Wednesday, 8 May 2013

I'd buy that for a dollar...

...and hopefully, so will a few other people. The White Hawk, my novel set during The Wars of the Roses in medieval England, is now on sale for just 99 cents or £1 on Amazon.

The book has already garnered some nice reviews, for which I am very grateful. It was certainly a lot of fun to write - the era is hugely fascinating, full of larger-than-life characters indulging in mass slaughter and shameless treachery in an England so far removed from modern times one might as well be describing an alien planet.

To give a flavour of the book, here's an extract describing the climactic (and traumatic) Battle of Towton:

'The stricken man screamed and fell onto one knee. Giddy with bloodlust, Richard smashed the hammer-head of the poleaxe down onto his helm, crumpling the iron and stoving in his skull. A third Yorkist stabbed at him with a spear, but he dodged and buried his bloody point into the man’s face, dropping him where he stood.
     All along the line it was the same. Despite having the advantage of the slope, the Yorkists were being slaughtered, and each casualty they suffered struck fear into the men behind. Dismayed and demoralised, Fauconberg’s division was forced to give ground.
     Richard lunged at an unprotected kneecap and cracked it open. His poleaxe blade sliced with ease through a leather jack and chopped open a belly. Trampling on the mess of entrails that poured forth, he risked a glance to his left and saw Henry grinning like a madman as he wielded his two-handed broadsword, red to the elbows in Yorkist blood. Richard uttered a wordless cheer. They were winning. God and Saint George were on the side of Lancaster. And the white hawk. 
     Fifteen miles away, King Henry knelt and prayed in the keep of York Castle. No-one was listening. Not his commanders, who had ignored his wish for the battle to be postponed since it was Palm Sunday. Not his Queen, who sat in a window-seat, gaunt and pale and quivering with tension as she turned over her rosary beads. Not his son, just eight years old and a miniature Attila, playing on the floor with his toy soldiers and uttering a gleeful cry each time he knocked one over.
     And not God, who is deaf to my pleas and allows men to slaughter each other on a holy day.
     Why did he pray? Because Christ was his Saviour and England was his charge. Henry had no other security. The deaths of thousands of his subjects were on his conscience. If he had been born a better man, a stronger man, all might have been avoided. Instead God had seen fit to punish the House of Lancaster in the third generation from its unjust usurpation and murder of Richard II. Henry was nothing more than the tool of persecution.
     He wept. God was cruel and terrible and undeniable. Out there, in the snow and ice, his people were murdering each other, and Henry could do nothing to stop it.
     “Oh, for the blanket of madness to cover me again,” he whispered, “and veil me from the world’s evil.”

If thou dost like what thou dost read, sirrah, then check out the the Kindle and paperback versions of the book on sale at Amazon below:

The White Hawk

Tuesday, 7 May 2013

Blog Hop winners!

And the winners of the Heroes & Villains Blog Hop are...

KATIE AND TINNEY HEATH!

Congratulations to you both, and thank you to everyone else who has viewed, commented and otherwise contributed to the hop.

If Katie and Tinney could get in touch with me via my email - Davidpilling56@hotmail.com - a free digital copy of The Best Weapon shall be yours!!

Thursday, 2 May 2013

Heroes & Villains!




Welcome to the HEROES & VILLAINS Blog Hop! 

First, the rules. Please leave a comment below if you wish to enter to one of two FREE copies of The Best Weapon (link at the cover image below). At the foot of this post are links to the blogs and websites of the other authors taking part, all of whom are also offering free book prizes. So you, the lucky readers, are spoiled for choice.



‘Heroes and Villains’ is the theme, which leaves me with only one option: as everyone knows, villains are far more interesting. Where would Star Wars be without Darth Vader and the evil Emperor creeping about and strangling impertinent underlings with their magical Force fingers? The insufferable Luke Skywalker only acquires a slender appeal after - spoiler alert, for the three people on Earth who have never watched Star Wars - he gets his hand chopped off and starts dressing all in black, just like his dear old dad.

