For the third time in less than a month, somebody emailed to ask me about discussion questions for ITW. There never was an official list of such questions, unless I’m blanking on it.

Anybody care to suggest a discussion question, limited to the first book in the series? I bet you lot could come up with some good ones.

kiwi.lana commented that one of the reasons she likes the Wilderness series is that she loves being able to trust the details.

Which is a huge compliment, and at the same time, makes me nervous.

Because I do get things wrong.  For example: hay bales were an impossibility in 1793, but I’ve got them in Into the Wilderness. There are more than a few things like that scattered through the books. Fewer as the series went on and I learned not to trust my instincts on a lot of things.  But many times I came across conflicting information, or couldn’t find the information I needed anywhere, so I had to deduce from what I could find.

When I do get things right on topics I know nothing about, it’s because I found the right resources, or I was able to talk to somebody who is an expert in that area.  In the earlier books I had no idea about trapping in the Adirondacks in the late 18th century – or in any century, for that matter. I had to turn to a friend whose husband hunts and traps with historical re-enactment type attention to detail. Many of the medical details were discussed at length with my own doctor. I found early on that while most MDs don’t like to be asked medical questions at social gatherings, if you have two of them together and you ask so, in situation x, what could have reasonably killed this character?

I think most MDs are wanna-be mystery writers, because they jump right on this kind of question with enthusiasm.

So this is my declaration of not-perfection. I work hard at it, but I don’t catch every anachronism.

I’ve had a lot of questions over the years from well-meaning people who compare my work to Diana Gabaldon’s.  Then there is almost as much mail asking me if I resent being compared to Diana.

Comment: You are a Gabaldon wanna-be.

Answer: Well, of course. Who wouldn’t want to write such beloved novels?

Comment: Do you wish sometimes people would stop saying you two write alike?

Answer: Yes. And no. That comparison would never have occurred to anybody if Diana hadn’t been so supportive and generous when I was getting started. It was the cover blurb she gave me that started the snowball rolling. I owe a lot to Diana and the cover blurb, but it has been frustrating sometimes,  mostly because in my eye, her novels are very different from mine in every way.  If I could banish one sentence from the internet it would be: If you like Diana Gabaldon, you’ll like Sara Donati. And of course that would be self defeating, because it’s exactly that connection that has caused so many people to pick up one the books in the first place.

So why am I raising this right now, just after the sixth and last book in the series has been published?

I was digging through archived email yesterday and I came across this message from Diana, which she wrote in response to an email from me in which I grumbled about the constant comparisons. This email exchange happened during that period  I was active on her Compuserve craft-of-writing discussion board.  I wish I had found this a few years ago, but better late than never.  Here it is, for whatever it’s worth. (click on the image for a much larger and more readable version).

I forgot Blue-Jay and Susanna in the list (horrors). So if you voted already you can vote again.

I had a very nice email today, which I thought I would share:

My mother (87 years young) is reading your book “Into the Wilderness” and happens to be a Mohawk native from Kahnawake, Quebec. She wants to know how you are familiar with the Mohawk language –as it appears in the book many times — I told her I would write to you to find out your connection to the language. As you know, native tongue is phonetic but she was able to understand all the Mohawk in the book – quite a surprise to her.

I would so appreciate a response — my mother  is very curious!!

And of course I did write back. It’s very gratifying to get this kind of note. And it’s a relief, too.

Harriett Klausner is a professional book reviewer who is tremendously productive. So productive that some critics  have claimed there’s something fishy going on behind the screen.

I have not jumped on that bandwagon and I will not, but I have to say that her reviews of my books have often contained fairly hefty inaccuracies. For the most part I make a Marge Simpson frustration sound, and go on my way. However. Klausner’s  review of The Endless Forest at Genre-Go-Round (her own blog, I think)  crosses the line.

Klausner  has been the focus of some pretty strong but difficult to counter critcism, as can be seen here at the Dayton Daily News. It’s a simple matter of math,  her critics will tell you.  Personally, I don’t care how many books she reads a day, but if her vaunted speed reading is the source of inaccuracies, then I think she should slow down.

I’m not going to quote the EF  here because the more false things get repeated, the faster they spread.  Have a look, if you care to, and then come back and give me your thoughts.

——

From the very supportive comments I get the sense that I didn’t make myself clear. The reason the HK review made me unhappy was the fact that she was wrong about Martha’s relationship to Daniel. The way she’s described it, it smacks of incest. And really, that’s the worst kind of factual mistake in a review.