Non-Fiction
'Zulu Rising: The Epic Story
of iSandlwana and Rorke's Drift' by Ian Knight
This book was brought back from Durban as a gift for me, apt given that it features the KwaZulu/Natal region of South Africa where Durban sits. This is the best history book I have read since 'The Killing of SS Obergruppenführer Reinhard Heydrich' by Callum MacDonald (1990) which I read in 2011. Knight takes a very complex situation looking at the background and then the events of the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879-80 and makes them enthralling. After reading the first 25 pages of over 700 in the book, I realised I had already learnt an immense amount, and yet it was written in a way that was as engaging as a good novel. There is a great deal of detail and learning the Zulu names can be a challenge. However, by both looking from the strategic level and getting down to the story of individuals on all sides of the conflict you are really drawn into it. You learn about the complexity of Zulu politics and culture; the rise and fall of various tribes and their rulers. You see the detail of British imperial policy from London and the local initiatives taken by politicians and commanders in southern Africa. You see the experience of the massacre and receive a balanced view of how the British could have made such grave errors. It also puts in context the inaccuracies of the movie portrayals 'Zulu Dawn' (1979) about iSandlwana and 'Zulu' (1964) about Rorke's Drift; in the latter not least that the bulk of the battle took place at night rather than during the day and with heavy rain rather than glorious sunshine; plus very fewer of the defenders were Welsh. This is a very dense book, jammed full of information, but you are carried along by the writing until you are surprised by how much you have got through and how much new you have learnt. I certainly wish I could write as well as Knight. This is an excellent book that I am thoroughly delighted to recommend you read.
Thursday, 31 October 2013
Sunday, 13 October 2013
The Arrogance of Sports People in Public Places
Today I read a story that did not surprise me. It was that the Olympic athlete Mo Farah has admitted to beating up a man who apparently 'got in his way' while he was running in Richmond Park in 2009. The man was walking with a woman with a pushchair and Farah insisted that they moved out of his way as he was training along the path. The path is in a park that is open to the public, it is not a sports arena not even a sports centre, it is free to people to walk around. Farah called the police and tried to get the other man charged, arguing that he had started it. However, Farah had left the man so injured that the police would not believe Farah's version of events. Now Farah is black and the other man's ethnicity is not given. Typically, if I had heard the story I would have assumed that a white man had punch Farah and the police sympathised with the white man. However, Farah condemns himself by his own words in his autobiography. Yes, he may be a nationally recognised athlete, but that gives him no authority to order members of the public about and then to attack them viciously if they do not comply with their wishes.
The fact that Farah cannot see what he has done wrong and how he has bullied and then attacked people going about everyday business, it was Christmas Day when you expect many people to be walking in Richmond Park, shows how far removed from reality his mindset is. Can you imagine his indignation if he had been out with his family and the story had happened in reverse? Yet, the reason why he cannot see it this way is because we live in an increasingly divided society. Many people think they are better than everyone else. In part by writing this blog, I am subscribing to that view, because I feel my words are right and are worth reading. However, the lauding of sports people as with members of the military, leads to them having an inflated attitude of themselves. Yes, instruct people where they are to go if you are on a running track or keep them off a military installation, but do not think that extends to a park. It has rules which are enforced by officials connected to the park and in many parks in London even by a specific park police. However, that power does not extend to every individual who is upset that someone else has happened to choose at the same time. That is life, just get over it, do not attack people.
You might argue that Mo Farah has such recognition and status that other people should do what he wishes. I feel that no-one not even the Queen has such a right. If people are acting within the law, then no-one can censure their behaviour. Pushing a pushchair in a park is not a crime. Even if you feel that people like Farah should have special privileges, this does not mean they extend to every sports person whether they compete at a national, country or local level or are just hobbyists. However, as I have noted before, Farah might be at one end of the wedge, but there are thousands of others who see his kind of behaviour as acceptable for them too. I have written here before about abuse I have received from 'proper' cyclists in all the expensive kit as if I was contaminating their space, simply cycling along a public road (not in a velodrome or along a cycle race route). They feel they constantly have to assert that they are better. The same applies to runners especially alongside canals but also on pavements and even on roads. I remember cycling down a hill in a residential area that was poorly lit suddenly to find tens of runners coming right the breadth of the road towards me. Unlike them I was lit up, they were the ones who shouted at me to get out of the road. They felt they had the privilege to run where they liked and somehow I should know this was their route. I just hoped a 4x4 would skid around the corner and collide with them to reduce their arrogance.
There are case after case that I could cite and more come to mind as I write this: swimmers who feel that the lane rules (i.e. swimming clockwise or anti-clockwise and keeping to a certain speed in specific lanes) do not apply to them and power up and down the centre of the slow lane. Yes, be confident, but putting on your running kit or getting on to an expensive bicycle does not make you better than me and certainly not better than the elderly people you terrorise. Yes, it is admirable that you are doing some sport, but it is admirable that that couple are walking with their child or that elderly person is getting to the shops and back. I used to respect Farah. I have worked in the area he lives in and have met people who have trained with him. He seems a joyous, friendly, family man who has achieved a great deal for Britain. Yet, when running in a public space, he needs to remember that he is in fact no better than the rest of us. To assume that you have rights above that of other ordinary people is bad enough; to beat up someone for simply walking in a park is something utterly shameful and he has lost my respect by his own confession.
The fact that Farah cannot see what he has done wrong and how he has bullied and then attacked people going about everyday business, it was Christmas Day when you expect many people to be walking in Richmond Park, shows how far removed from reality his mindset is. Can you imagine his indignation if he had been out with his family and the story had happened in reverse? Yet, the reason why he cannot see it this way is because we live in an increasingly divided society. Many people think they are better than everyone else. In part by writing this blog, I am subscribing to that view, because I feel my words are right and are worth reading. However, the lauding of sports people as with members of the military, leads to them having an inflated attitude of themselves. Yes, instruct people where they are to go if you are on a running track or keep them off a military installation, but do not think that extends to a park. It has rules which are enforced by officials connected to the park and in many parks in London even by a specific park police. However, that power does not extend to every individual who is upset that someone else has happened to choose at the same time. That is life, just get over it, do not attack people.
You might argue that Mo Farah has such recognition and status that other people should do what he wishes. I feel that no-one not even the Queen has such a right. If people are acting within the law, then no-one can censure their behaviour. Pushing a pushchair in a park is not a crime. Even if you feel that people like Farah should have special privileges, this does not mean they extend to every sports person whether they compete at a national, country or local level or are just hobbyists. However, as I have noted before, Farah might be at one end of the wedge, but there are thousands of others who see his kind of behaviour as acceptable for them too. I have written here before about abuse I have received from 'proper' cyclists in all the expensive kit as if I was contaminating their space, simply cycling along a public road (not in a velodrome or along a cycle race route). They feel they constantly have to assert that they are better. The same applies to runners especially alongside canals but also on pavements and even on roads. I remember cycling down a hill in a residential area that was poorly lit suddenly to find tens of runners coming right the breadth of the road towards me. Unlike them I was lit up, they were the ones who shouted at me to get out of the road. They felt they had the privilege to run where they liked and somehow I should know this was their route. I just hoped a 4x4 would skid around the corner and collide with them to reduce their arrogance.
There are case after case that I could cite and more come to mind as I write this: swimmers who feel that the lane rules (i.e. swimming clockwise or anti-clockwise and keeping to a certain speed in specific lanes) do not apply to them and power up and down the centre of the slow lane. Yes, be confident, but putting on your running kit or getting on to an expensive bicycle does not make you better than me and certainly not better than the elderly people you terrorise. Yes, it is admirable that you are doing some sport, but it is admirable that that couple are walking with their child or that elderly person is getting to the shops and back. I used to respect Farah. I have worked in the area he lives in and have met people who have trained with him. He seems a joyous, friendly, family man who has achieved a great deal for Britain. Yet, when running in a public space, he needs to remember that he is in fact no better than the rest of us. To assume that you have rights above that of other ordinary people is bad enough; to beat up someone for simply walking in a park is something utterly shameful and he has lost my respect by his own confession.
