Revelations

Things have been going well with the new series. For example, yesterday I realised that two storylines I thought belonged in different books - one about an abduction and one about a shipwreck - actually weaved together really well in the one book.

Some of the characters are still fluid; I can picture their purpose but not their personality. I originally thought one character - a young boy - could foretell the future, but at some I realised that I was actually thinking of another person entirely, and I discovered that the little boy was actually a healer.

Revelations like these take me by surprise because I don't know where they come from.

Sometimes I worry that there are too many people in these stories. There are really only a few main characters but then there are lots of minor characters and even more incidental ones. There are some characters who are only minor in themselves but who play important functions in terms of the plot. And there are some who are only mentioned in early stories but who become crucial later on.

It worries me because in Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series, there are quite a few characters introduced in the first novel - the main characters, their high school friends and families etc. Some of these fade from importance in the second book and aren't replaced until the third book, when the werewolves become prominent. And then suddenly halfway through the fourth book there are vampires, vampires everywhere! It's so difficult to remember who's who that Meyer lists the covens at the end of the book.

I don't want to put my readers in a situation where they read a name and can't put a face to it. I want them to know everybody. Which means I need to limit the numbers of characters as best I can and properly introduce all the necessary ones, so when they reappear somewhere, the readers don't say 'um, who's this?' but 'yay, so-and-so's back!'

the freedom of fiction

Now that I've started talking about this new series, I can't seem to stop. Today I'm debating something that's been going around in my mind for weeks: Should I set my story in some kind of real historical or geographical basis or should I cut all ties with reality and set the story in my own world? I'm not talking about the difference between fiction and non-fiction; one of my characters can summon a wind at will, so obviously I can't be writing non-fiction! But should I do a Temeraire and set my fantasy in a historical reality?

Arguments for using reality:
Some things in my story, for example certain places, are directly based on locations that really exist. James Firth comes from Ireland; Duarte comes from Spain; the enemy is French, etc. If I say that James is Irish, then it's easier to explain that the 'English' mistrust him. And it won't confuse the reader so much if I use the real names of the countries; if I create names for these places, then the reader has to get their head around entirely made-up nationalities, cultures and histories. Even if those countries bear a resemblance to a country the reader's familiar with, rewembering all the names, politics and allegiances can still be tiresome.
And the whole storyline is set in the general context of the Napoleonic War, including the neutral ally (Spain) that becomes an enemy, the brief peace and return to war, etc. I could simply lay out at the beginning that the story takes place in that era, and save myself lots of contextualising.

Arguments against using reality:
Reality comes with constraints. I don't have to obey them, but knowing me, I would feel obliged to do so. I would have to research the war and fit my story into its timeline, research geography and stick with its distances, research historical attitudes and incorporate them. But if I ignore reality and set the story in my own world, then the war can last as long as I please, Spain and India can be neighbours, and it can be acceptable for a merchant's daughter to sail in a ship full of men.
And of course, it's not as though the ability to call a wind at will is realistic. I am writing fantasy, after all. It's not that reality has no place in fantasy or that fantasy has no place in reality, but ultimately, can't fantasy be my excuse for using my imaginary world? The world that I've transposed from the real one?

The winner:
It looks as though my future readers will have to get their heads around entirely made-up nationalities, cultures and histories. I'm leaving reality behind, baby!

the new series

I suppose I should finally break my silence on my new project. Especially since it's not new anymore because I've been working on it for at least six months now, albeit with a fairly vague definition of 'working on it'.

I'm now up to the point where I've mapped out the main plot points of the first book and sketched out a very general outline for the following three. The fifth book is only one line long at the moment and may never get any longer. I'm not entirely happy with the preceding plots, either, but I'll work on them. Most of the important characters have been nailed down, although they won't all keep their current names.

Anyway. I discovered these two characters shortly before I went overseas. Goodness knows what made me think of them. It was probably a mix of things; my obsession with sea-going characters (Jack Aubrey and Stephen Maturin, Horatio Hornblower) and my growing excitment about my own upcoming adventure.

Whatever sparked their creation, those characters saved my sanity and my happiness as I travelled. I lived mostly in my head for those three months and those two adventurers went everywhere with me. We rode in palanquins in Edo Tokyo, took a monkey into Notre Dame in Paris, got kidnapped by pirates along Italy's Amalfi coast, were intimidated by a wealthy prince in Florence and got homesick for our little village in Wales.

I wrote a few brief scenes while I was travelling (the only writing I did that whole time) and when I got back I began to sift through all the adventures for the bones of the plot. I had always known it would be more than one story - or rather, that the one, over-arching story would consist of several chronological stories - so I needed to assemble that. And that's where I'm up to.

the premise

What if Napoleon Bonaparte had successfully invaded England? Only it wasn't England, but a country more wild and beautiful and secretive. And what if Napoleon was no ordinary general, but a mage with powers to curse the land, manipulate the seasons and beguile the people?

His name was Lothaire, an immortal, and he came with darkness and blood to slaughter the Parliament of Mages. For centuries he drained the power and beauty from the mountains, the forests, the fields, even the people themselves. His redcoats ruled each town and village like small kingdoms, each regiment a tyrant, each peasant a victim. None could withstand him.

Until a peasant girl, a highwayman and a brooding hermit took shelter in a long-abandoned, cavernous castle called Broughton Keep.

what's in a name?

Brand. Anglo-Saxon form of Old Norse Brandr, meaning 'sword'.
Brander. Perfect.

Edlyn. Anglo-Saxon, meaning 'noble maiden'.
Eirdlyn.
Airdlyn. Airdy. Perfect.