Heroes are, in a way, far more difficult to write. They have less interesting moral ambiguity, and their actions must always be more or less justified, otherwise they aren’t heroes. It is possible to turn a villain into a hero, or portray a man of dubious moral leanings doing something heroic (Winston Churchill might be a good example from history), but someone who starts clean-cut has to pretty much stay clean-cut, which is ever so dull. This leads to what I call the ‘Alan Rickman’ effect, where the audience ends up rooting for the villain because the good guy is so obnoxiously boring.



Archpriest Flambard plottin' and schemin', as per usual

With all that in mind, I have chosen to use this post as an opportunity to talk about the central villain of my fantasy novel, The Best Weapon, co-written with my good friend Martin Bolton. 

The character's name is Archpriest Flambard, which should give some clue as to his villainy: much like Grand Viziers, all fictional Archpriests are rotters. Something about the combination of absolute power allied to an arcane religious or secular title makes them bad. They just can’t help it. Their invariable fate is to be either spitted on the mighty hero’s magical broadsword, hurled into their own Fiery Pit of Doom, or devoured like a boiled sweet by the same demonic spirits they conjured up to help them CONQUER THE WORLD!!!

No such clichéd fate is likely to befall Flambard. For a start, he’s too clever to be outwitted by some two-bit Conan the Barbarian impersonator. Secondly, he doesn’t regard himself as a bad person doing bad things. As the regent of the Winter Realm during the minority of that frozen land’s infant monarch, he is a pragmatist, obliged to do harsh and unpopular things in order to keep his country afloat. Or that’s how he sees it. Like many modern-day politicians, his job is to labour all hours on behalf of a public that loathes and despises him.  

I imagined Flambard as a cross between Henry VIII’s advisor Cardinal Wolsey, Baron Vladimir Harkonnen (the villain of the sci-fi novel ‘Dune’ by Frank Herbert) and Cardinal Richelieu, the nemesis of the Three Musketeers. To that end he is physically obese, mentally acute, and much given to backstairs politics and working all the hours the gods send. He clothes himself in rich robes and fine jewellery, as befits a man of his station and pomp, and runs mental rings around his peers.

Why is he particularly villainous, you may well ask? Well, he begins the story as a typically hard-nosed politician whom the term realpolitik might have been invented for, a man who believes the ends always justify the means. And then something happens that makes him even worse.

Much, much worse. Physically and mentally, terrible things start happening to Cardinal Flambard. Put it this way…he starts to rot.

Intrigued? Then leave a comment underneath this post, and a free copy of The Best Weapon could be hacking and swinging its way towards you very soon!

And don’t forget to check out the blogs and websites of the other lovely authors listed below:


Friday, 26 April 2013

Heroes & Villains Blog Hop!



Join me and twenty-eight fantasy, science fiction and historical fiction authors for the Heroes & Villains blog hop on Friday 3 – Monday 6 May and give yourself a chance of winning glorious prizes. I will be giving away two copies of my fantasy novel (co-written with Martin Bolton) The Best Weapon and every single author below will be giving away prizes too.
Epic Fantasy The Best Weapon
Epic Fantasy The Best Weapon
So why not check in here and make sure you flick through all these talented writers’ blogs. Details on how to enter for prizes on each blog will be posted on Friday 3 May.
“See” you next week!
Heroes & Villains taking part are:

Thursday, 25 April 2013

Inspirational Friends


On a completely different tack to my usual historical blatherings, I wanted to talk a little about something that actually matters in 2013.

An old schoolfriend of mine (less of the old perhaps, we're only in our mid-thirties...) Jessie Vanbeck, and her friend Hannah Lawton are planning to row across the Atlantic in an open boat.



Hannah Lawton and Jessie Vanbeck

...you heard me right, they plan to ROW across the Atlantic in an open boat. Neither, so far as I'm aware, has any Viking ancestry, but it is the sort of feat the Vikings would have been proud of.

However, Hannah and Jessie don't have any looting and pillaging in mind. They are doing it in honour of the memory of a friend of theirs, Eleanor Rose Ellis, who died of cervical cancer in May last year at the tragically early age of 23. They are also raising money for Myton Hospice, who cared for Eleanor, and Jo's Cervical Cancer trust, dedicated to supporting women with cervical cancer. This fearsome voyage will be part of a race, the Talisker Whisky Atlantic Challenge.