Saturday, 5 October 2013
'Total War: Rome II': The Same Old Problems
I have been playing the Total War series of computer games, produced by The Creative Assembly, and latterly sold by Sega, since 1999. I have realised that I am not at all good at them and I struggle to win even on the Easy level. No-one has told me how to win on any higher levels and despite playing these games for many hours, I have never improved. In fact, I am now worse at the original 'Medieval Total War' than I was ten years ago. However, I love to engage with the possibility of changing history. I am utterly useless at shooting games, whether first person or third person, but I have enjoyed computer gaming for the last thirty years. The Total War games are certainly immersive. I love the attention to historical detail, even the scenery that you fight over. Naturally, I had pre-ordered 'Total War: Rome II', despite the fact that these days you really just rent it from Steam and if your internet connection slows or decides to go down you cannot play a game you actually have the disks for (hence sometimes being compelled to go back to 'Medieval Total War' which was free-standing).
Lots of people will tell you that games sales now exceed movie watching. This is why even quality newspapers now cover the industry. In particular 'The Guardian' got very involved in discussing 'Total War: Rome II', though the debate was less than that around 'Grand Theft Auto V', which always attracts attention in part for the twisted morality of the game. The Total War games, are, as this coverage shows, seen as standing above your average purchase. In part, I guess because they are bought by reasonably well-educated, forty-something men like me and to some degree we are stronger opinion shapers than men twenty years younger than us with perhaps a lower income.
Though I love the game series, I have always had gripes about them. I was not alone with 'Rome Total War'. It functioned well enough and had innovations of its predecessors, but historical accuracy was sacrificed for playability. There were Egyptian troops centuries out of their time and the Gauls had their territory cut back to provide more room for Roman factions. The Total War games always have a lot of amateur built content and many of these variants, usually free to download, tend to have a greater impact on the next phase of the series than many thousands of comments by gamers. Thus, 'Total War: Rome II' has a far larger map stretching outside the Mediterranean area right to modern day Pakistan allowing the building of empires to rival those of Alexander the Great. Territories have been made more complex and cities have more points to hold so making an attack or the defence more challenging.
Graphics are very good though there has been some simplification on the interfaces to speed things up, the images look appropriate for the era portrayed (the game starts in the early 3rd century BCE). There were issues, and it must embarrass Sega that they have had to release three patches in the first month. In part this stemmed from over-ambition as so many factions feature that running through all of them at the end of each term really slowed down the game. The patches seem to have got the game back on track and it loads up and progresses faster than 'Total War: Shogun 2' despite that having a smaller geographical spread and fewer factions.
If the game is at least half-decent, why am I here writing about it rather than playing it? Well, the simple answer is that there are core flaws in the Total War game that utterly exasperate me. Foolishly, game after game, I think they will address these. They never do and so pretty soon I ended up downloading an amateur-produced variant from Total War Center: http://www.twcenter.net/ You can find numerous small-scale modifications, but I look out for ones that redraft the game to the way it should be. I do not know whether it is worthwhile reprising my gripes or recognise that The Creative Assembly never pays attention and keeps including the same flaws in game after game.
My experiences of playing against real people online have always been unpleasant. I enjoy playing against the computer. However, in the Total War games, this is always an imbalanced experience. It is one aspect that almost every Total War Center variant resolves. Perhaps I like historical accuracy too much. I cannot accept anyone pushing a trebuchet uphill in a storm to precisely hit my troops sheltered by the trees with rocks shot after shot. In Rome II, you now even get conflicting advice. It tells you holding a hilltop is a good position, but then points out you can be shifted from it by missile fire from below. Perhaps with a 19th or 20th century mortar, but have you ever tried firing slingshot uphill and even arrows lose effectiveness. Yet, I find ranks of my troops being swept away by slung stones from far below.
I cannot accept a ship even from the 20th century let alone the 14th or 1st centuries, being able to locate another ship on the other side of the Mediterranean precisely and move to sink it with exactly the correct number of ships. The thing that angers me most is that the rules for me as the human do not apply to the computer. Of course, it never makes mistake. While my troops set off around the long way because I have not spotted a single spy 'blocking' my army's route, the computer's troops move exactly correctly and rapidly.
Yet, how come if I have a small, poor territory I can only raise a few weak troops whereas my computer opponent with the same land and lack of cash can conjure up huge, well equipped armies? If you push back an opponent and seize his resources, surely he should become poorer, but no, these rules do not apply. It is far harder and requires far more troops for you to defeat an opponent than it does for them to do the same to you. I do not expect an advantage, I just expect equal treatment. You will find that the morale and skill of an opponent especially in the early stages is far higher than anything you might achieve through experience or research. One commentator to 'The Guardian' noted that even after many game years, his Spartan force simply fled when opponents appeared, totally anachronistic to what we know about the Spartans when faced even with overwhelming odds.
As in previous games, you find that rebels in one of your territories suddenly appear with a large army with troops that go way beyond the level that can be recruited at that time or in that region and with experience far higher than your most experienced armies, making it almost impossible to defeat them. This has been a problem across the Total War games, but seems to have returned to the situation of the original 'Medieval Total War'. Rebellions are common as you can do little to please the population. Squalor from enlarged settlements is the main cause of dissent, so you have a choice of not to develop the cities or face unrest. There are a few cultural buildings to alleviate the unhappiness, but confined to the capital of a province meaning unhappiness can develop elsewhere. You can run your taxes at the lowest level possible (in this game unlike previous ones, you cannot exempt territories from tax) and people are still unhappy; neo-liberal attitudes persist here as in many city-building/strategy games.
One improvement is that your agents such as spies and dignitaries are not slaughtered almost immediately as they are recruited. In preceding Total War games this happened constantly making it that there was really no point in paying for such people as there would be a high-level assassin waiting to eliminate them the moment they stepped outside the town. Thus, you could never get any increase in skill. This was at its worst in 'Medieval II Total War' in which recruiting merchants was an utter waste of time, but still persisted as recently as 'Total War: Shogun 2' made worse because newly-recruited agents appear outside rather than within the city, making them prone to attack before they even could move.
A problem which does endure in Rome II as with all its predecessors is the fact that whilst your opponents have a 'zone of control' for each army, which you cannot march through without triggering an attack, you do not have this in return. Thus, opponents can simply walk past you even if you are in a narrow valley. This is one flaw which if corrected would make a lot of play against the computer far less imbalanced. One advantage of Rome II, is that a city can raise a decent garrison force, including of ships if it is a port. Thus, if your opponent slips passed the army guarding the road to the city, they cannot simply just walk in and claim it for themselves.
Co-ordination between different armies is far harder for the human player than the computer. You find it difficult to move two armies close enough so that when the battle comes they can support each other, the computer never has such a challenge. The reason why I abandoned playing tonight is that I faced a combined attack from an army on land and another invading from the sea at night in a thunderstorm. Such a combined attack would be challenging even today with modern technology, satellites, etc., in 260 BCE it would be impossible to co-ordinate let alone in a way that allows the armies to sweep right into a city.
The invisible army problem is far worse in 'Rome II' than any of the preceding games in the series. From 'Rome Total War' onwards it was quite common when moving around the strategic map to suddenly find an army appearing right by one of your settlements or you running into in a valley without seeing it until the last moment. I can accept you can be surprised and ambushed, but I cannot accept your spies and armies would not notice if a few thousand men was marching towards them, especially in their own lands where they would have agents and a largely loyal population to inform you. This problem became far worse in 'Shogun 2'. You could march back and forth across a forest but it was able to conceal many hundreds of men. Of course your computer opponent always knows precisely where your army is an marches directly to attack you now matter where you might try to hide.
I can accept that in forest or even particular grasslands, that some units can conceal themselves, particularly if they have special skills. However, in 'Rome II' you witness entire armies that you have begun firing at suddenly disappear, even on wide open plains or in deserts. In reality you would hear their marching and their clanking weapons and armour, let alone the amount of dust an army typically throws up, even if you could not see the troops themselves. Again, of course, they can see you as clearly as you would expect in such terrain. However, I have had tens of units suddenly appear and disappear within a few metres of my troops. Once they disappear your troops stop firing at them and it is impossible to gauge how many troops there are or who you are fighting. This is exacerbated by the fact that fleeing troops no longer appear on the radar map. The invisible forces make battles incredibly difficult even if you use scouts on horseback to try to find them. Why this ability has been introduced, I do not know. Even more than the imbalance in morale and the laser-guided artillery, the invisible army factor makes it very hard to fight any battles and stand a chance of winning.
