![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
erastesIt's was like World War 3 last night with the fireworks. Luckily the kitties were 1. Not interested in going out once night sets in (this is good) and 2. Not frightened by the crashes and bangs. I suspect tonight will be just as bad. Personally I don't celebrate burning catholics, but I do like to see the fireworks out of my window.
I've quit the Historical Novel Writers Critique group because frankly the attitudes of one or two of the members were simply FRIGHTFUL. Some had no idea how to take critique. You might say that "maybe,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
erastes, you don't know how to give critique." but I think I do. I've spent many years beta-ing in fandom, and as many critiquing novels by other original fiction writers. Mostly in these two cases I'm been a little more gentle than I was on the group - but if I was a bit less tactful on the group that's because the group was called a Critique group and "for writers who are serious about writing historical fiction and getting published" and I would have thought the clue was in the name.
Anyway the last straw came today when one of the members emailed me today in response to my latest critique and said: -
Some points you raise are useful but as I read I covered three pages with points to refute but decided not to forward all of them to you due to lack of time. The email went on for well over a page anyway, refuting stuff I'd corrected.
*staggered* Three pages?
Three pages of refutation? Now this defensive behaviour is something that I've never encountered before, never. Not once in years of critiquing for fandom. She just thinks she's right in every aspect but (omg) she isn't. I studied the period very very extensively for writing Standish and her historical inaccuracies were legion. She even uses Heyer-isms, which, for the non-Regency steeped, are terms made up by Georgette Heyer and NOT found anywhere in original Regency fiction.
Now I understand about genre fiction, that romance should be written in a particular way (even though I disagree) and blah blah, but when a genre starts making up its own vocabulary and considering it canon, well then... I roll my eyes to the heavens.
It's like some girl I was beta-ing for in Potterdom, who spelled Lucius' name "Lucious" through the entire fic. I pointed this out, quite strongly, that she needed to get this right.
Her response was "I've seen it spelled both ways."
"Yes," I said," but not in the books."
"Oh, I haven't read any of the books." she said.
*headdesk*
This is the attitude that this person seems to have. She doesn't seem to care that her book may not be accurate Regency, as long as it's similar to all the other Regencies that have been written by her contemporaries. I had to wonder if she'd ever read an Austen. In fact - she said recently, in reponse to an earlier critique - that her book was supposed to be "Fantasy Regency" by which I guess she means exactly what I state above. I can't imagine what else she means. Unless there are aliens or something.
The other hilarious thing was that at the end of Chapter 3 she had her heroine walk out of her home for reasons not given (although her mother had just beaten her, so one assumed that was why, but the heroine was so maddeningly NICE and calm you thought she was on mogadon or something) and then at the beginning of Chapter 4 the heroine was getting married!!
In the critique I said "I think you should include the Hero's proposal - it's a vital scene, and the book feels incomplete without it."
her response was: "The proposal was in the original version."
Well, excuse me for not being psychic!
I'd love to see what any editor/agent/publisher would say if she wrote pages of erroneous refutations to them ! I'm not great at taking criticism myself, but I'll put my hands up and admit it if I'm wrong, and I do get it wrong! I had The Field of Mars and Bois de Bologne as the same place and thank goodness someone pointed it out!
Add to that varying snotty attitudes from others who think they are historians - unbelievably shoddy writing from others, appalling levels of research (having Slavery in England for example in the 17th Century, or having a man get from London to Bristol in a day, having had word from Bristol the day before) was enough to make me quit in disgust. I don't mind critting someone's work, but I'll be buggered if I'll do any more of their research for them, and that's what I was having to do. It's tough enough researching my own stuff!
And no-one even bothers to say thank you. And that's just bloody rude.
That being said, there were one or two excellent stories on the group, and not everyone was a prig or a bigot.ajhalluk was on the group and her story was very good - she (of course) was brilliant about taking critique and knew how to be gracious and informative (not pompous or rude like some) in any refutations she had. She could also spell my name correctly which others (such as bigot above) couldn't manage to do even after several months.
