As might be imagined from my last post, I actually kind of like the Arthurian mythos, but most books about King Arthur can be problematic, especially when authors take it out of the fantasy genre and put it into a historical period. I’d say the best Arthurian-era historical novel I’ve read is “Hawk of May” by Gillian Bradshaw– that is pretty much the most enjoyable and authentic Arthurian book I’ve read so far set in post-Roman Britain.
As for the bad… hoo boy. You guys might be familiar with the latest fracas going on at Dear Author, where a self-published historical Arthurian-era “romance” called “Spoil of War” by Phoenix Sullivan has just been reviewed. The book apparently isn’t just a common variety of bad; it’s apparently spectacularly disgusting. The so-called hero, King Leodegrance, apparently is okay with necrophilia, and pimps out an eleven year old girl to one of his loyal followers. When the girl is raped every night, the heroine gets off on it, which is just… unbelievable. (The reviewer even quotes the relevant section from the story, to make sure we can believe it.) I’m not going to requote it here. But… really? Getting aroused from a child being raped? This is ROMANTIC?
There’s also tons of problems with the allegedly historical nature of the book, which the brave reviewer, DA_January, discusses in exacting detail (which would do Detective Goren proud). It might be set during the Roman period, since apparently King Leo and company are described as Romans who follow the edicts of a consul; or it might be set during the middle ages, since there’s castles with battlements, halberds and women wearing late medieval gowns like houppelandes. (Or maybe it’s set during the Stone Age, since apparently they also use massive amounts of flint arrowheads.) Who can tell? I know that the names “Elsbeth” (the name of the heroine) and “Ruth” (the raped eleven year old) are pretty anachronistic for the post Roman period– Elsbeth is a German version of Elizabeth, and Ruth is an Old Testament name that wasn’t used in Britain until after the Reformation (I can’t see the name without thinking of Puritans).
But yeah, there is, according to the review, a lot of deeply disturbing material in this book. Back in high school, when I was fascinated with ancient Rome, I used to read tons of terrible toga porn style bodice (stola?) rippers– like “Rogue Roman” by Lance Horner, “Golden Voyager” by Simon Finch, or “Messalina” by Jack Oleck– which often read like Gor lite. (Gor, for the uninitiated, is a fantasy planet where BDSM is the norm and all women are enslaved.) There were lots of questionable ‘erotic’ scenarios in these books, usually involving forced seductions and baroque, kinky brothel scenes. However, I can’t remember any of these books bringing in the rape of kids for kink (or even necrophilia for that matter). Even in toga porn, this was the kind of thing that the bad guys did. You know you’re in trouble when your “hero” makes Littlefinger from “Game of Thrones” look like a stand-up guy. It makes one wonder why the author would want to write about such things… or why other people would enjoy reading about them… but I suppose such depths should not be plumbed.
So yeah. I generally try not to discuss a book until I’ve actually read at least part of it, but the sheer apparent WTF-ery of this book makes it truly something to behold. I’m glad this book was reviewed, though– the review’s brutal honesty is actually a good thing for self-published books. Here’s a big shout out and thank-you to DA January for writing such a great review– and taking one for the team.
Share on Facebook
