WARS OF THE FICTIONAL ROSES
There’s a plethora of fiction set at the time of the Wars of the Roses, and an increasing number of authors writing about Richard III, often featuring him in a positive light. One would imagine that, in the creative pursuits, people could put aside their differences in belief and just pass on the book if it does not appeal to their own tastes. After all, it is fiction, and tastes in fiction vary greatly.
Apparently, this is not the case.
Gone, it seems, are the days when historical authors gathered around their keyboards and politely discussed critiques with fellow writers, offering constructive criticism even though they couldn’t personally abide a man in a white wig or had an aversion to cowboys or Vikings.
It sometimes seems that the Wars of the Roses are being fought again on paper…and in the reviews on platforms like Amazon and Goodreads. Certain groups have bombarded pro-Ricardian authors ( in particular) , with what are essentially trolling reviews, a general problem on these sites which has recently hit the headlines and been condemned by such authors as Anne Rice. (I have not seen any similarly vitriolic reviews about Henry Tudor novels, although in fairness I imagine there might be some, somewhere.)
Basically these ‘reviewers’ write virtual essays on why the author was wrong in characterisation, motivation and history, using as much sarcasm and condescension as they can muster—a personal attack, not a true critique at all. Wait minute, guys. This is fiction and it is up to the author on how the history is interpreted. It is not a text book, nor is it meant to be. To be perfectly frank, the author could write that Richard III came from Planet Zog to save the world from a Steampunk Tudor if he/she so chose.
Worse, is when some of these reviewers are known ‘wannabes’ themselves, giving their actions a certain taint of jealousy. It is rather despicable to undermine a writer and try to ruin their reputation (and potential income) just because you don’t approve of the historical figure they write about. I have even heard that several authors have ceased to write in this genre because of the persistent attacks from this ‘band,’ a small but vocal group of individuals. The perpetrators even had a facebook page which was ostensibly about historical fiction but descended into Richard-slagging off and jeering at other authors.
At the end of the day, we are all entitled to write about who we want, in the way we want, and our works should stand on the merit of the writing, not our positions on people who lived half a millennium ago. (If you have ingrained negative opinions on RIII, you know you won’t enjoy the book—so move on!) What are these false ‘reviewers’ so afraid of anyway? If Ricardian authors are writing nothing but romanticised guff, as some of them would have it, surely the discerning reader would soon realise that fact and it would be no threat to any of the ‘learned ones.’
Perhaps they are afraid that within the medium of literature, one can sometimes pass on a few grains of a truth they just cannot accept?
WARS OF THE FICTIONAL ROSES
Subscribe to my newsletter
11 responses to “WARS OF THE FICTIONAL ROSES”
-
I’ve seen this sort of trolling and author-bashing before — produced by fans throwing up destructive critiques in a variety of pop-culture fandoms.
Lord of the Rings and http://www.fanfiction.net comes to mind as the most vicious arena, in recent history, as after the first film came out, purist fans of the Tolkien books set on ignorant, eager fans of the Peter Jackson films who only wanted to have a good time playing and writing in the LOTR universe, and how dare they?
I watched the same thing happen years ago, when fans of science-fiction books had nothing but contempt for science-fiction/fantasy media fans (think fans of Heinlein attacking Star Wars/Star Trek fans. Now the line has blurred, and I think the attacks have ended. I don’t know if fans of The Hobbit book are attacking fans of The Hobbit trilogy as fans attacked regarding LOTR.
All I can offer by way of comfort is the old adage, “This too shall pass.” If the “fans” of Henry “Tudor” are so insecure with their “hero’s” laurels that they must attack the “fans” of Richard III…then that’s not a very secure hero to have, is it?
If they’re jealous of the books penned and sold by a plethora of writers focused on Richard, then might they turn their attentions to their own hero and write a few books based on the Tydder? Much more could be served buy promoting the object of their affections.
In any case, the attacks will die down…in time. The trolls will find other things and people to attack. In the meantime, it might help if the authors and readers of Ricardian fiction would band together and form a support group. Trolls excel in making you feel as if you’re isolated as they single you out for attack. You’re far from alone.
I know that the mean words of one troll can shatter the kind, generous, admiring words of 50 other people. But Richard also suffered from trolling in his lifetime.
I’m sorry that the trolls can’t be inspired to do good things for whatever/whoever they believe in. That Richard inspires us to create with him…that’s something very magical. Of course the trolls want to take that away.
There was and is very little magic or loyalty in the Tydder’s world, after all. And the old nursery rhyme of, “The king is in his counting house, counting out his money” may yield much less inspiration than does, “Loyalty binds me.”
I am one who survived both the trolls of Sci-Fi and the trolls of LOTR. I refuse to let the trolls of the Tydder — or anyone else — control what I create. The best advice I ever heard when it comes to trolls came from a character on the television show, “Angel.”
ILLYRIA: Your opinion of me weighs less than sunlight.
-
Well said hoodedman1 and Merlyn.
Having written in a very positive light about Richard (yes, extremely positive, no matter what the Troll Kingdom is disposed to think) and having been not entirely unsympathetic toward Henry VII in subsequent books, my experience is that it is a certain section of Richard’s supporters that can be the most mouth-foaming, vitriolic and beyond reason.
Henry doesn’t arouse these same extreme emotions. At least, I have yet to receive a review or comment that speaks up in his favour or support. Oh, except for stating that he would never, ever look at any woman outside his marriage. They knew him personally, of course, and he confided this. Well, he must have done, or how else would they know so much? Henry was not a misogynist, he liked pretty women (just look at his personal accounts!) so in that respect was a fairly regular guy. Of course he looked. He may even have done something about it, but there is no proof, one way or the other. He was either exceedingly discreet, or he was a model husband. Apart from the trolls, who can actually know? Well, that is why there are those things called Author Notes.
