There are currently 0 users online.
You are here
I read "The Skystone" and "The Singing Sword" in early 1997. I bought "The Eagles Brood" the day it came out. When I read "The Saxon Shore" I quit when the Camulod posse returned from Irland. I think Jack Whyte changed the attitude of his narritive and fell into a rhythm/style of writing common to fantasy writers and not historical fiction writers. This shift may have been due to pressure from the editors*; I do not know but I enjoyed the first to books much more. At anyrate, last week I picked up "The Saxon Shore" and decided that after 8 years I'd go ahead and finish it and maybe the rest of the series.
I suppose this is all back story that no one really cares to read, but this a Jack Whyte forum I suppose everyone here is use to useless details that don't particulary matter.
Today is St. Patrick's day 2006 and it occured to me that at the time Caius heads to Ireland St. Patrick (the son of a roman official from Briton) had already begun his 30 year march toward the Cristianization of Ireland. He may have died around 460 but the trend he started eventually gave rise to the first bloodless conversion of pagans in Europe over the course of 200 years.
My question is: How come Jack Whyte never mentions the snowballing force of Christidom in Ireland in a book in which Caius constantly struggles with his aunt Luceii's Jesus and the God that took his Cassandra. We see him struggle in his letter to the bishop in France (whose name eludes me right now).
My answer to that question springs from my opening paragraph. I think that Jack Whyte began an Aurthurian historical fiction that required much research into Roman society and he wrote within the confines of that research. "The Eagles Brood" marks a point at which he basically gave up on research and wrote from mere fancy eventually leading to the unbearable "The Saxon Shore". The lack of research seems to be throughout. For example, mead is a honeyed wine. The description of a fiery mead in Ireland is not only inaccurate but silly. Historically, places that grew grains made beer, places that could support copious ammount of fruit made wine. The romans took wine where they could (germany's reisling) but where grapes did not thrive beer reined king (Belgium, Britain, Germany). I offer that there is no influence of St. Patrick in Whyte's writings because he did not put in the time to investigate the history of the island.
*after reading the "about Jack" section of this webpage and discovering the fight over cover art I think that the editors did in fact change his style to appeal to the hardcore fantasy readers, too bad.
Your piont about the growing Christian Church in Ireland doesn't enter into Jack's books because he is not writing about Ireland or the kid-napped son of Norhtern British Nobleman becoming St. Patrick. He is writing a different story of how the 'Arthur' legend may have developed.
I have never read any other Arthurian literature that mentions St. Patrick or the Christian movement in Ireland, so why would Jack Whyte's books mention those topics, when he is telling a tale that leads to Arthur?
Have a great St. Patrick's Day
Slainte
Thom
Hey Guys,
I just finished reading The Eagles' Brood for the second time, and the book does in fact mention about St.Patrick. I can't exactly remember where, but his name is mentioned. There is a little part where they talk about the christianity in Hibernia (Ireland) and have a little bit of St.Patrick. Just take a look and you'll find it, I'm sure.
George
I have to agree with Thom's post, and in addition would add that the first two books in the series take place during the last years of Roman occupation, a period that is well documented. Once the Romans have withdrawn, records are very few and at times quite vague. It then becomes up to the author to present his view of what might have happened. We are, after all, talking about a work of fiction.
As for mead, I don't recall an in-depth discussion of that topic here on the forum, but would be happy to join in should it arise. There are probably lots of opinions out there!
Susan
I suppose I would ask what possible benefit might be found for including any sort of mention of Saint Patrick in these stories. What would it add to the plot? How would it tie in with the sequence of events? Does adding such a theme detract from the story or add to it?
I would submit that knowing a fact about a period of time doesn't mean that you need to note that fact in your writing about the time period. In many cases, it would simply cause the story to mire down in unimportant detail, unrelated to the characters and serving no purpose in furthering the story line.
As to the assertion that the style in the later books changes, that is obviously a matter of very subjective taste. I do not personally see the style change, but can relate to a reader picking out specifics to bolster an opinion.
Now then, as to mead...
Mead is a beverage in which honey is fermented. The honey provides the sugars, as do the grapes for wine and the grain for beers/ales. Mead can yield an alcohol content of up to 25%, as compared to 12% for wine and 2-5% for brewed beverages. These numbers are for modern incarnations. The alcohol content is likely lower in the time frame of Jack's books, due simply to the relative purity levels the makers were able to maintain.
