I can't believe I did that.
I subscribe to a number of blogs where reviews are published for a variety of books and novels. Most of them are blogs where I've submitted my own work for review. So, I cannot believe I shot off my big mouth about one particular review - I won't say who or what book here but I posted the comments on the blog.
The book was about Canadian Indians at the time of the arrival of the French. I looked at the cover for several minutes trying to decide what bothered me about it. Was it the young girl being bare-breasted? Was it the skirt? Or her footwear. Then, I realized it was all of those - and more. Indians did wear little or no clothing, but only in warm climes such as California, Florida and the Caribbean. In the northern climes, they wore clothing to not only protect from the climate but the dense forests and, most important of all, insects! Swarms and swarms of stinging and biting insects.
Anyone know the origin of the term, Red Man? Or Redskin? It came from the heavy coats of oil or fat with ocher added to protect them from insects. {Ocher is red!}
The next was her skirt. While ancient Chinese tribes wore something similar and Scottish men wore kilts, the skirt as such did not appear until the 19th Century in Europe. Therefore, it is totally out of place in the early 1500s time frame of this novel. Northern Indian women usually wore shifts with long sleeves dropping to just below the knees.
And then, she carried a bow but without a brassard to protect her forearm/wrist when the bowstring was released. As anyone who has ever shot a bow and arrow knows, it hurts like h**l if you don't wear something to protect yourself. And, the knowledge of that pain will make the archer flinch, thus reducing his/her accuracy. Yes, Indian women did know how to use bows and arrows, as long as other weapons. Some Indian women became well-known for their prowess in battle.
Then, I began to read the book. The first thing that struck me was the author's use of contractions! The apostrophe was a French invention in the 1500 hundreds but, how could the book's characters be using contractions when they did not exist in their language?
The final thing that bothered my was the author's dedication to the use of difficult to pronounce Indians names. Why not make it easy for the reader and, after introducing, then explaining, to give the English version. Such as; xxxxx [Sitting Bear], then using that name from then on to make it easy for us.
The writing itself was not that bad but it was clear to me the author either did not have or use a beta reader or an editor. Another example. The village is about to be attacked by another tribe feared by all. Most of the dialogue and exposition is written using passive verbs! It gives the reader no feeling of fear.
I gave up after 20 pages and wrote the critique. Now, I sit here wondering what an idiot I am. If this guy DOES decide to review one of my books, is her going to tear it apart?
Well, if he does and I deserve it - good for him!
If he does and I don't deserve it - shame on him!
Reviewing a Reviewer
-
Guardian
- Posts: 563
- Joined: September 29th, 2010, 4:36 pm
- Location: Somewhere between two realms
- Contact:
Re: Reviewing a Reviewer
No, you're not an idiot at all. This was your opinion. Period. Now, if he is going to review your work badly, just because you had an honest opinion (What is rare in the 21st century), in that case that writer is not professional at all, just an oversensitive moron who is making a review just to take revenge, just to show he is someone (Endless inferiority complex takes the lead in this type of behavior.). If the writer is grown up and capable to act as a professional you don't have to worry about this at all.
Re: Reviewing a Reviewer
Historical fiction accuracy is a treacherous slope for writers, and reviewers and other commentators to comment about. Where I live the invented local history and such is taken as more factual than documented facts. The facts are wrong, see, say the raconteurs, fish house liars as they are affectionately known. Their inventions are taken as gospel. Just about every local attraction or cultural activity has a set of wrapping paper facts that are credible but patently invented.
Negotiating the facts and fictions are a contentious conversation hereabouts. I've heard some pretty tall tales that were more fun, though, than the bald facts. See, there's this lighthouse that has all kinds of entertaining make believe surrounding it, sometimes more meaningful than the facts or artfully enhancing the facts through their comparisons and contrasts.
By way of example and not out of criticism, the red skin coloration of Native North Americans derived from several pigments, red ocher, a red iron oxide earth, was one favorite, though not as red as was desired. Sanguinaria canadensis, or bloodroot, also called puccoon in native tongues, was more common among Eastern Woodland nations and more red. Bear grease mixed with clay bodies are favorite cosmetic foundations of the People. Red is considered the color of vigorous life, not so the white pale death faces of the Strangers who came from underneath the world.
