The Daughters of Mars

[James A Pratt III]

There is a fictional book that just came out "The Daughters of Mars" by Thomas Keneally about two Austrailian sisters who are nurses in WW I.

[Marilyne]

It seems to have good reviews : http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17164599-the-daughters-of-mars

If it's hlaf as good as "Chindler's List", it schould be worth it...

MM.

[centurion]

With a title like that you'd expect the author to be Edgar Rice Boroughs - one of the Barsoom series which started with a "A Princess of Mars" and included "A Fighting Man of Mars"

[Marilyne]

... or some story set in the Third World War in 2534, where humans fight Plutonians and, as in a good Joint operation, use the medical capabilities of planet Mars for Medevac... OK... have been studying too much "joint ops"

M.

[kenf48]

Disappointing, he trots out the usual WW1 cliches. I know he's a great author and officially an Australian National Treasure but I was looking for more than a melodrama throwing in all the usual suspects gassing, shellshock, COs, SAD, incompetent generals etc etc.

The style which I guess is a contemporary take on more formal language found in memoirs from the twenties and thirties together with the lack of quotaion marks round direct speech (- why?) makes it difficult to read. Very long, he throws everything in from Gallipoli through the Western Front to Spanish Flu. I found it tedious and populated by cardboard stereotype characters. I gave up in the end and skimmed the last third to the controversial ending. Interesting for a novel he includes a bibliography, does an author of his stature really need to do that?

I really wanted to immerse myself in this book, especially given the author's reputation and previous work and it must be said the strong reviews from those better qualified than I am but in the end I gave up and it reinforced my negative feelings about contemporary WW1 fiction.

Ken

[LindaH]

_{I really enjoyed it, though the ending left me somewhat perplexed (what did other people think of the ending(s)?) and I thought it would make a great TV series!}

_Linda

[centurion]

the lack of quotaion marks round direct speech (- why?) makes it difficult to read.

Some authors who write using tablets drop them because it makes using the kiddies pop up screen on these easier!

[kjharris]

Dear all,

From a WW1 nursing practice perspective, I think this is a truly dreadful book. Factually it is wrong in so many ways in so many aspects that it beggars belief that it was published, even if it is fiction.

Nowhere did Keneally consult any of the published books on Australian nurses in WW1 (only one article on Gallipoli); it appears from his acknowledgements, he relied on family members who were nurses and a friend to fact check, and naturally none of them served in the First World War.

The sad thing is that so many people are saying how accurate it is - and I'm sure people will start citing from it thinking he has written the 'truth'. I'm willing to debate anyone who thinks that.

cheers

Kirsty

[Sue Light]

And of course I completely support Kirsty's view and have added a review both to my blog and to Amazon. I can only hope that something better is trotted out through the centenary years.

Sue

[kenf48]

Great review in your blog Sue, at least you finished it - which is a gold medal achievement! A shame you are in a minority on Amazon where there are so many 5 star reviews as Kirsty notes so many of them seem to think it's a true reflection. As I said before a bibliography in a work of fiction is simply trying to dress it up and give it the impression of scholarship.

I think Linda has it spot on it would make a great TV series along the lines of 'Neighbours on Gallpoli', unfortunately Spielberg who has collaborated with Kenneally in the past to great effect (although he didn't let him near the screenplay for Schindler's List!) has already done his WW1 masterpiece, but a TV series would definitely get the attention of GWF members

Ken

[Sue Light]

I gave up on it about before half-way, but then thought it was important to keep reading so that I could at least put a drop of criticism into the ocean of love. There was a great deal of speed-reading though

And that said, there is still some good new WW1 fiction out there - Robert Ryan's 'Dead Man's Land' is well worth a read, with a sequel to it due out early next year 'The Dead can Wait' - both WW1 period.

Sue

[kenf48]

And that said, there is still some good new WW1 fiction out there - Robert Ryan's 'Dead Man's Land' is well worth a read, with a sequel to it due out early next year 'The Dead can Wait' - both WW1 period.

Sue

Thank you Sue, it looks quite intriguing I'll look out for it.

I don't like to be negative and am still looking - just about to embark on Robert Goddard's 'The Ways of the World' which probably qualifies as Great War fiction as it's set in 1919 around the peace negotiations. At the risk of straying way off topic I read his 'In Pale Battalions' many years ago and recall it rekindled a waning interest in the War and led to my first visit to Thiepval in the early 90s.

Ken

[tootrock]

My wife spotted this book in the local library, and borrowed it out for me to read. I said that it had had less than positive reviews.

On opening it I spotted a spelling mistake in the first line of the Author's Note (Sceptre paperback edition).

Martin

[Marilyne]

Finished reading it... the author can be glad the train had some problems and I got stuck in it for an hour... with nothing else to do than reading.

I agree with the above mentionned remarks that it's so cliché... like he HAD to write a book about the war so... OK, let's tell a story of nurses...

So I'm taking away all I said in Post #2 (not that it was much) and will very gladly bring the book back to the Library next week !!

MM.

[E Wilcock]

From a WW1 nursing practice perspective, I think this is a truly dreadful book. Factually it is wrong in so many ways in so many aspects that it beggars belief that it was published, even if it is fiction.

Nowhere did Keneally consult any of the published books on Australian nurses in WW1 (only one article on Gallipoli); it appears from his acknowledgements, he relied on family members who were nurses and a friend to fact check, and naturally none of them served in the First World War.

The sad thing is that so many people are saying how accurate it is - and I'm sure people will start citing from it thinking he has written the 'truth'. I'm willing to debate anyone who thinks that.

Kate I was relieved to read your post. This book was so highly recommended to me by my adult daughter who read it with no doubts at all. I myself knew little about nursing or Australian troops - and suspended disbelief.

It wasnt till I reached the end of the book that it dawned on me that I had been conned by the fiction.

One reason I was so easily mis-led was that Schindler's List deals with something I do know about - the Holocaust and, though simplified and fictionalised, that story does tally with events that really took place and has been enlarged and qualified by subsequent documentaries.

I could not understand why the author did not do the same when writing about the First World War. Was it because historians had found fault with his account of Schindler? So when it came to the First War, he deliberately created a novel re-inventing just about everything.