Dorcas Good, The Diary of a Salem Witch

Rating:
Summary: Trite Gothic Horror
Review: As far as I'm concerned, this book is a waste of time and money. The book is poorly edited with numerous typographical errors. It is filled with child abuse which may or may not have any basis in fact. It deals poorly with the issues of child abuse and domestic violence, portrays women and children as victims of a patriarchal society and church, ad nauseaum. There are many far better books for adolescents that deal with all of these issues and leave one thinking rather than numb at the end.

Rating:
Summary: Great Book
Review: Dorcas Good, The Diary of a Salem Witch, is an extrodinarily written book. If you read the professional reviews thatit received, you'll wonder, as I did, what the two negative reviews were all about. It's as though they were reading some other book. I'm surprised that one of them mentioned a young adult or adolescent book. I don't think Dorcas was meant to be read by children. It's a very well written adult book that tells what really happened in Salem of 1692. I't not a sugar coated version of the times. It's not afraid to "tell it like it was" back then. If detailed accounts of child abuse, spousal abuse and horrendous living conditiions make you uncomfortable, then maybe you shouldn't read it. However,if you like a well paced, well written NOVEL about the witch trials, not a history book, I highly recommend it.

Rating:
Summary: I'm with Utah!
Review: I agree with the commenter from Utah. The details of abuse were so overdone as to be tedious, never mind that the writer didn't really deal with a good number of the physical ramifications of what she described. The book rambles, and has a goppy, riteous tone to it reminiscent of a Harlequin romance. It does, indeed have numerous and glaring editing errors. It wanders into the realm of New Age philosophy without adding anything meaningful to the topic or even making good use of the subject matter. I felt rather like I was reading the equivalent of a Maury Povich cover of the witch trials. The trials are certainly worthy of review, and could be the basis for some great fiction that attempts to "fill in the gaps" of what we know. This book just isn't up to the task.

Rating:
Summary: A very Heartbreaking real book
Review: I was drawn very much to read this book, The Book is a must read for anyone who is a true wiccan or just hurts for the poor people that was done very wrong.As I read The book I was there. It had drawn me so close to those who Had died or was hurt. The book will always stay close to my heart and my memory. It is truly a wonderful diary on a Heartbreaking Life. I will treasure it's words always. May your life be as wonderful as it should be. Brightest Blessings, Virginia

Rating:
Summary: Something Different
Review: It's different alright. It stands out on my bookself.

Rating:
Summary: Rubbish
Review: Purely on a factual basis - the tale of Dorcas Good, a 4 year old driven to insanity by being incarcerated in a dungeon with no light, separated from her mother - would be a good starting point for a novel if kept within reasonable bounds. This book doesn't do that and shames both the author and the memory of a tragically sad little girl.

Rating:
Summary: Not Recommended
Review: Recently we have seen some fine novels that take as their protagonist some peripheral character from either history or a classic work of fiction. This is not one of those. Yes, it does describe fairly accurately the personal and political enmities abounding in Salem in the 1690s; its historical details of names and fates are true; and it quotes accurately from available documents. But its virtues end there. The narrator's voice is not that of the four-year-old she is supposed to be. The story is full of gratuitous ... violence, which in itself is tiresome, but when committed against a four-year-old should offend anyone with either feeling or literary taste. As noted by others, the typographical errors are egregious; I have never seen its equal in any professional publication. Basically, this book is a strange combination of scholarship and ..., with an emphasis on "...." If you want to read something worthwhile about the Salem witch trials, try "A Delusion of Satan," by Frances Hill (credited and even thanked with the author's name misspelled in "Dorcas Good").

Rating:
Summary: Not Recommended
Review: Recently we have seen some fine novels that take as their protagonist some peripheral character from either history or a classic work of fiction. This is not one of those. Yes, it does describe fairly accurately the personal and political enmities abounding in Salem in the 1690s; its historical details of names and fates are true; and it quotes accurately from available documents. But its virtues end there. The narrator's voice is not that of the four-year-old she is supposed to be. The story is full of gratuitous ... violence, which in itself is tiresome, but when committed against a four-year-old should offend anyone with either feeling or literary taste. As noted by others, the typographical errors are egregious; I have never seen its equal in any professional publication. Basically, this book is a strange combination of scholarship and ..., with an emphasis on "...." If you want to read something worthwhile about the Salem witch trials, try "A Delusion of Satan," by Frances Hill (credited and even thanked with the author's name misspelled in "Dorcas Good").