Attacking cities is much harder. Since you have been able to do city assaults in these games, they have often been fixed towers which fire out missiles. These can be challenging to take and can wreak a lot of damage on your attackers. In 'Rome II' such towers are limited to provincial capitals but their speed of fire has been ramped up greatly and you will lose unit after unit trying even to get close to the towers to knock them out of action. With fewer artillery weapons available than in the medieval games and needing you to research to pretty high levels, this makes attacks on cities far harder. Defending the provincial capitals is easier, but defending the bulk of towns for which you cannot build walls is very difficult. In previous games you could build up the garrisons of towns and naturally would do this in contested areas. In 'Rome II' you can build only a limited number of armies and as you generally need three to be invading others' territory you cannot leave too many behind. As your empire grows they move too slowly to be able to march to cover towns. Each town has a garrison generated by its size and the specific buildings it has, but these are generally poor quality troops and certainly are no match for any rebel army that appears with its high level forces; indeed some slave revolt armies are better equipped.
I wish that The Creative Assembly would look at the basics of their games. With greater balance between the human and the computer players their games would be far better. Instead, they keep wheeling out the same flawed assumptions that were prevalent as far back as 'Medieval Total War' and have not been addressed in all the rush for better graphics and more downloadable content to sell.
P.P. 24/05/2015
Talking of downloadable content I was interested to play 'The Wrath Of Sparta' set in the 5th century BCE allowing you to play one of four Greek factions. It seemed to be a challenge because each of them has fragmented territories spread across modern day Greece, its islands and what is now western Turkey. However, it is a useless expansion. As has happened in the past with 'Total War' games, the developers have created invincible forces. In the past they did this with the Mongols and the Byzantine Cataphracts in 'Medieval II Total War'. Now it is the Spartan hoplites. You can have a thousand men attacking a single unit, throwing hundreds of javelins and thrusting at them on all sides (Greek troops were always vulnerable on their right hand side where they held the spear) and yet you will not inflict a single casualty on them. With the fragmented territory you will simply run back and forth trying to hold individual cities. The requirement of 'Rome II' for generals in order to have armies and the pathetic garrison armies means a small naval fleet can capture any old town it fancies.
As usual, play is imbalanced against the human player. Fleets converge perfectly over hundreds of miles magically. I played as Athens which is supposed to have the strongest navies, but with my enemies knowing precisely where my ships were and co-ordinating to trap and destroy them, they were eliminated in the first few turns of the game. This download game has no skill element at all. It is very easy even on the Easy setting to have lost within a few turns of beginning. There is however an additional bitter twist. You cannot go against your opponents' capitals, despite the fact that they lie close to your starting point. You receive constant warnings against doing this and severe penalties if you take one. Thus, this game is simply a process in humiliation. You have one hand tied behind your back as you dodge around the capital cities and an array of fleets and armies turn up to crush you wherever they fancy no matter how skilled your defence. That is even leaving out the usual unrest due to food shortage and squalor. I do not really understand the motive of making such a hard game. They would get the money if it was dead easy and in fact are liable to damage future sales through piling up the imbalance game play and the anti-historical approach. If Sparta had been that strong in reality, we would not have Greece but Sparta.
Lots of people will tell you that games sales now exceed movie watching. This is why even quality newspapers now cover the industry. In particular 'The Guardian' got very involved in discussing 'Total War: Rome II', though the debate was less than that around 'Grand Theft Auto V', which always attracts attention in part for the twisted morality of the game. The Total War games, are, as this coverage shows, seen as standing above your average purchase. In part, I guess because they are bought by reasonably well-educated, forty-something men like me and to some degree we are stronger opinion shapers than men twenty years younger than us with perhaps a lower income.
Though I love the game series, I have always had gripes about them. I was not alone with 'Rome Total War'. It functioned well enough and had innovations of its predecessors, but historical accuracy was sacrificed for playability. There were Egyptian troops centuries out of their time and the Gauls had their territory cut back to provide more room for Roman factions. The Total War games always have a lot of amateur built content and many of these variants, usually free to download, tend to have a greater impact on the next phase of the series than many thousands of comments by gamers. Thus, 'Total War: Rome II' has a far larger map stretching outside the Mediterranean area right to modern day Pakistan allowing the building of empires to rival those of Alexander the Great. Territories have been made more complex and cities have more points to hold so making an attack or the defence more challenging.
Graphics are very good though there has been some simplification on the interfaces to speed things up, the images look appropriate for the era portrayed (the game starts in the early 3rd century BCE). There were issues, and it must embarrass Sega that they have had to release three patches in the first month. In part this stemmed from over-ambition as so many factions feature that running through all of them at the end of each term really slowed down the game. The patches seem to have got the game back on track and it loads up and progresses faster than 'Total War: Shogun 2' despite that having a smaller geographical spread and fewer factions.
If the game is at least half-decent, why am I here writing about it rather than playing it? Well, the simple answer is that there are core flaws in the Total War game that utterly exasperate me. Foolishly, game after game, I think they will address these. They never do and so pretty soon I ended up downloading an amateur-produced variant from Total War Center: http://www.twcenter.net/ You can find numerous small-scale modifications, but I look out for ones that redraft the game to the way it should be. I do not know whether it is worthwhile reprising my gripes or recognise that The Creative Assembly never pays attention and keeps including the same flaws in game after game.
My experiences of playing against real people online have always been unpleasant. I enjoy playing against the computer. However, in the Total War games, this is always an imbalanced experience. It is one aspect that almost every Total War Center variant resolves. Perhaps I like historical accuracy too much. I cannot accept anyone pushing a trebuchet uphill in a storm to precisely hit my troops sheltered by the trees with rocks shot after shot. In Rome II, you now even get conflicting advice. It tells you holding a hilltop is a good position, but then points out you can be shifted from it by missile fire from below. Perhaps with a 19th or 20th century mortar, but have you ever tried firing slingshot uphill and even arrows lose effectiveness. Yet, I find ranks of my troops being swept away by slung stones from far below.
I cannot accept a ship even from the 20th century let alone the 14th or 1st centuries, being able to locate another ship on the other side of the Mediterranean precisely and move to sink it with exactly the correct number of ships. The thing that angers me most is that the rules for me as the human do not apply to the computer. Of course, it never makes mistake. While my troops set off around the long way because I have not spotted a single spy 'blocking' my army's route, the computer's troops move exactly correctly and rapidly.
Yet, how come if I have a small, poor territory I can only raise a few weak troops whereas my computer opponent with the same land and lack of cash can conjure up huge, well equipped armies? If you push back an opponent and seize his resources, surely he should become poorer, but no, these rules do not apply. It is far harder and requires far more troops for you to defeat an opponent than it does for them to do the same to you. I do not expect an advantage, I just expect equal treatment. You will find that the morale and skill of an opponent especially in the early stages is far higher than anything you might achieve through experience or research. One commentator to 'The Guardian' noted that even after many game years, his Spartan force simply fled when opponents appeared, totally anachronistic to what we know about the Spartans when faced even with overwhelming odds.
As in previous games, you find that rebels in one of your territories suddenly appear with a large army with troops that go way beyond the level that can be recruited at that time or in that region and with experience far higher than your most experienced armies, making it almost impossible to defeat them. This has been a problem across the Total War games, but seems to have returned to the situation of the original 'Medieval Total War'. Rebellions are common as you can do little to please the population. Squalor from enlarged settlements is the main cause of dissent, so you have a choice of not to develop the cities or face unrest. There are a few cultural buildings to alleviate the unhappiness, but confined to the capital of a province meaning unhappiness can develop elsewhere. You can run your taxes at the lowest level possible (in this game unlike previous ones, you cannot exempt territories from tax) and people are still unhappy; neo-liberal attitudes persist here as in many city-building/strategy games.
One improvement is that your agents such as spies and dignitaries are not slaughtered almost immediately as they are recruited. In preceding Total War games this happened constantly making it that there was really no point in paying for such people as there would be a high-level assassin waiting to eliminate them the moment they stepped outside the town. Thus, you could never get any increase in skill. This was at its worst in 'Medieval II Total War' in which recruiting merchants was an utter waste of time, but still persisted as recently as 'Total War: Shogun 2' made worse because newly-recruited agents appear outside rather than within the city, making them prone to attack before they even could move.
