Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Obligations of H.F. Writers to be Factual

For discussions of historical fiction. Threads that do not relate to historical fiction should be started in the Chat forum or elsewhere on the forum, depending on the topic.
User avatar
Ludmilla
Bibliophile
Posts: 1346
Joined: September 2008
Location: Georgia USA

Post by Ludmilla » Wed October 20th, 2010, 1:18 pm

[quote=""Katherine Ashe""]What is criticism in any case? Loessing's principal, which responsible journalists use, is that a play, book, work of art should be judged on the basis of the creator's intent -- whether or not it seems to fulfill that intention; not whether it fulfills the preconceived expectations of the playgoer, reader, viewer.
[/quote]

This is what I do when I pick up a book -- or try to anyway. I always try to keep in mind what the author intended and the conventions that are expected for the author's genre (I think it's unfair to compare apples to oranges). Is it meant to be character-driven, plot-driven, or idea-driven, is it light-hearted, serious, magical or satirical in mood? My perception of that intent will definitely influence how I judge it. That said, storytelling skills are fundamentally more important to me in an overall assessment of a work than anything else, and they apply to all genres. I can put aside and simply cease to care about my prejudices and niggles when I'm reading a well told tale.

User avatar
boswellbaxter
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 3066
Joined: August 2008
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Post by boswellbaxter » Wed October 20th, 2010, 2:05 pm

[quote=""cw gortner""]

I may be wrong, but in my experience no writer sets out to write a bad book ("whimsy" aside :) . No historical writer, in particular, wants to get caught with his or her pants down having made a historical error. [/quote]

But what of the author who deliberately smears a historical character's reputation? One author, for instance, portrays a historical figure, a churchman, as being a pedophile--though there's no evidence that this person had sexual relationships with anyone, much less that he lusted after children. Another portrays a mother and a son as having an incestuous relationship--and justifies this by noting that they were known to have been close to each other. These are works of "straight" historical fiction which were touted as being carefully researched, not fantasy or alternative history or "wallpaper" romances. In such cases, the reader who gets his historical knowledge from historical fiction is likely to come away believing that this was an accurate portrayal of the characters in question--especially when the character is a relatively obscure one and the facts can't readily be checked without a visit to an academic library. Readers who know better, and who are passionate about the era in question, can hardly be expected to sit back quietly and watch historical figures be savaged in this manner without comment.
Susan Higginbotham
Coming in October: The Woodvilles


http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/

User avatar
Miss Moppet
Bibliophile
Posts: 1726
Joined: April 2009
Location: North London
Contact:

Post by Miss Moppet » Wed October 20th, 2010, 5:42 pm

[quote=""cw gortner""]Word counts, which are directly related to print costs, and a book's ultimate retail price, are key in publishing these days. Very few writers have the leeway of Ken Follett in their ability to churn out a 1,000-page historical. And few agents will represent such novels, particularly from debut novelists.[/quote]

Very very good point - I think most readers don't realise this.
I'm all for freedom of expression, but where do we cross the line? I often ask myself, if we were at a cocktail party and said author were there, would these people who hide behind avatars and other e-disguises be so bold as to go up to the author and berate their work to their face? Somehow, I doubt it.
I see this analogy used a lot but it doesn't work for me. I'll try to explain why.

Since I started my blog, I've enjoyed most of the books I read, but there have been a couple I've hated and I said exactly why. I didn't consider the author's feelings when I wrote my reviews or my comments on other reviews. Would I consider the author's feelings if I met them at a cocktail party and they asked if I liked their book? Of course. Why the difference? I think a cocktail party is a purely social situation, whereas reviewing, even it is for the world's smallest, least important blog, has an element of professionalism, in addition to the social aspect. If you have readers, you owe it to them to be honest. Print reviewers, who are far more powerful than bloggers, are much franker than they would be in a social situation. I find no fault with them for that because I think their duty is to readers, not authors, and I don't see why online reviewers, paid or unpaid, should be held to a different standard.