Rating:
Summary: WORST book I've ever read
Review: Rose Earhart's Dorcas Good, the Diary of a Salem Witch is on any scale the worst book I've ever read. The historical fiction is supposed to be in diary form, told from the perspective of four year old Dorcas Good. There are several problems with this. For one thing, I doubt that a four year old girl living now could read and write well enough to keep a diary, let alone a four year old girl in 1692. Even if she could, most diarists write about feelings and observations . . . not pages upon pages of dialogue. Also, a four year old would probably not be able to understand the political background of every one of her neighbors. Certainly a four year old girl would not refer to a nine year old as "little," but the narrator of this book repeatedly calls Betty Parris "little Betty Parris." The novel is unnecessarily and overwhelmingly perverse. One of the most ridiculous aspect of the novel is that it is written in modern language. I cannot, in two pages, possibly describe exactly how much I hate this 376-page waste of paper, but at least I will try.
The novel lacks structure. As if the author sat at her typewriter once a week, feverishly typing whatever meaningless phrase that popped in her head, the book lacks a comprehensible plot. There are no high points and low points; there is no climax.
By reading Dorcas Good, the Diary of a Salem Witch, one would think that every man is a child molester. Four year old Dorcas is violently raped, not only by her father, but by every man in town. Every reverend, every merchant, every sea-man and politician is a lecherous pedophile who wants nothing more than to stick his penis in a baby. William Good, Reverend Nicholas Noyes and Thomas Putnam are only a few of the innumerable child molesters in this trashy novel. After Dorcas is released from prison, her father dresses her in red velvet, takes her around the town and makes her a five year old whore. Given, child rape and incest is something that happens. It happens now; it's probably always happened. However, such perversity is a mental illness and I find it hard to believe that an entire village would have the same disease. I find it even harder to believe that such behavior would be tolerated under Puritan law.
With less class than a Harlequin Romance, uses every opportunity to graphically describe something sexually twisted. Any page that does not include a violent rape or molestation scene has an incest scene, or a lesbian eroticism or sado-masochism scene. For instance, Dorcas witnesses twelve year old Ann Putnam and seventeen year old Mary Walcott, cousins, perform oral sex on one another. Sex, throughout the novel, is always accompanied by beatings.
Earhart made a little notation, claiming that the book is written in modern language and narrated not really from a four year old point of view because "the words of Dorcas Good must be spoken in the clearest way possible so that her message will ring true and not be lost in the vagaries of a child's wandering speech."
I argue that the author merely lacks the imagination and initiative to take upon the challenge of constructing a diary from a four year old, seventeenth century Puritan's perspective. Rose Earhart holds degrees both in philosophy and psychology. My advice for her is to go back to grammar school and obtain some literacy, and perhaps use her psychological knowledge to work through her personal issues before attempting to write again. Earhart pathetically ended her novel with an extensive bibliography, as if such a list could convince readers that she actually incorporated research into her writing. If such a book as Dorcas Good, the Diary of a Salem Witch can actually get published, I am convinced there is hope for all amateur writers, even those who cannot spell.

Rating:
Summary: WORST book I've ever read
Review: Rose Earhart's Dorcas Good, the Diary of a Salem Witch is on any scale the worst book I've ever read. The historical fiction is supposed to be in diary form, told from the perspective of four year old Dorcas Good. There are several problems with this. For one thing, I doubt that a four year old girl living now could read and write well enough to keep a diary, let alone a four year old girl in 1692. Even if she could, most diarists write about feelings and observations . . . not pages upon pages of dialogue. Also, a four year old would probably not be able to understand the political background of every one of her neighbors. Certainly a four year old girl would not refer to a nine year old as "little," but the narrator of this book repeatedly calls Betty Parris "little Betty Parris." The novel is unnecessarily and overwhelmingly perverse. One of the most ridiculous aspect of the novel is that it is written in modern language. I cannot, in two pages, possibly describe exactly how much I hate this 376-page waste of paper, but at least I will try.
The novel lacks structure. As if the author sat at her typewriter once a week, feverishly typing whatever meaningless phrase that popped in her head, the book lacks a comprehensible plot. There are no high points and low points; there is no climax.
By reading Dorcas Good, the Diary of a Salem Witch, one would think that every man is a child molester. Four year old Dorcas is violently raped, not only by her father, but by every man in town. Every reverend, every merchant, every sea-man and politician is a lecherous pedophile who wants nothing more than to stick his penis in a baby. William Good, Reverend Nicholas Noyes and Thomas Putnam are only a few of the innumerable child molesters in this trashy novel. After Dorcas is released from prison, her father dresses her in red velvet, takes her around the town and makes her a five year old whore. Given, child rape and incest is something that happens. It happens now; it's probably always happened. However, such perversity is a mental illness and I find it hard to believe that an entire village would have the same disease. I find it even harder to believe that such behavior would be tolerated under Puritan law.
With less class than a Harlequin Romance, uses every opportunity to graphically describe something sexually twisted. Any page that does not include a violent rape or molestation scene has an incest scene, or a lesbian eroticism or sado-masochism scene. For instance, Dorcas witnesses twelve year old Ann Putnam and seventeen year old Mary Walcott, cousins, perform oral sex on one another. Sex, throughout the novel, is always accompanied by beatings.
Earhart made a little notation, claiming that the book is written in modern language and narrated not really from a four year old point of view because "the words of Dorcas Good must be spoken in the clearest way possible so that her message will ring true and not be lost in the vagaries of a child's wandering speech."
I argue that the author merely lacks the imagination and initiative to take upon the challenge of constructing a diary from a four year old, seventeenth century Puritan's perspective. Rose Earhart holds degrees both in philosophy and psychology. My advice for her is to go back to grammar school and obtain some literacy, and perhaps use her psychological knowledge to work through her personal issues before attempting to write again. Earhart pathetically ended her novel with an extensive bibliography, as if such a list could convince readers that she actually incorporated research into her writing. If such a book as Dorcas Good, the Diary of a Salem Witch can actually get published, I am convinced there is hope for all amateur writers, even those who cannot spell.