tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478664906099707316.post5477053569962273568..comments2023-08-16T02:59:07.053-07:00Comments on Writer's Daily Grind: More "accuracy" musingsAnne Gilberthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03045500116098233731noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478664906099707316.post-30855827438585363222009-04-16T23:32:00.000-07:002009-04-16T23:32:00.000-07:00Nan,I'm not sure if I've read the Queen of Swords ...Nan,I'm not sure if I've read the Queen of Swords book. I <B><I>did</I></B> read <B><I>Pride of Kings</I></B> and I thought that was odd, but interesting. Though I knew it was fantasy, in some ways, it was closer to the actual King John than more "traditional" views, so I could swallow that. Her portrayal of historical characters in <B><I>Rite of Conquest</I></B> was ridiculous. And unbelievable.<br /><br />Anne GAnne Gilberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03045500116098233731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478664906099707316.post-25647980779033301692009-04-16T13:30:00.000-07:002009-04-16T13:30:00.000-07:00I suspect Judith Tarr would agree that she is far ...I suspect Judith Tarr would agree that she is far from the actual history.<br /><br />She seems to have fun with reinterpretation of "villain's: chaacters. In Pride of Kings she makes John the reincarnation of Arthur as she did with William that Bastard. ASnd Robin Hood is a three foot tall pointy teeth malevolent little creature. <br /><br />I respect her for her creativity. That's saying a lot since she's taken two of my heroes and made them bad guys.<br /><br />Have you read her Queen of Swords? Quite another matter.Kit mosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03991738631295745319noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478664906099707316.post-22408508932333381572009-04-16T12:56:00.000-07:002009-04-16T12:56:00.000-07:00Actually, I rather like what I've read of Judith T...Actually, I rather like what I've read of Judith Tarr. Unfortunately, when she errs,she errs rather spectacularly. It's true that she seems to have meant <B><I>Rite of Conquest</I></B> to be a sort of "alternative history", but not only was her portrait of Harold way, way off, so was the way she described William, and for that matter, Matilda. The idea,in this case, just didn't work, But I guess a lot of people liked it, and, as you say, the more the merrier, so I really don't mind if you, or anybody else, disagrees with my analysis.<br />Anne GAnne Gilberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03045500116098233731noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7478664906099707316.post-36649030789685879282009-04-15T11:52:00.000-07:002009-04-15T11:52:00.000-07:00Great job. We don't agree precisely, but the more...Great job. We don't agree precisely, but the more the merrier is what I say.<br /><br />I think Judith Tarr is generally accepted as being a writer of fantasy in the Guardians series. Admit it, Anne. You just freaked about her portrayal of our mutual darling, Harold Godwinson. Me too.<br /><br />Regarding "s/he would never have done that in that era" I agree it is dangerous to oversimplify and generalize. It is embarrassingly easy to find exceptions for the supposed "rules" of any era. People were as individual in their attitudes and actions then as now. It's like the whole notion that there could not have been homosexuals in the Tudor court averred by a critic of one of Purdy's novels. Bullshit. Of course there were. There have always been. And I just thank my lucky stars I live in a time that doesn't pretend there aren't. <I>Toujours, vive l'amour.</I>Kit mosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03991738631295745319noreply@blogger.com