But some took critique as personal attacks, and I don't have to work with such unprofessionalism. If I want to deal with prima donnas write the equivalent of "WTF you Hor everywun else thinks it's BRILLIANT." then I'll go and do a critique of the Draco Trilogy.
The funniest thing about the whole business is that said Bigot who refused to critique my work (because she considered "sex to be for procreation" and homosexuality to be blasphemy) has written (unintentionally) the GAYEST hero you've ever seen. I really really hope she gets published (although she hasn't a hope in hell, as it's a truly awful novel) so that I can write slash about her hero and his best friend.
Really. And she doesn't see that.
Evidence:
1. He's constantly with his best friend
2. He speaks of a girl he loved in Portugal, but said best friend never met her. This smacks of "I DID have a girlfriend, so there! I'm not gay!"
3. There's a truly TRULY homoerotic scene between said BF and hero in the moonlight where they talk of war. It's very very romantic. BF puts his hand over hero's, and hero puts his other hand over BF's. I squeed. Awwwww.
4. He marries the heroine but decides not to sleep with her. Not even a little bit and continues to spend all his time with BF. In fact he's rarely seen out of BF's company.
You be the judges!
I don't get why someone who wants to write historical fiction doesn't feel compelled to get the details as right as they can. If you want to mould and shape a historical period to your own conceptions, then do what George RR Martin does and do an AU history.
Well, that feels better. No more amateur critique groups for me!!
I've quit the Historical Novel Writers Critique group because frankly the attitudes of one or two of the members were simply FRIGHTFUL. Some had no idea how to take critique. You might say that "maybe,
erastes, you don't know how to give critique." but I think I do. I've spent many years beta-ing in fandom, and as many critiquing novels by other original fiction writers. Mostly in these two cases I'm been a little more gentle than I was on the group - but if I was a bit less tactful on the group that's because the group was called a Critique group and "for writers who are serious about writing historical fiction and getting published" and I would have thought the clue was in the name.Anyway the last straw came today when one of the members emailed me today in response to my latest critique and said: -
Some points you raise are useful but as I read I covered three pages with points to refute but decided not to forward all of them to you due to lack of time. The email went on for well over a page anyway, refuting stuff I'd corrected.
*staggered* Three pages?
Three pages of refutation? Now this defensive behaviour is something that I've never encountered before, never. Not once in years of critiquing for fandom. She just thinks she's right in every aspect but (omg) she isn't. I studied the period very very extensively for writing Standish and her historical inaccuracies were legion. She even uses Heyer-isms, which, for the non-Regency steeped, are terms made up by Georgette Heyer and NOT found anywhere in original Regency fiction.
Now I understand about genre fiction, that romance should be written in a particular way (even though I disagree) and blah blah, but when a genre starts making up its own vocabulary and considering it canon, well then... I roll my eyes to the heavens.
It's like some girl I was beta-ing for in Potterdom, who spelled Lucius' name "Lucious" through the entire fic. I pointed this out, quite strongly, that she needed to get this right.
Her response was "I've seen it spelled both ways."
"Yes," I said," but not in the books."
"Oh, I haven't read any of the books." she said.
*headdesk*
This is the attitude that this person seems to have. She doesn't seem to care that her book may not be accurate Regency, as long as it's similar to all the other Regencies that have been written by her contemporaries. I had to wonder if she'd ever read an Austen. In fact - she said recently, in reponse to an earlier critique - that her book was supposed to be "Fantasy Regency" by which I guess she means exactly what I state above. I can't imagine what else she means. Unless there are aliens or something.
The other hilarious thing was that at the end of Chapter 3 she had her heroine walk out of her home for reasons not given (although her mother had just beaten her, so one assumed that was why, but the heroine was so maddeningly NICE and calm you thought she was on mogadon or something) and then at the beginning of Chapter 4 the heroine was getting married!!
In the critique I said "I think you should include the Hero's proposal - it's a vital scene, and the book feels incomplete without it."
her response was: "The proposal was in the original version."
