johnboy Posted 8 May , 2014 Share Posted 8 May , 2014 I would not have expected you to know as you did not watch any of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarylW Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 It seems we are being observed. The forum has had some unfair criticism, and is this another one in the 'we should all be grateful' and 'it's only a drama' camp? Apparently historians are 'bogged down in pedantry'. Really? http://evangelineholland.com/tv/on-the-crimson-field-womens-history/ Sue Light has been accused of 'gnashing of teeth'. Well if anyone is suitably qualified to gnash their teeth here I'd say that Sue most definitely is! In this thread, on Twitter and in interviews with the writer of The Crimson Field, those of us who dare to criticise the programme have our integrity questioned it seems and in one case here in this thread, even our professional suitability. If you enjoy the programme and are entertained by it and/or feel that it has more positive factors than negative, then fine, carry on, but please don't expect the rest of us to feel the same and not to criticise - we're allowed. Caryl (Gnashing my teeth!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue Light Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 Personally I think I've shown a lot of self-control especially compared to the previous Downton hospital fiasco - not quite sure where all the tooth gnashing has gone on. What surprised me about this article was the condemnation of the GWF for having 'one measly, mostly neglected sub-forum for women.' Presumably the GWF reflects the interest of the membership in relation to women and the Great War, and if the subject had a wider following, more questions would be asked and more answered. I'm the first to admit that women are not most Great War devotees' cup of tea - in the historical sense of course Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillgorilla Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 It is a drama, and one that for once looks at the army medical services, wounded, and the lives of these young women. It is set to appeal to viewers, and quite rightly should do that. Many now do not have any real knowledge of the Great War, and despite what many may feel in this forum it is quickly slipping into the past. It is reminding those who are in the greater population (who really are without concern for whether the cap badge was right, the nurse spoke differently,or any item which many feel free to highlight), of a point in history. No doubt I will be slatted and accused of having little knowledge on the subject, but what feel like the old guard on this forum. I did think that this forum was for the serious discussion about the Great War, but it appears that it is not. I have had had an interest in the Great War since my teenage years, and particuarly the Army Medical Services, through personal service, and meeting those who have been wounded in service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 I write Romantic Historical Fiction* set in the Edwardian era and during WWI, and love to write about strong and intelligent heroines grappling their personal relationships and the thornier issues of their time. My stories span the globe and place a strong focus on the multicultural world of the turn-of-the-century, the class system, and the tough questions and conflicts with which people of the late 19th and early 20th centuries dealt. In my fiction, I try my best to push beyond using the historical setting as “fantasy” or “fairy tale”. I don’t want to write historicals to present the past through rose-colored glasses, but about real people, experiencing real life as it was one hundred years ago. So if you think realism and history can be melded with wit, humor, adventure, passionate romance, and unforgettable characters, please stick around. Just about sums her up. Has anyone ever read any of her books and were they historically accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 despite what many may feel in this forum it is quickly slipping into the past. It is reminding those who are in the greater population (who really are without concern for whether the cap badge was right, the nurse spoke differently,or any item which many feel free to highlight), of a point in history. Yeah, let's use the Centenary to make a junk programme, and kid on it's a tribute to all who fought it? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Filsell Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 Not having seen any of this hyperdoomic nerdle opera - but having thorough enjoyed the mass out break of anoraksia nervosa which has afflicted so many forumistas I say for heavens sake carry on with the bogging down with pedantry and the wailing and the gnashing of teeth. Those in themselves have been the most wonderful theatre. So please Carry on Campers.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanCurragh Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 What surprised me about this article was the condemnation of the GWF for having 'one measly, mostly neglected sub-forum for women.' Presumably the GWF reflects the interest of the membership in relation to women and the Great War, and if the subject had a wider following, more questions would be asked and more answered. I'm the first to admit that women are not most Great War devotees' cup of tea - in the historical sense of course Sue I have added a comment to her website to the effect that the Women subforum has over 1500 threads, and 12000 topics - so not really that measly or neglected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 Her type of research, or lack of it, is probably reflected in her novels. See post #580. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianw Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 I think the anger about TCF on the Forum springs from frustration that a golden opportunity to describe and celebrate women's nursing contribution during the Great War has been thrown away in such a cavalier fashion. In my experience of almost the entire life of this Forum, all members are keenly aware and appreciative of the contribution of women both in combat areas and on the home front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hillgorilla Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 Yeah, let's use the Centenary to make a junk programme, and kid on it's a tribute to all who fought it? Mike I am not kidding on that it is a tribute to all who fought in it. Yes, there are points in the programme that people have questioned, but I would not describe it as junk. Also I would argue that it has not been thown away in a cavalier fashion. All I wonder is do people on this forum look beyond the nitty gritty of the Great War, and actually look at the portrayal of emotions depicted on the programme? Do we want WW1 nurses protrayed as staid, stiff upper lip women who did not express emotions. How I ask would members of this forum actually want the actresses to do, what to portray, how to behave, what to see? I would say yes, we have an interpretation of nurses on the home front and overseas, but how accurate and how representative is that of the whole nursing experience in the Great War? Do we have 100% record of what went on , and what emotions occurred, or rather do we have a blinkered (by the records left by history) view. We have people who have been nurses in the past, yes they have been nurses, but how could they make judgement as to what went on 100 years ago, and also in the same way how could they know what nursing is like today. Yes, we have insight and knowledge, but how relative is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartH Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 I am not kidding on that it is a tribute to all who fought in it. Yes, there are points in the programme that people have questioned, but I would