It is good to see that you are still up to your antics. You have an impatient reader on your hands, good sir! When I saw that "Burning Land" is soon to come, I nearly pulled out my hair. 2010! What will I DO with that time?! Perhaps I will take up basketweaving until it comes to pass. That is a lie. I will keep up my own writing, and perhaps send you something when it becomes published and safe for handling. It is good, I think, to pass on work to one's peers. Even better if they are ruthless should someone fail utterly! In reading "Lords of the North" (and to a lesser extent "Sword Song"), I found that the battle details became a little hazy in comparison to the prior Saxon Tales. Is there a particular reason for this, or did it just pan out that way? Understand that it is in no way a complaint. If anything, it reinforces the feeling that the events are a recollection rather than straight storytelling. I have always found your books more intriguing than most for the simple fact that it doesn't quite seem like plot work. More a sequence of events, as one might expect to experience in a real life setting. The sense of surprise is constant. The extent of your research intrigues me. How is it that you come across resources which seem to be far more intricate and detailed than most in your field? I didn't mean this to become a praise fest, but alas. I hope the upcoming years will show us more of what lurks in that head of yours. -Torr
I wasn't aware of describing the battles any differently . . . . but I'm sure you're right . . . I'll be interested what you think of The Burning Land where at least one of the battles is a big set-piece of a major clash (though, as usual, we know very little of what happened at Farnham - yes, Farnham in Surrey, which seems a most unlikely place for a major battle, but it did happen!). I suspect I use a lot of imagination to fill in gaps in research, if that answers your second question! And thank you