I am not going to turn into a whiner about reviews, as I know it goes with the territory, and for the most part have found my reviews very helpful. In fact what we will have to face from professional critics may well be much more cutting.

On this occasion however, I am compelled to respond as I feel it is important for anyone who reviews someone else’s work should make sure of their own facts before ‘helping’ others.

I am not smarting at the 1,2,2,2,1,1,1,1 score either


Your model is obviously E Nesbitt rather than JK Rowling.

I have not modelled my book on anyone else’s work, let alone J K Rowling, who I haven’t read. As for E Nesbit, I didn’t (to my shame as it turns out) know who he/she was till I googled the name after reading my review. Now I know she is the author of The Railway Children, which I haven’t read either, and do not know her other works. I have said to agents that it is aimed at the same audience as The Chronicles of Narnia, which I saw on TV many years ago but have not read. Having only written in the Crime/Thriller/Horror genres, this book took me quite by surprise, as it started with a dream I had, and mushroomed from there. If anything, it may have come from tales from my Granny, who was a ladies maid during the very beginning of the 1900’s, and a love of that era.

Why can't Bertie read? I think the school leaving age had already gone up to 14 and even if it was only 12, he should still have had a good grounding in the basics.

Bertie is 16 in1912, and even if he started school at 4 years then he would not have been obliged to attend school by law as it wasn’t until The 1918 Education Act made attendance at school compulsory up to the age of 14 years. Even then many could not afford to pay for the education of their children especially servants, of which Bertie’s father is one.

I don't get any clear sense of any adult character, they're simply not there
There are only 2 characters that are children, and aside from the beach scene, there is a very strong adult presence, starting at the very beginning of the first chapter with Morath, and then the very large presence of Nanny.

Edwardian children (though of course this is set in the early years of George V) would not have used words like 'okay', 'cute' or 'gross'.

Although George V was indeed on the throne in 1912, all available literature is clear on one point, that the Edwardian Era cannot be precisely isolated to the period of King Edward VII's short reign (1901-1910). The term Edwardian may be taken to mean the period which encompasses the mid 1890s to the outbreak of World War 1 in 1914.

As far as the words mentioned not being used, if you use an Etymology Dictionary the word cute started in 1731, ok has been in use since c.1838-9, and gross dates from c.1347 from the Latin Grossus and used to mean “thick, coarse (of food or mind),” and later to "glaring, flagrant, monstrous" and although the first use in the context of disgusting was in 1958, but I am using a bit of poet license for using this word once.

When I was a small girl the Pipples were exactly the sort of creatures that really annoyed me because they are, as you say, extremely 'cutesy' and exactly the sort of thing little girls are always being told they ought to like. That's just my opinion but as I was the sort of child who in most respects would be your target audience, you might want to take that into account.

If one reads my book thoroughly, it will be clear that the Pipples, especially Otto, are not ‘cutsey’ in the mocking sense that Bertie used, or brainless fluffy toys, but very bumptious and full of human traits. As for the Kumwasa, they are, although ugly, an oppressed race whom Lottie saves from the clutches of Fala, and really quite nice.

As I mentioned earlier my target audience would be that of Narnia and the wonderful creature Aslam, and that is what I take into account now it is finished for marketing purposes, but while writing the story I wrote with no audience in mind, it just developed and went its own way.
Do or do not, there is no try.



Bloggy-I Write Therefore I'm Happy

You have missed my point. I am not bothered about the marks, or your agreement with them. Hence the jokey smiley.

What I want to get across is the fact that the highlighted comments were saying I had my facts wrong. I have taken on board the other comments about style, showing and telling and using dialogue, but not the factual things that I have researched.

Having opinions about work is fine, whether good, bad or indifferent. Constructive criticism is fine and what is needed. I take notice of everyone who reviews my work and have edited it accordingly.

There has been much in the way of comments about unfair reviews, facts being wrong etc. on the site, and people have taken their work off because of this and that is why I have posted this. Show not tell?

I reiterate that I am ashamed of not knowing the name of the author of The Railway Children, and that this is my first work for children, but because I didn’t know who E. Nesbitt was, doesn’t mean I shouldn’t write for children. Whether I can write a story that is any good is yet to be seen and down to my own skills, or lack of as the case may be.

What I wouldn’t dream of doing, is to point a new writer in the wrong direction with wrong information.
Do or do not, there is no try.



Bloggy-I Write Therefore I'm Happy

I’m with you on this one Pinkfox. Sod the scores, but get your facts right if you’re going to comment on hard detail.
It’s bad enough to have someone tell you, that a touch of narrative would brighten a particular scene, when anyone with an ounce of artistic understanding, (and there are plenty of these on YWO as well), recognises this is the moment for the characters to shut up, but to be told that you’ve misused a word or got a fact wrong when you’ve done the research, and they clearly haven’t, is bloody annoying. I’ve complained before about this laziness in not even having the courtesy to look a word up in a dictionary. I’ve even had one reviewer tell me, “what I hadn’t been told at school”, regarding writing. I obviously didn’t notice her in my long-ago classrooms. After more than a dozen years in, or association with, the RN and Sultan of Oman’s Navy I’ve also been advised, wrongly, that I’ve used nautical terms incorrectly.
Decent writers (or those of us who aspire to be so) spend a lot of time trying to choose the right words. If you discover one more apt, then great, let me have it, but check a reference before you tear facts or usage apart. AG.

I agree with ritchie. If you do a historical writing, one of the pitfalls is language and anachronism. Of course, it makes a tedious reading to write a novel in 15th century English and maybe nobody would be able to read it anyway (besides a few fans).
There are fans who will buy your stuff if it's a Regency, Edwardian, Victorian novel just for being that.

Best is to find a middle way by restricting yourself to words that did exist, read some literature written around this timeframe and please do read work you compare yourself with, especially if you're trying to fill big shoes.

Eilidh Keep writing.

Wasn't it 'Aslan'? Or is there a new version out now?
Sorry - couldn't resist
JR

Stop the sketch - it's too silly

Sorry, typo

Surely the point is not whether strict etymological history is adhered to but whether or not the characterisation and dialogue is convincing for the reader.

I for one sincerely doubt that the terms "okay", "cute" and "gross" in their current usage would sound convincing in a child character of 100 odd years ago. Whatever etymology, even in my own childhood kids never said "gross" to mean disgusting and never, ever said "cutesy".

It's all very well sticking to one's guns and pleading historical precedent but if a reader finds your characters out of time or out of place through your particular choice of language then, basically, you got it wrong.

Your reviewer might well be factually incorrect but if, to them, your choice of words jar enough to appear like out-of-place modern constructs then they're unlikely to be alone in that opinion.

edinez.com