Troll reviewers do not provide Author Notes, and thus fail to explain how they have come by, say, Henry’s most private thoughts. They simply know. Divine intervention, perchance? The same with Richard. They are party to everything that ever passed through his mind, and have appointed themselves his personal pack of rabid Rottweilers, or equivalent 15th century breed. And these are the people who follow authors around the internet, dumping vile comments and reviews wherever possible. They do not simply criticise the books—which would be perfectly acceptable if they just did not care for them—they have to be abusive towards the author, the publisher, the reading public for being stupid, and so on and so forth. So disgusting can their comments be that, certainly in my case, they have had to be pooper-scoopered from the likes of Amazon.
Clearly trolls have no lives of their own, and no matter how clearly my Author Notes state what is and isn’t fiction in the story, they continue to be wild-eyed and baying with fury. Yes, they howl, straining at the leash, I have been clear in my notes, but readers are all so stupid they won’t be able to tell where fact ends and fiction begins. Readers, they declare, will believe that everything I’ve written is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Really? How very snobbish and arrogant. And what a compliment that I’m that convincing.
Of course, very few of these people have actually read beyond the blurbs, but boy, do they know every odious word within. They pontificate about things they’d know to be untrue if they’d read what they’re snarling about. I have one (leader of a pack) who kept posting chunks of Wikipedia at Amazon, to ‘prove’ her point. What point? The stuff she was continually drawing attention to as being absent, was actually covered quite extensively in the book in question. She made a complete fool of herself. When her attention was finally drawn to her persistent error, she quickly stopped Wiki-ing, but still carries on spitting bile at every opportunity. Sad woman. In her case, and the case of many other organised trolls, the goal is to wreck a book’s ratings and ruin its chances of success. They gang up to post 1* reviews, thus affecting the title’s overall status. And they get all their buddies to approve the reviews. Censorship, by any other name. Of course, they overlook the fact that controversy also sells a book. But don’t let’s draw their attention to that.
Wannabes as well? Probably, and if the appalling standard of many of these reviews is anything by which to judge, wannabes they’ll remain.
On a final note, it is quite clear that these trolls are also intent upon intimidating others. I do not argue that many people really do not like my books, which is fair enough, but I happen to know that there are folk within Ricardian circles/groups who have liked my titles and would say so, but are afraid of the backlash from the troll brigade. Richard would not have approved of one section of his supporters intimidating another. They would certainly be on the receiving end of his wrath. Henry would be the same. And who better than these two kings to know the dangers of divided support?
It’s sad that trolls expect the protection of freedom of speech, but freedom of speech is the very last thing they want for anyone with whom they do not agree.
-
Yes, that’s the bit I didn’t touch on in this post. There are also Ricardians who also cannot abide anything even slightly different from what is considered ‘canon’ to them and will also ‘attack’. Again, if you didn’t enjoy the story because of the writing, fair enough, but it is not on to 1-star something never even read, and not on the basis of a difference in opinion, especially in fiction. The last line of your reply sums it up perfectly.
-
Ah, yes. The self-appointed Canon Police.
LikeLike
-
-
-
This is an interesting discussion. What fascinates me about all this is the vast amount of fiction written about Richard. People do not get tired of writing about him and people do not get tired of buying books about him. What is it that makes him so fascinating? I still believe it is the portrait in the National Gallery. The reconstruction is also helping to create new generations of fans. A most intriguing figure.
-
I think it’s because once some of us “meet” him, we can’t stop thinking about him. Maybe because five or more archetypes are wrapped up in him, and we respond to that. Or maybe it’s just because he’s a fun character to play with and read about, and we like exploring his world and exploring the prism that is his life?
-
I think part of the fascination is the many mysteries that surround him. Apart from the obvious elephant in the room, many of his known actions can be interpreted in several ways and frequently are. This makes for many possible novels/stories, all of which may stick to the facts, but can be completely opposite with regard to his motivations, etc. He can thus be portrayed as the stereotypical Shakespeare tyrant or Saint or anything in between!
He ends up coming across as very enigmatic, which intrigues us!
-
-
Richard was an enigma in his own time, and for us, across the centuries, he is so astonishingly charismatic that we are hopelessly beguiled. In modern parlance, this 15th-century magnate and monarch pushes all our buttons. The elephant in the room diminished to mouse-size almost immediately, and then scurried away forever.
Everything about him lures us, and his ultimate tragedy seals not only his own fate, but ours as well. To us he is as great a hero as King Arthur or Robin Hood, greater perhaps, because he actually lived, whereas the other two may prove to be only legends. We want to write about Richard for the same reasons that earlier generations wrote about Arthur and Robin, except that he inspires because of the man he truly was.
I’ve been on his side now since the very early 1970s, when he was responsible for starting me on my writing career, and I still feel as supportive of him now as I did when I was in my twenties. In short, he’s absolutely riveting, and nothing his detractors can say will make any difference.
We are actually privileged to be united by this fascinating king, and that is what we should be – united. Becoming white-hot with rage because a work of fiction depicts some aspect with which we do not agree is really rather OTT. Especially when the raging ones have not read beyond the blurb to see exactly how things are portrayed within.
-
I am currently reading a rather dodgy kindle book where Margaret of Anjou is a vampire – and I have read books where QE1 is also one of the undead. It is historical fiction – or historical sci-fi. Who cares – there is obviously a market for this type of work. Not everyone’s cup of tea – not mine – but will give it a go.
The New Murrey and Blue blog 
Leave a reply to Merlyn MacLeod Cancel reply