Secrets of the Vikings

I have always been fascinated by Vikings. As I was doing research for a possible historical novel about Vikings, I came up with some interesting facts which I'd like to share.

When the Vikings, or Norsemen, began raiding Britain around the beginning of the ninth century, the Gaels and Anglo-Saxons believed it was impossible to sail across the North Sea. They reasoned the Vikings had to have made a pact with the Devil in order to do it. If you know the secrets of how the Vikings traversed the waterways of the North Atlantic, you will realize that one does not need a pact with the Devil. Sailing the North Atlantic, even in small, open boats, is not as difficult as it seems.

Even though the North Sea has a reputation for storms, some months are calmer than others. The Vikings chose the best time of the year to sail, which is mid to late summer in that area of the world. The looting of Lindisfarne, which is thought of as the beginning of the Viking era, occurred on July 8. When a Norse fleet and army sacked the Gaelic fortress of Alt Clut, they did not return immediately because it was winter by the time fort fell. They camped at Alt Clut and sailed back home when the weather improved.

The Vikings did not sail directly from Norway to Britain or Iceland. The Shetland Islands were only two days sail from Norway with good winds, and the Orkney Islands only a couple days from there. From the Orkney Islands it's possible to see the coast of Scotland.  Also, the Faroe Islands are perhaps three days sail from the Shetland Islands, and a roughly equal distance from Iceland. From Iceland, it's a short trip to Greenland, then to Baffin Island, and then to Newfoundland, which they called Vinland. By hopping from one island to another, they could assure they were never far from land at any one time.

They could also predict the weather by observing cloud formations. They knew when a storm is approaching certain cloud types precede it, often by several days. If they saw storm clouds approaching, they could stay put on the coast until it passed.

Finally, they never sailed alone. Every instance of a Viking voyage I am able to find involves groups of ships.  The smallest number I can find sailing at once is three. If one ship got into trouble, the others could assist it.

This does not diminish the bravery of the Vikings. It takes a lot of courage to set out on the sea in a wooden boat perhaps fifty feet long, with no radio, no compass, and no global positioning system.  While it was still a daunting task to sail the North Sea in a small, open boat, it's not as unsurmountable once you know how.

GMC for Self-taught Writers

GMC

Believe it or not, I've been writing seriously for five years now, but it has only been in the last couple weeks that I have learned about GMC. What really surprised me, however, was the number of people in the writing circles I frequent who had no idea either. This included many published writers.

GMC stands for Goals, Motivation, and Conflict, which must be in every story for it to succeed. The concept is actually very simple. The Goals are what the character wants, Motivation is why he or she wants it, and Conflict is what happens to interfere with him or her reaching the goal.

I think the reason many writers do not know what GMC is can be explained by using an analogy of auto mechanics. Many people learned to work on cars by attending formal vocational training and many learned by tinkering with cars in their parents' garages. Some started in their parents' garages and then took some formal classes to expand their talent.

Ideally, every writer has a Bachelor of Arts in English or Journalism and a Master of Fine Arts on top of that.  Someone with that education would certainly have learned about GMC very early in his or her studies.  Those of us who do not have English degrees have likely not had formal training in GMC.  We learned writing on our own, making mistakes and coming back smarter.

Most of us who are not specifically trained in creative writing come up with GMC for our main characters anyway, not being aware of what we are doing. So, if everyone eventually comes up with GMC for their characters, why talk about it at all? The reason is it's easy to get off track if we are not consciously following the GMC for our character. Using another analogy, while the captain of a ship may know the exact route to his destination and sailed the course for years, he still must monitor his course or he will tend to drift off it. Likewise, even the most knowledgeable writer must be aware of the Goals, Motivation, and Conflict of his or her character or he or she runs the risk of the character going off course and becoming less realistic and relatable. This is an area where seasoned and educated writers are in the same peril as newbie and self-taught writers.

On Pleasing Everyone

 

There's a story that has stuck in my mind ever since I first read it in sixth grade, probably because the wisdom in it is so valuable.