So, drinking 50 proof mead is going to deliver quite a kick when compared to common 2-4% beer or ale.
The Romans were quite adept at transporting liquids which were worth the effort, such as wine and olive oil. Honeyed wine would be just that, wine with a bit of honey added to change the flavor. They also were known to add a lead-based salt to some wine, not knowing the dangers presented by the lead.
Regards,
Chief Scott
Thanks for the input, Chief!
A quick Google search turned up the following tidbits that I found interesting....
The ancient Egyptians were drinking mead before beer became a staple in their diet. It's an old, old beverage.
It's speculated that the Celtic peoples fermented honey with hazelnut sap to make mead.
After removing honey from the comb, the combs were placed in a large vat of hot water to remove any remaining honey and melt the wax which floated to the top. When cool, the wax was removed to be used for candles, etc. and the remaining weak solution of honey/water left open to the air. Airborne yeast then fermented the solution to create a poor-man's form of mead. Stronger mead required more honey and was reserved for the higher classes.
I'm sure there's lots more mead trivia out there and I'd love to hear it!
Susan
I have a recipe for mead that I copied from the Old Forum. Matt, the resident ancient home-brew expert posted it. Unfortunately, the document I made for it is at work. It was not an overly complicated process, but like the home-brewing of beer, it takes some elbow room and a bit of dedication. I'll post it here tomorrow for any of those with the wherewithal to attempt it.
I have looked for commercially produced bottled mead just to have a try. I'm thinking the honey must give it a distinctive flavor, but I haven't found any yet...
Regards,
Chief Scott
Well that does it Chief, you must stop by when you head east this year. There are 2 commercial Meaderies with in 2 hours of my place. One is near London Ont, the Carolinian Winery the other between London and Sarnia Munroe's Honey and Mead. It would be a pleasure to take you to either....no BOTH!
Slainte
Good catch georgie_boy. I didn't look it up but I trust you.
Thom, I realize that Whyte isn't writing about St. Patrick, that wasn't really my point. I think I was really drawing on Merlyn's struggle with his own beliefs and the fact that he spent about 6 weeks in Ireland and the series picked up a host of charcters from the land (Arthur, shelagh, doniul, Liam, et al.) and Patrick never once came up. I was not suggested any plot point being drawn from this although the opertunity was certainly there. And, can you downplay the role of christianity in Arthur's life, I'd say it is a fairly major theme?
Susan, if i'm not mistaken, all factions in the series (be mindful I have only read through the saxon shore) consider Camulod to very romanized in view and practice. Many citizens carry roman names and many carry roman (especially military) training. Conversations are carried out in Latin. I am quite aware of the idea of fictional writing and that there is a void of records following roman withdraw. But why would the style of Whytes writing suddenly change with the lack of records. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I don't see the point to your arguement in your first post.
As for the mead story there are a few inaccuracies in what people seem to be reporting on this thread, and I'll not worry about that because it wasn't really the point of my post. Although, if you'd like create a thread about brewing methods and Saccharomyces cerevisiae I'd be happy to speak to the topic. Beer is as old as bread and the fermentation of cerals marked the beginning of civilization. Infact, I would encourage Susan do a google search for the etymology of the word "cash".
I was more so trying to open discussion as to the stylistic changes in Whyte's writing as he changed his target audience. As publishers wanted to profit from a the much larger and profitable audience of fantasy readers there is was shift in writing style. It is undeniable that niche fantasy writers have a particular prose and structure that they prefer to use. It creates a comfort among readers and greater likelyhood of a series being read. I suppose in my post I was leveling the charge of "selling out" at Jack Whyte, asserting that the first to books in the series were wonderful peices of fiction and that with pressure from the editor's he allowed his writing to change. I welcome you to tear down this arguement, I think the enlightenment would be good for me, however please argue my actual arguement and not plot line theory or significance of ancillary facts.
