Random Thoughts Showing 1,451-1,500 of 17,689

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

Terri wrote: "That is why I think I keep trying to go back to mysteries. Because I cut my teeth on mysteries via Trixe Belden! :D

I have had some hits and misses in historical mystery. I am glad to have found T..."

I enjoyed both Fidelma and Caedfael. Both are interesting characters. I think my favorite, though, is Paul Doherty's Brother Athelstan. :)

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Ah yes, that is another one I want to definitely try.
As you know all too well, there is a mass of historical mystery out there. I needed to whittle them down to those few and I plan to get to book #1 in those series' this year. :)

[Dar B]

Mickey wrote: "I'm curious as to why Jean Plaidy's books are not considered kosher in this group. I don't see how she can be considered as writing romances."

I was going to say pretty much what Margaret said only she said it better than I could. I really never knew that Jean Plaidy was 'not considered kosher'. I think that she is, to those of us who have read her books. They just don't have the same appeal, in this group, as the more action-packed and battle-scenic hf. Partof it might be age, too. I really enjoyed her style of hf much more in my late teens to early 30's- not sure why. In my younger teens it was swashbuckling style hf and now it is more of the intense battle styles. Does that help?

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Actually..you know what baffles me..is where these ideas about Plaidy even come from. I have been thinking about over the last couple hours and I thought, hang on a minute. Why are we being criticised and called sexist when I am sure we have discussed Plaidy here. She is already mentioned and discussed in multiple threads.

Makes me think that the people who want to criticise our group for being apparently, more about men, aren't actually looking at our threads, group read polls, group reads and discussion threads. They just want to jump to conclusions about A&M simply for an argument. or they think that any book without a woman on the cover is a mens book on wars and battle (as I assume that means there is no such thing as war or battle in women's historical fiction..??..and I know that is not true).

Plaidy is discussed in The Wars of Scottish Independence thread and The Medici thread. Her Plantagenet series has also been discussed.

*scratches head*

I am confused.

Anyway. I cleaned up the Richard III thread of the off topic posts and book recs that are not part of our theme (the romance books), posted the Plaidy book again, and now everything should be back to normal.

[Dar B]

I do wish that we had the 'like/dislike' function for comments. Maybe that would keep the dissenters in check?

[Mickey]

Terri wrote: "Actually..you know what baffles me..is where these ideas about Plaidy even come from. I have been thinking about over the last couple hours and I thought, hang on a minute. Why are we being criticised and called sexist when I am sure we have discussed Plaidy here."

To clear the record, I certainly haven't called anyone sexist here. I don't know if you're saying that I have, because that definitely never came under my posting.

I asked a question because I didn't understand how Plaidy could be deemed "romance". I still don't have a clear picture of why that is. I've read her books, and it seems like others have read her books agree that she wouldn't fall under the definition of what is avoided in this group.

If discussing her is okay, then I had a wrong impression from visiting a thread that I was interested in (about Richard III) when it seemed like her books were being categorized as romance and people were being told that it was not okay to recommend them or that her books were not on some sort of book list about subjects.

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

Terri wrote: "Actually..you know what baffles me..is where these ideas about Plaidy even come from. I have been thinking about over the last couple hours and I thought, hang on a minute. Why are we being critici..."
I would agree with all that. I know I took part in a Plaidy discussion early after I joined. Pity I can't remember which thread.

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

Darla V wrote: "I do wish that we had the 'like/dislike' function for comments. Maybe that would keep the dissenters in check?"

Possibly, but I for one, am always wary of like/dislikes for comments. I have seen them be used for a kind of bullying, which isn't nice. Not that I think that would happen in this group.

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

There are few pleasures like spending an amazon com gift voucher and sitting back to wait for the packages to arrive. :)

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Hi ya Mickey,
To be honest, there was some rants by a member, not yourself, that was uncalled for and intentionally argumentative and hostile. When you came along to post I had removed the argument and posted the comment you responded to about historical romance.
The other books this member recommended were mostly romance and romance heavy. I had no intention of removing the romance books post or anything. I mentioned to her why we aren't tailored towards romance or chick lit historical fiction and this person then decided to argue and would not drop it.

