Which is what the Amazon reviewer currently known as Medieval Lady asked in a comment here. I replied, “Yes,” so today am going to make good on that and offer a rebuttal to one of her reviews. (Why she continues to read and review books in a series that she professes to despise is an open question.)

I decided to start with Ares of Westford: Book Two of the Latter Annals of Lystra as my test case. What inaccuracies egregious enough to be called “lies” could I find in her review of this book? Any?

Plenty, as it turns out, but since we all have other things to do, I will discuss only the top three.

1. “As there is no King. . . . The son of the King would usually have been crowned King himself. . . .” It has irked and amused me to no end to see Medieval Lady (hereinafter referred to as ML) consistently use terms that are nowhere in the 12 books of the Annals. This points to a fundamental inability to enter into what she is reading.

When I first began writing the Annals, I realized that “king,” “queen,” “princess,” and the like would not suffice for the system I was creating. The Annals are not historical fiction; they are fantasy, and for fantasy I needed original titles unburdened with centuries of preconceptions. ML refuses to enter Lystra on my terms; she tries to import her own terms and her own ideas of what Medieval kings, queens and princesses should do. So anything in my fantasy world that does not coincide with her understanding of history, she dismisses as unrealistic, unhistorical or anachronistic. This is the attitude of a reader not looking to enjoy, but to find fault with what she is reading.

2. ML continues:

This humiliation [of Magnus] involves describing in graphic detail an incestuous and adulterous sexual act which she engaged in with Magnus’ father shortly after their wedding, and telling him how much she enjoyed it. As usual none of the Lystrans so much as raises and eyebrow, or bats an eyelid at this revelation, and regard it as perfectly acceptable, when it reality such an act on the part of a Medieval Royal Princess would have been regarded as wholly unacceptable, shocking, repugnant and scandalous.

No respectable Medieval Lady would have dared to make such an admission in public, and for a woman like Renee, whose ‘good name’ had already been tarnished by the revelation that she was not a virgin on her marriage, such an admission would have totally destroyed her reputation and social standing irrevocably and permanently. Quite simply, in a real Medieval society it would have been far more damaging for Renee herself to publicly reveal that she was guilty of adultery and incest then for her ex-husband, and to do so would have been idiotic and foolish.

This analysis is based on a complete misreading of the scene in question (pp. 44-45). The Lystrans eventually realize that Renée was raped by her new father-in-law, Ossian. What she communicates to her ex-husband Magnus in this scene is that his father has taken the son’s property for his own.

“Graphic detail”? This is truly a lie, apparently meant to alarm readers who were sufficiently alarmed by the marital sex in Book One, Nicole of Prie Mer. In the scene at hand, Renée says that Ossian doesn’t have grey hair on his chest and isn’t fat around the middle, and that’s the extent of physical descriptions.

“How much she enjoyed it”? Yes, that’s the impression she deliberately leaves with Magnus, causing another character to observe, “Then the Chataine [Renée] has exacted her vengeance.” But here’s what happens a little later when Nicole comes to Renée’s chambers (pp. 48-49):

She found the Chataine luxuriating in the tub. Eleanor left carrying clothes for the laundress, and Nicole knelt beside the tub. “Was it a great shock to see Magnus tonight?”

Renée pushed a bubble around the surface of the water. “Somewhat.”

“You were merciless. He shall not soon recover,” Nicole observed, and Renée smiled. “Darling, tell me . . . how could you know anything about Ossian’s chest hair, or whether he has a fat stomach?”

Renée’s smile grew contemplative as she sank a little deeper in the warm water. Then she replied, “”Some things I will not tell even you, dear heart. Are you offended?”

“No,” Nicole said quietly.

“Then suffice it to say that I am avenged on Ossian, as well,” Renée said in a hard voice.

After that scene, for ML to claim that Renée “enjoyed” an adulterous and incestuous relationship with her father-in-law is reviewer malpractice to the point of libel (of a character).

2(a). “At her rebuff, Mangus resorts to military force to get Melva to come to Scylla and be his wife.” Wrong. This never happens. And it’s Magnus.

3. “In another place, Ares and the Lystrans condemn the former King’s brother (who convniently nobody recognises) to death on the false, flimsy unproven and unsubstantiated testimony of one `witness’, without a trial, or allowing him to give any kind of defence. Yet the reader is meant to believe that this action is `just’.”

This is the worst distortion of all. I spent chapters building up to the fact that the former Surchatain’s brother, by coming to claim the throne at all, is guilty by the Law of Roman of insurrection, deserving the penalty of death. And ML doesn’t even mention that this brother murders a man in the presence of the whole court. Standing in a pool of blood without apology, he stares Ares down and states his claim. The “witness,” realizing what is happening, gives Ares the pretext he needs to execute justice without revealing his hand. But since this witness is Renée, ML must have just skipped over the details of the scene.

I have cross-posted this rebuttal in the comments section of ML’s review, but I am not replying to any further comments there. Below are screen shots of the review as of today. Click on the thumbnails.

UPDATE 5-10-12: Can anyone tell me what the epigraph of Nicole—Proverbs 30:18-19—means? E-mailed replies don’t count; you have to post the explanation in the comments.

**************************

The other day somebody who knows the score said to me, “You know what your problem is with Nicole? You didn’t make it dirty enough.”

“You’re right,” I said.

B——e p—n goes mainstream, but my little book celebrating marital love is somehow too nasty for adult Christian readers.

So I decided it was time to give skittish (or interested) readers a glimpse of just how bad Nicole gets. So, below the fold, is an excerpt of the first sex scene. Read on if you dare.

Read the rest of this entry »

I recently heard from a long-time reader who was dismayed by the ending of The Laughing Side of the World. Her concerns are valid, so I thought to reproduce her questions and my reply here.

Since we’re talking about the ending not only of a book but of a series, the discussion involves a few vague spoilers. If that won’t bother you, proceed past the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

That would be Sammy: The Consolation of Bucephalus, coming out this July. Actually, two free books are involved, in exchange for a little of your time. If you’re interested, e-mail me via my contact page, and I’ll tell you what’s involved. If you’ll put “consolation” in the subject line, I won’t accidentally delete it as spam.