Hello, and welcome to all who have recently joined us. If you’ve stumbled upon this informal newsletter-type post by accident and would like to be reminded about them each month, simply send a ‘please subscribe me to the list’ via the link below.
July: THOUGHTS FROM A DEVONSHIRE FARMHOUSE - IT'S A FACT?
An author friend emailed me recently asking for some research information about horses – in this instance the details of stabling, bedding and feeding them in the 1800s. (I'm sure she wouldn't mind a plug:
Susan Grossey I highly recommend her historical 'whodunits'.) She apologised for asking, but guessed (correctly) that this would be something I knew, so would be quicker and easier for her to ask, rather than research for herself.
I was happy to help out, especially as I have asked her a few things in the past which I knew she would know about. Authors often do this, share information with other authors. What is annoying are those (fortunately in the minority) writers who persistently ask rather than bother to do their own work... and even worse, those who ask but when approached with some sort of reciprocal question respond with, ‘Sorry I’m too busy at the moment.’ Well, I'm busy too, but if I can I always help fellow authors.
The whole matter of doing your own research has got me thinking, however, regarding the forthcoming Parliamentary Election here in the UK, (and my thoughts are as applicable to the US, France and other places. Although the French situation has me totally baffled - I suspect the same is for many French voters also.)
Most of us will probably vote for the party we’ve always voted for, the Party, not the Person. Which as far as I’m concerned is an attitude which lies somewhere between naivety and stupidity. Someone representing the Party is not necessarily going to be the best person for a constituency. Does the candidate actually live in the area - has done so for a long while, and therefore really knows it and the people there? Does the candidate care about the needs of the constituency or is more intent on their own needs? How many of us actually do any research into the candidates who are listed on the ballot paper?
For this UK 2024 election I have done so: I've read the campaign slips which the postman delivers (I bet he's fed up with this, seeing as he has to drive almost 1 mile down a pot-holed lane that more resembles a goat track, only to deliver just these leaflets.) I'm listening to Radio 4's Today Podcasts with Amol Rajan and Nick Robinson. Not that I'm much the wiser, for none of the political parties seem to be telling the truth about anything, or what we really want to hear.
I rarely talk about politics and religion in public (especially not on social media!) because they are two subjects which can stir up a hornet's nest, as both often come with very little tolerance from those who do not respect an opposing view or belief. I openly admit I cannot understand those who support Mr Trump or Nigel Farage (why do they support these dishonourable men???) nor do I understand those who refused to wear a mask during Covid, or who believe Putin is a great guy, or claim that the Holocaust didn't happen. (Or men walking on the moon is all fake...I could go on, but you get my drift). Everyone has a right to their own opinion, of course: what's that saying? “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.” I think this comes from Voltaire? BUT most of these conspiracy theory followers are bigoted and ignorant, and refuse to consider, or even listen to, reasonable opposition. They're right, and that's that. Fair enough, believe what you want but either respect other views as well, or keep yours to yourself.
On the other hand, do we, as intelligent beings, have to put up with the utter tosh that is the fake news or various ridiculous statements spouted by these people?
Regarding the forthcoming election on July 4th, I
always vote. The
Suffragettes campaigned long and hard, and in some cases suffered great cruelty, abuse and even died, in order to obtain the right for women to vote. I honour those ladies by ensuring I place my vote. Although our recent election for a Crime Commissioner didn’t exactly fill me with much interest, mainly because I had no information supplied to me about any of the candidates, except for the present incumbent. So I voted for her. (And anyway she did seem to be doing a good job.)
I also made a few mistakes with previous voting, but I guess nearly all of us can own up to that. I voted for Margaret Thatcher way back when because I wanted to support a woman as a potential Prime Minister. Pity she messed that up. I voted for Tony Blair because I agreed with him about education. Ditto, a pity he turned out to be an enormous disappointment. Voting for the Liberal Democrats was a waste of time with the Clegg/Cameron disaster. Boris Johnson was a brilliant Mayor of London. Maybe he should have stuck with being Mayor, not Prime Minister? Although, another admission: I liked him. I personally think he was stitched up by Tory Traitors (who also stitched Teresa May up). Johnson is actually a very intelligent chap - but I'm convinced he has some sort of dysfunctional disorder on the Autistic spectrum, because how can someone so inwardly intelligent be so outwardly ... well, stupid! Rishi Sunak is the latest to be trashed by Tory Trolls. I feel sorry for the guy and couldn't blame him if he resigns after the election with a 'Stuff you for your non-support, you b*stards.'
Frankly too many of those in the Tory party are lemmings in disguise, all gaily heading at full speed towards the nearest cliff. Good riddance to most of them.
 |
A cartoon depicting lemmings jumping off a cliff en masse
The German text translates to
"Turn back!? Now that we've come this far!?!"
(Wikipedia) |
Sadly, I think the USA is in the same predicament. The outcome for US and UK is rather concerning. (Especially after that WTF debate the other night!)
