This is as much for me, Dear Reader, as for you, if not more so, to try to write down, somewhere, exactly where I am up to at this moment with a view to eventually making progress. The first watchword is - no promises! I am not going to promise to do anything, ever again. Not in the literary world, anyway.
I am pleased to say the Black Dog has buggered off completely for the time being, and what is delaying me is 'other business'. You see I do have other interests and, dare I say it, family responsibilities. But if I really wanted to write, I expect I could squeeze some effort in somewhere. The truth is I don't - yet. This is a strange state of affairs for me, who started to write stories when I was about 15 and spent many, many years fruitlessly hammering keyboards. But there you are.
Blogging - I am trying to do at least one blog post a month, but not necessarily here. Please don't hold your breath, especially not for anything to happen over at The Yorkist Age.
Projects
Alianore II - sort of in hand. Some progress made but I am not really in the right mood for comedy just now. I have reasonable hope of finishing this at some point, in fact to the extent that I am giving anything priority, Alianore is getting it.
This New Spring of Time - a decent chunk has been written. A very young Edward of York has met Philippa Mohun for the first time and they are already up to mischief. However, the political stuff is dead complex and untangling it and making it palatable to a sane reader of fiction is hard work. It might get finished but it could be some time. One problem is that although I have a lot of sympathy for Richard II, the truth is that as a young man he was a thoroughly annoying git. (Weren't we all?) His enemies though were unmitigated villains, and I struggle to find anything nice at all to say about Gloucester and Arundel. Possibly their mothers and Jesus loved them, but I can't imagine that anyone else did. (Warwick wasn't quite so bad.) This offends my sense of balance. I have never liked white hat/black hat stories. If I'm honest, the person I admire most in this specific era is Edmund of Langley. He may have been a fool, but at least he didn't set out to murder people who were in his way.
Richard III - I have lost count of the versions I have attempted and discarded. Probably adds up in total to about three short novels, some bits of which I had the gall to publish in The Open Fetterlock. Bottom line is, I am not really satisfied with any of it. I have a vision in my head that I can't match on paper, or even in computer bytes. Frustrating, I know. Might end up as two novels, one about the Talbot sisters, one from the POV of Francis Lovel. I am saying this because the elements concerned are the bits saved from the skip that I am most happy about.
Other Stuff - I am trying to not get involved in anything else. There are other stories I want to tell, and I do from time to time make the odd note about them or do a small piece of research, but the plain truth is I probably won't live long enough.
Not a pretty picture is it? I am tempted to give up, but I'm too damned stubborn.
Sunday, 15 April 2012
Friday, 17 February 2012
New Link Added
Link to the website of Barbara Gaskell Denvil, who is an excellent writer of 15th Century novels.
Saturday, 7 January 2012
Latest News
Not much, but just to remind anyone interested that my Alianore Audley short will appear in the next edition of the Ricardian Bulletin, the journal of the Richard III Society. Probably just about time to join if you want a copy.
Also I have set up a temporary website at https://sites.google.com/site/brianwainwrightnovels/
Nothing much to look at, and I hope eventually to replace it with something better, but for now it's better than nowt. I have listed my future projects on it so you can all set up books on which, if any, will be the first to appear...
Also I have set up a temporary website at https://sites.google.com/site/brianwainwrightnovels/
Nothing much to look at, and I hope eventually to replace it with something better, but for now it's better than nowt. I have listed my future projects on it so you can all set up books on which, if any, will be the first to appear...
Sunday, 4 December 2011
Maybe it's just me...
OK, I am not going to name the book or the author. The only slight clue I'll give is it was set in the early 19th Century among the upper classes and it wasn't written by Jane Austen.
Yet again, a complete lack of understanding of titles and forms of address stood out. However, I'll pass lightly over this as I don't want to seem more obsessive than I am in reality, and I know that for a lot of people this just flies over their head anyway and doesn't spoil their enjoyment.
This week's moan is about inappropriate (for the time) social attitudes. For starters we have a gentlemen (a lord actually, although naturally he's too cool to use his title) on first name terms with his valet. Hmm, yeah, right...
But then all the main characters are so incredibly Left wing and PC that it screamed at me. I almost expected them to stand up after dinner (just before the ladies withdrew) and sing the Internationale. I mean, come on, this is early 19th Century England! There were not many Left wing PC types among the peerage and landed gentry at this time. Even reformers (Radicals) were in a distinct minority. Surely it's the art of the typical that convinces? If there'd been one, just one, fat-bellied Tory repressive among them I could have lived with it. But there wasn't even a hint of the typical social attitudes of the day.
When we talk about accuracy, it isn't just a matter of getting the belt buckles right, or what they had for dinner, or the correct name for the Bishop of Bath and Wells in September 1693. Surely, surely there has to be some attempt to reflect how the people of the times actually thought and behaved in relation to one another? And this is where it's hard - because by and large they did not think like us. Indeed, many of them did and said (by our standards) shameful things. But it's no use pretending that by some amazing chance the characters we choose to write about were all 21st Century people of correct opinions who happened to be born a few centuries earlier. Because they weren't.