A problem which does endure in Rome II as with all its predecessors is the fact that whilst your opponents have a 'zone of control' for each army, which you cannot march through without triggering an attack, you do not have this in return. Thus, opponents can simply walk past you even if you are in a narrow valley. This is one flaw which if corrected would make a lot of play against the computer far less imbalanced. One advantage of Rome II, is that a city can raise a decent garrison force, including of ships if it is a port. Thus, if your opponent slips passed the army guarding the road to the city, they cannot simply just walk in and claim it for themselves.
Co-ordination between different armies is far harder for the human player than the computer. You find it difficult to move two armies close enough so that when the battle comes they can support each other, the computer never has such a challenge. The reason why I abandoned playing tonight is that I faced a combined attack from an army on land and another invading from the sea at night in a thunderstorm. Such a combined attack would be challenging even today with modern technology, satellites, etc., in 260 BCE it would be impossible to co-ordinate let alone in a way that allows the armies to sweep right into a city.
The invisible army problem is far worse in 'Rome II' than any of the preceding games in the series. From 'Rome Total War' onwards it was quite common when moving around the strategic map to suddenly find an army appearing right by one of your settlements or you running into in a valley without seeing it until the last moment. I can accept you can be surprised and ambushed, but I cannot accept your spies and armies would not notice if a few thousand men was marching towards them, especially in their own lands where they would have agents and a largely loyal population to inform you. This problem became far worse in 'Shogun 2'. You could march back and forth across a forest but it was able to conceal many hundreds of men. Of course your computer opponent always knows precisely where your army is an marches directly to attack you now matter where you might try to hide.
I can accept that in forest or even particular grasslands, that some units can conceal themselves, particularly if they have special skills. However, in 'Rome II' you witness entire armies that you have begun firing at suddenly disappear, even on wide open plains or in deserts. In reality you would hear their marching and their clanking weapons and armour, let alone the amount of dust an army typically throws up, even if you could not see the troops themselves. Again, of course, they can see you as clearly as you would expect in such terrain. However, I have had tens of units suddenly appear and disappear within a few metres of my troops. Once they disappear your troops stop firing at them and it is impossible to gauge how many troops there are or who you are fighting. This is exacerbated by the fact that fleeing troops no longer appear on the radar map. The invisible forces make battles incredibly difficult even if you use scouts on horseback to try to find them. Why this ability has been introduced, I do not know. Even more than the imbalance in morale and the laser-guided artillery, the invisible army factor makes it very hard to fight any battles and stand a chance of winning.
Attacking cities is much harder. Since you have been able to do city assaults in these games, they have often been fixed towers which fire out missiles. These can be challenging to take and can wreak a lot of damage on your attackers. In 'Rome II' such towers are limited to provincial capitals but their speed of fire has been ramped up greatly and you will lose unit after unit trying even to get close to the towers to knock them out of action. With fewer artillery weapons available than in the medieval games and needing you to research to pretty high levels, this makes attacks on cities far harder. Defending the provincial capitals is easier, but defending the bulk of towns for which you cannot build walls is very difficult. In previous games you could build up the garrisons of towns and naturally would do this in contested areas. In 'Rome II' you can build only a limited number of armies and as you generally need three to be invading others' territory you cannot leave too many behind. As your empire grows they move too slowly to be able to march to cover towns. Each town has a garrison generated by its size and the specific buildings it has, but these are generally poor quality troops and certainly are no match for any rebel army that appears with its high level forces; indeed some slave revolt armies are better equipped.
I wish that The Creative Assembly would look at the basics of their games. With greater balance between the human and the computer players their games would be far better. Instead, they keep wheeling out the same flawed assumptions that were prevalent as far back as 'Medieval Total War' and have not been addressed in all the rush for better graphics and more downloadable content to sell.
P.P. 24/05/2015
Talking of downloadable content I was interested to play 'The Wrath Of Sparta' set in the 5th century BCE allowing you to play one of four Greek factions. It seemed to be a challenge because each of them has fragmented territories spread across modern day Greece, its islands and what is now western Turkey. However, it is a useless expansion. As has happened in the past with 'Total War' games, the developers have created invincible forces. In the past they did this with the Mongols and the Byzantine Cataphracts in 'Medieval II Total War'. Now it is the Spartan hoplites. You can have a thousand men attacking a single unit, throwing hundreds of javelins and thrusting at them on all sides (Greek troops were always vulnerable on their right hand side where they held the spear) and yet you will not inflict a single casualty on them. With the fragmented territory you will simply run back and forth trying to hold individual cities. The requirement of 'Rome II' for generals in order to have armies and the pathetic garrison armies means a small naval fleet can capture any old town it fancies.
As usual, play is imbalanced against the human player. Fleets converge perfectly over hundreds of miles magically. I played as Athens which is supposed to have the strongest navies, but with my enemies knowing precisely where my ships were and co-ordinating to trap and destroy them, they were eliminated in the first few turns of the game. This download game has no skill element at all. It is very easy even on the Easy setting to have lost within a few turns of beginning. There is however an additional bitter twist. You cannot go against your opponents' capitals, despite the fact that they lie close to your starting point. You receive constant warnings against doing this and severe penalties if you take one. Thus, this game is simply a process in humiliation. You have one hand tied behind your back as you dodge around the capital cities and an array of fleets and armies turn up to crush you wherever they fancy no matter how skilled your defence. That is even leaving out the usual unrest due to food shortage and squalor. I do not really understand the motive of making such a hard game. They would get the money if it was dead easy and in fact are liable to damage future sales through piling up the imbalance game play and the anti-historical approach. If Sparta had been that strong in reality, we would not have Greece but Sparta.
Monday, 30 September 2013
The Books I Read In September
Fiction
'The Angel of Pain' by Brian Stableford
I had no memory of buying this book but guess I scooped it up from a charity shop when looking for some fantasy fiction. Stableford writes a mature kind of fantasy. I had read 'The Empire of Fear' (1988) and while I did not like the directions it went in, I recognised that he had succeeded in creating an interesting take on vampire stories in a 17th century alternate Earth. It is much the same with 'The Angel of Pain'. It is in effect a sequel to his 'The Werewolves of London' (1990), featuring the same characters but is set 21 years later, in 1893. I think my key issue with Stableford's books is that not a lot happens. He spends much time writing about the characters rather than having them do anything. He creates an interesting context of Victorian Britain in which various powerful beings with limitations are compelled to use various humans to observe and compete against their opponents. I was not surprised to find that Stableford has published a book featuring Cthullu stories. The story focuses on the impact on the individuals, one is enslaved by the Angel of Pain and for much of the book is wracked by discomfort as part of his service to her; others come off worse. The setting and the creatures within it are interesting. There are werewolves of the kind seen later in the 'Twilight' series. There is an immortal man perhaps created by an angel and these powerful beings of differing kinds. What is Stableford does well is have all of the main characters as unreliable witnesses: their viewpoints are never perfect and often contaminated by the individual's prejudices.
The book succeeds on its own terms in creating a number of complex characters and having them interact with each other sometimes in mundane ways, sometimes in very exotic ways. The lead characters ultimately end up in another realm appearing as a manifestation of Eden, but even here they do not do a great deal. Perhaps this is to emphasise that they are little more than pawns. I was interested by this book but did not enjoy it, there was insufficient action. I also read it at entirely the wrong time as I was suffering pain daily and further injured myself bringing on more pain during the period while I was reading it. I certainly disagree with Stableford's view that with time pain loses its sharpness and as a consequence felt the fact that characters did not reflect on how pain comes again and again and again as fresh as the first time as making their perspective illegitimate. I commend Stableford's imagination, I just more happened in his books. For me, reading this book was like wading through an encyclopaedia of imaginary country.
'Ashes and Diamonds' by George [Jerzy] Andreyevski
I came to this book from seeing the movie of the same name released in 1958. The book was written in 1948 but the edition I have must, published in 1957, must have been done to coincide with the movie's release as the front cover has a drawing replicating an iconic images of the young nationalist resistance assassin played by Zbigniew Cybulski (1927-67). I heartily recommend the movie which has some stunning photography that you will remember and successfully conjures up a time and place.