not describe it as junk. Also I would argue that it has not been thown away in a cavalier fashion. All I wonder is do people on this forum look beyond the nitty gritty of the Great War, and actually look at the portrayal of emotions depicted on the programme? Do we want WW1 nurses protrayed as staid, stiff upper lip women who did not express emotions. How I ask would members of this forum actually want the actresses to do, what to portray, how to behave, what to see? I would say yes, we have an interpretation of nurses on the home front and overseas, but how accurate and how representative is that of the whole nursing experience in the Great War? Do we have 100% record of what went on , and what emotions occurred, or rather do we have a blinkered (by the records left by history) view. We have people who have been nurses in the past, yes they have been nurses, but how could they make judgement as to what went on 100 years ago, and also in the same way how could they know what nursing is like today. Yes, we have insight and knowledge, but how relative is it? I have an elderly mother who was a very young nurse on the Eastern Front during WW2 and she loathes inaccurate portrayals of casualties and what went one in hospitals because it does not show how terrible it is to deal with young people brutally injured, her view is that it glamorises it . Her descriptions of dealing casualties bear no resemblance to this program and she won't watch such fiction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelBully Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 Bravo Alan! I initially gave up on this thread as I stopped watching 'The Crimson Field' after episode 2. I've now made use of BBC I player and caught up on the episodes that I've missed so feel I've regained the right to comment. Calling our Women's sub-forum 'measly or neglected' infers that GWF pals somehow are dismissing Women's History in relation to the Great War generally. The GWF should be open to criticism yes, maybe we can do more to include Women's History within researching the Great War, but I think that Ms. Holland has deliberately misrepresented the GWF here to reinforce a not particularly strong argument. It doesn't seem to have occurred to her is that because many of us want to do justice to the contribution that VAD nurses made during the Great War that we think that those women deserved better than this silly programme ? It would neglect Women's History more to blandly accept The Crimson Field . I have added a comment to her website to the effect that the Women subforum has over 1500 threads, and 12000 topics - so not really that measly or neglected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anneca Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 Yes, well done Alan - can't let her off with that remark at all! Anne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 I have added a comment to her website to the effect that the Women subforum has over 1500 threads, and 12000 topics - so not really that measly or neglected According to her response, that still doesn't cut the mustard apparently... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelBully Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 Have edited out my original response ! Realise that in some ways it is a tribute to the GWF if The Crimson Field defenders are monitoring us ! According to her response, that still doesn't cut the mustard apparently... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eairicbloodaxe Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 I read the sample of her book off the website. Seemed like an overwritten and turgid sub-bodice-ripper to me. Regards Ian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kath Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 'one measly, mostly neglected sub-forum for women.' Does the lady mean about women? At the risk of appearing simple-minded...... my first thought was that more men were involved in the action than women, hence the concentration on them. Kath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenneth505 Posted 9 May , 2014 Share Posted 9 May , 2014 I will continue to watch this awfully disappointing program but it just seems so wrong that the writers felt compelled to create such labored plot lines when there is so much actual drama in the real history. We had hoped to learn much more about the actual events, stress, successes and failures that the medical corp experienced. There is so much material in the actual facts I'm thouroughly discouraged at the lack of effort evinced by the writing staff. Ah well, it's a reasonable enough thing to have play while slicing onions and prepping dinner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catfishmo Posted 10 May , 2014 Share Posted 10 May , 2014 I write Romantic Historical Fiction* set in the Edwardian era and during WWI, and love to write about strong and intelligent heroines grappling their personal relationships and the thornier issues of their time. My stories span the globe and place a strong focus on the multicultural world of the turn-of-the-century, the class system, and the tough questions and conflicts with which people of the late 19th and early 20th centuries dealt. In my fiction, I try my best to push beyond using the historical setting as “fantasy” or “fairy tale”. I don’t want to write historicals to present the past through rose-colored glasses, but about real people, experiencing real life as it was one hundred years ago. So if you think realism and history can be melded with wit, humor, adventure, passionate romance, and unforgettable characters, please stick around. Just about sums her up. Has anyone ever read any of her books and were they historically accurate? I must have missed something--who is the author being referred to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 10 May , 2014 Share Posted 10 May , 2014 I must have missed something--who is the author being referred to? Historical romantic authoress, Ms Holland of California. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonraker Posted 10 May , 2014 Share Posted 10 May , 2014 See the link in Caryl's post 577 for comments between Alan and Evangline Holland. I suppose we could go off at another tangent and discuss what proportion of GWF content should relate to women. And what proportion of our members are female? Today's Daily Telegraph listings calls TCF "this so-so drama". In tomorrow's night, Joan Livesey is charged with treason, presumably because of associating with her German husband. I continue to think that TCF is good, populist, undemanding soap but a poor Great War production. Moonraker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanCurragh Posted 10 May , 2014 Share Posted 10 May , 2014 Can we stick to discussion of the programme here please - the subject of the proportion of forum content relating to women or female forum membership as mentioned by Moonraker above is very interesting, but deserves its own topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 10 May , 2014 Share Posted 10 May , 2014 Which is preferable : that one million people be entertained, and have their interest aroused in the Great War, at the cost of ten thousand disgruntled experts ; or that the ten thousand are satisfied in an accurate depiction, while one million people are bored and turn away from the subject of the Great War ? If the Crimson Field fulfils the first criterion, then it has some merit, in my opinion. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonraker Posted 10 May , 2014 Share Posted 10 May , 2014 Very good point, Phil, though I would have suggested a far, far lower number of "disgruntled experts". I don't claim to be one of the latter, but this Forum seems to be the best place for those who wish to analyse the programme's (in)attention to detail. Moonraker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now