In case anyone is in any doubt about the scale of the task facing the rowers, the following should act as a fairly terrifying corrective:

1) It is an unassisted row, which means Jessie and Hannah will have to pack all provisions and equipment on board before they go.


2) They aim to complete the voyage in sixty days. That’s sixty days or more in a boat 7 metres long and 1.9 metres wide.

3) They will be facing 40 foot seas, sleep deprivation, salt sores and up to 80% muscle wastage. Lack of room in the boat means that they will be unable to do anything other than sit or row, which means they will have to learn to walk again when they reach Antigua.


You can hear a recent radio interview with Hannah and Jessie on Ujima Radio below, on the 'Womens Outlook' sections:




They are being interviewed again on Ujima on Saturday morning (27th April), so tune in!


Below is a link to their website, 'Inspirational Friends', including further details of the planned voyage, sponsorship, relevant events and supporters etc:




Wednesday, 24 April 2013

Guest post by Maria Grace


Today I have a guest post by the lovely and talented author Maria Grace. Maria writes fiction set in the Regency era, and the following is her account of the complex manners and mores of polite Regency society...


Morning Calls and Formal Visits: Socializing in the Regency Era

In the 1800s, the moneyed minority in any local was expected mix socially with one another, whether or not they were personally agreeable to one another. In general, people only mixed socially within their own social class, so the company could become confined and unvarying quickly.  Hence, new families of the right social standing would quickly be paid an obligatory visit by their neighbors in order to initiate an acquaintance and effectively broaden the social circle.

Until a formal acquaintance was recognized, members of the families could not socialize with one another. Established members of the neighborhood would take it upon themselves to call upon the new comers. Only men called upon men, women did not initiate the relationship themselves. Once the man of the house performed introductions for the women in his household, they could interact socially and even introduce the newcomers to others.

Commonly the social inferior was introduced to the superior, and men to women, rather than the reverse. Unlike in town, where one had to wait for the call of a superior, in the country it was acceptable for a man to make a call or leave a card with someone of higher social standing if that person was new to the neighborhood.  Acceptance by those above one’s social status was a key to social mobility in Regency society, so such acquaintances were highly sought after.   

Social connections were usually formed through a series of meetings, usually beginning with morning calls to the homes of those in fashionable society.  

Examples of calling cards

Calling cards

Morning calls or visiting upon a household had an established protocol. Those who failed to follow it risked being shunned. First a calling card was presented to the household’s servant.
Calling cards became popular at the end of the 18th century and bore the visitor's name, title and residence. Their purpose was to prevent errors by forgetful servants. After all, one could not trust one’s social future to a mere servant’s memory. 

One would generally leave not a single card, but three: one from the lady for the house’s mistress; one from the gentleman for the house’s mistress and another for the house’s master. Calling cards were displayed on special trays often set up on the front hallways, visible to all who came into the house. Cards from high ranking individuals and  titled folks gave additional status to the household displaying their cards.  

If one came without a card, he or she might be snubbed. When a servant received the cards, they would be conveyed to the mistress who would then decide whether to admit or reject the caller. If the servant informed the caller that the mistress was 'not at home', this was code for not wishing to make the acquaintance. On the other hand, if a reciprocal card was formally presented to the visitor, this indicated there was a chance for the relationship to develop.


If one was uncertain as to the reception one might receive, the safest course would be to leave his or her card without asking if the mistress was at home. This would oblige her to reciprocate the call the next day, if only by leaving her own card. Failure to do so was a rebuff, but certainly a less painful one that being rejected at the door. 

Formal calls

There were several other types of 'visits in form', calls considered a duty rather than a pleasure. Duty visits were hard to evade as a decent level of social exchange was expected and individuals  could be rebuked for their inattentiveness. These duty visits included calls to acknowledge hospitality, the newly-married, childbirth, bereavement and those in straitened circumstances.

Calls for condolence and congratulations were typically made about a week after the event. Ceremonial visits to acknowledge parties, balls and other invitations were paid sooner, a day after a ball, within two days of a dinner party and within a week of a small party. These calls would be paid later in the day than ‘morning calls,’ typically between three and four in the afternoon.