This book is almost the reverse of 'The Angel of Pain' featuring almost frenzied activity over the course of three days at the very end of the Second World War. For the movie it was tightened even further to a day and a night and the following morning. The setting is a medium-sized industrial town in Poland which had been liberated some months before. Nationalist resistance forces are still operating in the area, turning their attention to the Communists busily establishing a new regime, backed by the Soviet Red Army. It looks from many different points of view and the reader is shown a string of characters coming to terms with the situation which remains fluid. Interestingly, and this may stem from the time when it was written, despite the extremes of the time many characters come over as surprisingly soft. Another factor is already the legacy of the war years weighs heavily on them. Thus, this is very much a 'slice of life' novel, bracketed by two shootings and covering violence but also more down-to-Earth activity such as having meals, ambition and betrayal. For the bulk of the characters there is no conclusion contained in the book and it is very much as you have glimpsed their world in passing. I imagine this was in part Andreyevski's intention, to record a very particular time. Yet, though 1945 Poland may seem very alien to us now, you are drawn into the characters very well.
I would not say I was as impressed with the book as much as I was with the movie. However, given the poor quality of so much I have been reading recently, this did stand out and I really admire the writer's craft. However, the brevity of it is liable to leave many modern readers unsatisfied.
'The Angel of Pain' by Brian Stableford
I had no memory of buying this book but guess I scooped it up from a charity shop when looking for some fantasy fiction. Stableford writes a mature kind of fantasy. I had read 'The Empire of Fear' (1988) and while I did not like the directions it went in, I recognised that he had succeeded in creating an interesting take on vampire stories in a 17th century alternate Earth. It is much the same with 'The Angel of Pain'. It is in effect a sequel to his 'The Werewolves of London' (1990), featuring the same characters but is set 21 years later, in 1893. I think my key issue with Stableford's books is that not a lot happens. He spends much time writing about the characters rather than having them do anything. He creates an interesting context of Victorian Britain in which various powerful beings with limitations are compelled to use various humans to observe and compete against their opponents. I was not surprised to find that Stableford has published a book featuring Cthullu stories. The story focuses on the impact on the individuals, one is enslaved by the Angel of Pain and for much of the book is wracked by discomfort as part of his service to her; others come off worse. The setting and the creatures within it are interesting. There are werewolves of the kind seen later in the 'Twilight' series. There is an immortal man perhaps created by an angel and these powerful beings of differing kinds. What is Stableford does well is have all of the main characters as unreliable witnesses: their viewpoints are never perfect and often contaminated by the individual's prejudices.
The book succeeds on its own terms in creating a number of complex characters and having them interact with each other sometimes in mundane ways, sometimes in very exotic ways. The lead characters ultimately end up in another realm appearing as a manifestation of Eden, but even here they do not do a great deal. Perhaps this is to emphasise that they are little more than pawns. I was interested by this book but did not enjoy it, there was insufficient action. I also read it at entirely the wrong time as I was suffering pain daily and further injured myself bringing on more pain during the period while I was reading it. I certainly disagree with Stableford's view that with time pain loses its sharpness and as a consequence felt the fact that characters did not reflect on how pain comes again and again and again as fresh as the first time as making their perspective illegitimate. I commend Stableford's imagination, I just more happened in his books. For me, reading this book was like wading through an encyclopaedia of imaginary country.
'Ashes and Diamonds' by George [Jerzy] Andreyevski
I came to this book from seeing the movie of the same name released in 1958. The book was written in 1948 but the edition I have must, published in 1957, must have been done to coincide with the movie's release as the front cover has a drawing replicating an iconic images of the young nationalist resistance assassin played by Zbigniew Cybulski (1927-67). I heartily recommend the movie which has some stunning photography that you will remember and successfully conjures up a time and place.
This book is almost the reverse of 'The Angel of Pain' featuring almost frenzied activity over the course of three days at the very end of the Second World War. For the movie it was tightened even further to a day and a night and the following morning. The setting is a medium-sized industrial town in Poland which had been liberated some months before. Nationalist resistance forces are still operating in the area, turning their attention to the Communists busily establishing a new regime, backed by the Soviet Red Army. It looks from many different points of view and the reader is shown a string of characters coming to terms with the situation which remains fluid. Interestingly, and this may stem from the time when it was written, despite the extremes of the time many characters come over as surprisingly soft. Another factor is already the legacy of the war years weighs heavily on them. Thus, this is very much a 'slice of life' novel, bracketed by two shootings and covering violence but also more down-to-Earth activity such as having meals, ambition and betrayal. For the bulk of the characters there is no conclusion contained in the book and it is very much as you have glimpsed their world in passing. I imagine this was in part Andreyevski's intention, to record a very particular time. Yet, though 1945 Poland may seem very alien to us now, you are drawn into the characters very well.
I would not say I was as impressed with the book as much as I was with the movie. However, given the poor quality of so much I have been reading recently, this did stand out and I really admire the writer's craft. However, the brevity of it is liable to leave many modern readers unsatisfied.
Monday, 16 September 2013
What If? Art 7: History Books That Never Existed
It has been six years since I posted any 'what if?' book covers on this site, the last being my spate of 'lost' books back in November 2007: http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/what-if-art-6-books-that-existed-but.html The use of book art as an element of 'what if?' speculation has long interested me and my engagement with it is outlined here: http://rooksmoor.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/what-if-art-1-history-book-that-never.html
For the cover of my latest 'what if?' anthology, 'Other Lives: ‘What If?’ Outcomes for Famous People in History' (2013), I considered doing gravestones or announcements in newspapers. However, the people feature stretch from Alexander the Great in the 4th Century BCE right up to people in the 20th century. In addition, not all the differences about the duration of their lives but also some of them taking different decisions. As a result I returned to the idea of creating history books that never existed in our world. I tried to keep as close as possible to the style that you find on history book front covers, though also to bring in a bit of variety. These appear as small images on the front of the book. However, I thought people might enjoy seeing them separately in a larger format here, with some explanation of why I decided on the different titles and formats.
One challenge was that to emphasise the alternate history aspect often required two things. First the date has to be included to show the precise divergence from our history. This is notable with the book on the impeachment of George Bush. I included '1987' in the title, as I envisaged Bush becoming President following the assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981, rather than being impeached during the term of office 1988-92 that he had in our world. The other challenge for those who I was looking at as living longer than in our world, was to find images that showed them as older than they ever were in our history. Thus, I had to work on the hairline of Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln and spread the grey in Indira Gandhi's hair far further than was the case in our history.
The basis of this book is Julius Caesar surviving or preventing the assassination attempt against him. As a result he lived on into his sixties and was able to carry out the conquests in western Asia that we know he had planned. Bactria is the region of Central Asia between the Caspian Sea and the Hindu Kush, covering the modern central Asian republics. It was a region Alexander the Great knew and Caesar had sought to conquer. I worked to adjust the image to make it appear as if it showed an older, more wrinkled Caesar. He was concerned baout hair loss and in this image I have him with some male pattern baldness.
For the cover of my latest 'what if?' anthology, 'Other Lives: ‘What If?’ Outcomes for Famous People in History' (2013), I considered doing gravestones or announcements in newspapers. However, the people feature stretch from Alexander the Great in the 4th Century BCE right up to people in the 20th century. In addition, not all the differences about the duration of their lives but also some of them taking different decisions. As a result I returned to the idea of creating history books that never existed in our world. I tried to keep as close as possible to the style that you find on history book front covers, though also to bring in a bit of variety. These appear as small images on the front of the book. However, I thought people might enjoy seeing them separately in a larger format here, with some explanation of why I decided on the different titles and formats.
One challenge was that to emphasise the alternate history aspect often required two things. First the date has to be included to show the precise divergence from our history. This is notable with the book on the impeachment of George Bush. I included '1987' in the title, as I envisaged Bush becoming President following the assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981, rather than being impeached during the term of office 1988-92 that he had in our world. The other challenge for those who I was looking at as living longer than in our world, was to find images that showed them as older than they ever were in our history. Thus, I had to work on the hairline of Julius Caesar and Abraham Lincoln and spread the grey in Indira Gandhi's hair far further than was the case in our history.
'Alexander the Great's Conquest of the Iberian Peninsula'
For this cover I used an image of Alexander's father, King Philip II of Macedonia to stand in for the older Alexander the Great. The book envisages Alexander living into his fifties rather than dying in his early thirties. Thus, not only completing his conquest of western Asia but then turning to conquer the remainder of the Mediterranean region with this book focusing on his final conquests in what is now Spain and Portugal.
