I can trust my gut instict, usually (I do have that literature degree and have been reading an awful lot in my life), but I do not have any malicious intent towards the *writer*. If anything, I hate books, not their authors. There’s no point hating a person, I don’t know them, they’ve done nothing wrong as people.

The problem with much historical writing is that many people think watching “Gladiator” and “Spartacus” or “A Knights Tale” and “Excalibur” is enough to write a real historical novel. I’m’ somewhat shocked at people who don’t care to research telling me I’ve got it wrong about history, which actually is grounded in several hundred years of historical research and a not-too-shabby academic degree in the field. That kind of atitude gives us a plethora of really bad historical writing, the “I don’t give a fuck” attitude, which is, sadly, fairly widespread in the genre, but I won’t stop calling lazy writers on their bullshit.

If you want real history, check out Alex Beecroft’s “False Colours”, for example. Erastes has the same, scrupulous approach to research. Or the Banis works I’ve been reviewing.

Vash, I can see that you worked hard to make this a good review, and I have always, and will always, respect your honesty. I have no interest to read a review, where a reviewer has not clearly stated their opinions, have not been honest because they are afraid of hurting someone, and most importantly, lied to my face. I want a review to be honest, and you have always given me just that. Not to mention, that your amazing knowledge in history, always helps me to decide how to approach a book when deciding to return to this genre. I don’t mind historical romance being a bit freely written, but I can’t take much incorrect facts. And if the story is supposed to go along some historical events that really happened, those facts need to be correct. I, as an average high school-graduate, might not always notice wrong facts, but I do want to trust that there isn’t any of that. Research is half the work when writing an historical book of any kind.

Aaanyway, what these commentors have failed to say to you, I will do it now.

Thank you for the great review.
( I enjoyed it as always when reading your stuff. -hugs- )

@C.A.: Absolutely. I’ve been wondering – from before I started – whether I should use a “traceable” name to review fellow authors… or use a “reviewing pseudonym” to exactly prevent accusations of trying to “kill the competition” or open my own books up for pot shots or “revenge reviews” of disgruntled authors.

I did underestimate how bad/time-consuming it would be, but I’m prepared to take whatever comes from that angle. But I’ll certainly write a blog entry in the near future about reviewing.

I wish every book was great, but they aren’t. Hence = spade.

I haven’t read The Tortured Secutor — it’s not really my genre — but if taking issue with historical details and style are unfair nitpickery from a reviewer, I’ll eat my hat.

History changes, friend, or at least that’s what my prof’s at university told me. How much knowledge was lost between civilizations? How much was lost when the library burned at Alexandria? How much is locked up in Vatican vaults? How surprised were historians when archeologists recently discovered a calculator-type instrument from ancient Greece with which they tracked the moon’s orbit and positions of the Zodiac?

I’m finished with debating you, and for any interested parties, I will serialize this book on my web site. I’ll give the damn book away for free, and we will let the public decide.

Dear Erastes: Had you reviewed this book when I sent it to you, or had one of the people helping you at the time do it, all of this could have been avoided. All I wanted was a link. You’ve benefited from my one-way traffic since the infancy of this site. Other authors receive links when their book is reviewed, but mine did not, and still has not.

You’ve got a lot of nerve dragging William Maltese into this, as he merely tried to play peacemaker. It seems your intent is to fuel the fire, but I must tell you that you will get no more from me. Say what you want. You have defined yourself well up to this point. This is your site and you can make it what you please, but I must say, there is no joy here, and whatever bile is spewed from here on out will have no effect on me because I will not return to see it.

Best of luck to you and all your endeavours.

Jardonn Smith

We don’t refuse to review the books we don’t like. Again, there are sites that do that. What would be the point of only reviewing the books we thought were good? We’d then be accused of favourtism “Oh – SIN only reviews its pet authors.” That would be horrible. If all reviews are good, how can anyone get a feel of what they’d like?

All reviews are subjective, and, although I vet reviews before they are published, I rarely make amendments, other than for length, or extreme nit-picking – and because books are reviewed by different people – it means that the reviews are varied and different people like different things. Who’d want my review on all books? I know I wouldn’t. And often, the readers will find things that we didn’t like to be attractive traits–I know that when Mrs Giggles eviscerated one of my novels, I had a buying spree for the book for a week or two afterwards.