Wedding visits were rigorously observed, extending a month or two after the marriage. The neighbors of gentry status would call on the couple in their own home. Then the visits would be returned and possibly one or more parties held in the couple’s honor.   

Calls to the bereaved and suffering were part of the duties of an estate’s mistress.  It was up to her to look after her less fortunate neighbors a personal visit every week or two. On such visits she might deliver food and medicinal preparations made in her own kitchen and still room, give advice, and lend an ear to their complaints. These visits were often the only support system for the indigent in the neighborhood.   

Morning visits

Less formal visits, morning calls were actually paid between the time of rising and that of eating dinner, effectively between  eleven in the morning and three in the afternoon. Earlier calls might interfere with breakfast or a lady’s morning household duties. Later visits might suggest indecorous attempts at securing an invitation for dinner.  The earlier in the day, the less close the acquaintance, the later the greater degree of intimacy between the parties.

Morning visit were expected to last for at least fifteen minutes, but certainly not more than half an hour. Callers were received by men in their business room or library. Women took calls the morning room or in their drawing-room. Pets and children, both regarded as potentially destructive and annoying, were not welcome on morning calls.

What to do during a visit? 

The heart of polite sociability was conversation. The whole purpose of conversation was to please other people and to be deemed pleasing. In general, conversation was tightly controlled by rules of etiquette as well. The list of unacceptable topics far outnumbered the acceptable ones.

Politeness demanded a visitor inquire after the health of absent members of the household.
Similarly, polite individuals did not ask direct personal questions of recent acquaintances.  To question or even compliment anyone else on the details of their dress might also be regarded as impertinent. Personal remarks, however flattering, were not considered good manners. Etiquette manuals counseled such comments should be exchanged only with close family and intimate friends.

Unsurprisingly, scandal and gossip should be omitted from public conversation. Any references to pregnancy, childbirth, or other natural bodily functions were considered coarse and carefully sidestepped. A man could sometimes discuss his hunters or driving horses in the presence of ladies though it was generally discouraged.  Greater latitudes of conversation were allowed when the genders were segregated, particularly for the men.

In order to take advantage of afternoon light, women would continue their needlework during a call.  Sometimes visitors brought their own work or the hostess would offer her visitors pieces to work on. It was considered more genteel to continue with one's 'fancywork' rather than 'plain' shirt-making or mending.

References

A Lady of Distinction   -   Regency Etiquette, the Mirror of Graces (1811). R.L. Shep Publications (1997)
Banfield ,Edwin -Visiting Cards and Cases, Baros Books, Wiltshire, (1989).   
Black, Maggie & Le Faye, Deirdre   -   The Jane Austen Cookbook. Chicago Review Press (1995)
Byrne, Paula   -   Contrib. to Jane Austen in Context. Cambridge University Press (2005)
Day, Malcom   -   Voices from the World of Jane Austen. David & Charles (2006)
Downing, Sarah Jane   -   Fashion in the Time of Jane Austen. Shire Publications (2010)
Hughes, Kristine- The Writer's Guide to Everyday Life in Regency and Victorian England From 1811-1901,   Writer's Digest Books, Cincinnati, (1998). 
Jones, Hazel   -   Jane Austen & Marriage . Continuum Books (2009)
Lane, Maggie   -   Jane Austen's World. Carlton Books (2005)
Lane, Maggie   -   Jane Austen and Food. Hambledon (1995)
Laudermilk, Sharon & Hamlin, Teresa L.   -   The Regency Companion. Garland Publishing (1989)
Le Faye, Deirdre   -   Jane Austen: The World of Her Novels. Harry N. Abrams (2002)
Pool,  Daniel- What Jane Austen Ate and Charles Dickens Knew by, Simon & Schuster, New York, (1993).  
Randall, Rona- The Model Wife Nineteenth-Century Style, The Herbert Press, London, (1989).  
Ray, Joan Klingel   -   Jane Austen for Dummies. Wiley Publishing, Inc. (2006)
Ross, Josephine   -   Jane Austen's Guide to Good Manners. Bloomsbury USA (2006)
Selwyn, David   -   Jane Austen & Leisure. The Hambledon Press (1999)
Trusler, John   -   The Honours of the Table or Rules for Behavior During Meals. Literary-Press (1791)
Vickery, Amanda   -   The Gentleman's Daughter. Yale University Press (1998)



Author bio

Though Maria Grace has been writing fiction since she was ten years old, those early efforts happily reside in a file drawer and are unlikely to see the light of day again, for which many are grateful.

