Boudica Series

[Blackbird]

Has anyone else read the ongoing Boudica series by Manda Scott?

I read the first two a fair while back, and aside from a few minor niggles (face it, there would be something wrong if I ever stopped nitpicking ;D ) I quite enjoyed them. The first book is brilliant, the second dragged. The third, which I read last week, is very good.

Manda Scott has created a very personal view of Ancient Britain, and while I don't always agree with her interpretation, I do find the books compelling and evocative. She has certainly captured something of the essence of those times in her writing.

I see that the fourth - and presumably final - volume is out next February.

[Midori]

I've read the first two and am waiting for the third to come out in paperback, so far I like them.

BB Midori

[Brochfael]

I'm going to wait for the third one to come out in paperback before I get it.

I feel Manda Scott has some misinformed ideas about Iron Age Britain in general and it's religious traditions in particular.

I don't understand why she writes of dreamers and singers rather than druids and bards. Her emphasis on animal spirits (in particular about the bear bringing fire) is alien to other Indo-European traditions and seems to me to have been lifted from Native-American spirituality.

There are other images that really don't ring true to me. I get the very strong impression she thinks of the Britons as a sort of metalworking Sioux people which does credit to neither culture.

I shall continue to read the series but I cannot in all honesty recommend it.

If you don't mind his Roman sympathies, Simon Scarrow's "Under the Eagle" series is equally gripping and significantly better researched.

[Blackbird]

Ah, I found a cheap hardback copy in WHSmiths while away. Didn't mind paying a fiver for it, but wouldn't have paid full hardback price ;D

I can understand why she chose not to use 'Druid' and 'Bard'. The general public have many preconceptions about what those words mean. Ask someone what a Druid is, and they'll say that they are masons in white robes who hang round with morris dancers. Ask them what a bard is, and they picture a medieval minstrel. So I can understand her choosing to use different terminology. However, 'Dreamer' certainly isn't a phrase I would have chosen to sum up the role of the Druids - but given how she chose to represent them, I can understand why she chose that word.

I too have nitpicks about her idea of what the British Iron Age was like. But I'm happy to treat it as a well written fantasy novel which is based upon historical characters

I'll look out for the Simon Scarrow book, thanks for the recommendation

[siaron]

I've also read the first two books, will probably read the third.

I have to say I share some of Brochfael's issues with the books. She has a strange take on the whole issue of the spiritual practices of the people. I think the whole battle/conflict with the Romans is done a little better.

I think I liked the first book better than the second.

[branynos]

You might find this article/interview in the Guardian interesting its Manda Scott talking a bit about her inspiration & views
books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,,1488712,00.html

[siaron]

branynos,

Thanks for the link! I enjoyed the article a lot.

[morgaine]

It is interesting... The Druid Branch of our Tradition uses the term 'Dreamer' 'for what most now call 'Ovate.' We use 'Singer' for Bard and 'Pathwalker' for Hunters, Guardians and those who later became warriors. We retain the term Druid for all druidical disciplines combined.

I have seen these terms also in a very few Irish and Scottish references, though I am not now sure which as I came across them while looking for something else entirely. The terms have been used before in time past... though perhaps only regionally. It would take some determined research to be sure on that.

Ms Scott also teaches 'Dreaming.' I do not know if her Dreamers arts are comparable to our own, but it would be interesting to find out someday.

Many blessings,
Morgaine

[Brochfael]

RIGHT
Let's get this settled once and for all
We are about as sure as we can be that Iron Age roundhouses did NOT have smokeholes.

The reason for this are as follows:
Two roundhouses were built, one with a smokehole and one without. The one with a smokehole quickly caught fire and burned to the ground, the one without survived. The reason is this: with a smokehole a strong throughdraught develops coming in through the door and out through the smokehole. This increases the amount of sparks from the fire which settle in the thatch and burn the house down. If however you don't have a smokehole, the smoke still gets out by percolating through the thatch (as long as there is always a fire lit, keeping the thatch from becoming soggy and compacted). It does so slowly preventing strong draughts (which would of course have made the houses uncomfortably cold). A pall of smoke collects about 10 foot off the ground in which there is little oxygen, hence any sparks that do rise to the thatch are put out before they can ignite the thatch. This pall of smoke is an excellent place to hoist meat to store it by smoking it in the days before refrigerators. The smokiness of the thatch helps to waterproof the individual fibres in a virtuous circle enabling the thatch to be waterproof but breathable. It also discourages animals and birds nesting in it of removing it for nests elsewhere.

