Really?

Just taken delivery of the new Bulletin.
On the back cover is the Society's shop page.
One book has this written next to it&
This biography strips away the propaganda of centuries to rescue Richard from his critics and supporters alike, providing a balanced and compelling portrait of this most infamous of kings.
When I saw it was referring to a book by Michael Hicks I realised it is a joke!
Richard has never needed rescuing' from my support, and Hicks not only repeats the propaganda of centuries but embellishes it with numerous fictions of his own.
And of course Richard is only infamous' to those who get their history from Shakespeare and the likes of writers like Hicks!
Paul

Richard Liveth Yet

Paul,

This is merely the publisher's blurb - you can find it on Amazon and everywhere else the book is sold. It may be unfortunate but there you are.

That possibility occurred to me, too, Marie. But it's one thing to have a description on Amazon that's farcical, but why on earth should that be countenanced in an official publication of the Society? Someone should be exercising editorial control.

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier
Email - jltournier60@...

Get Outlook for Android

Paul,

This is merely the publisher's blurb - you can find it on Amazon and everywhere else the book is sold. It may be unfortunate but there you are.

I'm not a fan of the flag either. My Bulletin hasn't arrived yet, but this does sound like a storm in a teacup to me. Looking at the sales area on the web, every book has a thumbnail with picture of front cover and publisher's blurb. I imagine the back page of The Ricardian is just a copy of the same?

This is not an official statement - I haven't spoken to anyone about it - but it seems to me that unless the Society were to find yet another volunteer to read every book on the sales list (now running to about 15 pages) and write a Society-friendly blurb for each one, I can't see how this could have been avoided. If that were done, then those blurbs would need to go back to the authors/ publishers for approval anyway. If the editor of The Bulletin had singled out Hicks' book for a rewriting of its blurb, that would have offended Michael Hicks, which might not bother most members, but the Society is having to work with him as he is the leader of Winchester University's IPMs publication project, which the Society is helping to fund and which will be a huge aid to research of the period.

Anyway, how is the rest of The Bulletin?

Hi Paul and Johanne,

I must say I really am saddened by this - genuinely. Perhaps that's because so many of the people I personally know in the Society dedicate almost all their spare time to keeping it running as volunteers. Sales was passed over to a commercial company to ease the pressure. The Bulletin editor works extremely hard and has other Society duties as well. There are no doubt lots of people who dislike the tone of the Society and would like to run it themselves, but they'd be horrified if thy knew the work involved and the difficulty keeping everybody happy.* Believe it or not, there are other new members who find the Bulletin too fan-sy.

*And the skills needed for high-quality primary research.

My Bulletin has arrived now (Johanne, I think I'm right in thinking you're US-based, so I'm not clear whether you have actually seen it yet). Clearly the problem with the blurb to Hicks' book was noted because "[publisher's description]" has been added to the end of it - Paul, I do think you should have made that clear to the forum. We've got a wonderful 80-page magazine with beautiful colour illustrations throughout and some fascinating historical articles,* but all we have had here so far is outrage about a thumbnail on the back cover which clearly states that it is nothing more than the publisher's blurb. As I say, I'm too sad about this to be angry.

Hi, Doug!

I think Tamara's and your suggestions are worth considering. As a somewhat tongue in cheek suggestion, I might suggest putting the publishers description, in the case of egregious overstatement like the one for Hicks's book, in quotation marks, and then putting "sic" in parentheses or brackets at the end. That would get the idea across! This technique could be reserved for extreme examples. :-)

Get Outlook for Android

Tamara wrote: “I suspect that the Society will probably have learned a lesson about making sure that everyone understands that, as with most book ads in most publications, the book descriptions are publishers' blurbs and not the opinion of the magazine itself. Perhaps from now on, a simple message at the top of the first book ads page to this effect might be helpful?” Doug here: FWIW, I noticed that at the bottom of the blurb for Hicks’ book there is this: “(Publisher’s description)”. I also noticed that, on the title page of the Bulletin, there is a paragraph directly after the list of the Executive Committee members which states: “The Ricardian Bulletin is produced by the Bulletin Editorial Committee. ricardian.bulletin@... (copyright symbol*) Richard III Society 2016 (*I couldn’t reproduce the symbol itself) ISSN 0308 4337 Individual contributions and illustrations (copyright symbol) the contributors except where otherwise noted. (my emphasis)” So, there already is a statement, but it likely wouldn’t hurt to feature it more prominently if possible. Doug
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

Johanne wrote:

"Hi, Doug!

I think Tamara's and your suggestions are worth considering. As a somewhat tongue in cheek suggestion, I might suggest putting the publishers description, in the case of egregious overstatement like the one for Hicks's book, in quotation marks, and then putting "sic" in parentheses or brackets at the end. That would get the idea across! This technique could be reserved for extreme examples. :-)"

Marie:

Actually I noticed later that the blurb to Hicks' book is in quotation marks as well. So quotation marks plus "[publisher's description.]" I really don't think that we had all seen the item last week rather than having to rely on Paul's description of it, that anyone would have been offended.

Hello, Marie, Paul & Everyone 

I'd just like to offer an apology of sorts to Marie, now at last having seen the issue of the Bulletin in question. You know the old saying, A picture is worth 1000 words. Well, even tho I read Marie's description, I did not really absorb what that meant until I saw the actual thing. I don't want to belabor the subject any more than I already have  let me just say that what I see there is very much like what I was suggesting should be done, to give an indication of some scepticism, or at least not accepting wholesale, the accuracy of that publisher's description.

Lesson learned  I should not have commented until I actually saw the thing.

Sorry, Marie, my apologies for any angst the whole thing might have caused you.

Johanne

Johanne L. Tournier

Email  jltournier60@...

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: mariewalsh2003
Sent: December 5, 2016 7:09 AM
To:
Subject: Re: {Disarmed} Re: Really?

Johanne wrote:

"Hi, Doug!

I think Tamara's and your suggestions are worth considering. As a somewhat tongue in cheek suggestion, I might suggest putting the publishers description, in the case of egregious overstatement like the one for Hicks's book, in quotation marks, and then putting "sic" in parentheses or brackets at the end. That would get the idea across! This technique could be reserved for extreme examples. :-)"

Marie:

Actually I noticed later that the blurb to Hicks' book is in quotation marks as well. So quotation marks plus "[publisher's description.]" I really don't think that we had all seen the item last week rather than having to rely on Paul's description of it, that anyone would have been offended.

Hi Johanne,

Very sweet of you - no offence taken.