Of Ramblings and Readings

Well, well, well...here it is, September, and I've finished two books in the past month. It's not that I haven't been reading, it's that what I've been reading has been slow going, and most of that blame can be squarely laid at my feet.

First I read The Twelve by Justin Cronin (see review below) and that sucker was HUGE and INVOLVED. Very, very well done but it took quite a while to move through all the layers and story lines.

Next I've been tackling:

I've been reviewing it for HNS so I can't post a review here yet. I will say that ultimately I loved it and I'll recommend it for those who love good historical fiction with a solid mystery.

Mostly, however, I've just been:

That's right, just plain old distracted. School started up August 1 and it's been a rough start with teacher evals, Core standards, and an eighth grade class shipped in from hell every day to give the devil a break. Plus high school band season is rolling and with youngest daughter in her junior year, we're as busy as ever with all that stuff. I've also become involved with an online group that writes fan fic and I am loving the opportunity to get back to writing! It's been good for me to be complimented on my writing skills and just plain fun interacting with the others in the group. 

Next up I'm going to enjoy

for review for HNS. I missed the first in the series so I hope that won't be detrimental to figuring out what's going on. This one looks super good! 

Finally, I took Thursday off to accompany K to the Country Music Hall of Fame where we went to an intimate interview with Keith Urban! You guys know I love me some Keith and he did't disappoint. Very down to earth answering the 400 high schoolers' questions and interacting with the crowd. 

That's it, that's all from me for now. What's up with you?

~taminator40

Historical Fiction Conundrum

I read a lot of historical fiction; it's always fascinated me. I remember reading Little Women in fifth grade--I hid it inside my desk and read while the rest of the class droned through social studies' read aloud time(I figured out what paragraph would be mine to read aloud since it was round robin style reading, marked it, and was able to get back to Jo and her sisters). I also loved The Witch of Blackbird Pond and probably several others whose names are escaping me right now. But it was really Jean Plaidy and her numerous tomes on British history that pulled me during junior and senior high. She was the mark against which I measured other historical fiction for years. God bless Jean Plaidy.

As an adult, I discovered Sharon Kay Penman when I read When Christ and His Saints Slept. From there, I never looked back as I made my way through just about anything and everything historical. My current favorite author is Elizabeth Chadwick. She's the one who brings history to life in a way that sizzles. I can picture myself in the midst of any story she's written. The woman deserves a much, much wider audience. She's soooo good. Her research and accuracy drive the stories she writes, and it shows.

With all that said, I've gotten increasingly pickier the older I've gotten. It just bugs me to no end when someone is historically inaccurate. Small liberties don't bother me, such as moving an incident in time a bit to make it fit with the author's overall vision. But when things are blatantly wrong, it just floors me that an editor lets it slide. It's one thing to put your interpretation on an event based in fact, and quite another to not have done your research well enough to get names and places correct. A book I've read recently has some glaringly bad anachronisms in it, and I feel as though the author is deceiving her audience, most of whom probably don't know British history as well as I do. I think many will swallow her ideas hook, line, and sinker. Granted, I don't think the author probably knows she's made such glaring mistakes, but isn't that her responsibility? Or does she and the editor believe that it's okay to not fully research the facts just because they want to publish a book?

So, now here comes the hard part--when I do reviews, does it matter enough to point out the historically inaccurate things so that others aren't taken in by ignorance? Or should I just go for the overall feel of the book? I review on Amazon.com, and I know most people reading reviews there aren't as picky as I am about accuracy. But shouldn't they be? Because if the author is sloppy enough to give sons to a well known Duke who obviously didn't have any, or play fast and loose with births and deaths, doesn't that give all historical fiction a poor name if it eventually comes to light? Or am I too maniacal about all this?

I respect authors who have spent time thoroughly researching their subjects because I believe it comes through in their writing. The sad thing is, a good deal of those authors aren't quite as popular as some who either deliberately spin the facts or just don't give a damn about getting it all straight. It bothers me to think that a lot of people take Philippa Gregory's novels as truth, for example. She's a great writer, but her accuracy could be questioned on several points. But is it worth pointing out the inaccuracies? Does anyone even care? Or is it just about the tale?

~taminator40