Historical Fiction Reviews

[Anonymous]

Consider my hand shaken. <p></p><i></i>

[Bill Altimari]

Thank you, Simon. I'm honored.<br>
<br>
All my best,<br>
Bill <p></p><i></i>

[JRSCline]

That was about as <em>ad hominem</em> as I've seen on RAT for a while, so Carol, try reading the rules for posting, if you're new. Some of that was very uncalled-for.<br>
<br>
Bill may have an ego, though I find any assessment of character based on internet postings to be premature. But admit this much -- he's put his money where his mouth is, and not only produced a lengthy written work but put up his own lucre to do it, and all that is more than 95% of the rest of us can say we've done. So I'll give credit where it's due, since I haven't the time or energy to write something which might remotely qualify as "better."<br>
<br>
Jenny <p><br>
--------------------<br>
<br>
"The great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they are realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are."<br>
-- Niccoló Machiavelli, <em>The Discourses</em>, 1517. </p><i></i>

[Bill Altimari]

Thank you, Jenny, for your very kind words.<br>
<br>
All my best,<br>
Bill <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Mr. Altimari, your issue with critics is clearly a lost cause. You are not the first author to take dislike with critics' views their works, and will not be the last one. The only solution for an author is to stop reading any criticism if the inevitable negative reviews pose a problem. Responding to critiques and criticising them in turn is not productive work, as their opinions will remain the same whether they annoy you or not. Opinions are, after all, like assholes - everybody has got one.<br>
<br>
Mine is not favorable towards you book. I bought it due to some good reviews (here and elsewhere), but did not find it worth the price after reading (finished today). Mainly I did not like it as a book - the legionarys were just too great and admirable, especially überman Rufio (even when they were killing and torturing people it was merely because they wanted to make the world safe for great and magnificant Roman civilization and its innocent civilians - absolutely no lower motives were involved in any way, as Romans just were too good people to have them...). How there could be any tension in the book when all the results are clear from the beginning - Romans just could not lose to miserable barbarians, the guy gets the girl etc. Love story was pretty stupid and also without any tension. Etc.<br>
<br>
However, the above comments are merely my opinion of a book as a book - another issue is its historicality. Historical novels contain two issues which readers are interested in - the book as a novel (readable novel with good language, characters, plot etc.) and the book as historical fiction. Therefore writing historical novels is twice as difficult as contemporary novels - and twice as likely to bad reviews. If you can not handle negative critiques you should switch to contemporary novels - or stop reading reviews.<br>
<br>
As a historical fiction, I found your book to be quite good. Description of legion's training and operations were extensive and well written. There were some issues which raised questions (my understanding is that cats were not common in Gaul, the legionaries did not eat meat as a regular diet, the first centurion was unlikely to direct the battle even if legate was inexperienced, and the characters as whole did not give the feel of being roman of that period), but these are in my opinion minor issues and part of the author's freedom. Still, for some people issues like these are important part, and the book-part would have been okay. You can't please everybody, deal with it.<br>
<br>
Although your effort of writing a book and getting it published is definitely more imposing feat that my (or anybody else's) feat of reading the book, it still gives me (and others) the right to criticise your book.<br>
<br>
(ps. hope your book sells well and you'll write more of them - I'd love to have an opportunity modify my opinion with new books... ) <p></p><i></i>

[Los456]

I don't know, I should keep my mouth shut, but when one includes words like "stupid" in a review of someone's work, someone who's a member of our little community here and has obviously poured lot of effort into the novel, well frankly, that's kind of lacking class and ends up being more a reflection on the poster than the writer. I know this kind of harshness in dealing with each other is a side effect of internet forums since normally one would not speak to another like that in a real room, but there are better ways, different adjectives to convey your opinion than that.<br>
<br>
I liked Bill's book. It's not perfect, hardly any book is, yes to me also, the Romans are a tad too "true blue", but frankly for me it doesn't detract from the overall quality of the book. For others it might. But I'm interested in reading Bill's interpretation of day to day camp life, training, preperations for battle, etc. And for me the book hits on these points. Anyways, 'nuff said...<br>
<br>
Los <p></p><i></i>

[Vincula]

Quote:</em></strong><hr>my understanding is that cats were not common in Gaul, the legionaries did not eat meat as a regular diet, the first centurion was unlikely to direct the battle even if legate was inexperienced, and the characters as whole did not give the feel of being roman of that period<hr><br>
(a) not uncommon either<br>
(b) yes they did<br>
© why not?<br>
(d) I have'nt read the book , but -- hello! -- isnt it a work of fiction?? <p></p><i></i>

[Crispvs]