If an author is a friend, online or IRL, I never make it public that I am reading one of their books until I am sure I'm not going to hate it (ie a one or two star review as opposed to a three star and up). If I did hate the book (never happened so far) I would quietly put it aside and not review it, because I don't want either to write an untruthful review or to upset a friend. But I'm not going to behave as if every author in the world is a personal friend. Some reviewers do prefer not to publish negative reviews and I respect that, but it's not my choice.

The book which made me decide to publish negative reviews was Alison Weir's The Captive Queen. I found it just so bad and I wanted to share my opinion with fellow readers to see what they thought. I showed contempt for the book because that is what I felt. I shared plenty of quotes so that my readers could see what I meant - (or alternatively decide it sounded great and rush off to buy it in HB). Now imagine for the sake of argument that I meet Ms Weir in the future in a social situation and she tells me how much my bad review upset her and wants to know why I wrote it. There really wouldn't be much to say in reply other than, "I'm sorry it upset you but when I write reviews, I prefer to be honest."

This is a very long-winded way of saying that I think honest opinions are not always appropriate in social situations but they are in the world of reviewing, be it books, theatre, music or electronic goods.

Abusive behaviour, threats, sockpuppetry, etc, are in a different category and while I'd like to see less of it, abusive anonymous letters are nothing new. In the past this kind of individual used pen and paper, or perhaps cut out letters from a newspaper. Now they use a keyboard. They do get found out and called to account sometimes - as did Orlando Figes.

User avatar
Misfit
Bibliomaniac
Posts: 9581
Joined: August 2008
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by Misfit » Wed October 20th, 2010, 6:28 pm

[quote=""boswellbaxter""]But what of the author who deliberately smears a historical character's reputation? One author, for instance, portrays a historical figure, a churchman, as being a pedophile--though there's no evidence that this person had sexual relationships with anyone, much less that he lusted after children. Another portrays a mother and a son as having an incestuous relationship--and justifies this by noting that they were known to have been close to each other. These are works of "straight" historical fiction which were touted as being carefully researched, not fantasy or alternative history or "wallpaper" romances. In such cases, the reader who gets his historical knowledge from historical fiction is likely to come away believing that this was an accurate portrayal of the characters in question--especially when the character is a relatively obscure one and the facts can't readily be checked without a visit to an academic library. Readers who know better, and who are passionate about the era in question, can hardly be expected to sit back quietly and watch historical figures be savaged in this manner without comment.[/quote]

And therein lies the problem. Many many readers do believe what is in these books. I just cringed once when having lunch with a business associate I considered well-read, intelligent, etc. and she states she loves PG because she always gets the facts right.

As for non-fiction? I don't read it much, but IIRC there's been mentions recently of non-fiction writers really messing up the history and getting facts royally messed up.

If the story is good, a lot can be forgiven. I'm sure I've said it before but Erkine is one that comes to mind that really diddles a lot with history (although she freely admits it in the notes I've read). But, she tells a GOOD story IMHO.

In the end, it is all down to reader's tastes. Some like fluff, some like their books with a more serious "edge", some like sex-filled bodice rippers. To each their own, but we should still be able to respect each other's opinions even when we don't agree.
At home with a good book and the cat...
...is the only place I want to be

User avatar
cw gortner
Bibliophile
Posts: 1288
Joined: September 2008
Location: San Francisco,CA
Contact:

Post by cw gortner » Wed October 20th, 2010, 6:52 pm

[quote=""boswellbaxter""]But what of the author who deliberately smears a historical character's reputation? One author, for instance, portrays a historical figure, a churchman, as being a pedophile--though there's no evidence that this person had sexual relationships with anyone, much less that he lusted after children. Another portrays a mother and a son as having an incestuous relationship--and justifies this by noting that they were known to have been close to each other. These are works of "straight" historical fiction which were touted as being carefully researched, not fantasy or alternative history or "wallpaper" romances. In such cases, the reader who gets his historical knowledge from historical fiction is likely to come away believing that this was an accurate portrayal of the characters in question--especially when the character is a relatively obscure one and the facts can't readily be checked without a visit to an academic library. Readers who know better, and who are passionate about the era in question, can hardly be expected to sit back quietly and watch historical figures be savaged in this manner without comment.[/quote]