Well, excuse me for not being psychic!
I'd love to see what any editor/agent/publisher would say if she wrote pages of erroneous refutations to them ! I'm not great at taking criticism myself, but I'll put my hands up and admit it if I'm wrong, and I do get it wrong! I had The Field of Mars and Bois de Bologne as the same place and thank goodness someone pointed it out!
Add to that varying snotty attitudes from others who think they are historians - unbelievably shoddy writing from others, appalling levels of research (having Slavery in England for example in the 17th Century, or having a man get from London to Bristol in a day, having had word from Bristol the day before) was enough to make me quit in disgust. I don't mind critting someone's work, but I'll be buggered if I'll do any more of their research for them, and that's what I was having to do. It's tough enough researching my own stuff!
And no-one even bothers to say thank you. And that's just bloody rude.
That being said, there were one or two excellent stories on the group, and not everyone was a prig or a bigot.
ajhalluk was on the group and her story was very good - she (of course) was brilliant about taking critique and knew how to be gracious and informative (not pompous or rude like some) in any refutations she had. She could also spell my name correctly which others (such as bigot above) couldn't manage to do even after several months.But some took critique as personal attacks, and I don't have to work with such unprofessionalism. If I want to deal with prima donnas write the equivalent of "WTF you Hor everywun else thinks it's BRILLIANT." then I'll go and do a critique of the Draco Trilogy.
The funniest thing about the whole business is that said Bigot who refused to critique my work (because she considered "sex to be for procreation" and homosexuality to be blasphemy) has written (unintentionally) the GAYEST hero you've ever seen. I really really hope she gets published (although she hasn't a hope in hell, as it's a truly awful novel) so that I can write slash about her hero and his best friend.
Really. And she doesn't see that.
Evidence:
1. He's constantly with his best friend
2. He speaks of a girl he loved in Portugal, but said best friend never met her. This smacks of "I DID have a girlfriend, so there! I'm not gay!"
3. There's a truly TRULY homoerotic scene between said BF and hero in the moonlight where they talk of war. It's very very romantic. BF puts his hand over hero's, and hero puts his other hand over BF's. I squeed. Awwwww.
4. He marries the heroine but decides not to sleep with her. Not even a little bit and continues to spend all his time with BF. In fact he's rarely seen out of BF's company.
You be the judges!
I don't get why someone who wants to write historical fiction doesn't feel compelled to get the details as right as they can. If you want to mould and shape a historical period to your own conceptions, then do what George RR Martin does and do an AU history.
Well, that feels better. No more amateur critique groups for me!!
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 12:09 pm (UTC)An unconsummated wedding, without explanation, suggests something is terribly wrong, doesn't it?
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 03:41 pm (UTC)The author's explanations and rationalizations:
1) Het sex is only for procreation. People don't have sex if they don't want babies. Since the hero is "in no hurry to fill his nursery," obviously he doesn't want to have sex EITHER.
2) The hero and heroine decided after one of them proposed--no idea which, as the proposal isn't in the text--that they wouldn't have sex for a while. This decision ALSO isn't in the text.
I might add that this claim makes zero sense, as the heroine keeps wondering why her husband won't kiss her or spend any time alone with her.
3) The hero arbitrarily decided that he wouldn't have sex with his wife for a while, as he wanted her to have a London Season without being pregnant.
(The concepts of contraception, male and female infertility, and castration as a result of a war wound seem to have escaped the author.)
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 08:03 pm (UTC)Since the Season lasted about six weeks, I think this suggests the writer hasn't done much research beyond other novels. But then, I've read recently written Regency Romance where the Season goes on for ages, at whatever time of year fits the plot.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 07:13 pm (UTC)But It Wasn't!!!! The author didn't seem to realise that in the re-write, she'd forgotten to put it back in, and when I pointed this out, she just got aggressive with me!
Just... there are no words, really.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 07:14 pm (UTC)*G*
It's a gift.
