Category: historical fiction

The role of the historical fiction writer #histfic #non-fiction

Up-to-date interpretations in nonfiction titles

Now, I’ve made no secret of the fact that I think historical fiction writers have a duty to portray history as accurately as possible and I think this should be the most up to date interpretations of the past, and not what people were taught in the classroom at school, often quite some time ago, or what’s to be found in popular ‘history’ books often written by presenters from the TV who simply regurgitate the same old supposed facts.

History, contrary to popular opinion, is not an old, dead, subject. In fact it can be very current (I’m just reading about a new copy of the Magna Carta that’s been found abandoned in an old scrapbook) and it changes as more and more information is unearthed or rethought.

Now, this problem doesn’t only affect historical fiction authors, but often those who are eminent scholars in other fields who want to cross-reference with history. Archaeology is only the most obvious of these. Archaeologists aren’t historians, and vice-versa, and as close as the two subjects are, their cross over points can be poles apart. Archaeologists and historians both use each others research to ‘prove’ their arguments but they often rely on outdated interpretations and aren’t always aware of the most up to date research. This can cause huge problems, and I think that all scholars have a duty to seek out experts who can provide the correct current thinking, even if they ultimately question it and offer an alternative.

And in fiction

So what of historical fiction writers? Too often I see old stereotypes being portrayed and no efforts being made to write something that’s factually accurate but different to the accepted norm and this means that time and time again, outdated ideas and even completely incorrect stories are being written about historical figures and being accepted by a huge majority of people because it says it in a book.

Not only does it stifle historical research because it means that readers don’t question the story, but it also means that incorrect historical ideas are constantly being reinforced. As a historian, I’ve been taught never to really accept what’s written, to look for the bias, look for who gains from a certain take on events, and to look at why things are written just as much as what’s actually written. I take this as normal behaviour, but I’m starting to think I might be wrong and that worries me. What if people really think that Elizabeth I did have an affair with Dudley? What if people really do think that Henry VIII was just a dirty old man who went through six wives in seemingly rapid succession (forgetting all together that he was ‘happily’ married for nearly 20 years before all that kicked off)?

If you’re a historical fiction writer, think about why you use the information that you do, and more importantly, if you’re a reader, please think about how the characters are used and why and if you can, dig a little deeper, look for the ‘truth’ because it’s more than likely very, very different from what’s being portrayed. Even seemingly small touches can damn an entire book or TV show. Find the reason, and then, hopefully, the ‘facts’ might make themselves a little clearer.

(Please note this is a historic blog post from 2015, but I’ve left it on the blog during a recent refresh as it is quite interesting to see (at least for me) how my ideas about these concerns have developed over time).

Why do I do this to myself!!! It’s a 300 year gap!!!

Sometimes, sometimes, I wonder why I make my life so difficult!

Let me explain.

So, for my dissertation, I was going to study the early years of Iceland and compare them with the developments in the Danelaw, only then I got sidetracked by Leofwine, Ealdorman of the Hwicce, and from him grew both my dissertation and The Earls of Mercia series following the Ealdorman through the years from 994-1067 (eventually). And I should have been happy. Only, someone mentioned that they really wanted to know what happened between Alfred and Æthelred II and so the Brunanburh series was born.

King Penda of Mercia

Now, I have no one to blame for my next project, Hædfeld (now Pagan Warrior), because it was my idea but, but, well the battle of Hædfeld was entirely my own idea but it takes place in 632/3 and that brings a whole load of new problems. I know the time period vaguely, and I’ve studied the old Northumbrian Supremacy, Mercian Supremacy and finally, the Wessex Supremacy, but I feel as though I’ve wandered into an entirely different minefield of pseudo-facts and facts. I know I only have myself to blame, but it’s made me realise how easy it is to forget the great period that the Saxon period covers. Starting somewhere in the fifth century and running to the eleventh, that’s nearly 600 years.

Now, put it into context, if I was trying to do that with this year, I’d be going all the way back to the 1400s and the War of the Roses and the end of the Hundred Years War. That’s a huge period! Think of all the facts and pseudo-facts we know about that huge chunk of time.

Still, I can’t deny that I’m very excited about bringing the rascally Penda to life, and maybe one day, I’ll turn my attention to that Offa as well. Time will tell.

(Please note this is a historic blog post that I’ve left on the blog for information. It’s interesting to see how I felt about the trilogy now known as the Gods and Kings trilogy and featuring Penda the pagan, when I first started it).

Curious about how the trilogy developed then check out the Gods and Kings series page on the blog.

