Anna says:

I don’t think the comparison with [other writers] is entirely fair on you, [others have] been a writer for longer, and [have] written/published far more material then you have after all. That does not make [another writer] a ‘better’ writer or you and ‘inferior’ one. It’s a bit like claiming C.S Lewis Narnia series was ‘better’ then Tolkien’s Middle Earth Saga because it was initially more successful and has wider appeal (Tokien for all his genius could be a little tedious, bless him).

I think one of the reasons [other writers'] novels are perhaps more popular is because some of them pander (or should I say ‘appeal’) more to 21st century ‘politically correct’ values and beliefs. This Medievalist however is more inclined to gravitate to the novels that better Reflect Medieval views attitides and behaviours, and are a little less anachonistic in that sense. In my view this is the better approach, though the former seems to sell more books. Again that does not nessecarily make one writer better than another.

Take comfort from tha fact that J.R.R Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings Trilogy did not have much success initally, but they sure do now!

Anna says:

I think you have done that brilliantly, and I that setting and events can be ‘real’ and true to the Historical fact, without necessarily being about real people or events. To use the comparsion of Tolkien again.

He put all the knowledge he had about the Anglo-Saxons into the fictional country of Rohan. Their langauge and thier names were Old English, Edoras was based on an actual Royal hall that was discovered, and many of the aspects of thier culture were based on things he actually knew about the Historical Saxons.

In other words he used all he knew about a real cultures and civilisations to create a realistic ‘fictional’ one.

Too true what you say about writing. I think some authors, Christian or otherwise are so busy trying to please other people and make thier books more popular that they compromise thier own ideals or values in the process.

The only thing I ever write is essays, and the occasional Historically related Blog post. My last one was on the Southampton Plot for instance, and before that on Guy of Lusignan and Sybilla of Jerusalem.

That is very different from writing a novel I know. If I were writing a novel set in the Middle Ages I think I would find there was real conflict between the expectations of a modern audience who (hypotetically) might want to see sexually emancipated women who out-do and outsmart men in every way, and are accountable to nobody, and what I knew to be the reality of how the majority of women lived, and related to thier society and culture at that time.

Venetia says:

I just started the Annies Attic Mysteries series I think that I will really enjoy reading this series . I love reading books about interesting things that people find in houses so this should keep me interested.

Anna says:

I know its boring to keep harping on about this, but something that I have only really begun to appreciate recently is the Medieval attitude towards reputation, and how it corresponded to people’s roles in society.

It always seemed to be a little sexist that it was seen as acceptable for Noblemen and Kings in the Middle Ages to have mistresses, but not for women to bahave in that way. It just seemed like chauvanism.

Now though I understand that there were reasons for this atttude. It the days before DNA tests it would have been nigh on impossible to determine the paternity of child absolutely, whereas you could be pretty sure of the maternity.

Of course when a King or nobleman married he would want to be sure that the Children his wife bore were his, if they were not the consequences could be disastrous. For example if that nobleman’s only son was believed to be illigitimate, his brother, uncle or cousin might decide that he had should be the one to inherit, and this could of course result in great instablitity, upheaval, murder, feuding, strife and even civil war.

In other words the long-term consequences of what mught appear to be a minor or trivial misdeed could be disastrous for the whole region or kingdom, and harmful for a lot of people.

In that context I can understand why women in particular sought to maintain a good reputation (even if in private they were doing the opposite) and would not usually have publicly broadcasted thier indiscretions. This was because ultimately a nobleman would probably have chosen a woman who was of good reputation as his wife, rather than a women who had a reputation for behaving Promiscuously.

Anna says:

Of course that’s the best way, but I think the boundary between one and the other could have been rather blurred especially in the context on Middle Ages. Could the oath of fealty subjects were expected to make to a new King or his coronation be reagarded as ‘compulsion’ for instance?

Still that was a different world with differnt values and priorities. Medieval people would probably find some our our ways backwards or absurd I think.

Anna says:

Don’t worry I fully understand why you used things the way you did, and how the ‘constriants of his time’ really effected Philip and the choices he could make.
That’s why I often saythat Medieval nobles did not have things easy , contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe.

I agree with what you say about leadership, everyone needs someone to keep them in order, and people can’t just be allowed do do what they like, not matter how unfair that may seem. Otherwise there would just be anarchy.

I suppose monarchy (or in England’s case parliamentary/consitutional monarchy) and the duties/repsonsiilities that went along with it was just the system that worked best in Medieval European society, in spite of its shortcomings.