'The Bactrian Campaign of Julius Caesar'
The basis of this book is Julius Caesar surviving or preventing the assassination attempt against him. As a result he lived on into his sixties and was able to carry out the conquests in western Asia that we know he had planned. Bactria is the region of Central Asia between the Caspian Sea and the Hindu Kush, covering the modern central Asian republics. It was a region Alexander the Great knew and Caesar had sought to conquer. I worked to adjust the image to make it appear as if it showed an older, more wrinkled Caesar. He was concerned baout hair loss and in this image I have him with some male pattern baldness.
'Parliament's Lost Leader: Oliver Cromwell 1599-1643'
This is another example of a cover that needed dates on it to show that it was Cromwell's earlier death, in this case in battle in 1643, rather than peacefully in 1658 which was envisaged. By this stage Cromwell was significant in the Parliamentarian camp but was not yet in a position to become leader of the country. Thus this book would ask what missed opportunity the country had with him being killed at this stage. If his death was earlier then it is unlikely he would have warranted his own historical study.
'1777 - The End of the American Bid for Independence'
In my book, the focus is largely on George Washington dying at Valley Forge along with many of his troops in the winter of 1776/7. However, if he had died then, his fame might not have been sufficiently significant to warrant a book of his own, so I envisage this one seeing with his death, the break up of the Continental forces and the end of the attempt of the Thirteen Colonies to break from British control. This is a manipulated painting which actually shows Continental soldiers being trained. However, it seemed to sum up the difficulties at Valley Forge and the three men at the front are in very submissive positions and look as if they are laying down their arms, assuming they have been captured by the British. The background is the Continental flag of the time.
'Lincoln's Post-War Administrations 1865-1872'
This book like the one on Caesar envisages Abraham Lincoln surviving assassination in 1865 or that never having been attempted. Again I needed to age him in the photo and I added in a map of the USA from the post-Civil War period to show Lincoln living on into this period. His survival would have meant much more difference to that period of US history than I initially realised.
'The World Economic Depression and the Demise of Capitalism'
This uses the classic Progress Publishers style for a book that never existed. Progress Publishers were a Soviet back publishing house that made Communist literature available in cheap editions in the hope that ordinary people would buy them. They were typically purchased by students who had to read set books. This one would have been published in 1931 assuming that Lenin had not died in 1924 but had lived on as leader of the USSR. The Great Depression which began with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 appeared to many Communists and Fascists to be the proof that capitalism could not work and that a different political approach was necessary. One could imagine Lenin delighting in his emotionless way to the difficulties capitalism was facing and have hoped that the world Communist revolution was imminent.
'The Overthrow of President Franklin D. Roosevelt'
This one envisages the planned coup d'état of 1934 actually going ahead, leading ultimately to Franklin Roosevelt being pushed from power, probably forced to retire on grounds of ill-health. I felt this picture might be his resignation speech to the nation. This was a scenario that I had not envisaged leading to such a bleak outcome for the world as a whole. However, it quickly became apparent that without the New Deal and certainly Roosevelt's almost one-man attempt to involve the USA in the Second World War not only would that war have dragged on longer but the US and the global economies would have struggled to return to any kind of prosperity well into the 1960s.
'Gustav Stresemann and the Decline of National Socialism 1931-35'
As a bit of a contrast, for this one rather than use a photograph, I picked a commemorative stamp for Gustav Stresemann. I manipulated the dates on it so he is shown as living to 1936 rather than dying in 1929 as was the case in reality. The point behind this book is that probably only Stresemann had the skill and appeal across the political spectrum to undermine National Socialism, the proper name for Nazism. He was a conservative and a nationalist but certainly never sought anything like the regime Hitler installed.
'A King of Our Times - Edward VIII, 1936-72'
This is another one in which the date was necessary to show the change. This is a late picture of the Duke of Windsor who in our world ruled briefly in 1936 before abdicating so he could marry the American divorcee, Wallis Simpson. This book envisages he never met Simpson or he chose to remain on the throne. The trouble with Edward was his willingness to interfere in politics, engage in illegal currency deals and his sympathies for Nazism. Given he would have been influential in the run-up to the Second World War, it is likely that this would have had an impact on British foreign policy. I have opted for the styling of a bland 1970s book on monarchy that you can see online which belies the kind of difficulties this alternative would have brought to Britain.
'The Collected Articles of Benito Mussolini'
It was quite a challenge to find a photo of Mussolini in which he was not in military clothes, shaven headed and pontificating. This is a surprisingly human picture of him that seemed to fit really well with the different path envisaged, i.e. rather than becoming a dictator, he remained a Socialist journalist. As a consequence, rather than being executed in 1945, I envisaged him living into old age. His longevity and his writing is likely to have meant that he received some attention across Europe, perhaps even becoming a kind of older statesman of Socialism, though maybe not to the scale of Antonio Gramsci.
'The Assassination of Charles De Gaulle'
This is an old image dating back six years, which I revived for the chapter in 'Other Lives' on the assassination of De Gaulle. I removed the date from this one as the chapter speculates on his killing at a number of dates. However, the picture is from the early 1960s so suggests an assassination at that time. As I wrote the chapter, my views on when the assassination would have had greatest impact shifted back in time a little. However, I think this is one feasible 'what if?' which tends to be overlooked by writers.
'Nixon as President: The Second Term, 1964-68'
As is often the case with these alternate history covers I start with an actual history book. This ones envisages Nixon being first elected in 1960 when he was narrowly beaten by John F. Kennedy, rather than in 1968. The picture fits with the timescale of the book. The 'button', i.e. the badge, is a genuine image of one produced for the 1964 election when Lyndon Johnson won.
'China's Reprieve: The Fall of Chairman Mao, March 1966'
This centres on a picture of Mao Zedong with his likely replacement if he had been overthrown in the mid-1960s, Deng Xiaoping. While China would have remained a totalitarian dictatorship under Deng, it certainly would have been spared the madness of the Cultural Revolution 1966-76 that caused so much damage to the country. The Cultural Revolution was primarily about Mao re-establishing his predominance in China, so with him being ousted, which seemed possible at this time a different path would have been followed.
'The Indian Dictatorship, 1984-89'
This was another book about a leader avoiding being assassinated. The idea is that Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi avoided being assassinated in 1984 yet the attempt on her life and accompanying turmoil in the country led her to impose a dictatorship as she had effectively done in the 1970s. For this picture I had again to try to age the image and I think it comes out reasonably well, with Gandhi's streak of grey having spread more widely across her hair. This picture with the furrowed brow makes her look older too.
'The Impeachment of President Bush'
I have explained the reason for the date at the start of this posting. This cover is to signify a chapter which is less about Bush than about the implications of the assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981. With the De Gaulle one in place, I did not want another title with assassination. The chapter naturally envisages Bush as Reagan's Vice-President, as Johnson did after Kennedy's assassination, taking over at his death and serving out Reagan's term, then being elected himself. Furthermore it seems likely that Bush would have become directly involved in the Iran-Contra scandal and this would have led to him being charged with wrongdoing and to his impeachment. It is probable that in such a situation Bush would have resigned as Nixon did when threatened with impeachment. However, I picked this image as it suggested Bush had the pride and arrogance to hold on and to fight against the charges.
I have explained the reason for the date at the start of this posting. This cover is to signify a chapter which is less about Bush than about the implications of the assassination of Ronald Reagan in 1981. With the De Gaulle one in place, I did not want another title with assassination. The chapter naturally envisages Bush as Reagan's Vice-President, as Johnson did after Kennedy's assassination, taking over at his death and serving out Reagan's term, then being elected himself. Furthermore it seems likely that Bush would have become directly involved in the Iran-Contra scandal and this would have led to him being charged with wrongdoing and to his impeachment. It is probable that in such a situation Bush would have resigned as Nixon did when threatened with impeachment. However, I picked this image as it suggested Bush had the pride and arrogance to hold on and to fight against the charges.
Saturday, 31 August 2013
The Book I Read in August
I had got into the habit of reading extensively at lunchtime and also in the evening. However, with my job coming to an end and me being on holiday, my reading rate has fallen away and so, ultimately I only completed one book.