I am sorry. Plaidy just got stuck in the middle because that book had a very romance type cover. I apologise. I was directing this member to another group because she was obviously in the wrong group. We are very clear about two things. Romance is not for this group...and members must respect each other in here.
She was not respectful of the group tastes and our theme.
You are also calling us sexist. You went out of your way to say we are purposefully not including women characters and women books here..um..that is by definition saying we are sexist and discriminating.
It is not a negative that we include male authored books and male main characters as well as female authors and female characters. Why on earth would someone think it is a bad thing that male characters and authors are popular here alongside the women authors and characters.
I am afraid I will never understand why anyone would think to criticise us for appreciating men here. And why would anyone come here and complain because we include many books set during wars and battles? They do not dominate. They are one part of a diverse taste in books here. Along with historical mystery, nautical hist fic and all the many other types.

We pride ourselves around here on our friendly atmosphere. We all often have debates and share our differing opinions, but we try to do it with niceness and respect. This other member was not that way inclined and just wanted to fight me on everything I said without a care for harmony.
(Edit: and after seeing your post in the Richard thread I see this is your intention also. Fight for the sake of fighting)
Anyone who comes and says we are more male oriented and focused on war books cannot possibly have spent any time in the group paying attention to what we are about.
To these people, well, I can prove them wrong by pulling up all our monthly group reads since we started the group, nut unfortunately, some people just don't want to listen or be proven wrong.

Oh well. I returned that Plaidy book to the Richard III thread earlier, so everything should be okay now. :-)

[Chris]

My thoughts and sympathies go out to all those in Australia who are being effected by these terrible bush fires. Hope all our Good Reads friends along with all their friends and family are safe and well.

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

Chris F wrote: "My thoughts and sympathies go out to all those in Australia who are being effected by these terrible bush fires. Hope all our Good Reads friends along with all their friends and family are safe and..."

I'm safe here in Melbourne. A little worried about my family in NSW - there are 124 fires raging through that state at the moment. :\

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Its all anout fire this summer. Last summer it was all about the floods.
Queensland is recovering. About 70% of our state was burnt out by fires in the last four months. It is awful.

Now it is poor Tassie's turn. A Tassie friend was just telling me that today there was snow down to 800metres and cold weather. Tomorrow, supposed to be back to fire weather.
Sure is an unpredictable weather system down there right now.

Thinking of you Tasmania!! And any other states under threat form fires right now.

[Dar B]

Margaret wrote: "Darla V wrote: "I do wish that we had the 'like/dislike' function for comments. Maybe that would keep the dissenters in check?"

Possibly, but I for one, am always wary of like/dislikes for comment..."

I guess that I really would love the 'like' button, I would rarely, if ever, use a'dislike' button. It is just faster to show somebody that you support what they have posted with a feature like that.

[Dar B]

Good thoughts, vibes, and prayers for your families and friends throughout Australia.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I have thought before that a like button would be really good. It wouldn't have to appear on our profile update feeds and, as you guys say, we wouldn't need a dislike button because people can bully. 'Like' would be fun though. I often really 'like' a comment, but I have not got anything to say.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Darla V wrote: "Good thoughts, vibes, and prayers for your families and friends throughout Australia."

Our Aussie members who have friends or family in the trouble areas no doubt appreciate yours and everyone elses thoughts.

I will thank you all for them. :D

Thanks people from around the world for sending your thoughts to those in Oz facing bushfires. :-)

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Margaret wrote: "There are few pleasures like spending an amazon com gift voucher and sitting back to wait for the packages to arrive. :)"

I wish my package would arrive form The Book Depository. Can't join in our Other group read until it does. :(

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

Darla V wrote: "Margaret wrote: "Darla V wrote: "I do wish that we had the 'like/dislike' function for comments. Maybe that would keep the dissenters in check?"

Possibly, but I for one, am always wary of like/dis..."

That's trud. A like button, but no dislike button, would be great.