She has one husband, two graduate degrees and two black belts, three sons, four undergraduate majors, five nieces, six cats, seven Regency-era fiction projects and notes for eight more writing projects in progress. To round out the list, she cooks for nine in order to accommodate the growing boys and usually makes ten meals at a time so she only cooks twice a month.

She can be contacted at:
 Facebook: facebook.com/AuthorMariaGrace
On Amazon.com: amazon.com/author/mariagrace
Visit her website Random Bits of Fascination (AuthorMariaGrace.com)
On Twitter @WriteMariaGrace
English Historical Fiction Authors (EnglshHistoryAuthors.blogspot.com)
Austen Authors (AustenAuthors.net)

Book Buy links

Sunday, 21 April 2013

A sensitive writer writes...

...on the subject of critics and reviewers, in particular online reviewers. This is a difficult subject, particularly in light of recent events, so I have to pick my words carefully...

In the 'old days' i.e. pre-internet, book reviews were generally undertaken by freelancers and professionals. The opinion of the general public went largely unheard, except in terms of book sales: if a book was a smash hit bestseller, then people must have liked it.

At least I assume that's how it worked. I'm still relatively young - 34 - and have no clue how the world worked prior to about 1997. I'm just hoping that I can type this stuff and get away with it.

We live in a different era now. Anyone with access to the internet can post a book review on Amazon and other online vendors. By and large, I think this is a good thing. However, we writers are a delicate bunch, and nothing is guaranteed to cause us exquisite emotional pain than being on the wrong end of a bad review.

Until recently I had been lucky. The reviews of my stuff on Amazon and Goodreads had been generally positive, with a few hiccups - one critic pointed out the inclusion of a field of potatoes in my novel set in the fourteenth century, which caused much private alarm and hasty last-minute editing by my publishers.

Occasional historical mistakes aside, I felt safe and smug in the warm glow of positive critical opinion, and assumed that the conveyer belt of four and five-star reviews would keep on rolling forever.

I think you can guess what happened next. One and two-star reviews started to appear, often coupled with remarks that an over-sensitive chick like me was bound to find hurtful. They weren't designed to be, of course. Several comments referred to the sloppy editing of one of my self-published books. This was perfectly true, entirely unacceptable and entirely my fault. I am now in the process of re-editing and revising the book in question.

One reviewer claimed that I had portrayed a historical character as a 'prancing buffoon'. It was not my intention to do so, and I so I responded - politely - and offered a free book to the reviewer as compensation for her disappointment. This was probably the wrong thing to do. Some wise person said recently that book reviews are not for authors, and it is bad form for authors to respond to them.

But here's the thing - justified or not, the negative reviews hurt. They really hurt, and when someone is hurt their instinctive reaction is to lash out. This is precisely what has happened recently, with certain authors setting up sinister self-help groups, the primary aim of which is to hunt down and harass those who dare to leave negative reviews of their books on Amazon.

I can understand the impulse that has led to the creation of such groups, but what they are doing is wrong. It encourages the idea that reviewers are 'out to get' authors, and leads to an atmosphere of paranoia and mistrust. In short, making cyberspace an even more awful place than it is already.

Groups like these make authors look like a malicious bunch who are incapable of responding to criticism in an adult manner. The only decent way to respond to a bad review is to suck it up, take a deep breath, get up from the computer and walk in circles for a bit, perhaps kick the walls and down a stiff brandy or six...but in no circumstances start a hate war on the internet.

Readers might notice I name no names. Cowardly, I daresay, but I don't want to be dragged into the morass. At some point everybody concerned will have to start talking to each other in a reasonable, civilised fashion again.

Probably.