Tim Hodkinson's Blog, page 8
April 8, 2012
Happy Easter. Happy Freya's day?
It's one of those curious paradoxes that Easter, like Hell, was originally a pagan word. Setting Hell aside for a time (hopefully a long time J ), I've been thinking about the origin of Easter lately, and probably because I'm choc-full of Easter eggs this morning I've decided to write them down.
The English historian Bede, writing in the seventh century, recorded what little we know about the pre-christian English calendar in his work "The Reckoning of Time". He also explained how we came to use a pagan term for a Christain celebration. Translated, chapter 15 of his work outlines how the fourth month of the Anglo Saxon year was called Eosturmonaþ-Easter Month- "after a goddess of theirs [the Pagan English] named Eostre". He goes on to say that the reason the name persisted into Christian times was that feasts or celebrations were held in honour of this goddess in that month, and that the English kept the name for traditional reasons: "calling the joys of the new rite by the time-honoured name of the old observance".
So who was "Eostre"? There is a fair amount of speculation about it, but most works tend to say that her origins are "obscure", mainly because there does not seem to be any other references to a specific female goddess of that name, nor an equivalent in the Old Norse pantheon. However, a little bit of conjecture can lead us to a reasonable (well to me anyway) conclusion. As we are in the territory of historical irony, the ancient northerners (anglo Saxons, norse etc.) seemed to think their gods came from the East. It must cause some degree of discomfort to modern day white supremacists that the Vikings they think of as their ancestors referred to their Gods as "Aesir"- quite literally "Asians". It's also cognate with "Easterners" or "From the East" which again is usually referred to as for reasons "now obscure". I have a theory about this too: It's relevant to stars in the night sky, but that's for another post sometime. Or maybe the "great Viking novel" I'll hopefully someday get round to writing.
This concept seems to go right back into the mists of time to the roots of the Germanic pagan religion (or maybe further) as the pagan Anglo-Saxons who became the English used the term "Os" for their deities, which also denotes the East. "Eostre" (with the root of our modern word "East" fossilized in it) is a female variation of the same concept, so to me the likely conclusion is that "Eostre" was not the actual name of the goddess, but a term referring to one of the female pagan gods we already know about. There were a few female pagan Germanic monsters (like Hell), but not that many goddesses, and really it comes down to just 2 main ones: Frigg (after whom the day Friday is named) and Freya. There is lots of further speculation that these two were probably originally the same persona, only split apart in the later dark ages, so in the time period we are talking about for the pagan anglo-saxons (4th or 5th century) the chances are that they were one.
So the most obvious conclusion is that if Frig/Freya was important enough to name a day of the week after, then she was probably also loved enough to have a spring festival called after her. So happy Easter, and happy Eostre.
Given Frigg/Freya's associations with fertility, it makes me look at those eggs again too…
March 25, 2012
Review of "The Lion Wakes" by Robert Low
The Lion Wakes by Robert LowMy rating: 4 of 5 stars
For most people who did not grow up in Scotland, Mel Gibson's movie "Braveheart" is their first introduction to the events of the Scottish Wars of Independence. That, or hearing "Flower of Scotland" bellowed out around Murryfield, never more louder than when the opponents are from south of the border. For anyone who is aware of the actual complexities, brutality, contradictions and real-life heroics and very real villainy of those violent decades around the turn of the Fourteenth Century, Gibson's portrayal of events is enjoyable, but ultimately an over simplified version of events that somehow leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth. Sort of like the steaks you get in the cheaper restaurant chains in America: they are large and juicy but full of artificial sweeteners, tenderisers and growth hormones and ultimately bland. In real life, heroes can sometimes be villains, and sometimes even villains can act bravely.
So it was with some trepidation that I picked up Robert Low's "The Lion Wakes", which deals with the same events. Low's "Oathsworn" series of Viking books were fantastic and something I thoroughly enjoyed, but what would he do with the Anglo-Scottish wars?
I need not have worried. If "Braveheart" was USDA steak, pre-tenderised for easy digestion, this is pure Aberdeen Angus beef, cooked rare and still bloody, with plenty of gristle to chew on and bursting with flavour.
The style of the narrative is episodic, showing vignettes of action and characters across the years, sometime landing right in the middle of the action when the fighting has already begun, but when trying to cover such a vast sweep of history it is an effective device and manages to keep the narrative moving at a fast pace.
