Get your FFRREEEEE Moody book......

[mango_fandango]

Agreed. Kids can be quite opinionated, and most know early on in the book if they're interested enough to keep reading. Do I think this reviewer was telling the truth? Maybe, maybe not. But the reviewer was expressing their honest opinion about the book. It's hard to know where to draw the line on babying Sarah. On one hand, she is essentially a prisoner, and likely does not possess the ability to understand why people are saying mean things about her books. On the other, she is technically an adult who should accept consequences for her actions. Should we treat her as an adult, or as the lifelong child her parents have set her up to be?

Adding to this, there's another one-star review that says "Unfortunately the author is much older than a child" and also states that the writing skills are equivalent to stories the reviewer wrote in third grade. Clearly, this person is aware who Sarah Maxwell is. She's even mentioned the lack of interaction between the author and the outside world "according to the website"...

I'll leave it to you guys to analyse this review...

[uber frau]

I've not read the book nor will I bother to download it even though it's free, but I always go back to the fact that Sarah's books are never submitted to an editor but to simply a proofreader and there is a big difference in skill level there.

I, too, would like to know specific examples of grammatical errors in the book. It's one thing to just write poorly, but if she's truly making mistakes and they aren't being caught by a proofreader, that's pretty sad.

I'm a lousy proof-reader, and I'm even worse when I'm reading from a screen. Here's what I've picked up in a cursory reading in Chapter 12 (It's the chapter I was up to).

Punctuation error (Paragraph 7):

"Getting wet does feel good on hot days", Mom said. "The Bell's called, and they will stop by about seven-thirty to drop off their guinea pig."

Grammatical error (Paragraph 13):

At supper, Dad shared some news. "We had a phone call from the Russells, the young married couple up the street." Dad stopped and looked around to see what affect this would have on the children.

This isn't technically not a mistake, but it's confusing and I don't think it would pass a real editor. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a direct quote of a dialogue in real life, TBH. It works in real speech but in written speech, without the benefit of tone and pitch, it's much harder to understand.

Mr. Bell, noticing the Moodys were not wearing shoes, kicked off his. He poked his wife. "Shoes, Grace."

"What?"

"They don't wear shoes."

"Oh! Yes, of course," Mrs. Bell slipped off her shoes.

Dad nodded. "Guests may wear them, so you don't have to."

There are lots of examples of writing that falls into the grey area between outright technical error and poor style.

Mid-morning the doorbell rang.

I've seen Sarah write this sort of thing in numerous posts and it really bugs me. No one else has ever commented so it might be acceptable in US English, but in British English this sentence is missing a preposition. At/During/Around mid-morning the doorbell rang.

Things like word order in sentences (Sarah doesn't seem to realise that changing the word order can change the emphasis), strange use of adjectives (just because two words are listed as synonyms in MS Word doesn't mean they are interchangeable), and paragraphs that jump about all over the place. Some of them have very odd opening sentences which bear no relationship to the flow of the text.

[alba]

Too many of the points the review writer made are things FJ says over and over- let your kids read, written by a child, etc. It is also not obvious these are self published and the reviewer references that. The Maxwells list the book as published by Titus2/Communications Concepts. There are also hard copies - unlike Grace Pennington's self-published work, the Maxwells take great pain to make it look like a publishing house. Sarah's forward in the book certainly does not make her sound like a child. And of course the self-publishing comment was a dig. It was written to be a dig!

I disagree. That cover, especially the Comic Sans font, just SCREAMS 'self-published' to me.

I read that review and thought it was in earnest; it didn't even cross my mind it might have been written by an FJer. I just thought it was terribly sad for Sarah.

[DaffyDill]

Me too. I understand. Her disabilities are not her own doing. Even perpetuating them is not really her choice. It's sad.

I hope she breaks out.

While I feel sorry for a lot of the children of our pet fundies, Sarah is one that sometimes just makes me feel profoundly sad. She has the most dismal of lives, the dreariest of futures, and probably one of the least chances of realising any of what I just said.

Steve has emotionally, academically and socially stunted her so much, her best creative writing efforts are mistaken for not only that of a child, but a younger child.