Image showing the three books in the Gods and Kings trilogy
Gods and Kings Trilogy

When historical fiction doesn’t portray a time period the way you think it should!

Our personal perception of the past

Historical fiction has a lot to live up to – namely, making sure it corresponds with the way we personally view history. If you study a period as an academic, you get a ‘feel’ for the way history should be written, you relate to your characters and imagine them being a certain way. When historical fiction authors get their greasy paws on them, this can all go hideously wrong. And not just academic history; the repeating of outdated and outmoded historical facts can also cause the same problem. Many don’t realise that academic historical fiction evolves every generation, and prevailing thoughts and ideas get changed.

My lost love for Elizabethan historical fiction and nonfiction

As a writer and reader I experience this problem quite a bit. As I’ve said before, I discovered my love of history by studying the Elizabethan period. Historical fiction, and especially historical romantic history, has flourished since I first studied Elizabeth I, and whilst to start with I found it quite enjoyable, the more and more that’s written, with the need for the author to get a different ‘edge’ I’ve found myself falling out of love with a lot of my favourite authors and now I actually physically groan every time I see a new title about the Elizabethan Court (and it’s not just historical fiction that has me groaning – historical non-fiction does as well). Neither is it just Elizabeth, but actually many of the Tudors and sometimes its because it’s many different authors rehashing the same story about the same characters. There are so many fascinating people during the Tudor age that I feel someone should get a look in sometimes.

Now, this isn’t necessarily the author’s fault. I have a real feel for who Elizabeth I was, and the older I get, the more I can relate to her and her inability to make a decision which drove men such as Cecil and Leicester to distraction. If an author goes against my ‘gut’ feelings, I simply can’t read their books. It doesn’t mean their stories are no good, just that they’re not quite my cup of tea anymore.

Why I write about Saxon England

Authors write for a purpose, and it might be for the thrill of it, or it might be to educate, or it might just be because they’ve got an agenda in mind. I write historical fiction because I want the people from the Saxon period to be seen as men and women who could as easily live today as they did then. I want them to seem personable and realistic and not stereotyped. I want people to stop thinking all Viking raiders had helmets with horns and did nothing but scream blue murder all their lives. Times might have been bloody, but as I’ve mentioned before, Saxon England wasn’t the Middle Ages. The men and women were intelligent and didn’t live in squalor. Women were valued (because the Church hadn’t yet relegated them to men’s playthings), but it was a time of strong men, kings and warriors, priests and archbishops, and they are the people who shine through the sources available to us.

The governance was strong, the economy rich and sophisticated (why else did the Viking raiders want to conquer England?), the kings ruled with the help of their ealdormen and reeves, archbishops and bishops and women held their own power, in their nunneries or within the king’s Witan or their own households.

The idea that the Saxons lived in squalid little wooden huts, in the ruins of the mighty Roman Empire, has long been disproved. The Grubenhaus was for storage, with a raised wooden floor, not so the people could live with the rats and the mud. The land was good and harvested well, the people grew hedges (many of which can be dated to very ancient times) and wicker fences demarcated land.

The Saxons were people like you and me, with a horse instead of a car and a stout wooden hall instead of a brick-built house. And yes, they might not have had potatoes, but hey, there are meals that can be cooked without the good old tatie!

That said, my vision of Saxon England will still grate and cause offence. I’d apologise, but I’m writing fiction interspersed with as many facts as possible. That’s a lot more than some people write!

So please, enjoy my writing but know that it is my writing!

(Please note this is a historic blog post from 2014 that I’ve left on the blog because it’s interesting to see what my thoughts were back then.)

Posts

Saxon England as envisaged in 1695 – why I use old maps when writing my Saxon stories – the battle of Brunanburh, Northampton and the Welsh borders

We all know that I’m a little obsessed with old maps. They’re so very helpful when trying to reconstruct Saxon England. There are a collection of maps I often use, the John Speed maps of the early 1600s, which are English county maps, often with a small cut out in the corners, of important settlements at the time. When I was writing about Northampton, the John Speed map for the settlement fitted just about perfectly with the archaeological research that’s been conducted on the remains of the Saxon settlements. I find them very helpful for a sense of scale, and how they might have ‘sat’ in the surroundings. Modern maps don’t quite give the same sense, because they’re very busy with later building work and settlements.

The John Speed map of Northamptonshire
The John Speed map of Northampton

But below is a fascinating map, dated from 1695, which reflects what was thought about Saxon England at that date.

The reason that I love this map is because if you look really close, you can see the name Brunanburh, close to Bebbanburg (Bamburgh) on the north east coast.