A host of memorable individuals, both historical and fictional, populate this book from the nameless Dog Boy to Robert Bruce himself. There are no cardboard cut-outs or "stock" characters here. Throughout the novel, Robert Low manages to bring these medieval people back to life and shows how they change and grow with the events around them (well the ones who survive anyway). For me the most interesting character was Bruce himself, who transforms from a medieval equivalent of a feckless rich playboy to someone who led his country to freedom. This seems to be a theme in the book: What really is the nature of heroism? What makes "heroes" and what motivates them. Are any of our heroes as clear cut as we think? William Wallace appears here too, but in a big, violent, frightening and ultimately more recognisable guise than Gibson's simplistic messianic portrayal.
Robert Low does a great job of portraying the reality of life in late Thirteenth Century Scotland. Castles are cold, drafty stone and wood tower houses rather than Disney-style Camelots, armour rusts in the rain, boils itch in the sweaty heat and the freezing cold of the Scottish winter almost leaks from the pages.
There is no doubt the language used in the dialogue can at times be challenging. Robert Low chooses to use authentic Scots and there is no easily accessible glossary (at least in the Kindle edition). However, it is still English, and like arriving in any new country once you become accustomed to it, not only is it perfectly intelligible but it undoubtedly adds to the authentic flavour of the book.
So in short a great read. Its not an easy read, but then any challenging piece of writing that seeks to both tell a story and explore the underlying themes and motivations of the people involved in real events never is. If you want your history fed to you half chewed on a plastic spoon, this is not the book for you. If you want something more satisfying then this is it. I can't wait to read the next in the series.
View all my reviews
February 19, 2012
1315
October 23, 2011
Book launch at Carrick castle
October 17, 2011
Paperback available
This Saturday (22nd October) will see the book launch for "Lions" at Carrickfergus castle, where a lot of the action takes place in the novel.
Its running from 11 till 3 and there will be tours of the castle available, including one especially for kids. Some guys from the Kragfergus Living History Group will be doing a demonstration of weapons and fighting from the early 14th century and the time of Edward Bruce's invasion (when the book is set).
Its all very exciting and if anyone is around the East Antrim area of Northern Ireland next saturday and wants to see the actual place where the action in my book takes place, wants to say hi, or just wants to visit one of the best preserved Norman castles in these islands, you are very welcome -normal castle entry fee applies, though its only a couple of quid.
Lions of the Grail
August 12, 2011
large step
The big news is I've taken a significant step into the world of print and invested in 250 printed copies of LOTG .
Lets see how this goes
July 21, 2011
Adventures in publishing
My novel Lions of the Grail has been available for the kindle at Amazon since mid-June, on Smashwords for 5 days, as well as in printed form from lulu
So hows it going?
Well I'm not a millionaire yet :-) , however I'm pleasantly surprised to report that I've sold 32 copies, which isn't bad I suppose for starters. Also things seem to be settling down to a steady one or two copies a day. Hopefully this will start to multiply as folk read and recommend it.
Things I've learned so far:
Time spent proof reading before ordering any printed copies is time VERY well spent. I've gone through 4 versions of the book and wasted money on mistakes on the cover, unintentional blank pages etc.
"Standard Manuscript Format" is NOT print format. I submitted my manuscript as I would to a publisher or agent: 12 point font, A4, double spaced. A printer kindly pointed out that printed novels dont look like that. Removing the double spacing and setting the page size to A5 knocked 40% off the price of printing the book.
The profit margin on kindle way outstrips printed books.
Its very hard to make any profit selling hard copies: High street book chains like Waterstones won't order books from independants and you have to have an account with a book distributer like Gardeners or Bertrams that they will order through. That means you must have an ISBN (which costs money). Distributors also expect a 60% discount. The average price for a paperback fiction book is £8.99. If you sell the book to Gardeners at a their expected discount rate that mean syou have to find a way of printing the book at £3.50 before you can break even (don't forget postage etc!)
An agent just told me that if I've published on kindle no publisher will now touch my book. Oops. One thing I should mention is that before heading down the self publishing route, make sure you've exhausted the "traditional route".Tomorrow I've an advert on kindleboards.com all day, so it will be very interesting to report how that goes.
August 20, 2010
What happened to scary vampires?
So vampires are now the new Rock and Roll. The characters of "True Blood" have appeared on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine, provoking the desired Pavlov's dog-like outrage in the conservative media.
As a long time horror fan and lover of vampire films and literature, True Blood (and the rest of the "vampire fantasy" genre it belongs to) offends me in a different way.
Today, the undead have lost their bite. Once a terrifying creature, risen from the grave to feast on the blood of the living, the vampire has become of late little more than a vapid supermodel whose "heroin-chic" look has gone too far, leaving him or her to wander aimlessly through tedious teen soap opera-like TV shows, more worried about relationships, moral dilemmas and generally looking good as opposed to what they are supposed to be doing: Draining mortal blood and scare the bejesus out of us.
What happened to genuinely frightening vampires? How did the Prince of Darkness become a creep from Beverly Hills 90210?
