Unfinished masterpieces?

I have recently discovered to my great relief that I am in good company when it comes to producing unfinished… works.  Whether they could ever have been masterpieces I cannot say.  I now know that many authors begin books and do not finish them.  It is amazing the wealth of material lying dormant on authors’ files, or somewhere.

Fortunately things are not as bad as they seem.  I have been advised never to destroy a half-finished work, for two reasons.

  • Firstly, I might get the inspiration I need to finish them. Well, the determination, anyway.
  • Secondly, I might be able to use parts of them in future works.

I have one book very near to completion, and I am determined that that one will be published this year.  It needs on more revision by me and then off to an editor.  After that it will go either to a publisher or direct to a self-publishing site.   The others will probably be finished in the course of the next two or three years.

Look out for progress reports.

Project Fear? Is that another name for Christianity?

During the EU Referendum campaign, the term ‘Project Fear’ was frequently used by the Leave campaign to describe the position taken by the Remain campaign, as they so emphasised the dangers to our economy of a departure from the EU.  Sometimes the term was used the other way round, i.e. to refer to the fear of immigration and the fear of ever closer union.

Regardless of the relevance to the issues, the term reminded me of the way many people have described Christianity.  They claim the Church tries to use fear to recruit and to dominate.  I have also come across people who claim to have been brought up in a churchgoing family where fear was the main driving force in their religion.  These were usually people who had ceased practicing and often ceased believing, although some had discovered a different kind of Christianity to which they were happy to belong.

As a writer of historical fiction, it is impossible to avoid examining the way Christianity was expressed and perceived in the past.  One source of misinformation is historical drama on TV.  Almost all clergy and other ‘religious’ people are portrayed as narrow-minded censorious hypocrites.  Occasionally there is one who is nice but rather naïve.   This may lead viewers to develop a negative view of the Christianity, whether past or present.  A view too often built on assumptions rather than observation.

Why do I dispute this view?  Because of my own experience.  Throughout my life I have known many Christians and few if any have conformed to the stereotypes.  I have found the same of Jews, Asians, businessmen, public officials and lots of other ‘stock characters’ of fiction and of popular imagination.  The only Members of Parliament I have met were honest, sincere people trying to serve the community.  I have also found that most of the writings of all kinds by Christians of past ages do not sound as if they were full of fear but rather of hope.

Why does it matter?

  • All sterotypes are dangerous. They help build prejudice and are obstacles to real encounters and to creating communities.
  • I want my novels, although fiction, to give as true a flavour of the past as possible.
  • I do not want anyone to miss out on the opportunity to experience real Christianity due to an unreal image, however acquired.

What about me?

  • My own experience of God is something I may write about at more length on another occasion, but I can assure you that fear has seldom played much of a part in it.
  • When I first stopped to ask myself where I stood, I was not afraid of Hell: I just did not want my whole life to be based on a falsehood – either way.
  • And now? I do not obey out of fear of punishment, but because I want to do what I know to be right.  Can you love your neighbour out of fear?

Further reading?  Try the First Letter of John in the Bible.  Not the Gospel of John, although probably by the same writer.  All of it if you can, otherwise just Chapter 4 verses 18 and 19.  “Love casts out fear”.



What makes a Versailles a good historical drama?

As I mentioned in a recent blog, I have been watching the current BBC series Versailles.  In general it has not been received well by the critics.  I think they have been a little hard on it.

They say it is too confusing.  I agree that there are lots of characters and many of them look alike.  That is probably inevitable when portraying a court where everyone wanted to be in fashion.  There are lots of characters, but the Court of Louis XIV was a busy place.  One thing I find laughable in The Musketeers is that there seem to be only about a dozen people at the Court of Louis XIII.  Of course the budget for the series is probably to blame for that.  So Versailles tries to show it as it probably was, confusing as that may be.

Another criticism is that the series is full of sex and violence.  I thought it was well known that the 1660’s were years of immorality among the nobility and royalty in both England and France.  The tone was set by the two kings, Charles II and Louis XIV who both had lots of mistresses and probably plenty of casual affaires as well.  They were both pretty open about it too.

Violence has been around for a long time.  The splendour of the Court of Versailles was a distraction from the dirty work that went on to keep the monarch in power.  Louis had seen civil war and rebellion in his childhood and was determined to prevent it happening again.  He succeeded pretty well, but at a cost.

The real reason I like the series is that it gives a rounded picture of the King.  It is too easy to portray Louis as either a hero, The Sun King, or a villain.  After all he was Britain’s enemy for much of his reign.  In reality, he was, like most of us, a complex character.  He had serious faults but several redeeming features.  This series makes a decent attempt at exploring some of these complexities and contradictions.  That is more interesting but more challenging for both the actor and the viewer than a one-dimensional version.

I hope I can make the characters in my books real, rather than just Good Guys and Bad Guys.

Are you learning your lessons?

It has been said that if we fail to learn from the mistakes of the past, we will keep on repeating them.   I fear that may be true.  I remember a debate in Parliament about Northern Ireland, when David Steele, a Scot, said, 2the trouble with the Irish is that they never forget and the trouble with the English is that they never remember.”  A warning we all need to heed.

So as we remember the dead of the Battle of the Somme, we might think about the lessons we failed to learn back then and ask ourselves if we have learnt them yet.  I found some interesting observations on that in a little book “Be Victorious!” by John Harvey Murray.  It is not really about warfare but about applying the lessons to our daily lives.  For more go to


What else happened at the Somme?

There has been a lot to remind us that this is the centenary of the Battle of the Somme.  Or the First Battle of the Somme to be precise.  There were two during the First World War.  This thought reminded me that there have been several other battles fought very near that site.  Waterloo, Crecy and several battles in the Seventeenth Century, including some of those depicted in the TV series Versailles, of which I will be writing soon.