Broughton. Anglo-Saxon, meaning 'from a fortified town'.
Perfect.

Peregrine. Latin, meaning 'adventurer',
Perine. Latin, meaning 'wanderer'.
Perinor.
Yes. Perfect.

Cullen. Irish, Gaelic, meaning 'handsome'.
Cedrick. Old English, Welsh, possibly means 'war chief'.
Cadogan. English for Welsh Cadwgawn, meaning 'battle glory'.

Edmund. English, Old German or Irish, meaning 'rich protector'.
Edmund, Edmund. Wealthy guardian.
Edmund Broughton.
Yes. Perfect.

Napoleon. Old German, meaning 'son of mist'.
Lothaire. French for German Lothar, meaning 'people's warrior'.
Name of Kings and Emperors who invaded, betrayed and fell.
Lothaire. Perfect.

Dalin. Irish, meaning 'blind'.
Cadfarch. Welsh, meaning 'battle horse'.

Bane. Bane?

a byronic hero?

The internet is a lovely, fluid thing. And tonight it led me to a surprising discovery about one of my characters.

It started when a 'painting' caught my eye on deviantart.com, a site a haunt not because I have any talent, but because others there do, and I frequently find pieces that spark my imagination. This piece was of a character in a book by Anne Rice. I've often come across her name and know she writes about vampires (I've seen the film version of Queen of the Damned, which apparently butchers the book) but this time I decided to investigate more closely. So I went to her website.

I skimmed into the study questions for Interview with the Vampire and found that Louis the vampire is considered a Byronic hero. I immediately googled 'Bryonic hero', because all I know about Lord Byron I learned from Tom Stoppard's play Arcadia, and that wasn't much.

Wikipedia lists these qualities as Byronic:

• high level of intelligence and perception
• cunning and ability to adapt
• sophistication and education
• self-criticism and introspection
• mysteriousness, magnetism and charisma
• struggle with integrity
• power of seduction and sexual attraction
• social and sexual dominance
• emotional conflicts or moodiness - suffers from titanic passions
• a distaste for social institutions and norms
• being an exile, an outcast, or an outlaw
• 'dark' attributes not normally associated with a hero
• disrespect of rank and privilege (though he may possess it)
• a troubled past - a hidden curse or crime
• cynicism
• arrogance
• self-destructive behaviour

And it occurred to me that my Brander might fit this list.

He doesn't quite, though. I'll go through it again.

• high level of intelligence and perception √ Yes, although I'm not so sure he's terribly perceptive
• cunning and ability to adapt √ He evades capture and lives in foreign countries
• sophistication and education √ He's lived as a noble and spent centuries studying magery
• self-criticism and introspection ? Hm, possibly
• mysteriousness, magnetism and charisma √ Naturally!
• struggle with integrity √ I suppose he feels torn between using Airdlyn and caring for her
• power of seduction and sexual attraction √ Yes, I guess so, in gentle, subtle way
• social and sexual dominance ? I'm not so sure... Airdlyn holds her ground well
• emotional conflicts or moodiness - suffers from titanic passions x Brander isn't what I'd call passionate. Devoted is a better word
• a distaste for social institutions and norms x He's striving to take his country back to its norms
• being an exile, an outcast, or an outlaw √ Obviously
• 'dark' attributes not normally associated with a hero √ Mostly his dark past, I suppose, which isn't dark because of him... although I suppose he nurtures revenge
• disrespect of rank and privilege (though he may possess it) x I think Brander feels all the weight of his rank and privilege and struggles to live up to it
• a troubled past - a hidden curse or crime √ Obviously
• cynicism √ Yes, but this fades after Airdlyn arrives
• arrogance x No, although he is proud, but there's a difference
• self-destructive behaviour x not unless you count fighting for what he believes in

Brander is 'beautiful but damned', as one article described the Byronic hero. And the main elements are there - the intelligence, the exile, the darkness, the magnetism. So I suppose he is a bit Byronic, at least to begin with. He grows out of it, of course, as Airdlyn heals him.

The one thing that saves Brander from being Byronic at all, really, is his kindness. Brand has a gentle, loving heart, and although he has suffered greatly, his sympathetic soul pervades his character.

In some ways I'm pleased to see that Brand follows in the vein of these other, powerful characters. But at the same time, I'm relieved that he doesn't entirely fit the description.

Most of all, I'm so thankful he finds purity and light and forgiveness at the end.

And that's not at all Byronic.

changing history

All is changing.

I've decided to move my story forward in 'history'. Of course the history of the world I created for my characters is entirely up to me, so I could have made it anything I liked.

I first, instinctively, set it in a general, vague medieval era of my own imagining, so I didn't have to stick to the costumes, habits or customs of any particular century. And I made the Vangorns almost Romanesque, because it suited their brutual military, colonising society.

But now I'm shifting away from all that.

In part this is because I think it's too common for fantasy writers to set their novels in a pseudo-medieval world. And because I'm such a stickler for history, I get irrtated when authors don't do their research properly. Even Kate Forsyth, whose career I admire, puts her characters in velvet dresses while surrounding them in an era long before velvet was invented.

But I'm also moving away from medievalism because that's the way my mind's heading at the moment. Besides, a later era suits aspects of the story better. Perinor would look heart-stopping with pistols in his hands, like a true highwayman. Brand needs to wear a top hat. And Airdlyn should travel through the woods in a horse-drawn carriage.

So I'm moving it all forwards to the 18th century. Of course, parts of the story are necessarily set hundreds of years before this time, so I still have access to older times and thus get the best of both worlds. Victory!