Cheers,
Michael
Well, I was way off on the alcohol level of mead! I don't have a clue as to where I came up with the 50% number. Here is the recipe from Matt:
Thom, I'll just send you the basic one, then you can play about with it to your hearts content. Basically remember, if you want it thicker use more honey, not less water and always use good quality yeast. MEAD..... The most common complaint from the unwary mead-virgin is that its too sweet, whether commercially produced or home made. However, this does not need to be the case. Apart from the essential oils, enzymes, and trace elements, honey is simply a rich source of the sugars fructose and glucose. Just like any other brew, the quantity of honey used will directly affect the sweetness of the resulting drink. If you are going to make mead, then try to find a consistent source of honey (try to avoid off the shelf supermarket honey), as the honey can make or break the flavour of a basic mead (lavender honey is one of the strongest natural flavours). Obviously, if you want to use locally produced honey, then you will have to wait until the brighter months. A gallon of very basic mead can be made with between 2 and 3 pounds of honey, and the juice of 1 lemon (to balance the acidity). Obviously, clean everything thoroughly with campden tablets or other proprietary home brew cleansing solution before you start. Using a large blanching pot (or cauldron!), mix and simmer 1 part honey with about 2 parts water until the impurities come to the top in the form of a foamy scum. Scoop this stuff off, until the wort appears clean (dont overdo this, a little scum never hurt ANYONE!). Pop in the lemon juice, and pour the liquid into your brewing vessel. Allow the wort (honey/water/lemon mixture) to cool off to about body temperature, top up with water (previously boiled if your water stinks of chlorine), pitch the yeast into it, and fit an airlock. Note that many varieties of yeast need to be started separately in a jar, and some dont start very well without yeast nutrient, so ask if youre not sure. I use champagne yeast for nice strong mead (around 15% alcohol). After about a month or so the fermentation should have finished. Re-rack (siphon) it into a fresh container to allow it to clear before bottling or drinking. Basic mead settles out on its own quite easily in a month or two. There are books-a-plenty with mead recipes, but you may feel inclined to begin from a basic recipe, as above, and build on it intuitively. ENJOY
Regards,
Chief Scott
milesmichaels-
I had always attributed the change in styles with the change of narrator more than anything else. With the final two books, several people have mentioned having a more difficult time identifying with Clothar than with either Publius or Merlyn.
Merlyn seems to go on these long bouts of introspection that the first two books didn't have. He is also very much interested in details that add to his personality over time.
Clothar is much more rigid in his personal discipline and ethical code. As a very well developed character of his times he may seem a little too uptight to modern readers. He is, after all, brought up in a religous school the likes of which is utterly foreign to most North American readers.
Publius is just a bit more frank, both with himself and by extention his readers. He remains my favorite of the three without a doubt.
Have you read "Uther" yet?
Regards,
Chief Scott
And a note to Thom before I forget-
I will have to see how my trip ends up being scheduled before committing to a visit. If it should happen that I am independantly wealthy by that time, count on it!
Regards,
Chief Scott
I've never made mead, but I have drank it. In my early English class, where we studied mainly Beowulf, one of my classmates brought in several bottles of mead for everyone to share. My friend and I made boasts in true Anglo-Saxon style prior to inbibing. I recall it being quite tasty.
You know I had thought of the character voice change as well. In fact that was one of the things that struck me when I first read a "merlyn" book. I thought it to be impressive that Whyte could just change his voice so well and so consistently without his own style interfering. My growing cynicism is what led me to the thought of stylistic change was brought on by evil money grubbing editors. But, perhaps that is what inspired my post, my own indecision in the matter.
I just finished the Saxon shore last night after about 8 years. I was disappointed in the end that the Colony had corrupted its speaking of Latin but elated (due to my contempt for Merlyn's verbose style and thought games) that Merlyn got what was coming to him. Having finished I think I would like to finish up the series.
I think one of the things I hate about Whyte's writing through Merlyn is the inability to let foreshadowing be foreshadowing. Instead he beats you over the head with a club that says "remember this part" which makes the story too predictable.
Anyway, I'd love to discuss writing style that the books some more so please respond the above, but on to my real passion... booze. I am surprised that there is 1/3 parts honey into the mead recipe that is a lot of residual sugar that produces a lot of alcohol and is a very stressful environment for the yeast. Ever wonder why honey doesn't go bad? The solute concentration is too high for bacteria to live on, they can't move particles in through their own membrane. Same with peanut butter. Residual sugar is the key to making any fermented beverage. Beer is grain that has been, well to simply put it, cooked in order to break down the complex carbohydrates into something digestible by yeast. Wine is much the same however the high residual fruit sugars in grapes are easily digestible and plentiful for yeast. The higher the sugar the higher the Ethanol output. As sugar is consumed, ethanol is produced. Ethanol is toxic to yeast (and most everything else) so until recently the percentage of alcohol in booze (before the advent of genetically modified/bred yeast strains) above ~15% was hard to achieve and above ~20% was unattainable.
milesmichaels
Kind of interesting to see you say that concerning voice
I had a real circle of emotion with the books as narrated by Merlyn. The first one I enjoyed tremendously, because you never see much of Publius as a child. With Merlyn, he goes into great detail on some of his childhood adventures (I particularly like how he meets his father for the first time, and the discovery of how stirrups work).
