you cramps trying to stay in your self-made god-box.

I wasn't offended by the concepts, and I didn't find the scriptural misrepresentations any worse than many others. But nothing therein was a new or different thought for me either. The story was predictable and the execution stunk. Moreover, before I take anybody's advice on how to live, I wait to see how THEY are doing in the area of their lecture, and right now everybody involved with the Shack is suing each other.

[Margaret]

My favorite books offer me new and complex ideas to turn over in my mind. I don't generally gravitate to books that have a particular, over-simplified religious or philosophical point to make. Usually, this sort of point could be expressed in a sentence or two - with novels that are constructed around making this sort of point, I can usually tell what it is within the first page or two, so it makes the book pretty boring. I haven't read The Shack, so can't pass judgment on it, but it sounds like it might fit into this category. For a person who is open to new religious or philosophical ideas but who doesn't like, or who has a hard time following novels that offer the kind of complexity I prefer, I can see how novels of this sort really could be eye-opening and life-changing, by challenging a stale world-view the person has just been going along with out of habit.

[SarahWoodbury]

I plowed all the way through The Historian and must join the FBRI category on that one. I loved Pillars of the Earth when I read it at 20, but couldn't get past 30 pages when I picked it up again to refresh to watch the TV show.

At the same time, I almost hate to say anything more, since I know how an author pours him/herself into a book only to have a certain sector of the population hate it. Having got yet another rejection from a publisher for my novel ("I’m afraid I’m going to turn you down on this. It’s very nicely done, but I find I’m not falling in love with it, partly because I don’t feel optimistic about the market for this kind of medieval romantic historical.), this is one of the most depressing threads I've ever read!

[Miss Moppet]

I plowed all the way through The Historian and must join the FBRI category on that one. I loved Pillars of the Earth when I read it at 20, but couldn't get past 30 pages when I picked it up again to refresh to watch the TV show.

At the same time, I almost hate to say anything more, since I know how an author pours him/herself into a book only to have a certain sector of the population hate it. Having got yet another rejection from a publisher for my novel ("I’m afraid I’m going to turn you down on this. It’s very nicely done, but I find I’m not falling in love with it, partly because I don’t feel optimistic about the market for this kind of medieval romantic historical.), this is one of the most depressing threads I've ever read!

Sorry to hear about the rejection Sarah - I've had similar and they tend to bring your day down.

As far as the thread goes, though, on the plus side, many of the novels mentioned have been bestsellers with numerous five star reviews. So just because some people hate a book doesn't mean thousands more aren't going to love it.

[Margaret]

Having got yet another rejection from a publisher for my novel ("I’m afraid I’m going to turn you down on this. It’s very nicely done, but I find I’m not falling in love with it, partly because I don’t feel optimistic about the market for this kind of medieval romantic historical.), this is one of the most depressing threads I've ever read!

Another editor may well feel more optimistic, Sarah. Focus on the "nicely done" part of the feedback, Just like readers and reviewers, editors have vastly different taste in novels. Otherwise, some of the ones in this thread would never have seen the light of day - and neither would some of the ones in the "10 best" thread!

[SarahWoodbury]

Thanks for that! I try to be optimistic, but some days . . .

[Russ Whitfield]

At the same time, I almost hate to say anything more, since I know how an author pours him/herself into a book only to have a certain sector of the population hate it.

That used to upset me too - but don't worry about them, Sarah. Concentrate on the enlightened and groovy people who like your work and realise that the people who don't are bitter, unhealthy mole people who have nothing better to do than slag stuff off on the internet.

Having got yet another rejection from a publisher for my novel

This happens, don't worry, just keep plugging away. Almost everyone has a pile of rejection slips, but I believe that if you have finished piece of work, some one will publish it in the end. Its just an odds game and often has very little bearing on how "good" or "bad" the book is. Its totally subjective, don't lose sight of that.

And when you get your book published, realise that your publisher is enlightened and groovy and everyone who rejected it is bitter, unhealthy mole person with nothing better to do than write rejection letters all day long.

Don't let the basts grind you down, hun, you will win in the end.

Chin up and onwards!

[Brenna]

I'm not sure they should be catagorized as the worst historical fiction books ever, but they certainly were my least favorite.

Anything by Philippa Gregory (although I have to admit she introduced me to historical fiction so for that I will always be grateful!)

Anything by Allison Weir-her books always have been opinions in them than actual fact

and finally: Swan Thieves. I thought I would slit my wrists while my husband and I listened to it on our way home from Maine. Ugh.

[SCW]

I would like to add "The Young Empress" to the list. Starts off well being the story of the Emperor Constantines second wife Fausta. (There are a lot of books about the early roman empire, but few concerning the later empire.) But then...well it had a disgusting account of how the Emperor punished prostitutes!

Couldn't really bring myself to finish it