I’ll revisit the passages – I remember you writing about a tendon in the lower leg, so I assumed it would be the Achilles tendon. If you’re not specific, the reader fills in his own details.

A tendon in the knee might be the same problem – but regardless what tendon it is, I’m pretty sure that no surgeon/medical porofessional in 3rd century Rome could sew a tendon back together. In fact, surgery was pretty much limited to setting bones and sewing wounds shut and hoping the patient survives, but I can re-visit my history of medicine if you want.

In any case, using the kind of plaster you describe is a historical error. Splints and bandages very likely, plaster, I don’t think so. Apart from using it on what is most likely still very swollen soft tissue (which could actually lead to worse damage). You describe the doctor basically re-assembling a shattered bone, in what would even today be a long, complex operation; I found that both unbelievable and ahistorical, and I would expect your gladiator to be in considerably more pain after reciving such a wound – stiffness, possibly infection, excrutiating pain whenever he thinks so much as put weight on his foot. Using a cane is a more romantic way to deal with such a wound, but why make the wound so dramatic in the first place?

Secondly, about the resolution happening off camera. Yes, the arena scene. You build up all this plot and then the emperor sorts the problem out for our heroes. The man Philokrates tries to protect for many pages just simply dies, and people shrug their shoulders and go about their business. I would have liked the plot to actually revolve around the main characters, so in my book, what you did was make promises (“this is the love story of two men who protect a friend against getting framed and save the day!”), but you resolve the issue without the heroes actually playing a really crucial role.

I know the Emperor tells them that their involvement was important, but to me all that read like an accident and was very anti-climactic. My thought was “so why did I have to read the story at all if it didn’t matter, if the plot just gets resolved by minor characters after a little torture?”

I do believe that this was a flaw in the actual building of the story.

For me, the best part was the first meeting of the phyisician and the gladiator. That had intensity, that was alive. Sadly, the rest of the story did’nt fulfiil the promise that its beginning made. Taken a different route, this might have been good, because I found the premise intriguing.

I should have limited my comments to those subjects and not stirred the pot of story review.

Since I did, I will argue these two misrepresentations:

The gladiator uses a walking stick the remainder of his days, so his condition is not fine, and I do not recall specifying the Achilles tendon as the severed tendon. The villain’s come-uppance is a major event of the second scene in the arena, so resolution does not take place off-camera.

There are no gushing reviews of this book of which I am aware, and much has changed in the 22 months since the book was submitted to this site for review. My apologies to you for implying your intentions were evil. In fact, based on what I now know this site looks for in historical fiction, your evaluation is just about right.

This time-consuming exercise of negativity on my part should never have happened, because end result is the traffic will continue to flow one direction.

Thank you for taking time to read the file and write your piece regarding my story.

Jardonn Smith

I find it a little weird that you think just because you comment that anybody here would go out of their way to trash you? I’m not sure where I’ve given the impression that I’d react quite that immaturely.

You can, of course, enjoy this book. I didn’t. I gave my reasons (bad writing, bad editing, bad plot, weak characters, weak history) – and you can’t fight over taste. I’m sure there are many excellent and gushing reviews of “The Tortured Secutor”, but this is not one of them.

I honestly enjoy reading a good book more than tearing it apart. I’m not a masochist, and I’m not, by nature, vindictive. But I do call a spade a spade. If this was a bunch of roses to you, I’m not arguing.

SIN is a blog that reviews books according to certain criteria. One of them is historical accuracy. So while it’s probably right that many readers wouldn’t find “puke” or “okay” ahistorical in first person narration, somebody reading for the history would, and that goes into the overall rating.

And, if given the chance, I will give further Jardonn Smith books wide berth indeed, but the issue is, that I will read what Erastes sends me, and my expertise is in Ancient History and Medieval History, and then, to a less extent, military history post 1900ies.

While I’m reluctant to stick my foot into this bog, for fear of being sucked even deeper into it, I can only say that I have read the book in question (being a fan of any and all books dealing with Roman history, or an author’s take on Roman history) and I enjoyed it, keeping in mind that fiction, by definition, is “other than fact”. Should any of us really expect a 100% accurate time-line in other than a work of non-fiction? Especially since, I suspect, some of the historical liberties caught by this reviewer, and noted by me (in passing), would not have been seen or recognized by any ordinary reader just out for a good “other era” read.

