09-29-2004, 04:05 PM
As reviews of hist. fiction are the theme here, I would just like to say that I read Simon Scarrow's 'Under the Eagle' and it was very good. I love training books, where characters like Cato learn new skills, and Scarrow also managed to sandbag me with humour in the middle of very serious scenes, which I appreciated. Definitely a recommendation. I've been collecting a number of Roman fiction books without reading them, waiting for the day when I had time. Now I have time and I can't tell you what a relief it is to find out the very first one is a cracker.<br>
<br>
On a more general note, I think criticism should have an aim. Is the reviewer hoping to have the writer raise his or her game and produce better books? Really constructive criticism would be very useful, where a bit of spite achieves nothing. There are many writers out there whose first books were nothing special until they hit their stride round about book three or four. Nothing wrong with that. I think it's important that publishers occasionally take a 'punt' with writers, knowing they will get better. Not everyone can jump straight in with a Harry Potter, after all.<br>
<br>
On the subject of Brownies, mine never turned up.<br>
<br>
Conn<br>
<p></p><i></i>
<br>
On a more general note, I think criticism should have an aim. Is the reviewer hoping to have the writer raise his or her game and produce better books? Really constructive criticism would be very useful, where a bit of spite achieves nothing. There are many writers out there whose first books were nothing special until they hit their stride round about book three or four. Nothing wrong with that. I think it's important that publishers occasionally take a 'punt' with writers, knowing they will get better. Not everyone can jump straight in with a Harry Potter, after all.<br>
<br>
On the subject of Brownies, mine never turned up.<br>
<br>
Conn<br>
<p></p><i></i>