I doubt bad or critical reviews would reach her anyway. Steve doesn't let her have friends let alone allow her to read comments from evil non-Maxwell people. Criticism will only reinforce his belief that the world is a nasty, cruel place that his daughters need to be sheltered from - and he will make sure she never sees them.

There is no fun in her life, nothing to look forward to, no one to really confide in, and not much chance anything will ever change. Just sad.

[OkToBeTakei]

Yeah, I don't know why, either, to be honest. I suddenly felt so sorry for her and that review hit me in the wrong spot. Honestly, it is probably completely misplaced but the idea of people over here just posting reviews to bring down her ratings for fun hit me in a really bad way. I am sick. Maybe the drugs?? I felt sorry for Zsucifer and Jill Rodrigues at different times, so maybe I am sucker?? Of course, I do get over it! Sarah is probably a self righteous, smug little twit. But I just felt so sad for her.

Yeah, I don't like it.

[VodouDoll]

So far Honey, the dog, and Snickers, the rat, have been the funnest characters. although I feel bad for the dog because she should really be with people instead of stuck in the yard with only twice daily visits.

For real? Poor dog.

[Palimpsest]

For real? Poor dog.

The pets are the best characters by far. I'm sure Dad checked out animal books from the library so that Sarah could "research" them. Apparently the one on the care of diabetic cats and insulin dosages was out of date!

Honey is based on the Maxwell family dog and the Maxwells obviously believe that dogs are outside pets. The cover photo of Honey is typical of Christopher's bad photography skills, with the top of the fence cutting across the bottom of the frame. Didn't they have any pictures of the dog that were nicer?

Of course, the fence on the cover is a subliminal signal that the world must be kept out of Maxhell and childults kept in! Everything about the Maxwells is enclosed.

I wouldn't use the Maxwells Moodies as pet sitters for a pet rock. Leave my dogs with people who need their children to "prove that they can be reliable" before they get their own dog and know nothing about animals? Never. My dog sitter is adult, has references, and years of experience. She also stays overnight at my house with the inside pampered pooches.

Another telling thing, which illustrates the Maxwell insularity and selfishness: when the kids mislay the rat temporarily, they aren't worried about Snickers. They aren't worried about how they will tell the owner that they lost her beloved pet. No, they are worried that Mom won't be able to sleep with a rodent loose in the house. Unless they are ministering to widows and orphans for the good of their own souls, the Maxwells don't give a shit about the feelings of people outside the family.

[nokidsmom]

Another telling thing, which illustrates the Maxwell insularity and selfishness: when the kids mislay the rat temporarily, they aren't worried about Snickers. They aren't worried about how they will tell the owner that they lost her beloved pet. No, they are worried that Mom won't be able to sleep with a rodent loose in the house. Unless they are ministering to widows and orphans for the good of their own souls, the Maxwells don't give a shit about the feelings of people outside the family.

Agreed and it's a selfishness naturally born out of such insularity. The feelings of people outside the cult family do not matter.

It's also telling in another way. That if a similar thing occurred in the Maxhell household, the first worry would be how one of the parents will deal with this. Rather telling of the fear the kids must live with; how Mom and Dad will react if anything goes wrong. And we know from eyewitness reports at conferences that Steveovah very obviously doesn't like it when things go awry and not to plan. Also how family members get pretty flustered as well. There must be a lot of fear in that house.

[Palimpsest]

Yeah, I don't like it.

That review could come from a lurker or even from someone wanting to make FJ look bad (HGR-type.) It was mean-spirited.

I'm stuck. I want to give honest feedback to stop the unwary from actually buying this book. It is the suffocating sheltering values that suck, not just the writing and grammar. I also want to give Sarah some helpful and constructive hints on writing -- but honest feedback will be very critical. Comfort yourselves with the thought that Sarah will never be allowed to read critical or unkind reviews. Steve will screen everything.

