[Interview_3] Brian Wainwright

Historical novelist Brian Wainwright is a full-time author.

So far he has published two novels, The Adventures of Alianore Audley (Bewrite Books, 2005; Jacobyte Books of Australia, 2002) and Within the Fetterlock (Trivium Publishing, 2004).

In this, the last of three interviews, Wainwright speaks about how his books evolved; how he got published and about his plans for the future.

How did The Adventures of Alianore Audley come about?

I wrote quite a lot of comedy when I was young. It got me into trouble at school where there was a lot to parody and ironise. It took me a long time before I realised there was no reason I couldn't put comedy and historical fiction together.

Believe it or not, Alianore was originally going to be a serious novel about Richard III. I did some calculations to see whether Constance of York could have had a (fictional) granddaughter active at the time of the Wars of the Roses. (I didn't want to use a real person for this one.) I found that by taking on a youngest daughter to the Audley family, it would work. I wrote about five lines, and they lay untouched on my computer for about four years, like a seed waiting in its packet.

Then Alianore found her voice! A very unusual voice at that. Normally I write and rewrite, and then edit, but Alianore is pretty much an edited first draft. I'm not sure that I wrote the book at a conscious level. It seemed to stream out, page after page, day after day, until it was finished. If Alianore had been a real person I'd have suspected that her spirit was channelling through me, but as it is I must suppose it came from whatever deep crevice of the unconscious mind creates stories.

It was great fun playing around with the stereotypes of historical fiction, using whatever crazy idioms came into my head, and allowing Alianore to do what she liked, poking King Edward IV in the balls, dressing up as an archer, vaulting onto warhorses -- you name it.

How easy was it to find a publisher for the book?

Originally I self-published, because the book was for myself and a small group of friends who shared my weird sense of humour. I didn't expect it to have general appeal, but I got rid of the rest of the print run through an advert in the Richard III Society magazine, and was surprised when the odd enquiry arrived from booksellers when it was out of print.

After some prodding from people who had read it, I had an agent lined up for the book, but ultimately it wasn't taken any further. I suspect it was hard to place an eccentric novel by an eccentric and unknown writer. I decided to try again and submitted it to Jacobyte, who were inviting direct submissions. As it happened Meredith Whitford at Jacobyte was interested in Richard III (and indeed has written a Ricardian book of her own) so I suppose the seed fell on fertile ground.

How has Alianore Audley been received by readers?

I've seen the book categorised as everything from Historical Romance to Fantasy, but I suppose it's really a parody or spoof of historical fiction. I hope it's an affectionate parody of a genre I love.

I'm surprised it's sold so well, and obviously very pleased that it has. It's been quite a success in the USA, which I suppose nails the old English canard that Americans don't 'do' irony. Inevitably some people don't get the joke, and someone even asked me if it was a translation from a real chronicle! On the whole though people seem to love it, so maybe my humour isn't as weird and twisted as I thought.

Part of the success is probably down to Richard III -- people still want to read about the guy, and my version is very different from the rest.

The Adventures of Alianore Audley has been re-issued or re-published by BeWrite Books. How did this happen?

Bewrite took over from Jacobyte the titles it was most interested in, including mine. As a result, a completely new edition was prepared, with a new cover that was a great improvement on the old one.

Bewrite has certainly managed to achieve a greater level of publicity for the book, and they have a very effective marketing strategy, which means that it is available from a much wider range of outlets. This has led to far better sales, so the changeover has been very positive as far as I am concerned.

How did you choose a publisher for your second book?

My second book, Within the Fetterlock tells the story of Constance of York, an English princess who lived in the reigns of Richard II and Henry IV.

Constance is a relative unknown in English history but I found her fascinating and so I had to write about her. It took at least ten years to write, including research, though the truth is I re-wrote it several times and the published version is something like Mark VII.

The novel was released in 2004 by Trivium Publishing in the USA. The publisher chose me!

What challenges has this presented?

Trivium is a small outfit and the main problem is that they don’t have a massive advertising/publicity budget. I have had to learn to publicise myself to some extent, though it’s not an aspect of authorship with which I am particularly comfortable, being naturally reclusive.

What was the most difficult aspect of the work that went into Within the Fetterlock ?

The research for the book was simply huge. I probably did far too much, but I kept being intrigued by new snippets that came up. In fact I was still putting in new facts as the manuscript was being edited.

It was hard work to reduce this into a manageable novel that would be of reasonable length. I cut out massive chunks before submission and working with Tamara Mazzei at Trivium, there was some fairly drastic editing of what remained. All this made the work stronger, but to be honest, I think if I were doing the job again, I’d want to be even more drastic.

Paradoxically, I did enjoy the research. It almost became an end in itself, which is a danger for writers of historical fiction.

The greatest thrill, though, was seeing the book come to life, through the final editing process -- it was something I’d never experienced at that level of complexity, and it gave me a tremendous buzz.

In what way is Within the Fetterlock different from the other things you have written?

It’s very serious, very intense, with more tears than smiles.

It’s similar to the others in that, well, it’s historic, and I do try to research my novels, even the funny ones.

What will your next book be about?

I have got three projects in hand, as well as a couple of whimsies, and it very much depends on where my mood takes me as to which will be completed first. If someone comes along and says they want X, and here’s Y pounds as an advance, then that will get precedence. Otherwise, I’ll just go muddling along in my own merry way until something pops out.

The likely winner is a novel about Richard III, as quite a few people have said they want to see my take on him. The problem is that I want to come at the subject from a different angle to all the previous novels on this subject and because of my deep interest in Richard, I want the book to be worthy of him.