[Marilee]

A like button is "positive" and promotes good will and camaraderie, I think. A dislike button doesn't necessarily indicate ill will, but in the spirit of a harmonious board, maybe it's best to only consider allowing "likes" ? As my mother used to say to me, "If you can't say something nice about or to someone, it's best to say nothing at all."

And if someone is looking for conflict and argument, well, it's hard to cross battle swords all by one's lonesome ;>}

[Dar B]

LIKE!

[Tim]

Terri wrote: "Hi ya Mickey,
To be honest, there was some rants by a member, not yourself, that was uncalled for and intentionally argumentative and hostile. When you came along to post I had removed the argument..."

I was at the Historical Novel Conference in London in September of last year and Jean Plady's name came up a few times, often mentioned by big name writers who you might not suspect, and usually in the context of her being someone's first introduction to Historical Fiction. I've never read her stuff but I believe the consensus is she is a bit old fashioned these days, which is probably a pity: Writers like Nigel Tranter and Alfred Duggan seem to be in the same pigeon hole and their stuff is still worth reading (I think anyway).

[Tim]

Terri wrote: "Hi ya Mickey,
To be honest, there was some rants by a member, not yourself, that was uncalled for and intentionally argumentative and hostile...."

Aw man! Did I miss a fight?

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

Tim wrote: "Terri wrote: "Hi ya Mickey,
To be honest, there was some rants by a member, not yourself, that was uncalled for and intentionally argumentative and hostile. When you came along to post I had remove..."

IMO Jean Plaidy is still worth reading. It's just that some books have worn better than others.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Marilee wrote: "A like button is "positive" and promotes good will and camaraderie, I think. A dislike button doesn't necessarily indicate ill will, but in the spirit of a harmonious board, maybe it's best to only..."


Like. :-)

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Tim wrote: "

Aw man! Did I miss a fight?"


It appears we had a couple people Trolling the group. I removed one and wanted to give that Mickey the benefit of the doubt, but she slipped up and proved she was Trolling (intentionally trying to create friction in the group for fun). I have since heard she has done it in other groups and she will be removed.


For the record though. I never, ever said Plaidy was romance. The other woman who was removed and this Mickey person were creating problems where there weren't any. Making out I was saying things I wasn't in an effort to get other people to turn on me.
I said this one book looked romance. I did not say Jean Plaidy was romance. And I can hardly be blamed for thinking this one book was romance when I looked at the cover....

[Chris]

That cover could easily win a worst cover competition, I feel nauseous just looking at it and I don't even mind romance, as long as I don't have to read it.

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

Chris F wrote: "That cover could easily win a worst cover competition, I feel nauseous just looking at it and I don't even mind romance, as long as I don't have to read it."

LOL Chris :D

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Maybe the book isn't a romance, but the cover belongs in the Anti Bodice Ripper Thread. :-)

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

Terri wrote: "Maybe the book isn't a romance, but the cover belongs in the Anti Bodice Ripper Thread. :-)"

The cover needs setting fire too! :p

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Hahaha! Agreed! :D
The other one is MUCH better. Although not great...


Headless, sure, but at least it looks like something either a man or woman could pick up and not feel they need to hide it. Lol

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

Terri wrote: "Hahaha! Agreed! :D
The other one is MUCH better. Although not great...


Headless, sure, but at least it looks like something either a man or woman could p..."

The headless thing worries me somewhat. :p

[Kris43]

Hy all, im new here.

Just by looking at the cover, I would also assume its a romance.

I just hope you all never budge to that rule that says: Absolutely no romantic historical fiction of melodramatic, tear-inducing kinds.
I remember when I first saw that in the description, I knew right away that I want to be a part of that.

I like books that have swords on the cover, and armies, and men and women in massive armors marching off to save the world;) But please, no romance.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Too many headless covers these days.....