"...the legionaries did not eat meat as a regular diet..."<br>
<br>
Actually, the evidence from quite a number of Roman forts suggests that soldiers, in camp at least, probably had quite a high proportion of meat in their diets.<br>
<br>
Crispvs <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I regularly review books for the Historical Novel Society (www.historicalnovelsociety.org) Though I'm careful not to trample over an author's efforts, if a story (or a non-fiction book) doesn't work for me, I will indicate this. You can see some of my recent reviews at: www.tegula.freeserve.co.uk/hns.htm. The reviews have to be quite short so that all the reviews can fit into the limited space of the Historical Novel Review. None of my current reviews are of Roman themed books, but there's a Scarrow forthcoming<br>
<br>
As far as I'm concerned, reviews are always the opinion of the person who wrote it; perhaps it's one of those things you assume if you're reviewer! So if I read a stinker of a review it doesn't necessarily mean I won't read the book. Some authors don't seem to realise this BUT: any publicity is good publicity - if even a bad review is published, it's still advertising for that book, even if it hurts the old ego a tad.<br>
<br>
I'm an archaeologist, but I only get really irritated if the human behaviour seems wrong in some way (stilted, unrealistic, etc) and then the whole thing starts to unravel for me. Then I'll pick up on 'material culture' faults (eg. Samian doesn't have a glaze, it has a slip, etc ...) and the water just keeps getting deeper. This rarely happens, and even then there's normally a subtle-ish way to indicate that this book was not exactly my cuppa. <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

Seems that the point of my post did not get through - or my writing was lacking in clarity. My opinion of Altimari's legion was that it was not a very good book, but this is only one reader's opinion (and apparently there are many satisfied readers around). The main point was that any writer has to get accustomed to negative and/or bad critique as well as positive and/or good ones. Especially when discussing Internet reviews, which are, lets say, diverse. Generally criticising critics is not productive hobby, but everyone to his own...<br>
<br>
los456: I'll have to stand behind my post, and I'd probably have said the same things in face-to-face discussion, but it is also easier to soften it by body language (or clarify on disagreed points). For my money, the love story was stupid - it was neither interesting nor believable. Still, my opinion only.<br>
<br>
Vincula: As I said, the issues were questions that did not bother my overmuch (even as I thought that the author got them wrong). They were examples, and deviation from what I held to be true is definitely acceptable for fiction...<br>
However, issues like making the characters feel like they actually are period era people is part of <em>historical</em> fiction, and one of the most important aspects of historical fiction for me. <p></p><i></i>

[Bill Altimari]

I certainly never thought that this thread would enjoy (dubious word) so long a life. Somehow I got the reputation for objecting to negative comments, though I was discussing something else entirelyâ€â€Â

[Anonymous]

I haven't read your book, but with your attitude, I seriously doubt that I will.<br>
<br>
All but the last two comment you quoted are honest opinions, that could easily have been made without intent to slight you as a person. Instead of accepting that perhaps some readers didn't find your book interesting, believable, or possessing any tension, you instead act like the reviewers owe you something.<br>
<br>
Some authors may not post here because they don't know about it. Other just may not post to forums. Others may just see it as a collosial waste of time. Still others may feel that we aren't the community they are writing for, so why worry about it? Who cares? They aren't posting complaining about the "quality" of reviews they get.<br>
<br>
If you want nothing but sparkling reviews, write a better book. That's not saying that your book is bad, as I've said that I haven't read it. But no book is going to appeal to everyone, unless its the perfect book...and if you write <em>that</em>, then you are definately good to go. When I read, I read for pure entertainment. As long as the history isn't so far off then I am usually ok. If you book is entertaining, it would probably get a good review from me. However, accept that no two people look for the same thing in a book and deal with it.<br>
<br>
You have complained, multiple times in this thread (and yes I know it's old), about reviewers. First, most of us on this forum are amatures. We don't get paid. Those who write reviews do so out of the kindness of thier hearts. Kindness to whom? To those of us looking for good books to read. If a book gets mostly negative reviews, why waste the money? If I enjoy almost all the same books as Reviewer X, and he hates this book, I should probably save my book money for something else.<br>
<br>
Now, I understand you put alot into a book, and I truly respect that. However, you are being a bit hypersensitive. You don't like the review, complain to yourself or a loved one and move on. You sure aren't winning in brownie points complaining here. And you lost at least one potential customer with your idea that reviews need to meet your criteria to be considered "good" (and I don't mean favorable).<br>
<br>
Tom <p></p><i></i>

[Bill Altimari]

I've tried, with all of the powers of redundancy at the command of a third-rate novelist, to explain that the thrust of my original essay is not about the positive or negative content of book reviews but about the manner in which literary issues can be most fruitfully framed and addressed. Perhaps it was a worthwhile effort, perhaps not. In any case, I've evidently failed. Time to roll up the tent and break camp.<br>
<br>
Brownie points??? Really now . . . .<br>
<br>
BA <p></p><i></i>

[Anonymous]

I had something much longer, but realized that some folks just can't deal with someone simply disagreeing with them. My original post was actually intended to show how actions on this board can turn potential readers away, but that doesn't seem to matter either.<br>
<br>
I also hoped that an author would recognize the phrase "winning brownie points" as a metaphor for winning the hearts and minds of the reading public on this forum. I was apparently wrong.<br>
<br>
Tom <p></p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p200.ezboard.com/bromanarmytalk.showUserPublicProfile?gid=tomknighton>Tom Knighton</A> at: 9/20/04 11:24 pm<br></i>

[Anonymous]

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>