Maty's blog
| 2022-11-04 |
| Just Write, dammit! |
| Writing a book is straightforward,yes? Not simple, as anyone who has tried it will testify, but a reasonably unconvoluted process. You research the thing, write it up, send it off, and hopefully a publisher accepts it. Then you're done apart from getting the final printed volume in your hands and accepting the accolades of friends and a grateful public. If only it were so. My position these days is more fortunate than that of many writers in that I'm an accepted author (having twenty-plus books to my name does that). So to most publishers I'm a known quantity. Therefore a book idea is arrived upon when I or a publishing editor gets an idea and we discuss it until the idea has become a potential book that is writeable -for me – and sellable -for the publisher. This then needs to be hammered out into a contract (usually a Memorandum of Understanding) involving some complex legal issues around copyright and royalties. The next thing is often a dummy. That is, the publisher wants to sell to other publishers overseas, and those publishers don't want to buy a pig in a poke, so they ask for a sample chapter. On occasion I've had the overseas rights to a book sold before I've even started the introduction. Usually though there's one polished chapter produced before the rest of the book and that serves as a model for the rest. Writing is less straightforward than it should be because it's done on the writer's schedule. And for many people that means that the writer can evidently make time to do some morning shopping, a bit of gardening, an afternoon bridge game … .Perhaps the worst thing about these people taking unfair advantage of the writer's flexitime is that the main culprit is generally the writer him or herself. Indeed as I write this I have bagels baking in the oven, snow to shovel outside, and at least two publishers breathing down my neck for material on various projects. And as you can see, we've barely started research for the rest of the book yet … (continued next month – hopefully. Christmas is another major time sink.) |
| 2022-10-03 |
| History … of what? |
The other day I was annoyed yet again by the idea that 'history' is somehow a sexist word because – after one inserts an extra 's' - it can be read as 'his story'. The word actually comes from Greek and means 'inquiry'. Should we also excise or amend 'helix', 'hegemon' and 'hemisphere' because they are words from Greek that begin with 'he'? Nevertheless, what stops this from being another loony idea from the far shores of political correctness is the sad fact that history often is 'his story' – written by males about men who made the record by demonstrating why 'toxic' masculinity also is not just a wokey buzzword. Now I'm not arguing that this sort of history is unimportant – events in Ukraine show that this toxic mentality still exists among world leaders and the implications and consequences need to be studied. However, there's another kind of history that seems to me more interesting. The development of Roman swords is doubtless fascinating – gory instruments of destruction always have a morbid appeal. Yet even in the Roman legions some soldiers spent an entire career without drawing a gladius in anger. But (for example) how about the development of Roman toothbrushes – implements that they probably wielded every day? How much do we know about them? We know an awful lot about Roman attitudes to warfare, but how did the Romans feel about oral hygiene? This is the sort of thing that is actually fundamental – you can't understand Romans without understanding their society and a society starts with the minor details. Even if you are a 'big history' enthusiast who prefers to read about the deeds of great men, these details matter. It's the trivial things that shape who we are, how we think and our concepts of the world, and these feed through into how we take decisions and act. If we do not understand the Roman concept of things like honour, love and death, we run the risk of assuming that Romans thought just as we do today – and they most definitely did not. |
| 2022-09-04 |
| Global or Local? |
| Recently I've been debating globalization with an economist friend of mine. He argues that 'comparative advantage' means that we get cheaper goods from – for example – China than can be produced locally. To which I respond that those cheaper goods enrich American billionaires and the Chinese but don't do much for people locally. And since 'supply chain issues' have become an excuse for all types of commercial failure, his argument is currently looking somewhat weaker. As a historian I point out that over ninety percent of what was consumed by an ancient city was produced by that city, and that proportion went up, not down as the Roman empire became more established. Why, when our neighbours can grow plums in their back yard, does our local supermarket import them from California? In short I'm something of a localist – indeed, much of what we eat is grown in our garden or baked my my oven. A lot of our energy comes from solar panels on the roof, and my clothes are sourced locally (from the thrift shop – fortunately sartorial elegance is not a social requirement hereabouts). Nevertheless, as my economist friend points out, my own position is somewhat hypocritical. After all, my books sell in over thirty countries in over a dozen languages. You can't get much more global than that. |