I feel for the people of that area who have so often found themselves caught up in these Europe-wide, or even worldwide, conflicts.  People whose homes, farms, villages and lives were destroyed merely because their homes were in that unfortunate location.

Spare a thought for these civilians as well as for the soldiers when you remember the Somme.

Is History being reversed?

Many people used to think that there was an inevitability about the gradual unification of Europe as there was thought to be about that of the UK, although if that logic held, the Irish Republic would be moving towards union with Britain!

Does the decision to leave the EU mark a reversal of the trend?  Does Scottish independence now look inevitable?


I am sceptical of the determinist view of history.  Of course there are social and economic forces at work which strongly influence how we make decisions, but in the end we make our own minds up.  I think things could go either way.

History is full of examples of wars and conflicts between England and Scotland, and of those between England or Britain and France.  However, there are also lots of examples of Anglo-French collaboration.  Life is seldom as simple as some people would like.

I hope to bring out some of the complexities of these relationships in my writing.  Oscar Wilde once said “the truth is never pure and rarely simple”.  I hope you will find that view of life makes for more interesting reading than “the Good Guys” versus “the Bad Guys” approach.

A thought for friends north of the Border.  You may be right in thinking that Scotland would be better off in the EU than out, but a Scotland independent of England and not in the EU would find it very hard to succeed in the modern World.  Let us hope Scotland’s leaders recognise this and make sure it does not happen.

Finally, congratulations to Wales.  At least some Britons are doing well in Europe!



Why do I care if the UK breaks up? Who do I think I am?

Now we are hearing new demands for another referendum on Scottish independence and discontent in Ulster at the result of the EU vote.  It opens up old wounds and we are finding our different identities coming to the fore.  This may go back a long way.  It may also be the result of certain misunderstandings about our past.

How can the past ever change?  Of course it can not.  But our understanding of it can.  When I was at school I was made to specialise fairly early, so I never learnt very much science. I always knew anyway that a lot of what I had learnt would probably be superseded by progress. I am not thinking of the invention of the wheel, by the way, but you get the point.

Moving Goalposts.  I went on to study economics. It was a well-worn joke in those days, and doubtless even more worn by now, that every year they set the same exam questions: to keep us on our toes, they just changed the answers. I have to say that there is some truth in that. It is obvious that George Osborne learnt a different set of answers from those I was taught!

Where are our certainties?  I did think I was fairly safe with history. All right, there have always been lots of new theories. I remember having to learn the Old View and the New View about almost everything, so I could show the examiners I had really studied the subject. But facts are facts. Are they not? So I was really amazed recently to discover that some of the most well-known facts about ourselves – the British – are being challenged.

What did I think I knew?  I was taught that prehistoric Britain was subject to a series of invasions, coming in waves from the near continent. The Old Stone Age people were wiped out, or driven out to the extremities of Ireland, Scotland and Wales, by the New Stone Age people, who were in turn replaced by the Bronze Age People, also called the Iberians, who were of course replaced by the Celts, who brought in the Iron Age. Then the pattern was broken by the Romans who came, saw, conquered, and finally departed, leaving us with a lot of roads, buildings, laws and Latin words, without really colonising Britain. Then back to the previous model, as the Angles and Saxons invaded and wiped out the Celts who survived in the extreme North and West, like the remnants of their predecessors. Thus the Angles and Saxons merged into the English, explaining why there are different languages and cultures in these islands.

Is that the basis of your identity?  This understanding is probably beneath a lot of the feelings of separation and even hostility between the different peoples of these islands.  It may partly explain Scottish and Welsh Nationalism.  I will not open up the Irish Question, but I am sure you will see it is connected.

So what has changed?  I could  hardly express my shock and horror when I read “The Origins of the British” by Stephen Oppenheimer. It is heavy going in parts, but fascinating. He uses DNA studies as well as linguistics and archaeology. He also re-examines some ancient documents, including the works of Julius Caesar and Bede, and finds things others seem to have overlooked. His amazing but well argued and well supported conclusion s are, to simplify somewhat, as follows:

  1. After the Ice Age Britain was colonised by people coming from Spain and Portugal along the Atlantic Coast, settling on the West Coast of what is now Britain and that of Ireland.
  2. Later waves came by a similar route, including the Celts at the start of the Neolithic period.
  3. Meanwhile, there were several waves of migrations from the Continent arriving up the East Coast and some along the South Coast. These were Germanic and especially Scandinavian.
  4. So the Angles and Saxons only added to an existing Germanic population that had been in what is now England from the Iron Age.
  5. There is no reason to believe in a series of genocides or acts of ethnic cleansing.
  6. There has been a lot of mixing of genes ever since so that most Britons today have a lot of Celtic genes even if they think they are totally English.
  7. And vice versa.

All my supposed certainties are in tatters. But it is good to know that the Welsh are not the survivors of an act of genocide committed by the English.

What about the last thousand years?  It is obvious that there has been interaction between the different peoples of these islands all down the ages, in war and peace, in trade in culture, through marriage, by accident and by design.  So I believe our separate identities have been greatly exaggerated and our common Britishness undervalued.

So what?  I am certainly not saying that we should forget our separate regional cultures and heritages.  They are certainly important and are to be celebrated.  I do, however, think we need to remember what we have in common, including what is often painful to remember, and believe in ourselves as one British nation.

Read all about it!  You will be likely to find characters in my books from all over these islands, each playing his or her part in my fictional stories just as their real-life counterparts did in our true island story.

I could be biased, because I am conscious of English, Scottish and Irish ancestry as well as having lived in Wales for much of my life.  I never said I was impartial.