Molly talks about her writings, her historical studies and knowledge and of course her favorite Monarchs.
DM) In "Invitation to a Funeral", where does history
end and fiction start?
MB) Though the book features several real life characters
and events, the story is fictional. I spent three years researching
the background for the novel and tried to be as accurate as possible
about the politics and living conditions of the times, but for
the purposes of the story, I took liberties with dates. For example,
I included a number of real life incidents that occurred over
a period of several years, and squeezed them into one month in
the autumn of 1676. I also took liberties with the reasons behind
certain events, though once again, I tried to remain true to
the characters, and the spirit of the times.
DM) Which character are you most similar to?
MB) None of them, I hope, though I have days when I feel like
Nell Gwyn's mother.
DM) The characters are very life-like. Have any history students
ever confused some of the fictional characters with non-fiction
ones?
MB) Not as far as I know. But I'm a bit old to hang out with
students, so I really have no idea if I've confused them or not.
DM) On one hand, I'd expect praise from historians for bringing
history to life. On the other, I'd expect criticism for not staying
99% true to history. What have you found more of?
MB) So far, touch wood, I've had nothing but positive reactions
from historians.
If I'd ever tried to imply the book was based on fact, historians
would have good reason to object, but I've included an author's
note at the beginning to make it very clear the book is fiction.
DM) It felt in a way like the story could happen at almost
any time in history. To me, the references to the war with the
Dutch were similar to people referring to W.W.II. Was the war
that similar for the time?
MB) With any story set in any period in history, people will
still be people and their reaction to traumatic events will be
essentially the same. The characters in Invitation To A Funeral
who refer back to the Dutch war of 1664 to '67 are all people
who were personally involved - and damaged - in some way. In
the case of Aphra Behn, she'd agreed to act as a spy for Charles
II and ended up penniless and stranded behind enemy lines. As
a result of her "public service", she was imprisoned
for debt - so she carries some psychological scars, as would
anyone who had been betrayed by those she'd risked her life to
help. The experience of those actually involved in the fighting
was horrific. Recruiting was a real problem for the Stuart navy
- everyone knew the pay and conditions were terrible. So if men
wouldn't sign up voluntarily, they were forced into service.
A man might be working in the fields or just walking along, bothering
no one, when all of a sudden he'd be abducted by a press gang
who would drag him away and deliver him to a ship. Once they'd
been press ganged into the navy, there was no money in the treasury
to pay them a wage. Seamen were paid with tickets that were supposed
to be redeemable for cash, but in most cases turned out to be
worthless. There was no money to provide the men with uniforms,
so they wore whatever they had on when they'd had the misfortune
to run into a press gang. Many were abducted on the church steps
as they'd come out after a service, and went into battle in their
Sunday suits. And when that Sunday suit was finally worn to shreds,
they went into battle dressed in rags. The food - what there
was of it - was appalling. Bread was stale and covered in mold;
meat was often crawling with maggots. Men who were wounded or
became ill were stripped of their clothes (which were passed
on to their shipmates) and were abandoned, naked, on beaches.
Dreadful, yes. But like World War II? I don't think so. There
were no great moral issues involved and no real threat to public
safety; it was just the latest in a long line of skirmishes over
trade routes, with another to follow in a few years' time. In
some ways, I suppose that makes it worse; the cause for which
these people suffered was so trivial.
DM) Have you written any other stories from this time period?
MB) In 1991, I was asked to contribute a short story to an
anthology called "Royal Crimes", which was a collection
of crime stories with some connection to the Royal Family, either
past, present, or future. I decided to go for the past, and figured
that a good basis for a crime story would be to find a couple
of historical characters who didn't like each other.
I went to the library, looking for inspiration, and came across
a book called "Royal Mistresses". I started flicking
through the pages and came across Nell Gwyn and Louise de Keroualle,
rival mistresses of Charles II. I knew at once that they'd be
perfect lead characters in a story - not only did they hate each
other, they were funny. The only trouble was, I didn't know anything
about the era in which they'd lived. I didn't even know what
the term "Restoration" meant; I had a vague idea it
was something to do with the theatre.
I picked up an armload of learned tomes about life in the
17th century, got them home, and found I couldn't understand
a word. They'd all been written by academics who assumed a certain
amount of prior knowledge, while I lacked even the simplest basics.
So I went back to the library, only this time I headed for
the children's section, where the words are simple and there
are lots of pictures. From there, I gradually worked my way back
up to the adult section.
I ended up doing six months of research in order to write
one funny 5,000 word story.
The story was called "The Lemon Juice Plot". Though
I finished it in early 1992, the anthology didn't come out until
the spring of 1994. Meanwhile, an editor at one of the major
British publishing houses had read the story in manuscript and
asked me if I'd be willing to write a novel set in the same period
with the same characters. I knew enough to write a short story,
but not enough for a novel. That's how I ended up spending the
next three years reading everything, I could find on the 17th
century.
I've since become the kind of bore who corners people at parties
and starts telling them all sorts of things they never wanted
to know, such as the price of admission to view the lunatics
at Bedlam (one penny), or a 17th century cure for baldness (rub
fox grease into the scalp).
My most recent Restoration-era story is called "The Padder's
Lesson". It's a funny story about a highwayman who gets
his come-uppance, and will be appearing in an anthology of historical
crime stories dedicated to the memory of Ellis Peters, scheduled
for U.K. publication in October, 1998.