| 2022-08-04 |
| Vote for Democracy! |
| Lately I've been following a debate about whether the dysfunctional democracy of the Late Republic was better or worse than the (relatively) efficient autocracy of the early empire. The word 'freedom' is thrown around a lot, though there's a counter-argument that no-one in a civilized society is truly free. If you want roads, some safety from violence and health care you need to submit to a degree of coercion - usually manifested by police and taxes. The best you can do is pick your masters - and in a dysfunctional democracy the choice is limited. (For example between an octogenarian in cognitive decline and an unstable demagogue.) The issue is not driven by just ancient history either - at present countries such as China are making a strong propaganda pitch for the 'efficient autocracy' model. The problem is that efficient autocracies never stay that way. Eventually an Augustus becomes a Nero, and then succession issues get involved. In the end one is forced to agree with Churchill's comment that 'Democracy is the worst form of government ever invented - with the exception of all the other kinds that have been tried from time to time.' Also, democracies are built to be messy. There are demonstrations, and even riots at irregular intervals. Periodically the government ends up in the hands of people you wouldn't trust with a toy train set. That's not a problem with the system - it IS the system. So in the end it boils down to whether or not you believe that people are capable of governing themselves. And equally importantly, if you don't think so, what's the alternative? (Before you decide, read Plato's 'Republic', where he and his fellow philosophers decide that the best people for the job of running what seems like a totalitarian nightmare are 'good men' like themselves.) |
| 2022-07-04 |
| Modern Mythologers |
| Enough is enough? After watching a few Hollywood abominations describing the world of Greek myth, it is understandable that anyone with an interest in the subject would want to sign a petition begging the illiterate morons who pen some of this garbage to Just. Stop. Yes, you folks who wrote 'Hercules' for Disney, and 'Clash of the Titans' I'm appealing particularly to you. And yet … when you get past people who should never be allowed within a mile of a Greek or Roman myth, you'll find some intelligent and interesting takes on the topic. Most of these are the written word and unlike big-screen effluent, they approach the myths sympathetically and respectfully. Some of these stories fill in the background by enlarging on the lives of minor characters. Usually these are women, though we should be wary of the trope that Greek myths are invariably about overly-macho males. More of the plays of Euripides have female protagonists – and strong protagonists - than they have males. Nevertheless, writers like Madeline Miller ('Circe' and 'The song of Achilles') and comedian-mythologist Stephen Fry are producing highly-readable texts in the genre, and I heartily recommend Spurling's 'Arcadian Nights'. There are also some good modern translations about for those who prefer their Greek characters not to sound like Shakespearean actors. Try John Dolan's 'Iliad' for example. Overall it is fascinating to see how generation after generation still engages with the Greek myths – at least in part because these are stories which cut directly to the heart of the human condition. The myths won't get old until the human race itself changes. Achilles eternally demands his rights from a powerful and selfish boss. The prize of their power struggle, Briseis, refuses to be just a pathetic victim and instead schemes and manipulates others as she struggles to improve her lot. There's egotistical, bombastic Ajax and coolly vicious Athena, and that's just a sample from one work -'The Iliad'. By all means read some of the modern derivations – even Percy Jackson, if you really must. But don't forget the raw power of the original texts. |
page 1 page 2 page 3 page 4 page 5 page 6 page 7 page 8 page 9 page 10 page 11 page 12 page 13 page 14 page 15 page 16 page 17 page 18 page 19 page 20 page 21 page 22 page 23 page 24 page 25 page 26 page 27 page 28 page 29 page 30 page 31 page 32 page 33 page 34 page 35 page 36 page 37 page 38 page 39 page 40 page 41 page 42 page 43