I’m, likewise, genuinely of the opinion that some authors’ works just aren’t the cups of tea for each and everybody, and, if they’re not, they should probably be passed over for coffee. Obviously, Vashtan is not a fan of Mr. Smith, and vice versa. Maybe if, from here on out, they could just stay clear of each other, and each others work, there would be less pyrotechnics on which to attempt throwing water?!

Secondly: if you believe that all issues have been fixed, I’m happy to re-read the “new file” and amend where it needs to be amended.

I’m not sure where I “misrepresented” your book. This is based on the file I read.

Lastly, you’re not my competitor, I’m active in a totally different sub-niche of this niche. I review this strictly as a *reader* of historical fiction, and, yes, I didn’t like this as a reader. I’m not trashing other writers’ offerings to “kill the competition” and I resent the implication. But there are many writers who also review – there’s a long history of that.

Erastes herself is a historical writer – so if you don’t want “the competition” to read your books, you shouldn’t have sent it. Even then, as far as I understand, review sites don’t need the placet of the writer to review books.

I’m glad you found the typo. Erastes will very likely be happy to fix it.

And I’m not an “underling” but a volunteer reviewer; I don’t get paid for reviews, and apart from writing, sometimes, in the historical space, like Erastes does, and being “friends” on livejournal and the exchange of a few emails a month, there is no other connection.

I’m all for talking history, so lettuce.

Disclaimer says author submitted this book to Erastes for review. True. In January 2008… back when Erastes and I were members of a Yahoo manlove author’s group… back when Erastes’s Speak Its Name review site was five months old… back when Erastes was the main reviewer, along with a few author/reviewer partners of whom I was familiar.

I thought we might make a good pair. My Jardonn’s Erotic Tales.com site was four years old, generating around 5000 unique visitors and 200,000 page hits per month. My Tortured Secutor book was two months old and its events set in ancient Rome, so I offered to send the book (print paperback copy was offered, but instead, a pre-correction layout, PDF file was emailed at Erastes’s suggestion), and placed a link to Speak Its Name on my Jardonn site.

All right, Speak Its Name got its link and Jardonn got nothing. No review. No reciprocol link. No big deal. I figured Erastes didn’t understand the unwritten courtesies of webmastering and would eventually come around with the link. I dropped it, left my link on Jardonn’s site sending traffic to Speak Its Name as it was, and forgot about the book review. For the most part, I also forgot about Speak Its Name.

Now, nearly two years later, the manuscript is reviewed… not by Erastes… but by an underling… not just an underling… but a fellow-author unknown to me… and I thinks, “Wonderful! This will entertain me.” In the very first paragraph I saw a typo… taht instead of that… and I knew finishing the piece from there would be difficult. Still, I trudged forward, soon realizing the underling’s piece is filled with misrepresentations conveniently composed for purpose of making me appear the fool, and I thinks, “Wow! What the hell has this place become? What is this place all about?”

I waste time reading more reflections from authors analyzing books written by their competitors, and understand I’ve been lured into the syrup of a very ugly place. My heart sinks further as I realize that for the first time ever, I will respond to a negative review. More time devoted to unproductivity (is that a word? god, don’t let me screw up the language), the only consolation being that since the piece is not really a review of my book, technically I still have never responded to a bad one.

Believe me or don’t, but it’s not the piece about the book that coerces me to respond, it’s the two-year delay and the implication I just recently sent the book here for review.

I’m all for talking history, and now, the readers, those savvy purchasers of books and the only folks who really matter, know the history of Jardonn Smith, Erastes and the web site, Speak Its Name. Add a footnote: best I can see, there still is no link from this place to my web site, but my link from Jardonn’s Erotic Tales to Speak Its Name still sits functioning on my main page.

Damn those Google alerts. This is one Jardonn incident I wish Googlebot had not found.

Editing is so much more than hunting typos. A good editor would have cut that bloated style and would likely have told the authors that the device of having the characters converse in the afterflife simply doesn’t work.

But a publisher that refuses to edit? I mean, what’s the difference to self-publishing and vanity publishing? Do they pay royalties or are they a vanity publisher?

According to the publisher’s website, the editing work is the author’s responsibility. :S