Chronic Pain, Shmonic Pain

Some of my favorite commissions from today.

Commissions still open. Only a few watercolor spots left.

An open letter to all historians or those claiming to be; Alison Weir, Susan Higginbotham, Michael Hicks, Philippa Gregory, and whoever else it may concern:

I know you have an opinion on the historical people you write about. Of course you do. If you were indifferent to them, you would not write about them in the first place. And that`s fine. As someone who`s doing history at university, we learnt that in our first semester. When you write about someone and research so much about that person, you`ll likely have your own opinion, be it positive or not.

But here`s the thing:

You should pay attention not to let the biases take over your work. You can draw conclusions from the evidence we have, but you cannot ignore the evidence and then still claim to be writing truthfully. For example, if we`re speaking about Richard III, you can state your opinion on Richard and support it with the evidence you have, and that opinion can be both positive or negative or something in between.

If, however, you invent something to support your opinion, or ignore evidence for the same reason, or twist evidence and take it out of context, you can no longer claim you are writing history. You are writing fiction. You are not even writing historical fiction. You are writing historical fantasy at the most.

It also serves no point. If you claim to be writing truthfully, and that goes especially for non-fiction books, people have a right to expect to find actual evidence and opinions that are based on actual evidence, not simply a subjective opinion based on nothing but personal preference. And pretending that what you write is truthful when it is not does not actually make it truthful. You can ignore the truth all you want, but that does not make it any less true. If your opinion goes against the available evidence, then it is the evidence that counts, not your opinion. For example, to return to my example from above, it is fine to say you don`t like Richard. It is not fine and in fact entirely untruthful to pretend he had no friends, simply because you do not like him, and - dear Mrs. Higginbotham - no matter how much you call Francis Lovell his “ally” or “associate” instead of his friend to “support” this theory of yours, it will not change the fact that he was, in fact, Richard`s close friend.

And finally, while you are entitled to full respect for your opinions, so is everyone else. Sneering at people who do not share them or even insulting them is rude and will not make their views any less valid or support your own. There is a difference between respectfully disagreeing and dismissing people because you do not agree with them.

Anyway, tl;dr: Make your point and state your opinion, but use the available evidence to do so. Because, as Kathryn Warner once put it so nicely on her blog on Edward II, if you have to ignore evidence and invent things to make a point, you don`t have a point.

AHMAHGOD

Can we get a little bit of love for Richard of York?

In fiction he always seems to play the second fiddle. Either he is being cheated on by his wife, who proceeds to give birth to Edward IV because of it, or he is constantly in a rage, or he is just outright ignored, or only spoken about in hushed tones by all the characters.

Now I get that in Ricardian fiction there is not much opportunity to show much of him as a character, as Richard was barely eight when he died and, due to the fact he had been in exile, had probably barely seen him since he was seven. In other words, he probably barely remembered him. But Edward would have. Why doesn`t he ever speak about his father in Ricardian fiction? Why doesn`t Cecily? Why does Richard never say in any conversation with Anne, or Francis, or someone else he is close to, something about his father? Even if he could not remember him, he must have grown up with stories about him. Why is Warwick never shown speaking about him? Basically every Ricardian book contains a scene in which Warwick tries to convince Richard to side with him against Edward. Why does he never mention Richard of York in that? Why doesn`t George ever breathe a word about him? It always feels like he is a plot point who is then promptly forgotten about once Edward is king. There should be something in those novels to show he had an impression on the people in his life. That he influenced them.

And even in Ricardian fiction, provided it isn`t written in the first person, can show his interactions a little bit. There is quite some evidence that, as far as medieval families go, the Yorks were fairly close. So show Richard of York speaking about his plans with his wife at the beginning of the story. Show him worrying about what will happen with her nephew, the Earl of Warwick. Show him laugh about something with Edmund, or scold Edward about something, or ask George and Richard`s nurses if his sons are prospering, or tell Margaret she will make someone a splendid wife someday. Something normal. Even something clicheed like that. Something that fleshs him out a little bit.

Even the otherwise good “The Sunne in Splendour” has him just always lurking in the shadows at the beginning, never speaking as far as the reading is concerned. And that`s just not right.

Also, The Founding (Book 1 of The Morland Dynasty Series) by Cynthia Harris Eagles features Richard. It's about a girl that falls in love with Richard, and continues to love him from afar for the rest of her life, even after being forced to marry someone else.

Corg Life may be concluding, but Otis’s adventures will continue on. A huge thanks to Chris for his amazing art, and to the fans who kept us going this long.