Related articles:

• Brian Wainwright [Interview_2], Conversations with Writers, February 4, 2008
• Brian Wainwright [Interview_1], Conversations with Writers, February 1, 2008

[Interview_2] Brian Wainwright

Novelist Brian Wainwright has a deep-seated interest in the middle ages, especially the 14th and 15th centuries; the House of York and the era of Richard II.

He has published two novels, The Adventures of Alianore Audley (Bewrite Books, 2005; Jacobyte Books of Australia, 2002) and Within the Fetterlock (Trivium Publishing, 2004).

Currently he is working on several other book-related projects.

In this, the second of three interviews, Wainwright speaks about the factors that pushed him towards becoming a writer.

When did you decide you wanted to write?

Very early in life; even as a young child I enjoyed making up stories and writing them down. However, it took me a long time before I thought of writing as something that could be done for an audience, as opposed to just for me. It was even longer before I plucked up the courage to submit something for publication. For many years the idea of doing so scared me stiff.

Who influenced you most?

A wide array of writers; if I wrote them all down it would be a very big paragraph. Among writers of the past, Robert Graves and Philip Lindsey spring to mind. Current writers I admire include Elizabeth Chadwick and Sharon K Penman.

What do you admire most about these writers?

I don’t think I have ever read anyone who could write first-person historical novels as well as Graves. He’s always absorbing, and he always convinces, introducing historical detail without making a tedious show of it. I Claudius and Wife to Mr Milton are probably my favourites.

Philip Lindsey always wrote with passion, and you could sense his love of history. He was a great inspiration to me when I started writing. I think his London Bridge is Burning is the one I remember best; it was rather a disjointed tale, but there were some wonderful characters in there, and some unusual aspects of medieval life.

I can bracket Elizabeth Chadwick and Sharon Penman together. First, they write beautifully, but also they go to a great deal of trouble with their research and it’s rare if ever that I’m hit with the shock of an anachronism. Penman’s The Reckoning is an incredibly powerful novel about the ending of the Welsh Wars of Independence. It’s not an easy read in some ways -- there’s a lot of tragedy in there -- but it grips all the way to the end.

Elizabeth Chadwick just goes from strength to strength. Her book about William Marshal, The Greatest Knight which came out a couple of years back, is simply one of the best historical novels I have ever read.

Have your personal experiences influenced your writing in any way?

Not consciously, but I suspect there must be some sub-conscious influences. For example, I worked in the Education side of Local Government for a long time, and that taught me everything I ever need to know about court intrigue, backstabbing and betrayal.

Do you write everyday?

No, I don’t write every day.

At present I am rather idle and intermittent in my work; downright unprofessional in fact. I write when I feel like it and go on until I’ve had enough. This could be ten minutes, or all day.

One of the things I am trying to persuade myself to do is work a little more regularly, establishing more of a routine. I haven’t quite got into the attitude of treating writing as a job (which it now is) rather than just a hobby.

What are the biggest challenges that you face?

My own nature -- my tendency to go haring off after interesting side lines in my research instead of sticking religiously to the task of writing and getting a project completed.

I deal with this by slapping myself mentally around the head, reflecting that it would be nice to have published more than two books, and that I ought to damn well get on with it!

Elsewhere you have said you think history has misjudged King Richard II. Why is this?

Richard came to the throne at 10. That’s a bad start in itself, but the country was practically bankrupt, and engaged in what had become a losing war with the French. They were raiding the coast, and planning invasion. Even an adult taking over at such a point in history, even the greatest sovereign imaginable, might have struggled just a little.

Richard wanted peace with France, which was very much against the grain of the times. The trouble was that most of the nobles and gentry wanted war (they thought that they could profit personally from it) but at the same time they didn’t want to pay for it. There really was no way of squaring that circle. Effective wars cost big money – even back then. The English Crown was not rich, the government of Richard’s senile grandfather, Edward III, had run up massive debts, and Richard’s extended family were always looking to take more out of the pot for themselves.

Richard was only twenty when he faced an outright rebellion, led by his own disloyal relatives, the so-called Appellants, that almost deposed him and resulted in the judicial murder or exile of the majority of his advisers. From that point onward he slowly rebuilt the position of the Crown, trying to do what Tudor monarchs are praised for by historians, putting the nobility in its place. He at last achieved a 28-year truce with France, and he was also one of the very few Englishmen (and I think the only English sovereign) to fight a successful war in Ireland. His foreign policy was advanced, and praised even by historians who don’t otherwise rate him. Although not an intellectual himself he was a patron of the arts, and his court was possibly the most cultured in Europe. Although he is sometimes accused of ‘tyranny’ his political executions were few and far between, whether you compare him to the Appellants or to his successor, Henry IV (Bolingbroke).

Richard was once approached by a soothsayer, who predicted that unless he changed his ways he would be deposed. Richard laughed at him and sent him on his way. A few years later the same man approached Henry IV, and told him pretty much the same thing. Bolingbroke had him summarily executed on the spot. Nothing better defines the difference between the two cousins.

I’m not trying to suggest that Richard is up there with Elizabeth I. At the end of the day he was not a ‘great’ king, and he had many personal and political flaws. But I like him! And I think he’s underrated. Most of the things he was accused of at his deposition could have been said of his successor, or indeed of any English medieval king. I think it’s telling that within three years Henry was at least as unpopular as Richard had ever been, facing rebellion at home and with fighting going on in France, Scotland, Ireland and Wales all at the same time. It was not an easy business, running medieval England. The difference is, frankly, that Henry survived. With a great deal of luck along the way, he even managed to die in his bed.

Related articles:

• Brian Wainwright {Interview_3], Conversations with Writers, February 6, 2008
• Brian Wainwright [Interview_1], Conversations with Writers, February 1, 2008