Yet again, a complete lack of understanding of titles and forms of address stood out. However, I'll pass lightly over this as I don't want to seem more obsessive than I am in reality, and I know that for a lot of people this just flies over their head anyway and doesn't spoil their enjoyment.
This week's moan is about inappropriate (for the time) social attitudes. For starters we have a gentlemen (a lord actually, although naturally he's too cool to use his title) on first name terms with his valet. Hmm, yeah, right...
But then all the main characters are so incredibly Left wing and PC that it screamed at me. I almost expected them to stand up after dinner (just before the ladies withdrew) and sing the Internationale. I mean, come on, this is early 19th Century England! There were not many Left wing PC types among the peerage and landed gentry at this time. Even reformers (Radicals) were in a distinct minority. Surely it's the art of the typical that convinces? If there'd been one, just one, fat-bellied Tory repressive among them I could have lived with it. But there wasn't even a hint of the typical social attitudes of the day.
When we talk about accuracy, it isn't just a matter of getting the belt buckles right, or what they had for dinner, or the correct name for the Bishop of Bath and Wells in September 1693. Surely, surely there has to be some attempt to reflect how the people of the times actually thought and behaved in relation to one another? And this is where it's hard - because by and large they did not think like us. Indeed, many of them did and said (by our standards) shameful things. But it's no use pretending that by some amazing chance the characters we choose to write about were all 21st Century people of correct opinions who happened to be born a few centuries earlier. Because they weren't.
Sunday, 27 November 2011
Purchase Page
This page is intended as a convenient starting point for anyone who wants to buy my books:
Bewrite Books
The Adventures of Alianore Audley
Amazon UK
The Open Fetterlock (Available in Kindle only. Just extracts, not a full story.)
The Adventures of Alianore Audley
Within the Fetterlock
Amazon.com
The Open Fetterlock
The Adventures of Alianore Audley
Within the Fetterlock
Bewrite Books
The Adventures of Alianore Audley
Amazon UK
The Open Fetterlock (Available in Kindle only. Just extracts, not a full story.)
The Adventures of Alianore Audley
Within the Fetterlock
Amazon.com
The Open Fetterlock
The Adventures of Alianore Audley
Within the Fetterlock
Thursday, 3 November 2011
On a more positive note...
My Alianore Audley short story should appear in the Ricardian Bulletin in March 2012.
I gather there will be another fictional piece in the December issue also. By Rosemary Hawley Jarman.
I gather there will be another fictional piece in the December issue also. By Rosemary Hawley Jarman.
A masterclass on titles...a pedant writes
Today I visited a library, and picked up a book by an author who had better remain anonymous. Anyway, I dipped in, like you do, and found that the main character was unable to describe herself properly. She literally did not know her own name, or to be more accurate, title. This annoyed me, especially as the novel was written in the first person, which makes it feel even dafter.
Anyway, we all have to learn, and for the benefit of my writer friends who are not as pedantic as me I thought I would set out the relevant rules for English titles, as from (roughly) the fifteenth century. In fairness, I admit things were in a state of evolution, especially in the earlier years of the century, and you might find exceptions out there.
First, and as a general point, please be aware that there has been a lot of title inflation over the years. Through most of the middle ages an earl was a very great lord indeed, especially in the earlier centuries, so if you're inventing a character you might be better sticking at knight level. There were no dukes at all until the fourteenth century and the first non-royal duke appeared in 1386.
Similarly the title 'Prince' originally only applied to the Prince of Wales, and the random use of Prince and Princess as titles for the king's children really only took off under Henry VIII. You may find that dukes and duchesses are sometimes referred to as 'princes' or 'princesses' as were royal children, but this was not their formal title in the middle ages. It was more a reference to their status. To give an example close to home, Lady Constance of York was certainly a princess, but she was never known as Princess Constance of York, and still less as HRH. The HRH thing is, I think, 18th century, certainly post-medieval.
Second, medieval women always kept their highest title. So if a woman married the Duke of Norfolk, she remained the Duchess of Norfolk, even if she subsequently married Lord Bloggs or Mr Smith. She did not start calling herself Lady Bloggs or Mrs. Smith. This may seem odd to us, but in those days she also kept her precedence and the use of her title helped with this!
Thirdly, the use of female Christian names in titles was (and is) very particular. If Jane Smith marries Sir Fred Bloggs (or Lord Bloggs) she becomes Lady Bloggs. If she's widowed she might refer to herself as Jane, Lady Bloggs. But she can only be Lady Jane Bloggs if she is the daughter of an earl, marquis or duke. In this case on marriage she changes from Lady Jane Smith to Lady Jane Bloggs. Indeed, she's Lady Jane Bloggs even if her husband is Mr.Joe Bloggs, and there's a fifteenth century example for this - if you want to know, Lady Anne Paston, wife of Mr William Paston and daughter of the Duke of Somerset.