Passive voice is more the norm for Native American dialects than English dialects. That degree of historical authenticity for Native speakers' voices contrasted with modern contraction use is a bit of an unsettling aspect. For me, it would be appropriate to use Native dialects translated into English as they were used, but picking and choosing between a modern aesthetic and a faithful to a period one ought best have a profound rhetorical purpose. And passive voice use isn't as simple as just transposing subject, predicate, object syntax. A prime factor shaping Native voice comes from animacy, the comparative pecking order of a given individual to others and other things. I, John Smith, you, Anglo ships, tell when come again. The Anglos didn't get it.
No, Native dialects do not have contractions. Their syntax and diction didn't need them. They have a sense of things without adding possessive marking, negated constructs, litotes understatements, or abbreviating speech.
Criticizing the historical accuracy of a novel's factual premises is also hazardous. What do a writer's interpretations of questionable historical premises mean to the narrative? I'm afraid they say more about the biases of the writer and the writer's culture than they can say about a narrative's personas and settings and events, etc. However, as long as those biases serve an accessible rhetorical purpose I say stet, let it stand unremarked.
On the other hand, there's an entire critical genre whose sole ambition is criticizing historical, scientific, and social inaccuracies. I guess that's what they operate on, disbelief. Whatever happened to blissful acceptance of the differing outlooks of make believe?
I've kind of operated under a notion that contact tableau narratives are few and far between. The few I've read range from mediocre to poor, with one or two stand out exceptions. James Fenimore Cooper's Last of the Mohicans is one, though it comes from a later period of cultural contact than I'm looking for. Brian Moore's Black Robe wasn't quite as enjoyable, though it is set in a first contact period. Several releases explore the life of Tisquantum or Squanto as he was known to Anglos, one movie does the circumstances justice, Squanto: A Warrior's Tale, though it contains noticeable Anglo biases. Anyway, I'm encountering quite a few writers writing in the historical fiction contact tableau genre. Someone is bound to set a high bar soon. Maybe me?
Negotiating the facts and fictions are a contentious conversation hereabouts. I've heard some pretty tall tales that were more fun, though, than the bald facts. See, there's this lighthouse that has all kinds of entertaining make believe surrounding it, sometimes more meaningful than the facts or artfully enhancing the facts through their comparisons and contrasts.
By way of example and not out of criticism, the red skin coloration of Native North Americans derived from several pigments, red ocher, a red iron oxide earth, was one favorite, though not as red as was desired. Sanguinaria canadensis, or bloodroot, also called puccoon in native tongues, was more common among Eastern Woodland nations and more red. Bear grease mixed with clay bodies are favorite cosmetic foundations of the People. Red is considered the color of vigorous life, not so the white pale death faces of the Strangers who came from underneath the world.
Passive voice is more the norm for Native American dialects than English dialects. That degree of historical authenticity for Native speakers' voices contrasted with modern contraction use is a bit of an unsettling aspect. For me, it would be appropriate to use Native dialects translated into English as they were used, but picking and choosing between a modern aesthetic and a faithful to a period one ought best have a profound rhetorical purpose. And passive voice use isn't as simple as just transposing subject, predicate, object syntax. A prime factor shaping Native voice comes from animacy, the comparative pecking order of a given individual to others and other things. I, John Smith, you, Anglo ships, tell when come again. The Anglos didn't get it.
No, Native dialects do not have contractions. Their syntax and diction didn't need them. They have a sense of things without adding possessive marking, negated constructs, litotes understatements, or abbreviating speech.
Criticizing the historical accuracy of a novel's factual premises is also hazardous. What do a writer's interpretations of questionable historical premises mean to the narrative? I'm afraid they say more about the biases of the writer and the writer's culture than they can say about a narrative's personas and settings and events, etc. However, as long as those biases serve an accessible rhetorical purpose I say stet, let it stand unremarked.
On the other hand, there's an entire critical genre whose sole ambition is criticizing historical, scientific, and social inaccuracies. I guess that's what they operate on, disbelief. Whatever happened to blissful acceptance of the differing outlooks of make believe?
I've kind of operated under a notion that contact tableau narratives are few and far between. The few I've read range from mediocre to poor, with one or two stand out exceptions. James Fenimore Cooper's Last of the Mohicans is one, though it comes from a later period of cultural contact than I'm looking for. Brian Moore's Black Robe wasn't quite as enjoyable, though it is set in a first contact period. Several releases explore the life of Tisquantum or Squanto as he was known to Anglos, one movie does the circumstances justice, Squanto: A Warrior's Tale, though it contains noticeable Anglo biases. Anyway, I'm encountering quite a few writers writing in the historical fiction contact tableau genre. Someone is bound to set a high bar soon. Maybe me?