This is particularly intriguing. As I’ve said elsewhere, there’s been more discussion about where the battle of Brunanburh took place as opposed to its actual significance. The current thinking is that it quite probably took place on the Wirral, and so to the west of the country and not the north east at all. But, the logic for placing the battle close to the boundary with what would become Scotland works on a very English-centric view. The enemies of Athelstan were the kings of the Scots and of Strathclyde, along with the Norse of Dublin, who hoped to regain the powerful Jorvik, or York. Why then fight on the Wirral when they were powerful elsewhere?

image

It might be a little easier to see on the image above as opposed to on the map I have. Using old maps, before much of the infrastructure we now have, is a bit like peeling back the layers of soil in an archaeological dig. I find them so helpful, and I guess I am lucky that my Dad is a ‘map man’ and I can call him, with my very strange requests and he can send me back images of exactly what I want.

Another map I’m lucky to have my hands on is one from an 1809 printing of Richard of Cirencester’s Description of Britain. This contains a map of Roman Britain, and the roads that were then believed to have existed.

I’m hoping to use it to give me an idea of how the border region with Wales might have been connected, but it is proving a little stubborn, as many of the roads are thought to be ‘possible.’ So, old maps don’t tell you everything you want to know:)

If you’re interested in old maps, have a look on eBay and places like that, where copies are often available for sale quite cheaply. You can also get a book with all the John Speed county maps reproduced in it, and of course, there is David Hill’s An Atlas of Anglo-Saxon England that is invaluable, if you’re lucky enough to find a copy, as it has been out of print for some time.

King Æthelred II, king of England, some thoughts about whether he deserves his title of ‘Unready.’ #histfic #non-fiction #history

Æthelred II, to put it mildly, gets a bad press, the writers of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle have nothing good to say about him, blaming him for the ills that befall the country at the hands of the Scandinavian raiders, and there is an inevitability about the events that unfold from 1009 onwards that culminate in Swein of Denmark claiming the English throne, and following his untimely death, the actions of his younger son, Cnut, to achieve the same honour a few years later.


And, don’t get me wrong, the list of places attacked by the Viking raiders is long, their demands for payment appear huge and their willingness to kill even those who should have been protected, for instance, the Archbishop of Canterbury, callously presented.

What’s in a name?


Yet, his by-name, Unready, is a misinterpretation and also a play on words, his name meaning wise-counsel, and Unræd meaning no-counsel and being changed to ‘the Unready’, a word nothing like no-counsel.


So if we accept that his by-name should be no-counsel and not ‘the unready’ does that make it any more appropriate?
Most assuredly not. Æthelred had his fair share of ealdormen (later the title was changed to earls, from ‘jarls’ under the Scandinavian kings) and the detailed work done by historians has attempted to uncover who they were and what they did.

The Anglo Saxon Chronicle appears to have hidden much from today’s reader, so intent in its desire to paint Æthelred in as unflattering colours as possible, and mentions only some of the ealdormen. My particular favourite, Ealdorman Leofwine of the Hwicce, is mentioned once and yet charter evidence shows that he held his post for many years from 994-c.1023, quite a long time to be ignored by the main source for the period.


Other details show just how powerful the king was; he recalled his coinage about every seven years and reissued it with new images, he collected the gelds used to pay the Viking raiders, he built and provisioned a vast ship army, and he had laws proclaimed in his name. And all of this he must have done with the consent of the Witan, for England, although ruled by a king, was also ruled through the consensus of the greatest men in the land.

England, not long united, was just too big for one man to rule alone, and it was broken down almost into its constituent pre-united kingdoms, Mercia, Northumbria, the East Angles, Kent, Wessex, and the Western provinces sometimes each area having an ealdorman and at other times, ruled by the king’s High Reeve.

Æthelred was surely king over a well-organised and rich country, and no matter what the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle implies, the men of the land were prepared to fight for their king, and they didn’t attempt to dislodge him from his kingship although by about 1000 onwards he had a host of sons old enough and probably strong enough, to govern in his stead.


I think even his usual by-name of Unraed is unwarranted, and certainly, his unreadiness is unwarranted. History plays tricks on how our past kings are viewed, and more often than not, they’re too harsh, too conciliatory, or, in the case of many, they’re totally forgotten about. Perhaps being a king was not all it was cracked up to be!

(Please note this is a historic blog post, which I’ve left rather than deleting as it’s kind of interesting to see what I was thinking in 2014).