Fiction
'The Twylight Tower' by Karen Harper
As regular readers know I quite enjoy crime fiction set in a historical period. The crime genre is often an effective way to explore the attitudes, behaviour and context of the time and place. This book is the third in the series of nine produced by Harper that feature Queen Elizabeth I as a detective. Usually things get difficult when the detective is promoted and rises in status away from frontline crime. Interestingly, Harper has gone right to the top and has the Queen of England, in this story, set in May 1560, involved in the crime. Harper is a specialist on Tudor England and cleverly weaves together actual people from Elizabeth's court with fictional figures usually working at a lower level. William Cecil and Lord Dudley, her favourite, feature in this story at the time when Elizabeth was considering distancing herself from Dudley whom many people assumed was her lover. Dudley's wife died at this time, something this book gives a possible explanation for.
The key challenge I had with this book was that there was a lack of any sense of jeopardy. It would be challenging to put Elizabeth at risk because we know she survived to old age. A fictional or a lesser-known character would have been better for the detective role. Yet, Harper's writing is too passive even really to communicate to us, for example, the risk to Elizabeth's standing that involvement with Dudley could have brought.
As with 'Search the Dark' that I read earlier in the year, another crime novel by an American author set in historic England, there is a lot of toing and froing of the characters and this further reduces the tension. Yes, Elizabeth's journeys were important but they simply blunt tension when covered too much. This makes the novel feel too long. It could have been trimmed and retained the historical detail and had a greater sense of urgency and tension.
Elizabeth is assisted by a number of her servants as her 'plot council' which investigates mysteries. This device may have worked well in the preceding novels, but here seems rather redundant. We find out about the suspicions of various servants and their own secrets, but at times this seems simply to be included to add bulk or set them up for greater jeopardy in subsequent novels, rather than moving this story forward.
The genre of the 'comfortable' murder mystery is a long-established one in British fiction and there is nothing inherently wrong in having the queen investigate. However, if this is to be a genuine crime novel rather than a purely historical novel or romance, then there needs to be a greater sense of tension. Look at the work of Ellis Peters. Her books similarly mix fact and fiction and are great at conjuring up the time period, but they are very slender volumes and that tautness brings with it the kind of tension that Harper's work is missing. I was interested to read this book but have no urge to read the next one in the series. This contrasts with the revival of Philip Kerr's Bernie Gunther historical crime series and given that his books are far longer than Peters's, perhaps it comes down to the nature of the writing and not just purely its length.
Fiction
'The Twylight Tower' by Karen Harper
As regular readers know I quite enjoy crime fiction set in a historical period. The crime genre is often an effective way to explore the attitudes, behaviour and context of the time and place. This book is the third in the series of nine produced by Harper that feature Queen Elizabeth I as a detective. Usually things get difficult when the detective is promoted and rises in status away from frontline crime. Interestingly, Harper has gone right to the top and has the Queen of England, in this story, set in May 1560, involved in the crime. Harper is a specialist on Tudor England and cleverly weaves together actual people from Elizabeth's court with fictional figures usually working at a lower level. William Cecil and Lord Dudley, her favourite, feature in this story at the time when Elizabeth was considering distancing herself from Dudley whom many people assumed was her lover. Dudley's wife died at this time, something this book gives a possible explanation for.
The key challenge I had with this book was that there was a lack of any sense of jeopardy. It would be challenging to put Elizabeth at risk because we know she survived to old age. A fictional or a lesser-known character would have been better for the detective role. Yet, Harper's writing is too passive even really to communicate to us, for example, the risk to Elizabeth's standing that involvement with Dudley could have brought.
As with 'Search the Dark' that I read earlier in the year, another crime novel by an American author set in historic England, there is a lot of toing and froing of the characters and this further reduces the tension. Yes, Elizabeth's journeys were important but they simply blunt tension when covered too much. This makes the novel feel too long. It could have been trimmed and retained the historical detail and had a greater sense of urgency and tension.
Elizabeth is assisted by a number of her servants as her 'plot council' which investigates mysteries. This device may have worked well in the preceding novels, but here seems rather redundant. We find out about the suspicions of various servants and their own secrets, but at times this seems simply to be included to add bulk or set them up for greater jeopardy in subsequent novels, rather than moving this story forward.
The genre of the 'comfortable' murder mystery is a long-established one in British fiction and there is nothing inherently wrong in having the queen investigate. However, if this is to be a genuine crime novel rather than a purely historical novel or romance, then there needs to be a greater sense of tension. Look at the work of Ellis Peters. Her books similarly mix fact and fiction and are great at conjuring up the time period, but they are very slender volumes and that tautness brings with it the kind of tension that Harper's work is missing. I was interested to read this book but have no urge to read the next one in the series. This contrasts with the revival of Philip Kerr's Bernie Gunther historical crime series and given that his books are far longer than Peters's, perhaps it comes down to the nature of the writing and not just purely its length.
Friday, 9 August 2013
The Loneliness Of A Long Distance Author - the Complaints of Anakana Schofield
I was very irritated by an article I read in 'The Guardian' of 27th July 2013. It was entitled 'How to publicise a novel' and was written by Anakana Schofield. She has had first novel, 'Malarky' published and received Can$1000 (£625) and then a further £6500 for it, from the publishers; not a share of sales. In her article she whines about the burdens of publicising her novel. She compares her travelling around the country being interviewed about her book and meeting with the public to compelling a train driver to go to Scotland to show people the train he drives. The analogy is very poor; perhaps someone who designed or built the train showing it off would be more accurate; if she was equivalent to the train driver she would work in a bookshop being compelled to sell 'Malarky'.
Schofield misses entirely that she is an artist. Painters, sculptors, even actors (and certainly directors), have to go around publicising their work, often at their own expense. Think of how many bands and singers have to tour around the country trying to get people to listen to them and buy their music off i-tunes or even a CD that they have paid to have made. This can be a long and soul-destroying job with no guarantee of success. Schofield needs to realise she is in the same category. Sports people often travel far and wide and stay in appalling conditions just to carry out the sport, sometimes they have to pay for the pleasure of doing so. I used to know a national level badminton player who, because badminton does not have the prize money of tennis, had to hold down an ordinary job and spend her weekends driving herself to events and putting herself up. I have known black belt Aikido instructors with international reputations sleeping in dojos when training away from home. These are the equivalent to an author. If you choose this life you have to put up with what comes with it. She should speak to painters who have to lug all their paintings from event to event in the hope of selling one.
This is nothing new for authors. Even the most successful have had to get on the road to publicise their work and do innumerable book signings. The author and journalist, Richard Meredith whose ‘One Way Or Another' which I read and reviewed in June, self-published in the period before e-books made this so much easier. He did not even have a publisher to distribute his book and would drive around with boxes of them in his car, trying to persuade local bookshop managers to take a few to sell and going back to collect the money later. Schofield does not have that problem, with online sales dominating, people can get her book even if the author on tour comes nowhere near them. Despite her whining publicising her book has actually got a lot easier than it was a decade or two ago.
Schofield complains about writing 'endless unpaid blogs', clearly unaware that any sensible author does that before they have even begun writing the book. I know some people earn money from their blog, but who really expects to get an income from spouting their own views of the world, bar a handful of lucky columnists and they are far more constrained than a blogger. She complains about having to write responses to newspapers and 'random people creating things in basements'. This amounts to snobbery as she was no different when writing the novel. Schofield seems to categorise society and feels that she as an author should receive different considerations. Again, she seems to be living in the past, perhaps the 1950s, not even the 1970s. Where did she get the idea that publishing houses did all the publicity for their authors?
While she sees herself as a person who deserves privileges, she also sickeningly tries to draw parallels between her 'predicament' and that of ordinary people: the 'security guard who is not allowed to tweet, but must also do the cleaning. Or the hospital cleaner who is forced to reapply for his own job but on lower pay'. She does not see she is nothing like these people, she is getting paid to do what she loves, talk about what she loves to all and sundry and even get a newspaper to cover her whining about how hard this is.
Schofield also highlight the personal questions she gets asked and especially about her own sexuality given the sexual content of the novel. Again, I am surprised that she is surprised by this. Has she not read reviews of books or other works of art before? Has she not seen how reviewers probe motivations that may stem from the artist's personal life? Schofield seems amazingly cut off from how contemporary society behaves. She has clearly never read a tabloid newspaper or indeed even watched some of the output from more respectable news broadcasters like the BBC. People are obsessed with other people in their own right, not necessarily for what they do but simply for who they are. Schofield clearly needed lessons in this and the easiest way was to review some of the many thousands perhaps millions of words written about J.K. Rowling, or possibly given Schofield's own writing, E.L. James.