And the disgrace that is currently Farage's Reform party...? I'm lost for words. Racism, misogyny, anti-gay... echos of the National Front, the BNP - that contemptable lot, and Farage hasn't the honour to condemn the utter nastiness spoken by those associated with his party? Those louts who actually said 'shoot the illegal immigrants' and called our Prime Minister a word I will not repeat. Farage, I am utterly ASHAMED of you - and now all you can do is claim that the vehement garbage your followers spouted was spoken by an actor and recorded as a 'set up' by Channel 4? He is not an actor and it was not a set up but professional undercover reporting by a respected journalist.
And this gambling fiasco? What's the matter with these people? They're supposed to be intelligent enough to run our country, yet they don't know the difference between the sensible and stupid placing of a bet? Frankly, our two dogs, Eddie and Elfie, have more brain power.
For myself, I’m more interested in local level politics rather than national. I want an MP who is going to keep the needs and requirements of North Devon as a priority. So I'm taking a punt on our LibDem candidate, who is a Barnstaple man. I can't stand the present (outgoing, I hope) Tory woman, who, in my opinion is a patronising egotist, who voted FOR the water companies to empty sewage into our rivers, and who claims that Junior Doctors have no right to strike because they earn over £100k a year. No wonder this strike hasn't been sorted while such is believed by Tory MPs. (I must add, though, that I disagree with these strikes, but I can see their point.)
North Devon is a rural farming area, I absolutely didn’t care about whether there should be a high speed train from London to wherever that shaved ten minutes off a timetable. Bus services for a rural community is more important. Being totally selfish, immigration doesn’t concern me much – apart from we don’t have enough seasonal workers to pick crops that are ready for harvesting. Sewage being dumped in our rivers is scandalous, especially as I could be very heavily fined if the runoff from our muck heap is anywhere near a water course that could leak into the nearby River Taw. (Ours isn’t, and doesn’t.) The water companies need to be held to account.
Ditto those at the Post Office who blamed innocent postmasters and mistresses for the Horizon disgrace. The damage caused to so many innocent people? My hearty congratulations to SIR Alan Bates, a rare, genuine hero.
There are several things that baffle me, however, as far as elections are concerned. The assumption by too many that posts on Facebook or X-Twitter are factual for one, or even whether these campaign leaflets we're being bombarded with are factual facts or alternative facts? I suspect they're something in between - exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims.
An American woman connected to Trump several years ago,
defended fake reporting about Mr T's more, let us say, 'fanciful' facts, as ‘Alternative Facts’. How on earth do you get an
alternative fact? There are either Facts, which are undisputed facts...
Fact: I wrote a novel called Harold the King, or something which isn’t a fact:
Earth has two suns. A fact can be disputed, which makes it a thing to be debated:
The sky is blue ... well sometimes it’s black, or purplish or even reddish if you happen to be on Mars. But the alternative to a fact is, therefore, something which
isn’t a fact, so at best unintentional misinformation, or a downright untruth.
Are ghosts fact or alternative facts? I'm curious about this as I've more or less finished writing my book about The Ghosts of North Devon (hopefully published some time in 2025). I guess in this particular instance perhaps 'alternative' is appropriate because it depends on what you do/don't believe or whether you have/haven't seen a ghost. (We have several nice ones living with us in our house.)
So facts.
Facts as far as historical novels are concerned is another matter entirely. There’s many a (I have to say, ‘snide’) reviewer who derides a novel because of incorrect ‘facts’. Someone once laid into me because I used the term ’corn fed’ for horses in my Arthurian trilogy. ‘Corn,’ I was severely admonished, 'is maize. Maize was not known in Britain until the Americas were discovered, so horses in the 5th century could not have been corn fed.'
Ah, here we have a a good example of an ‘alternative fact’! Or rather a misguided, incorrectness. Quite right about the maize, the Americas and the 5th century. Totally wrong about the ‘corn fed’ reference.
In the UK horse world ‘corn fed’ refers to quality feed – oats, barley and such, fed to quality horses. In the past this would have referred to wealthy owners who could afford such feed.
But can we ever be certain that a historical fact is a fact? Marie Antoinette saying ‘Let them eat cake’ is a non-fact, but widely supposed to be a genuine quote. Did Joan of Arc really hear voices – fact, or did she have some sort of illusionary mental disorder? (Personally I believe the former.)
As writers of historical fiction we try our best to get the facts right, because to get them wrong (or to use alternative facts?) can ruin a good story by destroying the believability. Romans eating rabbit and potato stew up on Hadrian’s Wall? Story destroyed... while it is debated whether it was the Romans or the Normans who introduced the Coney into Britain, the potato didn’t appear until several hundred years later, at the time of the Tudors. (Potatoes originated in South America, then North America.)
 |
| Hadrian's Wall |
But, here’s the key word: Fiction. Historical fiction is a story, a version of assumed, recorded facts which may or may not be facts. So maybe as far as Historical Fiction goes ‘alternative facts' can be acceptable?
Even so, before making a fool of yourself, check your facts. By all means query something, but you don't have to be rude or condescending - or totally wrong.
Presidents, Prime Ministers and parliamentary electoral candidates take note: a fact should be a fact, and nothing but a fact, because you are supposed to be intelligent, capable, reliable and trustworthy.
Alas, most seem to have more of a talent for inventing fiction.
.jpg)