I don't think I said anyone "needs to sit back quietly." But if the author has declared that he or she has done the research to uphold their depiction, it doesn't necessarily mean they haven't. It just means they reached a very different conclusion. As a reviewer, we can point this out. Again, valid critical reviews always have a place; what does not, at least in my point of view, is bullying. And what I've seen done on a few occasions comes very close to that. Moreover, to date, I've yet to meet an author who deliberately set out to smear a historical character's reputation. It seems rather pointless, to hold such a grudge against someone who is long dead and the author has never met, but who knows? Maybe this type of author does exist. If so, they probably need professional help :)
Last edited by cw gortner on Wed October 20th, 2010, 8:57 pm, edited 7 times in total.
THE QUEEN'S VOW available on June 12, 2012!
THE TUDOR SECRET, Book I in the Elizabeth I Spymaster Chronicles
THE CONFESSIONS OF CATHERINE DE MEDICI
THE LAST QUEEN


www.cwgortner.com

User avatar
cw gortner
Bibliophile
Posts: 1288
Joined: September 2008
Location: San Francisco,CA
Contact:

Post by cw gortner » Wed October 20th, 2010, 7:15 pm

[quote=""Miss Moppet""]
This is a very long-winded way of saying that I think honest opinions are not always appropriate in social situations but they are in the world of reviewing, be it books, theatre, music or electronic goods. [/quote]

I read your review of Captive Queen and I didn't find it at all inappropriate. On the contrary, you were concise, thoughtful, and pointed out your honest reaction to the book. Perfectly acceptable. This is not at all the type of review or activity I meant to signal out, and I apologize if I indicated that in any way.

You are also quite right, cocktail parties and critical reviews do not go together :D . When I was referring to the party, I meant the activities online where writers are literally torn to shreds. My question was, would we behave the same in any other situation? Would we verbally tear that author apart at the party?

Critical reviews are essential. I've had a few myself that made me wince but it is part of being public with one's work. You must accept, not everyone will love what you do. I strongly oppose any attempts to dissuade honest reader reviews because I think subjectivity is vital; how boring life and writing would be without it. On this forum, there are books people rave about that I really did not enjoy, and vice versa. But I try to always be respectful in my opinions. I don't mean necessarily, "Will this comment hurt the writer's feelings?" because of course one cannot be critical in a review if we're thinking along these lines, but rather understanding there is a narrow boundary between stating one's opinion and going on the attack.

Most of us here understand this, but in the world at large, sadly, I see the distinction being lost. It's not just with books; I see it a lot in road rage, people pushing ahead in line at the supermarket, not getting up for an elderly person on the bus, and when you say something to them, they flare. Like torches. I think many people feel helpless to some extent, voiceless even, and the internet offers them an outlet. But even here, in this vast world of cyberspace, where anything goes, we should always remember we can state our differences of opinion and argue our points in a civilized manner.
Last edited by cw gortner on Wed October 20th, 2010, 7:29 pm, edited 2 times in total.
THE QUEEN'S VOW available on June 12, 2012!
THE TUDOR SECRET, Book I in the Elizabeth I Spymaster Chronicles
THE CONFESSIONS OF CATHERINE DE MEDICI
THE LAST QUEEN


www.cwgortner.com

User avatar
cw gortner
Bibliophile
Posts: 1288
Joined: September 2008
Location: San Francisco,CA
Contact:

Post by cw gortner » Wed October 20th, 2010, 7:18 pm

[quote=""Misfit""]
In the end, it is all down to reader's tastes. Some like fluff, some like their books with a more serious "edge", some like sex-filled bodice rippers. To each their own, but we should still be able to respect each other's opinions even when we don't agree.[/quote]