A man and a boy are leading a donkey to market. They pass a group of people who say, "Look at that foolish man and boy.  Someone should be riding that donkey."  The man sets the boy onto the donkey.

They pass another group of people who say, "Look at that selfish boy, riding that donkey while his father walks."  The father lifts the boy from the donkey and climbs onto it himself.

They pass yet another group of people who say, "Look at that selfish father, riding on that donkey while his son has to walk."

At this point, the father decides the heck with them.  He climbs off the donkey and they walk the rest of the way to market.

Similar things can be said for pieces we write. I wrote a chapter and submitted it to an anonymous critique queue. I got one two word comment, "Nailed it."  I got another saying, "I have to stop here. This piece just isn't well enough written." Just reading the responses, you would wonder if everyone was looking at the same piece. Truth is, they were but the readers were different.

We'd all love to write a manuscript so perfect that every editor who reads it accepts it for publication and every reader who sees it gets riveted to the story until the end. It's not going to happen because everyone's likes are different. The same factor that makes one person love a manuscript could make another hate it. One person could pick up a story and say, "Great action, Awesome!" while another can pick up the same story and say, "Please, not another shoot-'em-up story."

I'd love to see an experiment run someday where Stephen King writes a story and puts it up for critique by people who have no idea he wrote it.  Most people will know right away it's written by a seasoned writer, if they don't recognize his style outright. Still, many I'm sure will reject it and stop reading. The reasonable objective is to write a story that anyone can enjoy, knowing not everyone will.

No Latitude for Getting it Wrong

Recently, I was in an exchange with a girl in London. In my novel, I mentioned it getting dark around 9:00 PM in mid June. She commented that it does not get dark in mid June until 10:00PM. So, who was right?  If you have a knowledge of physical geography, you know we both were.

The discrepancy comes from the fact the difference in the lengths of days by season is greater in the high latitudes (areas closer to the poles) than the low latitudes (areas closer to the equator).

The novel I was writing takes place in the Ozarks, approximate latitude 37 degrees north, while London is at latitude  52 degrees north. If you know the latitude of a location, it's easy to calculate sunrise and sunset for that location by using an online generator such as the one here: http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.php . Sunset at 52 degrees north (London, UK) occurs at 8:24 on June 21.  At latitude 37 degrees north (Springfield, MO) the sun sets at 7:23 on this date.

I have compiled a small table mentioning selected cities, their latitudes, and the time of sunrise and sunset on June 21 and December 21. No adjustment for how far east or west of their time zone has been made.

                                               

City                        Lat.         June 21                                 Dec. 21

                                                Rise          Set                        Rise          Set

London UK        52            3:40 am   8:24 pm             7:25 am   4:31 pm

New York NY      41           4:28 am   7:36 pm             6:50 am   5:06 pm

Springifeld MO  37           4:41 am   7:23 pm             6:40 am    5:16 pm

New Orleans LA 30          4:59 am   7:04 pm             6:25 am    5:32 pm

 

As you can see from the table, the sun rises an hour earlier in London than it does in Springfield and sets an hour later. In winter it's nearly reversed, with sunrise forty-five minutes later in London and setting forty-five minutes later.  Furthermore, the length of days varies more for high-latitude locations than low-latitude locations.

It does not get instantly dark the moment the sun sets. There is a period of twilight. As a general rule there is enough twilight to read a book a half hour before sunrise or after sunset, there's enough twilight to make out basic land features a full hour before sunrise or after sunset.  Twilight lasts longer the closer to the poles you get. Of course, this assumes a clear sky.  Depending on cloud cover, the twilight could be nonexistent.

While studying to make your novel as authentic as possible, don't forget about the effects of latitude on your setting. Now that you know the secret, you have the knowledge to make your novel that much more realistic.

                                               

GLADD is Really Quacked-Up on This One.

                                              GLADD is Really Quacked-Up on This One.