This may seem very picky, but in the middle ages a married woman retained her father's rank (in terms of precedence) if her husband's rank was lower. So between two knights' wives, Lady Joan Bucket always outranks Lady Bouquet.
However if a woman marries an earl marquis or duke, then irrespective of her birth she is known as the Countess of Whatever (or Lady Whatever) the Marchioness of Whatever or the Duchess of Whatever. Presumably because if she was known as Lady Mary Whatever she might be confused with her own daughter!
Complex isn't it?
Oh, and the daughters of barons and knights were not 'Lady Jane Whatever' - they were 'Mistress Whatever or Mistress Jane Whatever.'
A lot of this stuff can be picked up by reading Debrett's as long as you remember to scrape off the Tudor and subsequent accretions. Either way, dear authors, please do make the effort as failure may lead to your book being thrown at the wall, and to at least one of your readers tearing his hair out.
Oh, and another thing, if you want to produce a facsimile of a medieval letter, please do try to discover what a medieval letter looked like. The Paston Letters are a good place to start and don't need much research to find. You can modernise the spelling all you like, I'm all for translation, but please try to keep the feel, the flavour of the era you are supposedly writing about, unless you are actually intending to write a parody. Yes I like parody too, but only if the author began with one in mind.
RANT OVER!!! You may now proceed with your lives.
Anyway, we all have to learn, and for the benefit of my writer friends who are not as pedantic as me I thought I would set out the relevant rules for English titles, as from (roughly) the fifteenth century. In fairness, I admit things were in a state of evolution, especially in the earlier years of the century, and you might find exceptions out there.
First, and as a general point, please be aware that there has been a lot of title inflation over the years. Through most of the middle ages an earl was a very great lord indeed, especially in the earlier centuries, so if you're inventing a character you might be better sticking at knight level. There were no dukes at all until the fourteenth century and the first non-royal duke appeared in 1386.
Similarly the title 'Prince' originally only applied to the Prince of Wales, and the random use of Prince and Princess as titles for the king's children really only took off under Henry VIII. You may find that dukes and duchesses are sometimes referred to as 'princes' or 'princesses' as were royal children, but this was not their formal title in the middle ages. It was more a reference to their status. To give an example close to home, Lady Constance of York was certainly a princess, but she was never known as Princess Constance of York, and still less as HRH. The HRH thing is, I think, 18th century, certainly post-medieval.
Second, medieval women always kept their highest title. So if a woman married the Duke of Norfolk, she remained the Duchess of Norfolk, even if she subsequently married Lord Bloggs or Mr Smith. She did not start calling herself Lady Bloggs or Mrs. Smith. This may seem odd to us, but in those days she also kept her precedence and the use of her title helped with this!
Thirdly, the use of female Christian names in titles was (and is) very particular. If Jane Smith marries Sir Fred Bloggs (or Lord Bloggs) she becomes Lady Bloggs. If she's widowed she might refer to herself as Jane, Lady Bloggs. But she can only be Lady Jane Bloggs if she is the daughter of an earl, marquis or duke. In this case on marriage she changes from Lady Jane Smith to Lady Jane Bloggs. Indeed, she's Lady Jane Bloggs even if her husband is Mr.Joe Bloggs, and there's a fifteenth century example for this - if you want to know, Lady Anne Paston, wife of Mr William Paston and daughter of the Duke of Somerset.
This may seem very picky, but in the middle ages a married woman retained her father's rank (in terms of precedence) if her husband's rank was lower. So between two knights' wives, Lady Joan Bucket always outranks Lady Bouquet.
However if a woman marries an earl marquis or duke, then irrespective of her birth she is known as the Countess of Whatever (or Lady Whatever) the Marchioness of Whatever or the Duchess of Whatever. Presumably because if she was known as Lady Mary Whatever she might be confused with her own daughter!
Complex isn't it?
Oh, and the daughters of barons and knights were not 'Lady Jane Whatever' - they were 'Mistress Whatever or Mistress Jane Whatever.'
A lot of this stuff can be picked up by reading Debrett's as long as you remember to scrape off the Tudor and subsequent accretions. Either way, dear authors, please do make the effort as failure may lead to your book being thrown at the wall, and to at least one of your readers tearing his hair out.
Oh, and another thing, if you want to produce a facsimile of a medieval letter, please do try to discover what a medieval letter looked like. The Paston Letters are a good place to start and don't need much research to find. You can modernise the spelling all you like, I'm all for translation, but please try to keep the feel, the flavour of the era you are supposedly writing about, unless you are actually intending to write a parody. Yes I like parody too, but only if the author began with one in mind.
RANT OVER!!! You may now proceed with your lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)