technicalities

[Cheryl]

I really liked this novel and the author's style. She is clearly a "horse person" so I can only assume she was done a disservice by the editing of the book since there are several technical inaccuracies that I believe must have been inserted by an overzealous copy editor without horse knowledge. The horse is described as having "binocular vision" when in fact horse's have monocular vision, with eyes set on each side of their heads which offer an independent view of left and right and affords them an almost 360-degree view which helps them, as prey animals, keep close tabs on their surroundings. Also, the phrase "confirmation class" is used speaking of a type of horse show competition. It is not "confirmation" but "conformation," referring to the physical characteristics of the horse--the length of its back, the shape of its head, structure of its legs, etc.--that distinguish it as a well-put-together animal either simply as a horse or as compared to others in its breed. There are 2 or 3 other such inaccuracies and while most people who don't know horses well thankfully won't notice, as a writer and horse person, I find it discouraging that the author has to be the one to have this inserted into her book (assuming it was). And, as a former publishing professional, I also know Graywolf as one of the premier literary publishers (which was a reason I was pleased to see a horse-focused book in their list) so if they can't do it right, who can? No wonder many writers are turning to self publishing via e-books!

[Susie]

It's a pretty huge assumption that the inaccuracies were inserted into the book by the press. Even a horse person might get a few things wrong, or make a typo (perhaps "confirmation" was a typo and the editor, not being a horse person, assumed that Hagy knew what she was talking about and left it?).

In any case, it's not a technical manual about horse competitions but a story that wasn't harmed by a few inaccuracies, which don't seem to have been key to the plot or characters.