Spread the love of written word.
-
longknife
Re: Reviewing a Reviewer
polymath - thanks very much for the response. Most educational.
As I've indicated, the novels I've read by Sue Harrison and the Sarbandes have always seemed quite authentic and real to me. I am also an avid reader of Jean Auel and most happy she's finally released another novel.
While it is, as you indicated, almost impossible for modern man to get inside the head of someone who lived five hundred years ago, I feel it is the author's responsibility to be as close to that as possible. Using modern words and terms may make it easier for some readers, but is that really the purpose of historical fiction?
One of my characters is a young man from a tribe in Western Mexico in the late 1700s. There is no way I can get inside his mind except to study the general customs and what is still available about his people and others from that area. If his native language did not have words to describe things not seen or felt, who could I best express them in his terms? I had to "bend the rules" a little here and there but also made it clear that is exactly what I was doing.
In order to be true to my readers, I spent an extensive amount of time researching customs and mores of 18th Century England, Spain and Mexico. I also asked for and received help from those with some knowledge of the same period.
Again, there might be some minor errors in the stories but it is not due to a lack of effort on my part to learn and portray the truth.
In the case of my comments about the book, it was just because it was apparent to me the author was not concerned with the truth of the story.
And, I AM going to do my version of reviewing this book on my own blog.
As I've indicated, the novels I've read by Sue Harrison and the Sarbandes have always seemed quite authentic and real to me. I am also an avid reader of Jean Auel and most happy she's finally released another novel.
While it is, as you indicated, almost impossible for modern man to get inside the head of someone who lived five hundred years ago, I feel it is the author's responsibility to be as close to that as possible. Using modern words and terms may make it easier for some readers, but is that really the purpose of historical fiction?
One of my characters is a young man from a tribe in Western Mexico in the late 1700s. There is no way I can get inside his mind except to study the general customs and what is still available about his people and others from that area. If his native language did not have words to describe things not seen or felt, who could I best express them in his terms? I had to "bend the rules" a little here and there but also made it clear that is exactly what I was doing.
In order to be true to my readers, I spent an extensive amount of time researching customs and mores of 18th Century England, Spain and Mexico. I also asked for and received help from those with some knowledge of the same period.
Again, there might be some minor errors in the stories but it is not due to a lack of effort on my part to learn and portray the truth.
In the case of my comments about the book, it was just because it was apparent to me the author was not concerned with the truth of the story.
And, I AM going to do my version of reviewing this book on my own blog.
Re: Reviewing a Reviewer
Astute points and an astute question, lvcabbie.lvcabbie wrote:While it is, as you indicated, almost impossible for modern man to get inside the head of someone who lived five hundred years ago, I feel it is the author's responsibility to be as close to that as possible. Using modern words and terms may make it easier for some readers, but is that really the purpose of historical fiction?
György Lukács answers your purpose question in a roundabout way. Paraphrasing and enhancing his answer, historical fiction is little different from prose in general, it's not about the past or the future, not really, it's about the present, the time of reading, so a narrative is relevant to today's readers. A narrative has three time periods, the time period it's written, the time period it portrays, and the time period it's read. The classics endure because they have relevance today regardless of their other time periods.
One contrary and important value of historical fiction is it does depict exotic proxy realities, past times with engaging exotic settings, plots, ideas, characters, events, and discourses. Exotic proxy realities, secondary worlds as Tolkien labeled them, give readers an escape valve, wishfulfillment, and a vacation from their plodding everyday alpha reatities. Along with willing suspension of disbelief and an immersive participation mystique, those are other factors that make a historical fiction relevant to today's readers. Making the strange familiar and the familiar strange is a cornerstone of originality.
So, yes, accuracy matters for the sake of preserving willing suspension of disbelief, authenticity for an immersive participation mystique, and credibilty for an exotic proxy reality, an imitation of one persona's perspective of a period portrayed. If that persona is a writer today, then today's cultural perspective of the past time period's cultural perspective influence the narrative, but must be relevant today so that readers can engage closely.