[PrairieGirl]

Yeah, I don't know why, either, to be honest. I suddenly felt so sorry for her and that review hit me in the wrong spot. Honestly, it is probably completely misplaced but the idea of people over here just posting reviews to bring down her ratings for fun hit me in a really bad way. I am sick. Maybe the drugs?? I felt sorry for Zsucifer and Jill Rodrigues at different times, so maybe I am sucker?? Of course, I do get over it! Sarah is probably a self righteous, smug little twit. But I just felt so sad for her.

I think you just have a kind heart. We snark on the fundies, but that doesn't mean that we cannot pity them as well, or feel empathy for them.

I too have felt sorry for Zsu at times, and it confuses me because she can really be a nasty ball of hate. But that doesn't mean that feeling sympathy or sorrow for her at times is wrong.

BTW, I hope you are feeling better very soon!

[kpmom]

Has anyone else reading the book noticed there is daily alone time for the mom? Sometimes she does bible study alone, or her husband 'blesses' her by saying he'll watch the kids for awhile. While moms definitely need time to themselves, it's more than I've seen before and it's come up a few times now (I'm 30% through the book). I think Terry needed a lot of time to herself when the kids were growing up. Some of it was normal mom breaks, but some of it was probably the depression, too.

I kind of see this book as an observation of the Maxwell's through the eyes of Sarah. It's definitely a sanitized and simplified version, but I feel like this is a true detail of their daily lives.

It's interesting that Teri has written Mom's Corners slamming the need for "me time", and yet here is Mrs Moody (aka Teri) frequently having just that.

She made it sound like her joy was to serve others all day long, and her quiet, restful time was during family bible time. Hmmmm, sounds very similar to Lori Alexander's do as I say not as I do.

[FundieFarmer]

.../snip

Adding to this, there's another one-star review that says "Unfortunately the author is much older than a child" and also states that the writing skills are equivalent to stories the reviewer wrote in third grade. Clearly, this person is aware who Sarah Maxwell is. She's even mentioned the lack of interaction between the author and the outside world "according to the website"...

I'll leave it to you guys to analyse this review...

Yeah, that one is even more unnecessary than the first. Like I said before, I don't care if she gets negative reviews if they're constructive, but I'd hate to think that some of these are coming from FJers/lurkers who just want to bash her. That's what this one, and the first one mentioned, smack of to me. Not helpful, just harshly directed at her personal life and reeking of things we discuss here.

Unfortunately, the author is much older than a child but her writing skill is equivalent to stories I wrote in third grade. Having no work, school or social experiences outside of her home and immediate family (according to their website) gives the author nothing to go on and is unfortunate if she strives to be a writer. Taking some classes at her local technical college would be a help, and getting some exposure to the real world would also help her to write about things that interest people. I'm sure she has good intentions but this is not going to cut it for anyone beyond the extreme fundamentalist groups.

I'm definitely in the same boat as NellieBelle1197. She absolutely did open herself up to criticism, but it doesn't have to be vindictive. I also hope she never sees them and that Stevehovah screens them. It would be the only good thing he's done for Sarah. If you want to take a stab at Steve, do it on his own books...but remember you're just making them look like a martyr to their community and providing reasons for the children never to escape to the big, scary, mean world away from home.

And yes, the rush of positive reviews from friends is just as fishy as the rush of negative reviews.

[Fascinated]

Yeah, I don't know why, either, to be honest. I suddenly felt so sorry for her and that review hit me in the wrong spot. Honestly, it is probably completely misplaced but the idea of people over here just posting reviews to bring down her ratings for fun hit me in a really bad way. I am sick. Maybe the drugs?? I felt sorry for Zsucifer and Jill Rodrigues at different times, so maybe I am sucker?? Of course, I do get over it! Sarah is probably a self righteous, smug little twit. But I just felt so sad for her.

I agree that the review sounded like it was written by someone with knowledge of the Maxwells and that it was designed to make points about Sarah's upbringing. If so, then it was mean-spirited. If it was a legitimate review by a reader, then I suppose it is well deserved criticism.

Perhaps Sarah is to be pitied more for the glowing leghumpers' reviews, as those will result in her having an unrealistic view of her skills as an author, possibly setting her up for embarrassment and failure down the road.