But it is readable, purely because of how very awful it is! *sporks*
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 12:18 pm (UTC)You may not agree with some of the criticism and that's all right but it sounded like they were not even willing to simply *consider* your thoughts. Giving the critique some thought is the *least* you can do. Regardless.
It is plain rude, stubborn and highly unprofessional to do so.
Yes, it can hurt when somebody is 'attacking your baby' but you want your baby to have and be the best, don't you?
Hmpf.
You 'slapped me in the face' once or twice, pointed out when a character was acting out of character and so on, and I might have sighed, mumbled and cursed a couple of times but never (and I really do mean never)just simply put the criticism aside. The fact that you were right almost all of the time had nothing to do with that.
This lot is not appreciating your hard work and honesty so there's nothing lost by leaving them. Your intentions were sincere. Their loss.
If you ever want
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 07:16 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 12:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 07:21 pm (UTC)*g*
Date: 2006-11-05 12:48 pm (UTC)What about starting somerthing amongst ourselves? I'm sure we can get a couple folks together. :) i'd be up for it.
Re: *g*
Date: 2006-11-05 07:23 pm (UTC)Re: *g*
Date: 2006-11-05 08:22 pm (UTC)Did that with my own writing group. I said "Membership is subject to my mood - there's no "right" to be here. If you don't like it, fuck you." Well, I was a bit more polite than that.
Could stick to your friends and people you know for the moment (keeping stuff small makes sense, esp about material that needs to stay under wraps for publication)
Spoiler warning for Carrie Bebris' books!
Date: 2006-11-05 12:54 pm (UTC)Would you believe, I've actually read stuff that fits in this category -- an author named Carrie Bebris (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/102-8387717-2047314?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=carrie+bebris&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go) has written a trio of Jane Austen pastiches featuring Lizzie & Fitzwilliam Darcy. They're mystery novels, but I like that kind of thing normally for light, fun reading. And Bebris seemed to have a decent idea of the characterizations seen in Austen's Pride & Prejudice, as well.
So anyhow, I'm reading along, and the mystery in the first of Bebris' books (Pride & Prescience) is about an odd ring brought over by an American from Louisiana (warning bells start ringing here) that seems to have an odd, mesmeric effect on Caroline Bingley and other characters. And I, the reader, keep assuming that in the windup of the novel, we'll find out the rational explanation for what seems to be supernatural effect.
However, when we get to the end of the book, the wrap-up is: Ha ha! The ring really IS supernatural and uses real MAGICK to control people! And the only reason why Lizzy Darcy (nee' Bennet) figured it out is because she's massively psychic!
Oooh, I was MAD. Not only was that a completely cop-out ending, but to me, the world of Jane Austen and the world of loopy New Age, faux-Voodoo Druid paganism just do not mix.
And actually, it's not that I think Regency and magic/wizardry can't mix, because Patricia Wrede & Caroline Stevermer (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/102-8387717-2047314?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=patricia+wrede+caroline+stevermer&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go) did a lovely job with it in their 'Sorcery & Cecelia' books. But they also told me on page 1 that magic was a part of this world, and that was fine with me. Bebris sprung it on the reader, and awkwardly too, at the very end, after we'd all been assuming we were reading something that would naturally fit with the Austen world.
Ah well. Rant over.
Re: Spoiler warning for Carrie Bebris' books!
Date: 2006-11-05 07:30 pm (UTC)But this was "allegedly" a serious attempt at Regency, and she only used the "fantasy" tag as an excuse to our thorough crits and pointing out her inaccuracies. Her attitude just seemed to be "it's only fiction, I don't have to get it 100 percent right."
GRRR
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 03:01 pm (UTC)As for the group...OMG. I know you and I know when you give critique it is always done in a polite way and if you ask for it then why the hell get pissy about it?
I had to wonder if she'd ever read an Austen.
It is should be the law that anyone writing in the Regency period read Austen, just the law.