Posts

Saxon Royal Charters from 1006-1013 #TheEarlsofMercia #histfic #non-fiction

Royal charters from 1006-1013

There are only 8 surviving charters for this period in history. They are from 1007, 1009, 1012 and 1013. It’s said that the missing years are due to interruptions caused by invasions of ‘Viking raiders’. This certainly applies to 1010-11 and 1006 when the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle recounts tales of Viking incursions.


As is so often the case, this lack is frustrating because something monumental seems to happen at the King Æthelred’s court between 1009-1012. For a start, the number of ealdormen begins to increase, and second, the, until then, rigidly enforced precedence of the ealdormen crumbles away, and one ealdorman, Eadric of Mercia, comes out on top and Ælfric of Hampshire (who I imagine as a little doddery by now – but I may be doing him a disservice) seems to fall down the rankings, as does Leofwine of Mercia.


By this stage, it’s assumed that both Eadric and Uhtred of Northumbria (the other ealdorman who rises in precedence during this period) are related to Æthelred as they’ve both married one of his daughters.


But there seems an inherent contradiction in this because whilst the ling may be seen to be rewarding his ealdormen with marriage into his family, his own sons from his first marriage don’t seem to be getting any additional authority. This is slightly speculation on my part, but it seems clear to me that Æthelred preferred his sons-in-law to his own sons. Obviously, he now had two sons by his new wife, Emma of Normandy, and although they were only very young, he may have been trying to ensure their inheritance of the throne over and above their older half-brothers.


I appreciate that this is all speculation from only a handful of charters, but it provides a fascinating insight into the character of Æthelred if he really was so unprepared to give his sons any formal authority. Surely, in his times of trouble, when the Viking raiders attacked relentlessly and he was growing steadily older, it would have been an acceptable use of his older sons to use them as battle commanders?

Certainly, later in the 1010s the sons seem to come into their own, and must have had command and fighting experience somewhere. The king proved to be very resistant to leading his own men into battle (apart from the Battle of Chester in 1000) so I wonder why he wouldn’t chose his elder sons who he hoped would never inherit?


But that’s just my ponderings and something I’m going to explore in The Earls of Mercia Book 3.

Check out The Earls of Mercia series page for more information.

(Please note this is a historic blog post from 2014. I’ve left it in place because it’s kind of interesting to see what I was thinking back then.)

Posts

Charters and Leofwine, Ealdorman of the Hwicce

I always think that the characters of Saxon England are a little too ethereal for people to really connect with.  I think it’s difficult to visualise life before the Norman Conquest, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

My current obsession, and victim of my historical fiction endeavours is Leofwine, Ealdorman of the Hwicce during the reign of Æthelred II, who I refuse to call ‘Unready’ because I just don’t think he was. I think, he was a victim of his times, treated harshly by later historians. 

My research is going deeper, examining the evidence of the charter attestations that Leofwine made (where he signs, and therefore, it must be assumes, agrees to whatever the charter is concerned with). Charters from before the Norman Conquest are rare, and have only survived in copies because they benefitted someone in some way, normally the monastery or Church that the copy of the original charter has survived in, or a later lay landowner keen to keep hold of the land.

This effectively means that in determining the validity of the charter, historians need to know about what was happening in the world at large, when the COPY of the charter was made. Effectively, to study Saxon history, you have to also study early Anglo-Norman history to work out just what’s going on and why the charter is so important.

In the records of Sherborne, Leofwine’s name can be found attesting two charters. No original copies of the charters survive, and the record as we have it, is in a twelfth century hand. So, should it be trusted? Should it be used as an historical source? Or as with so much history, can it really only be used as a historical record of the time period that produced it? After all, at least a hundred years and probably more like 150 years, separate the copy of the charter and the date of its alleged drafting and attestation.

It’s an interesting dilemma and one I don’t plan on solving today. Would I use it? Yes, I’d but I’d be standing on the shoulders of those giants of academic history who have studied far more charters than me and who’ve decided that the copies are ‘probably’ genuine as they stand. I’d also be wary of this, and all it might mean.

And how relevant are they to Ealdorman Leofwine? I think very, because they appear to show his standing at the royal court. In charter S933 (1015) he signs as the third ‘dux’ (ealdorman) and in S910 from 1005 he also signs as the third ‘dux’. So what does it all mean? Well, as with everything the picture is wider than just Sherborne. In total Leofwine attests 41 charters whilst an ealdorman. So although I think it’s important to examine the validity of the cartularies that the charters survive in, it’s a bit of a painstaking and picky business. But one I’m enjoying. For anyone really keen to look at Leofwine’s charters in more detail, you can start by having a look at the Electronic Sawyer. And you can see an image of S910 it on The British Library Digitised Manuscripts Website ff. 27v-29r and S933 also on The British Library Digitised Manuscripts Website at ff. 4v-6r. The handwriting is amazing.