[Monica]

Terri wrote: "Maybe the book isn't a romance, but the cover belongs in the Anti Bodice Ripper Thread. :-)"

Is it safe to comment now? (Kidding, Terri!) This should give you some redemption...sorry I didn't post it sooner. Jean Plaidy is one of several pen names used by Eleanor Hibbert. You may recognize another very famous pen name of hers...Victoria Holt...queen of romance novels. Here's a quote: "Her career spanned five decades, and she was heralded as the “Queen of Romantic Suspense.” So while she may have tried to write pure historical fiction under the name Jean Plaidy, perhaps some of her "romance" seeped into the stories. I have not read the Jean Plaidy novels, so I can't say for sure, but the cover tells its own tale.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Hi Monica,
Hah! Yes, safe to jump in now. Those who were trolling the group are gone.

I would have thought, with all those romance books that it may have seeped in too. Oh well, we have had many friendly discussions on what people constitute as romance in a novel. There are lots of differe t viewpoints on it.
I think what I would regard as too much romance others would not, so I can't be told there is none until I check for myself...which would not happen. Although maybe I will get some out of the library and flick through.

I find many people think that when one says romantic historical fiction or romance in historical fiction that means bodice rippers, or 'smut' as many 'smut readers' and other people call them. The books that have covers like that Plaidy book. But this is not so. Those books are classed as historical romance.
Romantic historical fiction refers to hf books that have a strong romance plot in them. Being more about emotionally driven relationships between men and women , men and men, women and women(however people's taste swings) than a characters involvement in events in history.

All that aside though, it was hard for us all to have a normal discussion and share all our differing opinions when you had a member who had never posted in the group and one who had only posted a couple times before, trying to stir trouble. They used me saying that Sun in Splendour book looked romance as a reason to start criticising the group and calling it a man's book group that discriminated against women authors and women characters.
Most of that nonsense was going on in the Richard III thread and I kept deleting the posts when I realised what these two were up to. I gave examples of female authors we discuss and the ones we have had as group reads etc..but they did not want to listen....which is what Trolls do. They just want to fight and try and cause a major fall out in groups.

It did not work. I think our real members could see what they were up to also. :-)

[Monica]

Terri wrote:...which is what Trolls do...They just want to fight..."

Can't allow Trolls in here...they're fantasy, not historical fiction! ;-)

Glad we have such a good group here!

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Exactly! The stuff that goes on in YA and Fantasy groups. Phew...I could not mod one of those. It would be beyond mentally exhausting.

[Linda]

I bumped my head day before yesterday and don't remember a thing.lol. Good job, Terri!

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Haha! Thanks Linda! Hope you put sone ice on it! :D

[Dar B]

Terri wrote: "Exactly! The stuff that goes on in YA and Fantasy groups. Phew...I could not mod one of those. It would be beyond mentally exhausting."

I bet! And how about those role-playing groups?? I cannot believe that grown people are into that. It seems a bit strange to me.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Role playing groups must have a lot of arguments.
I am only assuming as I haven't even looked at one...I have heard the rumours. :)

[Simona]

Thanks Terri, our knight in shining armor (in the best HF tradition), to fend knaves away...

I'm convinced sometimes people drives around to have fights, not to go somewhere. Their loss. I repeat myself, but I really like the feel of this group.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

A lady knight in shining armour...hmm..like Joan of Arc only without the prayer. I like the sound of that. Especially since she had so many Knights at her beck and call. :-)
I like the feel of the group too. It is certainly worth preserving, if we can.

[Chris]

Ah, the Fellowship of the Read.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Hahahaha! That's great. I laughed out loud.

Perfect description of this group. :-)

[Chris]

Yes, but good luck finding 'one book to rule them all'. With our diverse tastes that part is not going to happen, we all have our own 'precious'.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Oh so true. There is no way one book could rule them all. My precious would be a group of books. The Oathsworn series or the Saxon series. Oh my goodness...I cannot choose between them!!

[Mark]

Darla V wrote: "Terri wrote: "Exactly! The stuff that goes on in YA and Fantasy groups. Phew...I could not mod one of those. It would be beyond mentally exhausting."

I bet! And how about those role-playing group..."

Lol, it all depends on the people in the group.

As a long time RPGs player it's good fun.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Do you get intense people in the GR RP Groups you are in? I have heard some things about them and come across some pretty intense people who a big into RP Games.