*sigh* Sorry that was such a frustrating experience sweetie.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 07:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 03:39 pm (UTC)It sounds to me like a lot of people on that group were writing historical romance, where you are writing historical romance. The difference, imo, is that for you and other serious writers of historical fiction, historical mysteries, etc., the history matters. It's not just window dressing - it permeates the text. You should NOT be able to take the hero or heroine of a historical novel and drop him or her into 2006 with only a change of clothing. /rant.
Anyway, sorry the group didn't work out for you. Sounds like their loss, really.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 07:41 pm (UTC)But yes, for me the historical details are every part as important to me as the plot. I'd be the same if I was writing a contemporary story in, say, New York - I'd go out of my way to make sure that the DETAILS were right, and that my critiquer wouldn't have to spend hours checking my facts.
As I've said before, to me - historical fiction should feel as if it is written in the era, as much as possible. What I see so many people doing is doing what Dan Brown did - bludgeoning people to death with period details, implements, food, making LISTS of stuff, just to say "look look look - I know my stuff!" whereas I attempt to write a story, and i don't need to say "David reached across and pulled up the walnut chair with the cabriole legs and drop-in seat" just to prove that I know what the chairs were like!!
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 03:53 pm (UTC)What the flock is she going to do when she gets a real editor who says: Cut the first 3k and work these two tiny bits of backstory in somewhere else the rest does nothing for the story, the accents (while accurate) make the story unreadable -- tone 'em down, you short change this relationship expand it, and get it back to me in a month so we can start the "real" editing... BWHAHAHHAHAHA
The only critiques I've gotten that were useless where the ones that didn't rake me over the coals. I may not do everything a crit partner says (I may had deliberately chosen to make a paragraph ambiguous 'cause I don't want the reader to know exactly what happened), but 80-90% of the time I do make changes. I've lived with my book for months, I no longer see the flaws in it, you have to have someone with a bit of distance pointing out where things don't work.
Basically, grow up, writing is a brutal business.
And yeah... her hero is so on the down-low.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 07:45 pm (UTC)Again, I wish she would get published because I'd like her to go through that.
What made me laugh more than anything else, is that every time anyone said anything negative about her book, she would say "I've had a report from the Romance Writers Association" as if that was something special! They give a report to anyone - for fifty pounds!!!
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 04:16 pm (UTC)incidentally...
Date: 2006-11-05 05:36 pm (UTC)Am thoroughly digging having Dickens and Thackeray in my book bag.
Re: incidentally...
Date: 2006-11-05 07:46 pm (UTC)Heyer!!
Date: 2006-11-06 12:32 am (UTC)Erastes IS a good publicist, I want to read the Gay Best Friend!!
Re: Heyer!!
Date: 2006-11-06 11:18 am (UTC)Re: Heyer!!
Date: 2006-11-06 06:09 pm (UTC)I'd actually be frightened of picking up contemporary Victorian novels. I'd hate to see how some modern writers deal with the stick-up-their-asses bit.
Thackeray certainly had a damn lot of fun writing about it, that's for sure. *loves*
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 06:23 pm (UTC)I do have a question -- I've heard of "Heyerisms" before, but I don't think I've ever seen a list or known of one where you could find out what she invented. While I'm not writing a Regency (yet), I've always wondered what they were... because I grew up loving Heyer and wishing I could write like she did.
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 07:49 pm (UTC)This site certainly opened my eyes.
I adore people who are as geekie about words as me!
no subject
Date: 2006-11-05 08:56 pm (UTC)That would be the best revenge upon the homophobic chippy. I'm sorry you had this irritating experience with the group, but at least you're secure enough in your own writing to have come out of it unscathed. I'll bet several of the group's participants aren't, and their writing will suffer because of morons like the twit who gave you grief about your "evil" gay characters. Still, I have to laugh about her writing gay characters without realizing it; she sounds like good character fodder (and using her in that way might, in future, be an even better way of revenging yourself upon her). :D
no subject
Date: 2006-11-06 11:16 am (UTC)I don't think she realises that her hero is a flaming queer - I really wish I'd pointed it out!