[Terrie]

I actually find the books rather UNBiblical. The Bible says "Make a joyful noise to the Lord." There is not joy in these books. Not shocking, because the Maxwells have no joy in their lives. There are no prodigal sons whose return is to be celebrated. The Bible is full of imperfect people -- that's part of the point.

[Palimpsest]

There are 7 one star reviews up now, which is hardly a flood.

LauraM and celebratethechild = mean spirited.

Allison Pearson - I didn't think this one was that nasty other than 3rd grader crack. She references the Tits2 website as a source. A lot of people would see that as a red flag.

EP Nunez and homewith4 (and the other one) - sound like non FJers and are entitled to their opinions.

IMO, Lolo hit it out of the park. If you are an FJer you may now take a bow. :D

It is an excellent critical review which describes issues with Patriarchy and the Titus 2 ministry, identifies problems with the book, and comes across as thoughtful, intelligent and non-vindictive. Lolo does not take pot shots at Sarah. Thanks!

[PrairieGirl]

Yeah, that one is even more unnecessary than the first. Like I said before, I don't care if she gets negative reviews if they're constructive, but I'd hate to think that some of these are coming from FJers/lurkers who just want to bash her. That's what this one, and the first one mentioned, smack of to me. Not helpful, just harshly directed at her personal life and reeking of things we discuss here.

I'm definitely in the same boat as NellieBelle1197. She absolutely did open herself up to criticism, but it doesn't have to be vindictive. I also hope she never sees them and that Stevehovah screens them. It would be the only good thing he's done for Sarah. If you want to take a stab at Steve, do it on his own books...but remember you're just making them look like a martyr to their community and providing reasons for the children never to escape to the big, scary, mean world away from home.

And yes, the rush of positive reviews from friends is just as fishy as the rush of negative reviews.

The Maxwells do have some leghumpers. They may be partially responsible for the influx of such glowing reviews. Or the Maxwells themselves may be responsible for it.

That review does seem a bit vindictive, but in all honesty what she says about Sarah taking some writing classes is spot on. It is too bad that Steve would never allow that in a million years. It would be a wonderful learning opportunity for Sarah - she would learn that her writing skills might not be as stellar as she had thought, but she would have the awesome chance to improve on her skills and be proud of herself.

And it is so fucking sad that we are discussing a 30-year-old who would benefit from some college courses being unable to EVER do it because her Daddy would never let her. Have I said "FUCK YOU, STEVE MAXWELL" lately? Well, just in case.......FUCK YOU, STEVE MAXWELL.

[sparkles]

I think it's perfectly fine for non-leghumpers to review the book and use their knowledge of the Maxwells as a talking point.(Let's be honest: the leghumpers do the same, just from the opposite perspective.) It's impossible to separate Sarah's writing from her upbringing, since one drives the other. That being said, even taking that into account, you'd still have to try to read the books as objectively as possible and judge them from a literary standpoint. Are they well-written? Do they have good sentence structure, good storytelling structure, character growth? Do they engage, entertain, enlighten? Do they challenge the reader's thinking? Do they teach without beating the lesson to death? And the answer is a resounding no. They're an epic fail on every level. So regardless of how one might feel about Sarah—pity, anger, frustration or otherwise—she deserves to be critiqued without pulling punches. She's no delicate flower and it may be the only honest criticism she'll ever receive. Not that she'll ever see any of it, of course…

[Antimony]