Then he gets a little older and he really begins to get on my nerves. At times he is so sanctimonious that I want to almost to puke or throw the book across the room. Then his purpose in life comes to him and he changes yet again. When Arthur becomes the focus of his life, one would think that the change is complete. Then we have oh wait-you havent read that far yet get back to me when you have finished Metamorphosis.
I think that Jacks use of persona is really very strong here, because real people change over the course of their lives and Merlyn is a really well done example, very complete and very well fleshed out.
Regards,
Chief Scott
[b:]Chief Scott wrote:[/b:]
Then he gets a little older and he really begins to get on my nerves. At times he is so sanctimonious that I want to almost to puke or throw the book across the room. [/quote:]
Glad to see I'm not the only one! Really makes you want to beat your head against the wall, doesn't he? :laugh:
http://users3.nofeehost.com/tonyamy
Tony-
I tend to think that this is what makes him a great character. His ability to bring out strong feelings, whatever the point of view, is a testament to good characterization and good writing...
Regards,
Chief Scott
Chief-
I absolutely agree. While the first two are my "favorite books" in the series, there are many parts in the later books which could only be told by Merlyn.
http://users3.nofeehost.com/tonyamy
I have a recipe that I've never tried but keep meaning to for mead if anyone is interested.
Everything about the whole St. Patrick deal-e-o (is that how one would write it) has already been said so I will not repeat my thoughts - excpet to say my husband and I went to our Irish friends St. Paddies day celebration and had a lovely time and that we got talking about how it wasn't the Vikings who were the first Europeans to North America but the Irish - St. Brendan to be exact. A bit off topic but interesting none the less.
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe."
-- Galileo Galilei
The theory of St. Brendan is an interesting one, but there is much debate on the topic of his "visit" to North America. Here is an interesting link for more on the subject, actually a Catholic encyclopedia.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02758c.htm
abutcher
Our friend whose name is also Brendan, was quite adament that it was the Irish and apparently that is what he and his wife were taught in school. I only found information that said it was a legend. Until other wise proved I'll go with the Vikings as being the first Europeans visitors to North America
"Mathematics is the language with which God has written the universe."
-- Galileo Galilei
There is evidence that the Clovis spear was brought to the Americas by a people indiginous to modern day france. I may be off on my date a little, but that puts the first Europeans to conquer the Americas around 14000 years ago, far before the asians that came across the Berring Straight.
The clovis spear is another interesting theory, and has more merit, I believe, than the St. Brendan theory. The Clovis spear theory is aslo debateable, as outlined in this Wikipedia explanation.
"Another controversial hypothesis proposed in 1999 by Smithsonian archaeologist Dennis Stanford and colleague Bruce Bradley, suggests that the Clovis people were descended from the Solutrean people who lived in southern Europe between about 21,000-17,000 years ago, and who created the first Stone Age artwork in present-day southern France. The link is suggested by the similarity in technology between the spear points of the Solutreans and those of the Clovis people. Such a theory would require that the Solutreans crossed via the edge of the pack ice in the North Atlantic Ocean that then extended to the Atlantic coast of France. They could have done this using survival skills similar to those of the modern Inuit people. Supporters of this hypothesis suggest that stone tools found at Cactus Hill (an early American site in Virginia), that are knapped in a style between Clovis and Solutrean, support a possible link between the Clovis people and Solutrean people in Europe. The idea is also supported by mitochondrial DNA analysis (see Map in Single-origin hypothesis) which has found that some members of some native North American tribes have a maternal ancestry (called haplogroup X), which appears to be more closely linked to the maternal ancestors of some present day individuals in Europe and western Asia than to the ancestors of any present-day individuals in eastern Asia.
Opponents of the hypothesis that the Solutreans crossed the Atlantic point to the difficulty of the ocean crossing, as well as the lack of art work (such as that found at Lascaux in France) among the Clovis people, as indicative that no such link exists. However, evidence suggests that canoes built previous to 9500 BC have been found."
This is a very interesting topic and is one that is certainly open to debate. But without any conclusive evidence, which I doubt will be unearthed anytime soon, it will be just that, a debate.
abutcher