DM) When it comes to describing the royalty, I'm surprised
how their interactions seem so "normal". I've always
grown up thinking that royalty was a "mystical" entity
but you've seemed to debunk that.
MB) I think Charles II was probably as "mystical"
as any of them on public occasions or when dealing with matters
of state. In those days, the king was still believed to rule
by Divine Right, and also to have healing powers. People with
scrofula, a kind of glandular disease also known as "The
King's Evil", would line up to have Charles touch them because
they believed the king's touch would cure them.
In Invitation To A Funeral, however, we only see him when
he's dallying with his mistresses. And there's not much that's
mystical about that.
DM) What I didn't understand is, if it was such common knowledge
why did the queen allow it?
MB) The queen had no say in the matter whatsoever. In those
days, the legal position of a woman was that she was her father's
property until she got married, at which time she became the
property of her husband.
Besides that, Charles II's queen, Catherine of Braganza, had
several strikes against her. For one thing, she was barren, which
made her position extremely precarious. Charles's advisors were
always trying to get him to divorce her and marry someone who
could give him a legitimate heir. If he'd done so, it almost
certainly would have made the political situation in the country
a lot more stable. There would have been no concern about the
throne going to Charles's Catholic brother, and little if any
support for the Duke of Monmouth's claim to be the rightful heir.
Catherine was Portuguese, and many of Charles's advisors felt
a new marriage might produce a more profitable alliance than
the one with Portugal. And worst of all, she was a Catholic at
a time of intense anti-Catholic feeling in Britain.
She had no popular support in the country, and it was only
a little over a century since Henry VIII had disposed of a couple
of wives by beheading them, so she had to tread very carefully.
During the Popish Plot, she would have been in actual danger
of execution for treason if Charles had not stepped in to protect
her; among the unfounded accusations flying around at the time
was that she and her personal physician had plotted to poison
the king. If Charles had not rejected those accusations outright,
she might have gone the way of Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard.
Here's a few useless facts about Catherine of Braganza (at
this point you may begin to feel like you've been pushed up against
a wall at a party, with me poking a finger at your chest):
She couldn't speak much English, so Charles used to enjoy
teaching her English swear words without telling her what they
meant, then watching her innocently use them in company.
When she first arrived at Portsmouth on the 13th of May, 1662,
she asked for a cup of tea only to be told there was none available;
tea was a rare drink in England at that time. She is said to
be at least partly responsible for introducing tea drinking to
the English.
She had the 17th century equivalent of a clock with a luminous
dial. The clock beside her bed had a lamp inside it, so she could
tell the time in the dark.
She was quite good at archery and became patroness of the
Honorable Fraternity of Bowmen. One activity she shared with
her husband was fishing; she used to get up in the wee small
hours so she could meet Charles for fishing at five.
And she's hardly even mentioned in Invitation To A Funeral.
This is something I really must fix if I ever get around to writing
the sequel.
DM) Do you write stories exclusively about in Restoration
England?
MB) I write stories set in other periods, and in other genres,
as well.
My first novel, Virus, was a science fiction thriller set
in Chicago in the year 2078. My novelisation based on the Cracker
television series, Cracker: To Say I Love You, is set in contemporary
Manchester. And my short stories are set all over the place,
everywhere from ancient Rome to other planets.
DM) How do you start writing a book? With a character idea,
a plot, an outline.... what's the first step?
MB) I'm a short story writer by nature, and tend to find the
sheer length of a novel daunting. One way I've found of overcoming
this is to not think about the long stretch ahead; I only think
about what I'll do today.
I'm not a fast writer, and for a long time I used to kick
myself because I wasn't one of those people who can churn out
five thousand words before breakfast. Then, a few years ago,
I went to see Terry Pratchett giving a talk here in London, and
he said something that has stayed with me ever since: that when
he first started writing, he figured that if he only did 400
words a day, every day, that was two novels a year. I went home
that night and worked it out with a calculator, and it came out
to two novels of about 73,000 words each. Then I figured that,
assuming a double-spaced typewritten page contains an average
of 250 to 300 words, 400 words comes to about one and one-third
pages a day.
I'm not even that ambitious; I tell myself that if I write
just one page a day, every day, that's 365 pages a year, or one
slightly longer novel than Terry Pratchett was talking about.
So when I sit down in front of the computer, I don't think "I've
got to write 365 pages," I think, "All I have to do
is write one page". If I'm on a roll and do more, that's
great, but if I don't, it's no big deal; I know I've done my
page.
DM) Where do you usually start?
MB) I usually start with the characters. I make notes on everything
from their favourite colour to their psychological quirks.
DM) How about the plots?
MB) I don't outline plots, but I find it's helpful to have
an idea of how the story's going to end; that way, at least you
know what you're working towards. I will sometimes write what
I would consider the climactic scene of the novel, where everything
is finally made clear and all the plot threads are pulled together,
then go back to the beginning and see how I can get myself to
that point. The story always changes as I write it, so the climactic
scene ends up having to be re-written, but I've found it's a
great way to focus on what you're aiming for, and what point,
if any, you're trying to make.
DM) Thanks, this interview has certainly been a learning experience.
MB) Thanks.