As far as I'm aware, all reconstructed roundhouses (at least all those with a thatched roof) in Britain habve no smokehole. So I can't think where Manda Scott could have been watching the moon!

Sorry to be so dogmatic but this kind of Fluffy Bunny ignorance by people who are trying to tell us how things were really agravates me

I guess it's my natural stinky badgeriness showing through.

[Blackbird]

;D Long may the Stinky Badger continue to speak clearly and truthfully

I found the article interesting. Manda Scott obviously has a very romanticised view of life in ancient Britain, and neatly divides Romans and Britons into 'them and us'. Of course, the true picture was far more complex.

I was also interested in the way she used the term 'shamanic', without qualifying that word in any way. Like many here, my feathers get ruffled when I see the term being applied to various culture and practices, without any acknowledgement of the problems inherent within that, and without any clue as to what 'shamanic' actually means in the context she's putting it in.

Despite this, I'm still looking forward to the fourth book ;D

edited - as I forgot to say... Morgaine, I wonder if Manda Scott has picked up the terms from your website?

[siaron]

Blackbird said:

edited - as I forgot to say... Morgaine, I wonder if Manda Scott has picked up the terms from your website?

Hmmm, interesting thought. I agree with you, Blackbird, when the term 'shaman' gets bandied about. My feathers really bristle when I hear the term Celtic Shamanism.

From Wikipedia: However, at the present time this term is generally considered to be pejorative and anthropologically inaccurate. Medicine man is preferred, especially as not all traditional peoples approve of the use of shaman as a generic term, given that the word comes from a specific place and people.


I would alter that to add Medicine Woman, but otherwise agree with this statement. The person I know well could best be described as a 'Walker Between the Worlds'.

Pob Bendith

[morgaine]

Sorry... I'm a bit confused.

I do not take Ms. Scott's books as fact. As I understand it, they are fictions built upon whichever threads of historical fact best serve the story, with the rest filled in by imagination. I have no problem with that, as long as she makes no claim for them as "fact." I feel perfectly competent to decipher fact from fiction myself. I do not need Ms. Scott's fictions to do it for me...

I admit, I have strong views on this and they come from a completely subjective perspective: that of personal experience.

Theatre is one form of storytelling. One of the great joys of making theatre (when I was employed doing so) was in sharing a willingness, for the duration of the story, to suspend disbelief! It was actually when theatre was required to become "documentary" or "docu-drama" that it lost its strength and began a slow decline that has, in the US, almost achieved extinction. When I explore fiction, it is not its "fact," but its essence and eloquence of expression that nourishes my soul...

Perhaps the modern unwillingness to suspend disbelief is an expression of a deep need to hear truths which have long been withheld from us... In any case, I do not bear grudge against Ms Scott for taking poetic license in the practice of her art, so long as she claims it is fiction -- even historical fiction.

Just my two cents...

Blessings,

Morgaine

[Blackbird]

I agree completely - hence I can nitpick at the historical bits, but at the end of the day, it doesn't spoil my enjoyment of the books. While I'm reading any fiction - or hearing stories being told - I am completely immersed within the story, the rhythm of the language, the imagery and so forth.

I work in theatre too, so the suspension of disbelief thing is something that I'm stepping in and out of almost daily...

The comments about the roundhouses and the 'shamanic' thing come from the article that Branynos gave us the link to, in which Manda Scott is generally rambling on in a 'What did the Romans ever do for us" kind of way

[Brochfael]

I feel we need to distinguish between pseudo-historical romps like "A Knight's Tale" and other stories that are intended to be believable.

I think Ms Scott intended her stories to be in the latter category.

In addition where historical characters appear in a novel I feel that the Author is honour bound to be as accurate as possible.

I think that the author owes it to the period and the ancestors to be accurate.

Perhaps more importantly inaccuracy makes it very hard for those of us who do know and care about the period (Probably an important section of the target audience) to suspend disbelief and really enjoy the story.

This is why I earnestly feel that Manda Scott should have researched her otherwise excellent books more thoroughly.

[morgaine]

In my understanding, all fiction is intended to be "believable" while the tale is being told; it is not intended as a substitute for "fact."

I would like to see us return to a time when, as adults, we each assume responsibility for discerning between "fact" and "fiction" on our own, instead of relying on others to do it for us.

There is much published as "fact," (I think they call it "news," here in the US) that is completely untrue and absurd, and yet we are expected not only to believe it for the duration of the story, but to ensure that our lives conform to it!

There are "in fact" academic sources supporting Ms Scott's assertions, though they may not be in the majority of opinion. Still, the fact of being "in the majority" has never been a guarantee of being "right" -- if it were, Europe would still define the world as being flat or square, instead of round. From what I can see, it's more a matter of which academic views are in vogue, than anything else.