It is with a heavy heart that I give this book a low rating, as I know that the Maxwells try so hard to be a good Christian family. I am a homeschooling mama of ten blessings ages 12 and under, and am always looking for God honoring material for them to read. I knew of the Maxwell family, as three of my six sisters use their scheduling system with their own large families. (I carefully read the scheduling books, but found them to be far too flexible, and came up with my own system.) So far, I have had to create all my own reading material other than the Bible for my children, but I had high hopes when one of my sisters emailed me that this book was available for free. I'd planned to buy the rest of the series if I found it appropriate. I knew that Sarah Maxwell is a stay-at-home daiughter who is closing in on her mid '30's, who has spent her life serving her family, and I felt that she had been sufficiently sheltered from the world enough to be able to write a wholesome children's book. Sadly, I was wrong. There are many examples, but I will limit myself to a few. For one example, the children often answer their father with "sure" and "okay". That is disrespectful, it should be, "yes, sir". Another example is that the family attends church. My husband and I have found that the influences of church, even one without children's or youth groups, is destructive to the family unit. We homechurch our family, and although acquaintances have asked to attend our homechurch, we have made the decision that it will be us only most Sundays. At the end of the book, a set of grandparents who are unsaved are about to move to the same town, and this is viewed as a positive thing. That says it all to me, that Sarah Maxwell would put it in the book as if it were ok that the children would be subjected to being around the unsaved grandparents. That would not be right, if the grandparents repented and began sharing the family's beliefs, perhaps short visits would be alright until they grew spiritually enough to be around the children. Parents who want to make sure your blessings are not exposed to the world, pass on this offering, even during the free period. Ms. Maxwell's soul has been affected by the world, and it shows.

This review is some Poe's Law level shit. Based on the profile of the reviewer, this person is not a homeschooler/churcher etc like they say (2 reviews only) but wow.

[PrairieGirl]

This review is some Poe's Law level shit. Based on the profile of the reviewer, this person is not a homeschooler/churcher etc like they say (2 reviews only) but wow.

I sure as hell hope this is a Poe. Otherwise, this person is terrifying.

[nokidsmom]

I think you just have a kind heart. We snark on the fundies, but that doesn't mean that we cannot pity them as well, or feel empathy for them.

I too have felt sorry for Zsu at times, and it confuses me because she can really be a nasty ball of hate. But that doesn't mean that feeling sympathy or sorrow for her at times is wrong.

BTW, I hope you are feeling better very soon!

Absolutely I agree. It is possible to snark / criticize on the fundies and at the same time feel empathy / pity for them. Even understand why they are the way they are. It's OK really. It doesn't have to be black and white. And yes, I do feel sorry for Zsu at times, perhaps more than any of the fundies we snark on here but that doesn't mean I agree when she advocates hateful things.

[Palimpsest]

I sure as hell hope this is a Poe. Otherwise, this person is terrifying.

Poe.

I'd say JohnHugh, except he is usually funnier and gives the Maxwell books 5 stars. Also his other reviews would have come up.

[Dru]

Let's also keep in mind that FJ isn't the only group of non-leghumpers that know who the Maxwells are and what they are about.

[nelliebelle1197]

Poe.

I'd say JohnHugh, except he is usually funnier and gives the Maxwell books 5 stars. Also his other reviews would have come up.

Where is he? I have claimed him as my internet boyfriend. That is not funny enough to be JohnHugh, I'd say. And he would give them 5 stars and completely sound sincere if you are naive.

[Palimpsest]

I think it's perfectly fine for non-leghumpers to review the book and use their knowledge of the Maxwells as a talking point.(Let's be honest: the leghumpers do the same, just from the opposite perspective.) It's impossible to separate Sarah's writing from her upbringing, since one drives the other. That being said, even taking that into account, you'd still have to try to read the books as objectively as possible and judge them from a literary standpoint. Are they well-written? Do they have good sentence structure, good storytelling structure, character growth? Do they engage, entertain, enlighten? Do they challenge the reader's thinking? Do they teach without beating the lesson to death? And the answer is a resounding no. They're an epic fail on every level. So regardless of how one might feel about Sarah—pity, anger, frustration or otherwise—she deserves to be critiqued without pulling punches. She's no delicate flower and it may be the only honest criticism she'll ever receive. Not that she'll ever see any of it, of course…

Sparkles, are you Lolo? :lol:

I agree. I need to finish the book (may the gods help me) and then write something up.

[allyisyourpally5]

Where is he? I have claimed him as my internet boyfriend. That is not funny enough to be JohnHugh, I'd say. And he would give them 5 stars and completely sound sincere if you are naive.

You beat me! I was literally thinking "who the he'll write that??!!?"

Go on. Own up.