If anything, becoming "the new rock and roll" is the kiss of death for anything that once could call itself edgy, dangerous or even (dare I say it?) frightening. Pretty much like the band that shares the magazine's name, having your picture on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine basically means you are now in the mainstream: You've been absorbed into a corporate world, sanitized, made-over to take off your rough edges and repackaged to make you acceptable for mass consumption. Your main purpose is now to make money. Not that there is anything wrong with making money, but when its at the expense of something I have a high regard for, then it irks me, to say the least.
For me, some of the most genuinely terrifying moments in literature and on the screen have involved vampires in some way.
I'm pretty sure most people my age (I'm hitting 40) still have the odd nightmare about the vampire kid floating outside the window in Salem's Lot that they first saw on TV thirty years ago. There was something inherently creepy about that pale face combined with the spine wrenching masterstroke of having him scrape his fingernails down the glass that hit a very raw, very primal nerve and has haunted our sleep ever since.
Salem's Lot's Lord of the Vampires, Barlow, managed to overcome having what must be the most un-horrific name of any of the un-dead by recreating the appearance of that most frightening of all vampires to have appeared on screen: Count Orlok from the seminal horror movie, Nosferatu. Let's face it, there's no way that particular vampire could be mistaken for someone from the cast of "The Hills". The first appearance of the Count as he emerges from the shadows with his bald head, pointed ears and rat-like fangs still manages to provoke a little shiver. Not bad for a movie that is close to 90 years old.
TV version aside, the written version of Salems Lot surpasses it in terms of scariness. Without the pictures being supplied, there is nothing that can scare you as much as your own imagination. The same can be said for Bram Stoker's original novel Dracula, or to give it its other title "The Great Undead". The whole book is an incredible read, both as a thriller and with some genuinely horrific moments. I urge fans of the modern sexy, disinfected vampire genre to give it a read and see what pale imitations of this Victorian masterpiece present day vampire fiction has become. And if you like it, for something both weird and frightening, go further and read the novella that was one of Stoker's influences, "Carmilla" by Sheridan le Fanu. This has it all. Creepy castles, undead that stalk the night, dream-like scenes that merge into nightmare, eccentric vampire hunters, stakes through the heart and all spiced up with distinct overtones of lesbianism. Beat that "Twilight Saga"!
I recently watched the Hammer Horror film "The Satanic Rites of Dracula" (for some reason now in the public domain) and realised that by the 1970s vampires had become a bit of a clichéd joke. Something had to change, but did it have to change in such a depressing way?
I was trying to identify where the rot set in, and at first I thought it was with Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but to blame Buffy would be like poking a stick at a much loved pet puppy. Buffy never took itself seriously, which is where all these new shows go wrong. Probably the worm at the heart of all this was Anne Rice. In my opinion it was her modern gothic fantasy tales (and the film versions of them) that did most to create this modern plague of impossibly good looking vampires who are overwhelmed with the moral dilemmas involved in gaining immortality through killing others. Did Christopher Lee look like he was burdened by ethical questions when he rose from the grave, red eyes blazing and fangs barred? Did he Hell.
But why does this annoy me? What is so bad about making vampires "more accessible"?
I guess it must be a combination of becoming a grumpy old man (as I said I'm hitting 40) with the general feeling that somehow True Blood, Twilight and their like are vampires-lite, saccharine substitutes for the real thing.
The fact is I want to be scared. I enjoy it. I love the ghost train at the amusement park and the creepy feeling of walking past a cemetery at night. I love ghost stories and I still recall the sheer thrill of listening to them as a kid round the campfire at cub camp. Its cathartic and its, well fun, probably childish fun, but what's wrong with that?
If you take away the frightening aspect of a vampire all you are left with is a quite frankly ludicrous concept of a corpse risen from the dead. Vampires need to be scary, otherwise they are just plain silly, mere goblins or elves that belong with the creatures from the Lord of the Rings, rather than demons from Hell who belong with the Children of Cain who stalked the night in Beowulf. They are like alcohol-free beer: with the fun bit taken out, all you are left with is something that does not do you any harm but you do not really enjoy.
March 23, 2007
Qcon London 2007
So, it's a week since attending QCon and with seven days to reflect on everything, what were the main things I took away from the conference?
Probably the clearest impression left on my mind was the conviction that web development is changing, and changing very quickly. State, Rich functionality and some business model are moving to the client and server side components are becoming data servers. The model is evolving towards the old client server one. What technology will dominate here is presently unclear, but eventually there will be a few big winners, and given there are currently around 500 Ajax frameworks about, a lot of losers.
Other nuggets of gold:
October 27, 2006
London warmth