Contact tableau genre I've read mostly accomplish some of the above. At least initially they engage my curiosity. Where they fail in my opinion is when they repeat an unimaginative perspective. They invariably repeat a conquering culture's ethnocentric biases. I believe today's readers are eager for fresh perspectives. They would best be relevant if they reflect and influence today's public consciousness. And what's going on there? Multiculturalism and opposition to multiculturalism. It's the digital divide in one sense. It's in the political landscape as central talking points, It's civil unrest in its basest causation. It's social engineering for good or ill.
Spread the love of written word.
-
longknife
Re: Reviewing a Reviewer
Well, my first goal in writing Father Serra's Legacy was to familiarize today's people with what it took to create a viable, self-sustaining complex in a very difficult environment.
Then, I was aware of the belief by many that the California Indians were no more than slaves to the Spanish with the friars in particular. I sensed that to be untrue for one simple reason - if there were so many Indians and so few friars, why were only 2 friars killed by the indians in almost 80 years? Each mission only had a compliment of 5 presidials and were isolated from the presidios holding most of the troops. And, in all of California, the most soldiers stationed there at any one time were no more than 500.
As I discovered in my research, the Indians LOVED the friars! And the friars dedicated every waking moment treating those who came to them as their children, doing everything a parent of their time would do to teach them a better way of life. When friars would visit an Indian village, the people would gather round to greet them, often kissing their hands.
I also learned another thing that really caught me off guard. The philosophy of the time was "Spare the rod and spoil the child." So one would expect severe punishment for those Indians who disobeyed the rules or tried to run away. It is true the Spanish would go out and round up those who returned to their villages. And yes, they were punished. But, the form of punishment was no more than a spanking a parent would give a child with every effort to explain what they did wrong. In fact, the friars "punished" themselves daily in far more severe manner, using flails or even chains to beat their backs and shoulders to the point of drawing blood in atonement for what they considered their own sins. Their strong rule and one that often brought them into conflict with the military was that no Indian should be struck to the point of bruising or causing blood to flow.
A far different view than a lot of contemporary teachings.
Then, I was aware of the belief by many that the California Indians were no more than slaves to the Spanish with the friars in particular. I sensed that to be untrue for one simple reason - if there were so many Indians and so few friars, why were only 2 friars killed by the indians in almost 80 years? Each mission only had a compliment of 5 presidials and were isolated from the presidios holding most of the troops. And, in all of California, the most soldiers stationed there at any one time were no more than 500.
As I discovered in my research, the Indians LOVED the friars! And the friars dedicated every waking moment treating those who came to them as their children, doing everything a parent of their time would do to teach them a better way of life. When friars would visit an Indian village, the people would gather round to greet them, often kissing their hands.
I also learned another thing that really caught me off guard. The philosophy of the time was "Spare the rod and spoil the child." So one would expect severe punishment for those Indians who disobeyed the rules or tried to run away. It is true the Spanish would go out and round up those who returned to their villages. And yes, they were punished. But, the form of punishment was no more than a spanking a parent would give a child with every effort to explain what they did wrong. In fact, the friars "punished" themselves daily in far more severe manner, using flails or even chains to beat their backs and shoulders to the point of drawing blood in atonement for what they considered their own sins. Their strong rule and one that often brought them into conflict with the military was that no Indian should be struck to the point of bruising or causing blood to flow.
A far different view than a lot of contemporary teachings.
Re: Reviewing a Reviewer
A rich historic legacy for sure. I'm somewhat familiar with it, more so than most. The general public consciousness of history is shaped by misperceptions and well-intended revisions. Pocahontas' history for a prime example. She was repackaged back when she was living for making her relevant to the cultures of her times. Her repackaging for contemporary relevance has continued to today. Such is how legends are shaped and their origins are lost.
The question I have about any historical fiction, a rhetorical question, how is any given historical narrative relevant today? Native American cultures have a strong curiosity appeal, although more so their relevance to contemporary social issues. The more personal and at the same time universal the social issues the better. Dee Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, 1970, four million copies sold, explores many of if not the most central social issues and public relevance of Native American cultures at the time of publication and remains so today. Surely, an enduring classic.
The question I have about any historical fiction, a rhetorical question, how is any given historical narrative relevant today? Native American cultures have a strong curiosity appeal, although more so their relevance to contemporary social issues. The more personal and at the same time universal the social issues the better. Dee Brown's Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, 1970, four million copies sold, explores many of if not the most central social issues and public relevance of Native American cultures at the time of publication and remains so today. Surely, an enduring classic.
Spread the love of written word.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests