I don’t normally write about politics. Embedded in my writing is a sense of values and beliefs, which I believe underpins the way any writer approaches their work. That’s almost inevitable as there are things that we carry and wear like comfortable clothes – you don’t even notice you’re wearing them until they are challenged. If that challenge is long, and slow, you might not even notice that they are being challenged until it’s too late, which is my reason for writing about politics now. I feel that if don’t do something then it may be too late for us to change.
Let me summarise the situation. In the coming election there is a choice between bad, worse, irrelevant, much worse, and absolutely dreadful. You can choose for yourself which offering fits in which slot, and that’s not to say that there aren’t good people trying to do the right thing. The election turnout is likely to be low because people feel that they are not being offered a choice they can vote for, and this is being capitalised upon by popularists like Russell Brand and Nigel Farage, who claim to offer an alternative, though that alternative is remarkably short on detail. The problem, however, goes much, much deeper.
It started in 1979 with the election of Margaret Thatcher’s government. She came to power on a platform of austerity and monetarism, supported by Ronald Reagan in the United States, or perhaps more properly the other way around; Thatcher supported Reagan. It is characterised by the quotation from the character Gordon Gecko in the film Wall Street (1987): “Greed is good.” The idea is that as the rich get richer, the benefits cascade to the less well-off and as the economy improves everyone benefits. This is so-called “trickle down economics”. It brought us yuppies, bankers trousering ever-increasing bonuses, and a macho competitive culture based on a trickle-down theory for which there is little evidence. Interestingly, the first use of the phrase was about the Great Depression in the United States where the humorist Will Rogers said, “Money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy”. It didn’t happen then, and it’s not happening now.
There are a number of assumptions that have become embedded into our culture and for me, the most insidious and divisive of these is the zero sum game – the idea that in order to succeed, someone else must fail. This is at the heart of much of current thinking. It’s even even intrinsic to the elections themselves and is so embedded that it is difficult to see. Let me give you some examples:
- Commercial companies take the approach that in order to compete in the market they must beat their suppliers down to the lowest possible margin. They are beaten down themselves by the people they supply until it reaches the consumer who demands ever lower prices.
- Farmers are paid less for milk that it costs to produce because supermarkets use milk as a loss-leader to bring customers to their stores.
- Examinations are made harder so that not as many students achieve the highest grades. Politicians raise the bar while continuing to say that they want more children to succeed.
- Programmes like The Apprentice and The X-Factor promote a winner-takes-all philosophy on a national scale, supported by a media that’s addicted to the income that the cult of celebrity generates.
All of these are based on the idea of winners and losers, and propagate the idea that competition is good, which is a view that underpins the philosophy of market economics, supply and demand, and survival of the fittest. The problem is that it doesn’t deliver what we need. It’s the reason that successive governments have been able to privatise monopolies and sell the assets of the country while our debt outstrips our income. Meanwhile our productivity as a nation is stagnant or falling. We are failing vast numbers of our citizens and our youth is disenchanted, demotivated and demoralised.
Markets benefit everyone. Competition keeps us fit-for-purpose. Greed is good. It’s been the litany of the last thirty years, and it was brought in by the political right and then swallowed by the left, leaving nothing to choose between them. The problem is, it isn’t true.
But is there an alternative?
Well, there is, but it requires a re-think at the most fundamental level and that most difficult of things; a change in culture. We need to substitute the idea that to win someone else must lose, with the idea that we are more successful if we help each other. If we help each other then our overall productivity and output rises and we all benefit from the result.
The idea of Greed is Good was an easy sell because we all like to think of ourselves as winners, but no-one wins all the time, which has become apparent over the last thirty years. What happens is that we cheat each other, which is fundamentally how we ended up in a boom-and-bust economic cycle culminating in a banking fraud so vast that it ruined entire countries.
There is no party to vote for that will do this for us. There are no politicians advancing this cause. We need to do it for ourselves because we are the only ones who can change it. We need to do it at work with our colleagues and at home with our families and friends. We need to embed this philosophy in the small decisions we make every day, and decide whether to climb over each other or help each other reach our goals.
At the moment it’s a philosophy that’s alien to our culture. We’re so used to the idea that we should be winners (and by extension everyone else the losers) that it’s in our language, our play, our morality. This can be changed a little at a time, but in the coming election we are able to demand of our politicians that they shift their thinking too and start to promote co-operation rather than competition, not just in this country, but in all countries. That implies a sense of community that extends beyond our immediate vicinity and embraces each of us as part of a greater whole, affecting us individually and personally.
Only by supporting and helping each other can we leave behind the culture of division, conflict, and disaster that has brought us collectively to the brink of ruin. Change yourself, influence others, help them to change those around them.
Do it before it’s too late.
So having talked about novices, let’s discuss expert archers in the context of writing Fantasy.
Firstly I want to distinguish between single archers and companies of archers. The primary focus of this post will be the single archer. A company of archers is a band of men trained to fight together in a battle situation. What they do is a little different. Their tactic is usually to drop a rain of arrows at an approaching force, aiming at progressively shorter distances as the enemy closes, until finally they are close enough to be shot at directly. These companies train to shoot at marks, i.e. to drop an arrow at specific distances by shooting it into the air and letting it fall on the enemy. This is different from drawing and aiming at a specific target and relies on there being many archery to produce a hail of arrows. It’s a very effective weapon used like this, as demonstrated at various medieval battles.
Alternatively there are horseback archery who ride up to or alongside an enemy and pick off targets while galloping past. These were tactics used widely across eastern Europe, the Middle East, and through Central and Eastern Asia as far as Korea and Japan. The Native Americans are also said to have used mounted archery in hunting and warfare.
In the case of the individual archer, the first thing to note is that the bow is not carried already strung. In particular, it isn’t worn across the body as seen in many a Hollywood movie. The main reason is that a bow made of natural materials which is kept permanently strung will eventually stay in the strung shape when unstrung and the bow will lose much of the power gained by bending it. This is the reason that modern longbow archers unstring their bows as soon as they finish shooting. In the case of composite bows, this is even more critical as the bow can de-laminate if left permanently strung (i.e the limbs will split apart as the glue fails) and the bow can injure you and anyone close by.
Some years ago I spoke with one of the curators in the Royal Armouries at Leeds about some asiatic composite bows (see photo) that had been donated to the collection already strung (he thought they had been displayed on someone’s wall). He said they daren’t unstring them because they would likely fall apart so they were displaying them as they had been donated.
A quick note for D&D enthusiasts. A composite bow and a compound bow are two completely different things. A composite bow is made of more than one material and is laminated (usually a combination of horn, sinew, softened bone and wood). A compound bow is a bow that uses levers or pulleys (called cams) to change the draw weight (the force held by the fingers) to make it more accurate and easier to aim. Compound bows were not developed until the 1940s and are unlikely to feature in epic fantasy. Of course they would be perfect for an alternative history – ArrowPunk anyone?
Bows are deflex if the limbs (the bits that bend when the bow is pulled back) curve towards the archer when the bow is unstrung. It is reflex if they curve away from the archer. It is recurve if the limbs curve towards the archer and then away at the tips (i.e. it curves and re-curves). Some designs of asiatic bow unstrung are completely reflex and form the shape of a C unstrung (see photo) and must be inverted to string them into the classic recurve shape. This is tricky and takes practice as the whole thing can twist and snap in your hands while under tension.
You don’t “fire” an arrow, despite the scene in Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings at Helm’s Deep. There are so many things wrong with that scene but we still love the films – my favourite is the Elven archers standing behind the wall shooting between the people on the wall at the orcs on the other side, in the dark, while it’s raining. Never once is anyone accidentally shot in the back. There is never a loose fletch that causes an arrow to spiral, or a sudden breeze causing the arrows to drift sideways. It’s perfect, but then they are elves. An arrow is shot, by the way, or loosed or let go. The term “fire” comes from firearms where you would apply a fire to the powder to shoot. Firing things is a modern term and unlikely to fit into a historical context.
There are any number of archery feats that are thought to be the product of movie special effects, such as shooting one arrow down the shaft of another, shooting things in mid-air, and even shooting an incoming arrow out of the air with another. These are not things to be tried casually as a bow and arrow is a weapon and just as lethal by accident as it is on purpose. However, Lars Andersen, a very talented and imaginative archer has trained himself to perform many of these feats and recorded them in the video below:
UPDATE: For clarity, please note that the historical claims made in the commentary of this video are not substantiated in fact. These demonstrations do require a high level of skill, but they are neither unique, nor ‘rediscovered secrets’. The techniques and skills shown are for illustration only and should not be taken as historically accurate. For instance, a back-quiver is not a hollywood myth, as stated in the narration. If you look at the image from the Bayeaux Tapestry in my previous post you can clearly see that one of the Norman archers is using a back quiver. There are many such mistakes and misrepresentations in the commentary, but the skills demonstrated remain impressive in execution.
It’s a shame that the commentary is not of the same standard as the shooting, but it shows what an archers could potentially do. Just how exceptional the talents of Lars Andersen are is unknown, but if he can do this now then there is no reason it could not have been the case in times past. I would emphasise, though, that most of what he is doing is dangerous and that he has trained for many years. Even shooting at short range can result in arrows bouncing out of a target, going in random directions and injuring the shooter or anyone near them. Not something to try for yourself at home.
As for accuracy, the archers in the traditional Mongolian archery tournament shoot at a stacked row of small cylindrical braided targets, each about the size of a large tea-mug at a distance of 75 metres for men and 65 metres for women, with composite bows that have no sights or modern aids. The judges in these contests stand next to the targets in order to judge where the arrow has hit. The arrows have blunt wooden tips rather than sharp metal or bone but, even so, being hit by one would be painful and would doubtless cause injury. The archers are so accurate that the judges lean forward to see better where the arrows hit. The competitors in these tournaments are master archers, and their arrows hit targets that are difficult even to see at that distance.
This is the miracle of archery. At a distance of 75 metres, the difference between hitting the target and hitting a judge standing one metre away is an angle of less than 1 degree (0.764 degrees for those interested). The difference between hitting the target and not is a fraction of this. It’s not about maths, though, it’s about judgement and skill. It’s about feeling the wind and knowing how much the arrow will be deflected. It’s about using your imagination to place the arrow at the centre of the target from far away. It’s about years of practice that give your muscles a memory of how a great shot feels so that you can replicate it again and again.
An expert archer is a formidable opponent at close range and at a distance. Being an expert archer takes years of dedication, practice, knowledge and skill. If you’re going to include characters in your story that are expert archers then give them that knowledge and skill. Have them practice that skill constantly. Make them care about the condition of their equipment, and the way it is stored or carried, whether it is damp or dry. Have them maintain their arrows and replace the ones that are cracked or broken. Have them check their bow-string and keep a spare under their hat where it’s dry and accessible. Have them check their bow after every fight and carefully unstring it so that it will be ready for next time.
At the same time, draw a balance between making your story accurate and believable and filling it with irrelevant detail. Such details used well can add richness and realism, but used badly it comes across as explication or irrelevant padding that will slow the narrative and steal the pace from your story.
As with all creative writing, the story comes first.
I haven’t posted for a while because in my other profession I have been hectically busy. How’s it going in there? Very well, thank you, but we’re not out of the woods yet. Anyway, I was particularly taken with Chuck Wendig’s take on Things You Should Know When Writing About Guns, and I wanted to do something similar for Archery.
Bows and arrows have been around since hunters decided to stop throwing sticks at the wildlife by hand, and maybe for that reason writers tend to think they are simple to make and use in a fantasy setting. After all, any self-respecting pseudo-medieval character would have known how to shoot a bow and arrow, right?
Wrong. A novice bowman has about as much of a chance of successfully making a bow and arrow that can be used as an effective weapon over more than ten yards as they have of making a red carpet out of fruit. And if you’re within ten yards of your enemy, a bow is the wrong weapon to reach for.
Let’s dispel some myths about novices:
- Most novices can’t hit a 4-foot diameter target with an arrow from ten yards until they’ve been taught to shoot. I know, I help run beginners courses. Hitting a target at 30 yards is impossible. They are using the wrong muscles, they’re not aligned properly and they are more likely to injure themselves that anyone else (string-slap is when the string hits your bow arm on release like a high speed garotte. It leaves spectacular bruises)
- Most novices can’t draw a bow of more that 20lbs in draw weight (the force needed to draw back the string). If they can draw it, they can’t hold it. In order to shoot an arrow more than 30 yards you have to be able to draw and shoot a bow of more than 20lbs, otherwise you’re aiming in mid-air above the target and you have no idea where the arrow is going.
- Making a bow takes skill, time and knowledge. The right wood, taken from the right places, seasoned in the right way, crafted in expert hands, will make a good weapon. Most modern bows are laminated wood because it performs better. Most self-bows (bows made without lamination) are slow, and they warp because the mix of heartwood and sapwood expand and contract at different rates. Waterproof glue for lamination wasn’t invented until the late nineteenth century.
- You can make a bow out of almost any springy material and it will work to some extent. An arrow, however, must be straight and must be made of a material that can take the extreme force imparted by the bow without splitting down the middle at the nock (where the string goes) or shattering on release, or coming apart in mid-air.
- The fletches on the arrow must stay on and must be aligned with a constant offset angle so that the arrow will spin in the air. If they are feathers they should be from the same wing of the same bird so that they curve the same way.
- Arrows all need to flex by the same amount – too flexible and they’ll break, too stiff and they won’t fly straight. Each set of arrows has to be matched to the bow, the archer, and the style of shooting. And each other. Different weights of arrows fly different distances with the same force, so they all have to weigh the same too.
- The centre of gravity must be in the right place, just forward of the centre. Too far forward and they’ll stall, too far back and they won’t fly straight. And if you have any intention towards adjusting your aim between shots, they all need to be identical.
- A bow-string must be capable of holding the full weight of the bow and then stopping the bow from flying apart when it is released. Even some modern materials cannot withstand a bow being released without an arrow to absorb some of the energy. A vine, creeper, or plant will pull apart. Hair is too prone to breaking. String-making is an art, even in the present day.
- You don’t shoot a bow of more than 20lbs off your fingers. Its like holding a cheese-wire and lifting ten bags of sugar. It will slice into the joints of your fingers. You need a tab, or finger guard, thumb-ring or shooting glove – something between the bow-string and you.
So none of this is accidental. Bows, arrows, strings and the accessories necessary to shoot them require skilled craftsmanship. That’s why there were guilds of Bowyers and of Fletchers. You had to serve an apprenticeship and learn your trade. Sure, a makeshift bow could be cut from a hedgerow, but it will be lightweight and prone to splitting. That assumes that you have a string to string it with, of the right length and capable of withstanding the forces involved. Sinew works well after hours of boiling and shaving and careful preparation, and you have the tools to hand.
And then you have to make arrows.
Maybe it’s just easier to go back to throwing rocks at things?
I had the pleasure of being interviewed by Bernhard Reicher for VISIONARIUM issue 3 recently, and if you would like to read the interview (and you read German) you can find it here:
We talk about influences and inspirations, the source of stories, methods and magic. There were some interesting questions there and it was fun to do.
Take a look and see.
This year’s EasterCon, Satellite 4, was held by the banks of the Clyde in Glasgow over the Easter weekend. This was my first time in Glasgow and as is the way with conventions I didn’t get to see much of the city other than the area around the convention hotel. Having said that, everyone was very friendly and it would be a city I would go back to and explore without hesitation. The convention itself was well-organised and ran smoothly – clearly a lot of work had gone into the preparation and I would like to add my thanks to the many people involved in running the convention.
For me it was a chance to catch up with friends and colleagues and to meet people for the first time. It was particularly nice to meet those who have read my work and took a moment to let me know they’d enjoyed it. Writing is generally a solitary activity and to realise that your work has made a connection with someone is very rewarding – especially as they are such nice people.
In terms of programming, I participated in a panel discussion on different styles of fantasy, which was fun and interesting. Everyone seemed to enjoy it, including the panel, so that was good. I especially enjoyed the presentations of two visitors to the convention, Andy Miah from the University of the West of Scotland, and Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell.
Andy presented on the subject of enhanced humans, either by mechanical, biological, chemical or genetic means, and what was stunning about his presentation was not how much could be done, but how much of it was current. I was expecting him to be talking about things that might happen in the future, but most of what he was presenting is perfectly possible now, and may actually already have been done. Andy clearly knows his subject well and is a gifted presenter, and his presentation was excellent.
Dame Jocelyn Bell Burnell is a former President of the Royal Astronomical Society and was President of the Institute of Physics. She is also lots of fun, really interesting to listen to and an inspirational speaker. Her presentation was on new developments in astronomy, a subject that until then I’d though was relatively well understood and quite static. How wrong I was. Dame Jocelyn mostly talked about transients, things which move around in the heavens and which have been difficult to study because the sensitivity to track something in the heavens that is moving around has only recently become available. These are important not just because they enhance our understanding of our universe, but also because there is evidence that from time to time large objects crash into the Earth causing damage on a catastrophic scale.
She also talked about mysterious things called whistlers that that are intermittent and fleeting – pulses of radiation that have crossed intergalactic space. This is cutting edge astronomy and we are only beginning to theorise on what might be the cause of such intense bursts of energy. Dame Jocelyn has the gift of making her subject accessible, understandable and inspiring. If you get the opportunity to hear her speak then I highly recommend it.
So overall Satellite 4 was a successful weekend for me personally and for the convention in general, and I hope I will get to visit the lovely City of Glasgow again soon.
The lovely people at Waterstones in Bedford have allowed me to take over a small part of their shop this Saturday 30th November so I can sign books. I will be in the shop from about 10:45 onwards with copies of all 4 books in the Courts of the Feyre series available – at least until we sell them all.
To tempt you to come along, I will be giving away a free signed copy of Sixty-One Nails to the first five people who come into the shop and give me the codeword, “DOGSTAR”. Come early because they will go quite quickly.
In any case, come along and say ‘Hi’. If you want to bring along your existing copies, I will be glad to sign those too. Bear in mind that I will be sporting my Movember Moustache in all its glory.
See you there!
On Saturday 12th October I will be at Wood Green Literary Festival, along with Anne Lyle, author of the Night’s Masque series, and together we will be discussing Mad and Magical London – the London of the unknown and the unseen, and the London of magical and mysterious history.
Anne and I will be happy to sign books, or just chat about London, fantasy, writing and books. Latest information is that we will be in Wood Green Library, but that may change, so keep an eye on the festival website for latest information.