Roundhouses have been reconstructed with "smoke openings" (thinner coverings at the peak) in which fires have been successfully kept without burning them to the ground. There are several examples owned by private citizens in SouthWest England about which I've read in the past, all of which were reported to be "historically accurate." I assume we would have heard had their owners been burned alive inside them.

I also saw plans for such a Round House (I believe it was at the BBC website last year, though I've seen others as well.) This may not have been "common"... but I do not think it is prudent for anyone living now to make absolute statements about a time which none of us has seen or lived in during this life.

Science itself seldom speaks in absolutes. A careful reader will note that leading scientists, when quoted verbatim, nearly always speak in terms of "theory," not "fact." If the scientists themselves do not profess to possess the "facts," when they are the final authorities of our time, then I do not see how we can unilaterally ascribe "facts" where there is no possibility of directly witnessing the truth of these matters.

But there is also a metaphysical and philosophical issue that demands our attention here, which relates to "Truths" that are Universal, versus "truths" that are personal.

As a Druid, I do not believe in the modern idea that there is "one right answer" or "one right truth," except as regards the existence of certain "Universal Laws" which all cultures and peoples have recognized from ancient times to the present. It is these Laws (and not individual people) which define Universal Truth. These Truths are concerned solely with the governing principles of Being -- the Great Pattern of the Cycle with which all Nature Religions purport to work.

The Laws tell us that "contradictory facts may co-exist simultaneously, and yet both be true" (The Law of Paradox). Thus, even if I held a truth opposite to that of Ms Scott, I must allow for the possibility that her truth is equally valid and real -- however much I may dislike the idea.

I really like this Law, because what it tells me is that there is room in the world for many personal truths to coexist simultaneously. The world is that big... it exceeds the limits of our skin and understanding.

And so we each retain the right to our own realities (for The Law of Mind also tells us that reality -- objective reality -- is defined by our beliefs). Thus there is no need for me to impose my truth (belief) on anyone or have my answer be "the one and only right" one; nor for anyone else to impose theirs on me... This, I think, is the essence of tolerance.

And that is a comforting thing.

In contemplation,

Morgaine

[Blackbird]

As far as I see it, 'accuracy' is often a subjective issue, especially when we are talking about a period of time about which our knowledge is incomplete. All we can do is be aware of archaeological/linguistic/etc. findings, and come to our own conclusions based upon the evidence we find. However accurate we think we are, there will always be a large amount of educated guesswork involved

For factual writings, I agree that it is dishonourable and disrespectful to make assertions which are blatantly not true. I wage a constant war against the 'all the Celts worshipped the Great Goddess and lived in peace and harmony with nature' brigade.

However, I feel that in fictional representations, an author must be allowed artistic license. At the end of the day, most fiction is about entertainment rather than education. I expect that the vast majority of people will read the books, enjoy them and then think nothing more about Boudica's rebellion. The odd person may well be interested enough to do some more reading around the subject - in which case, they will no doubt discover some alternative viewpoints, read the accounts of Tacitus and the like, and generally start to form their own conclusions.

[morgaine]

Exactly!... I am glad you 've said it though, as I sometimes find the differences between American English and British English confounding. Words that appear the same are often "felt" differently across the waters. It's one of the reasons I tend to be wordy, though unfortunately it seldom ends with my being more clear.

Thank you for saying it so concisely and eloquently.

Blessings,
Morgaine

[akasa]

I recently finished the 4th book (have bought the first 3 in paperback, but got the hardback out of the library!) and ihave to say i thoroughly enjoyed the series. I know there are things which are not historically true (or even close) but as a work of fiction which is about an era and subjects that I'm interested in, I loved being able to shut myself away in the story.

Akasa
x

[prosperosdaughter]

Have been a re-enactor on and off for years, and a famous 'anthenti-fascist' (ie: root out inaccuracies!) for most of that. I understand Manda Scott's a former re-enactor, too? Of the fluffier kind.

But when it comes to historical novels, authenticity/accuracy's not entirely crucial, I think. So long as there's nothing glaringly bad in there - so long as Boudicca isn't astride a motorbike, I can probably turn a blind eye.

What I really disliked about these books was their flaccid characters. I wanted Boudicca dead by the end of the first chapter, virtually - and I was positively cheering on the Romans by the end of the novel! Worse still, the total lack of a plot. I like to be drawn in. Maybe I'm a simple soul! But with characters who you didn't care whether they lived or died and plotting scarcer than hens' teeth - I thought they were a waste of a concept.