Schofield ends by complaining about the fact that there has been a shift from a culture in which people read to one in which they write. This is probably not as great a shift as she believes, it is simply that whereas in the past people's writing would be confined to something they typed, shared with friends and sent to be rejected by publishers, now it is visible to all via blogs and through self-publication of e-books. I am a classic example. I was doing this thirty years ago, but the technology then was missing to allow me to expose my work to the entire planet. Again her view of this apparent shift suggests Schofield is pretty much out of touch with contemporary society. In fact with the availability of online writing and of the explosion of book clubs, there is probably more reading going on than back in the 1980s, especially among people over 30. It is the equivalent to the numerous talent shows on television. There have always been millions of people who have assumed they can perform on stage, but only with such thorough access, as in fact was the case back in the 1970s, does the general population, as opposed to friends and neighbours, become aware of simply how many people believe this way. The pool of people going into these things has not changed; the visibility of them has, however, increased substantially.
It seems ironic that Schofield attacks courses on how to write so strongly, given that 'The Guardian' probably runs more such courses than any other body at the moment. In many ways they have become a kind of qualification that writers need to pass in order to move to the next stage. If you look at winners of the Bridport Prize, an annual competition I have entered a couple of times, almost every single winner has taken a degree in creative writing. Similarly many authors these days, such as those who get contracts from HarperCollins for appearing on Authonomy, have to have sold their e-book before the publisher considers taking them on. Schofield has been spared these stages of advancing her career so feels free to disparage them.
Schofield seems to want to reduce the competition and increase the potential market for her book. If she truly believes that '[i]t's a great deal more fulfilling to read and think about a fine book than to attempt to write one'. If that is the case, then why did she even bother becoming an author? It is good to read and of course the bulk of writers are also very active readers too, the two are very compatible, not exclusive as Schofield portrays them. Overall, this article proves to be a rant from a woman who wants it all. She is very fortunate to have had her novel published, but needs to realise that that privilege comes at a cost and she has now to support her book vigorously, no-one else is going to do it for her. She clearly wants to pull up the ladder after her and encourage people not to enter into competition with her. This is simply selfish. Writing has always been a leading hobby in Britain, it is one, like cycling and running, which is now far more visible than ever before. What Schofield needs to do is actually stop and look around her about how society works in the 2010s. This is not 1973 or 1953. None of us are surprised at what she has apparently only recently 'discovered' and it is of concern that an author of a contemporary set novel is so disconnected from society in the here and now. What is sickening is how she tries to equate her position, privileged as it is, with the challenges facing ordinary working people.
Schofield misses entirely that she is an artist. Painters, sculptors, even actors (and certainly directors), have to go around publicising their work, often at their own expense. Think of how many bands and singers have to tour around the country trying to get people to listen to them and buy their music off i-tunes or even a CD that they have paid to have made. This can be a long and soul-destroying job with no guarantee of success. Schofield needs to realise she is in the same category. Sports people often travel far and wide and stay in appalling conditions just to carry out the sport, sometimes they have to pay for the pleasure of doing so. I used to know a national level badminton player who, because badminton does not have the prize money of tennis, had to hold down an ordinary job and spend her weekends driving herself to events and putting herself up. I have known black belt Aikido instructors with international reputations sleeping in dojos when training away from home. These are the equivalent to an author. If you choose this life you have to put up with what comes with it. She should speak to painters who have to lug all their paintings from event to event in the hope of selling one.
This is nothing new for authors. Even the most successful have had to get on the road to publicise their work and do innumerable book signings. The author and journalist, Richard Meredith whose ‘One Way Or Another' which I read and reviewed in June, self-published in the period before e-books made this so much easier. He did not even have a publisher to distribute his book and would drive around with boxes of them in his car, trying to persuade local bookshop managers to take a few to sell and going back to collect the money later. Schofield does not have that problem, with online sales dominating, people can get her book even if the author on tour comes nowhere near them. Despite her whining publicising her book has actually got a lot easier than it was a decade or two ago.
Schofield complains about writing 'endless unpaid blogs', clearly unaware that any sensible author does that before they have even begun writing the book. I know some people earn money from their blog, but who really expects to get an income from spouting their own views of the world, bar a handful of lucky columnists and they are far more constrained than a blogger. She complains about having to write responses to newspapers and 'random people creating things in basements'. This amounts to snobbery as she was no different when writing the novel. Schofield seems to categorise society and feels that she as an author should receive different considerations. Again, she seems to be living in the past, perhaps the 1950s, not even the 1970s. Where did she get the idea that publishing houses did all the publicity for their authors?
While she sees herself as a person who deserves privileges, she also sickeningly tries to draw parallels between her 'predicament' and that of ordinary people: the 'security guard who is not allowed to tweet, but must also do the cleaning. Or the hospital cleaner who is forced to reapply for his own job but on lower pay'. She does not see she is nothing like these people, she is getting paid to do what she loves, talk about what she loves to all and sundry and even get a newspaper to cover her whining about how hard this is.
Schofield also highlight the personal questions she gets asked and especially about her own sexuality given the sexual content of the novel. Again, I am surprised that she is surprised by this. Has she not read reviews of books or other works of art before? Has she not seen how reviewers probe motivations that may stem from the artist's personal life? Schofield seems amazingly cut off from how contemporary society behaves. She has clearly never read a tabloid newspaper or indeed even watched some of the output from more respectable news broadcasters like the BBC. People are obsessed with other people in their own right, not necessarily for what they do but simply for who they are. Schofield clearly needed lessons in this and the easiest way was to review some of the many thousands perhaps millions of words written about J.K. Rowling, or possibly given Schofield's own writing, E.L. James.
Schofield ends by complaining about the fact that there has been a shift from a culture in which people read to one in which they write. This is probably not as great a shift as she believes, it is simply that whereas in the past people's writing would be confined to something they typed, shared with friends and sent to be rejected by publishers, now it is visible to all via blogs and through self-publication of e-books. I am a classic example. I was doing this thirty years ago, but the technology then was missing to allow me to expose my work to the entire planet. Again her view of this apparent shift suggests Schofield is pretty much out of touch with contemporary society. In fact with the availability of online writing and of the explosion of book clubs, there is probably more reading going on than back in the 1980s, especially among people over 30. It is the equivalent to the numerous talent shows on television. There have always been millions of people who have assumed they can perform on stage, but only with such thorough access, as in fact was the case back in the 1970s, does the general population, as opposed to friends and neighbours, become aware of simply how many people believe this way. The pool of people going into these things has not changed; the visibility of them has, however, increased substantially.
It seems ironic that Schofield attacks courses on how to write so strongly, given that 'The Guardian' probably runs more such courses than any other body at the moment. In many ways they have become a kind of qualification that writers need to pass in order to move to the next stage. If you look at winners of the Bridport Prize, an annual competition I have entered a couple of times, almost every single winner has taken a degree in creative writing. Similarly many authors these days, such as those who get contracts from HarperCollins for appearing on Authonomy, have to have sold their e-book before the publisher considers taking them on. Schofield has been spared these stages of advancing her career so feels free to disparage them.
Schofield seems to want to reduce the competition and increase the potential market for her book. If she truly believes that '[i]t's a great deal more fulfilling to read and think about a fine book than to attempt to write one'. If that is the case, then why did she even bother becoming an author? It is good to read and of course the bulk of writers are also very active readers too, the two are very compatible, not exclusive as Schofield portrays them. Overall, this article proves to be a rant from a woman who wants it all. She is very fortunate to have had her novel published, but needs to realise that that privilege comes at a cost and she has now to support her book vigorously, no-one else is going to do it for her. She clearly wants to pull up the ladder after her and encourage people not to enter into competition with her. This is simply selfish. Writing has always been a leading hobby in Britain, it is one, like cycling and running, which is now far more visible than ever before. What Schofield needs to do is actually stop and look around her about how society works in the 2010s. This is not 1973 or 1953. None of us are surprised at what she has apparently only recently 'discovered' and it is of concern that an author of a contemporary set novel is so disconnected from society in the here and now. What is sickening is how she tries to equate her position, privileged as it is, with the challenges facing ordinary working people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