 

Everyone has their opinion of the GLADD, A&E, and Phil Robertson sage.  GLADD and other organizations were petitioning A&E to remove Robertson from Duck Dynasty because they viewed his comments as "hate speech".  While the term may mean different things to different people, my complaint is it seems so many activists define hate speech as "Expressing a position on a critical social issue different from the one I want expressed".  They develop an Orwellian view of speech something like:  "All speech except hate speech should be tolerated.  Speech that disagrees with my speech is hate speech."

What people need to understand is tolerance means not only getting others to tolerate your ideas, but getting yourself to tolerate the ideas of others as well. There's no question in my mind that the leadership of GLADD has an unwavering opinion they are right in their actions. Their own website says they are "Fighting Media Defamation of LGBT People for Over 25 Years." While I do not think that in itself is a bad cause, I personally find fault with their tactics. It seems ironic that an organization so devoted to expanding one type of freedom for a class of people is also so willing to take away another type of freedom for another class of Americans.

GLADD sees themselves as the loser in this incident. They failed to achieve their objective of stopping the expression of a viewpoint they believe wrong. I see the American people in general as the victors instead. At least in this one case, the right to express an opinion has been protected. Ironically, this benefits GLADD as well as all Americans.  They are one of the most controversial or cutting-edge organizations in our society today, depending on your viewpoint. What would their position be in if someone considered their speech too extreme and tried to suppress it?

 

 

 

Blond or Blonde? The definitive answer.

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, it is unclear if the origin of the word is Germanic, or Romance. Whatever the case, it was re-introduced into the English language from the French language in the 1600s.

French has two genders: masculine and feminine.  It's a hard concept for native English speakers to understand that a noun can have a gender attached to it. However, it is important in the French language.

 

The form of an adjective in the French language changes depending on the gender of the noun it modifies. If an adjective modifies a feminine noun, an e is normally added to the end of the adjective. Thus, in French the correct form of blond is homme blond for blond man and femme blonde for blonde woman.

Whenever a noun is imported into the English language, it virtually always drops its gender. Blond is a very rare exception. For one reason or another, the word blond has retained a hint of its gender.  Thus, if the noun modifies a clearly feminine noun such as woman, the adjective is blonde woman. Otherwise, the correct form is blond, such as blond man.

So there you have it. Amaze your friends as one of the few people who get the correct spelling of the adjective every time.

Beware the man eating chicken!

There's a sign on a fence at a local theme park that says 'Six foot man eating chicken'. Next to it is a knothole that you're supposed to look through. When you peer in, you see a mannequin of a man eating what looks like fried chicken.  The mannequin is presumably six feet tall.

The joke is you're expecting to see a chicken that is six feet tall and eats men.  When you see something else, you laugh and say something like 'oh, you sure fooled me.'  Interestingly, the park staff was correct in their use of the English language.  It is the readers who are misled.

This is why writers often use hyphens for temporary compounds. Had the staff of the park actually wanted to say it was a chicken that eats men, they should have written 'Man-eating chicken.' Of course there's no such thing, and they would never have occasion to write that.

Another example is the difference between 'Man eating shark' and 'Man-eating shark.'  The presence of the hyphen provides clarity, the shark eats men.  Without the hyphen, the reader could assume it is a man eating shark meat, which is plausible yet different from what the writer may have intended.

The rule is when a temporary compound is used as an adjective before a noun, it's a good idea to include a hyphen to show the reader the two words are intended as an adjective.  An example of a temporary compound is putting the words 'fast' and 'moving' together to get 'fast-moving'.   This phrase when put in front of 'van' says 'fast-moving van'.  Otherwise, the reader could mistake what the writer intended to mean a moving van that moves fast.

I'd like to say due to my superior knowledge of the English language I instinctively know about temporary compounds and hyphens.  The truth is, up to a year ago I had no clue when to use hyphens.  Then someone critiqued an article I wrote and pointed it out. It was very embarrassing to me.  My hope is that by reading this post someone else out there can avoid this pitfall.