Check out the Earl of Mercia Series page for more information

Posts

A short story, Transitions, the whimsical words of Gildas #histfic

A piece of fiction about Gildas, the alleged author of ‘On the Ruin of Britain’ in sixth century Britain

When my Lord calls me to him, to read to him from my youthful work, I rush, as much as an old man can, to do his bidding. His fire is always high and warms me for the first time all day. Sometimes the wood is wet and the fire smokes, or the wind blows down the small chimney and forces the smoke to spread throughout the cold and drafty woody hall. It can make it hard to breathe and speak the words my Lord wants to hear.

I used to fear that my Lord would grow tired of his game and banish me from the great hall, forcing me to shiver in my room, no more than a damp cell in the cellars. I know better now.

He feeds me, clothes me and keeps me warm. Few would think to keep an old, nearly blind man from his death. Quite often I fall asleep before the fire so that I can stay warm all night long, only stumbling back to my cell by the grey light of dawn.

My lord is a hard man and yet he seems to understand his role and perform it well. I’m no longer surprised by this. He’s a great man and can speak the Latin of my youth even if no one else in the hall can.

He’s much less a barbarian than I expected. He’s clever enough to know who I once was and to have read my work and understood its significance. Whilst I didn’t write under my own name, my friends and colleagues knew that it was I who’d written the words and that it was I who lambasted all the tyrants in my land. Worse, they knew that it was I who criticized the vilest of them all by failing to mention him at all, damning him more with my silence than with my words.

In my youth I rebelled against the changes that were infecting my land and I wrote a sermon. I feared for my people and called for them to redeem their ways: to let God back into their lives so that the Saxon raiders could be defeated with God’s help. I meticulously researched my sermon, writing it in my God’s Latin.

Every night my Lord makes me read the miswritten words of my youth. I start at the beginning of my sermon and by the end of a few weeks I’m finished and must start again.

Sometimes my lord doesn’t really listen to my words. He’s too busy drinking and laughing with his friends and underlings. Yet, whenever I reach my descriptions of the weak and twisted former tyrants of my land, I know that he’s quiet and listening to my words, his intelligent eyes, laser like and penetrating. I once puzzled over this but now I understand why he listens so intently.

Whilst he may not be the sort of leader I demanded in my youth, I think that he does his best to live up to the ideals that I described. He doesn’t debauch himself or look for an easy way out of the difficult situations he finds himself in. I think that he’s listening to me because he wants to ensure he doesn’t become one of those tyrant’s I speak of.

Whilst everyone else thinks I was a youthful fool and an idiot, he hopes to live up to my archetype. He wants to be the person I called for and asked my God for. He wants to be better than all who’ve gone before.

I’m not one of my lord’s advisers and I’m never called upon to give my counsel. I’m old and shabby and though loath to say it, smelly. Yet in my own way I think I counsel my lord every night. It’s better than being one of his advisers. I’m safe in the knowledge that he listens to me and heeds my warnings, unlike his warriors who shout in vain to be heard.

The land of my birth is changed. The Saxon raiders wanted our wealth but took our land. They robbed the native British people of the lives they thought they’d have. There are no longer flourishing towns where the wealthy and well educated converse in Latin amongst elaborate stone buildings.

Instead there’s a new language and Latin is only preserved amongst a few wondering priests. The towns are busy and bustling but lacking in stone buildings. There are no longer any lawgivers who need to speak the language of the Empire of the Caesars.

There’s a new world and nothing is as it was meant to be when I was a child, when I watched the soldiers with their head gear and hooded visors march smartly throughout the land.

It‘s taken me many years but now I see things so much more clearly than when I was first brought here, against my will and screaming my innocence. I see that my Lord is right to do what he does and to rule the way he does.

I’m honest enough to admit that in the grand scheme of things nothing fundamental has actually changed under the Saxon overlords.

My lord’s father, the man I besmirched by not writing about him so long ago, was little different to the men in Rome who used to send their written orders. He had the same needs and wants. On balance, he was a better man for his ambition was smaller and easier to achieve.

I realise that I’m honoured. I may live in the cold and the dirt and be filthy and smelly, but I’m witnessing the beginnings of something good and new.

My Lord understands this and I hope that when my body is too tired to go on, he’ll remember the passages I read to him and continue to be a good and just lord as the Roman England of my youth becomes the Saxon England of the future.

You can read more of my short stories by signing up to my monthly newsletter and downloading a free short story collection.