Hear, hear! I could not agree more.
THE QUEEN'S VOW available on June 12, 2012!
THE TUDOR SECRET, Book I in the Elizabeth I Spymaster Chronicles
THE CONFESSIONS OF CATHERINE DE MEDICI
THE LAST QUEEN


www.cwgortner.com

User avatar
Michy
Bibliophile
Posts: 1649
Joined: May 2010
Location: California

Post by Michy » Wed October 20th, 2010, 7:43 pm

[quote=""cw gortner""]You are also quite right, cocktail parties and critical reviews do not go together :D . When I was referring to the party, I meant the activities online where writers are literally torn to shreds. My question was, would we behave the same in any other situation? Would we verbally tear that author apart at the party?

[/quote]

Nine out of ten people would not. To repeat what I said earlier in this thread; the more distanced we are from a person, the less inhibited we tend to be in our communication with them. The further you move away from in-person, face-to-face communication, generally the less constrained and freer you feel to speak your mind. Of course, there are exceptions, but this is a general rule of human behaviour.

User avatar
Miss Moppet
Bibliophile
Posts: 1726
Joined: April 2009
Location: North London
Contact:

Post by Miss Moppet » Wed October 20th, 2010, 9:08 pm

[quote=""cw gortner""]I read your review of Captive Queen and I didn't find it at all inappropriate. On the contrary, you were concise, thoughtful, and pointed out your honest reaction to the book. Perfectly acceptable. This is not at all the type of review or activity I meant to signal out, and I apologize if I indicated that in any way.[/quote]

Not at all C.W., I was just using myself as an example. :) And thanks for your kind words about my review.
You are also quite right, cocktail parties and critical reviews do not go together :D . When I was referring to the party, I meant the activities online where writers are literally torn to shreds. My question was, would we behave the same in any other situation? Would we verbally tear that author apart at the party?

Critical reviews are essential. I've had a few myself that made me wince but it is part of being public with one's work. You must accept, not everyone will love what you do. I strongly oppose any attempts to dissuade honest reader reviews because I think subjectivity is vital; how boring life and writing would be without it. On this forum, there are books people rave about that I really did not enjoy, and vice versa. But I try to always be respectful in my opinions. I don't mean necessarily, "Will this comment hurt the writer's feelings?" because of course one cannot be critical in a review if we're thinking along these lines, but rather understanding there is a narrow boundary between stating one's opinion and going on the attack.
I think Amazon is the place where that line gets crossed most and so I rarely comment on the forums - there are lots of reasonable intelligent commenters but also a high proportion of trolls and troublemakers, probably because there's no moderation. Aside from the problem of reviewers attacking an author, I notice another problem, which I call the Number One Fan syndrome. I'll cite an example: the reaction to our own Kasthu's 3-star review of The Queen's Pawn. The author, Christy English, was very gracious in her response, but a fan/friend left an aggressive comment along the lines of 'it's FICTION!' and 'write your own book.' That kind of thing really doesn't help the author, yet there's little they can do to stop it.

User avatar
cw gortner
Bibliophile
Posts: 1288
Joined: September 2008
Location: San Francisco,CA
Contact:

Post by cw gortner » Wed October 20th, 2010, 9:22 pm

Yes, well, author fans behaving badly is part of the problem. I enjoyed Christy's book, it was fun to read, but I see Kat's points and she has a right to her opinion. Author friends don't do us any favors biting back like this.

However, even the most respected authors have this issue: some of Sharon Penman's fans can be really hardcore, to the point of thinking no one but her is worthy of writing about the era. Having met Sharon, who personifies grace and generosity, just proves these particular fans act on their own, without her knowledge.

Most authors never encourage this type of behavior.
Last edited by cw gortner on Wed October 20th, 2010, 11:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
THE QUEEN'S VOW available on June 12, 2012!
THE TUDOR SECRET, Book I in the Elizabeth I Spymaster Chronicles
THE CONFESSIONS OF CATHERINE DE MEDICI
THE LAST QUEEN


www.cwgortner.com

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”