Abandoned Places: Bodiam Castle (and IWSG)

Bodiam Castle was built during the middle of the Hundred Years' War by Sir Edward Dalyngrigge (say that three times fast; actually, just say that one time) to, theoretically, keep out the French. However, the castle didn't see any "action" until the War of the Roses, that is if you can call being surrendered to avoid a seige "action." By that time, the castle had passed to the Lewknors, who owned the castle through the 1500s but, by the time of the English Civil War in 1641, it was owned by John Tufton. Tufton was forced to sell the castle to pay fines against him for, basically, being on the wrong side of the war. Bodiam was dismantled and left in ruins for 200 years. Restoration began on Bodiam during the 1800s, and it is now considered one of the most "romantic" castles in England.

Cooking for Your Audience (an IWSG post)

I am the cook in my house. Not the baker, the cook. I get up every morning and cook breakfast for my wife and, usually, my oldest son, sometimes my daughter, and rarely my younger son. I also cook dinner every night. That one's for everyone (except for my oldest son who is rarely home because of his ultra busy schedule). I'm just gonna say it: I am a good cook.

Of course, my mom is a cook, but it's not like she ever taught me to cook anything. My earliest forays into cooking were because I was home alone (or, maybe, with my brother) and needed to eat. I started with mac 'n' cheese and tuna fish. Not that you need to cook tuna fish. Well, unless it's in the mac 'n' cheese. Oh, and deviled eggs. That was actually the first thing I ever made on my own. I think they showed how to make them on an episode of The Electric Company (or something), and I decided I wanted to do it. That was my thing for a while. I was probably around seven but certainly not more than eight, because my brother was still a toddler. He loved the deviled eggs and would shove them whole into his mouth getting egg goo all over his face.

The fact that I am good cook does not, however, mean anything to my kids, especially my daughter. She likes a more processed type of food, and we just don't do that in our house. It can make meal times challenging, to say the least. It is a rare occurrence when all three kids like the same meal and on regular nights they will sub in various vegetables so as not to have to eat whatever I cooked. For my daughter, that's generally carrots; I keep a large bag of them in the fridge for her, basically, at all times. My younger son has taken a liking to yams, which I often cook for my wife and me. And you can never tell with the oldest one. Sometimes, he'll eat whatever we stick in front of him as if he's never seen food before; others, it's "I'm not hungry," which translates into "I don't want to that crap."

For a long time, a couple or three years, probably, after we dropped all the processed stuff from our diets (something like six years ago, now?), I took it, well, kind of personally when my kids didn't like what I cooked. It was distressing to me. In my head, I knew it wasn't about me, but that's not how it felt. Eventually, possibly because of having to deal with it so much, I did come to a place where it quit being an insult to me when the kids didn't like something I cooked. It was about the food, not me. They still loved me no matter what I cooked. We could go from "I don't care if you like it! Just eat the food!" to cuddling on the couch and watching a movie within moments.

And, after years, I have managed to find a few things that they all like and would rather have me make than go out for, like hamburgers. Thought that one's still kind of iffy, because my daughter loves to go to Super Burger, but that's more because of the shakes (they have something like two dozen flavors) than the hamburgers. That's why I am King of Hamburgers!

Writing is rather the same way, which is why it's important to remember that when someone doesn't like something you've written, it has nothing to do with you or whether that person likes you or not. So you didn't write something that person liked or, maybe, even most people, but it still doesn't have anything to do with you.

The sad thing is that I have seen negative reviews of books cause rifts in friendships or, even, destroy friendships.

Here's the thing, if you cook something and you like what you cooked -- you taste it and say, "I like this!" -- it doesn't matter if anyone else likes it or not. If you do like it (and aren't just telling yourself that because you're the one that made it), chances are there are other people that will like it, too. You just have to find those people. People who don't like it can find something else to eat. But it's really not fair to hold it against someone (especially a friend or loved one) if they don't like what you cooked. That would be like me getting upset with my younger son for night liking the fish dinner I cooked (when I know he doesn't like fish).

There's a decision you have to make as a cook (or a writer): do I think this food is good enough to let other people taste? If you think "yes," then you have to decide to not take it as a personal insult if other people don't like the food. If you really want to share your food with other people, that means you go back to your recipe, figure out what people didn't like about it, and try again. Writing is really that same way. Getting upset about it would  be like me getting upset that so many people eat at McDonald's when my hamburgers are so much better.

So, remember, it's about the food, not about you. Or, um, it's about the book. And it's really unfair for you to expect people to grin and say "I love it!" while they're spitting it out behind their napkins. Or, maybe, they will love it, but it needs to be up to them to decide apart from any expectations on your part.

Special Bonus!
FREE! today: Indie Writers Monthly: Vol. I, Issue 2! Go pick up your copy NOW!

I talk about "Jack" (not the Jack that is my cat).

Make sure to check out Issue One while you're there. It's only $0.99!

How To Be... a Knight

The word "knight" conjures up all sorts of images, but I bet the one that charges to the forefront is something like this:

You know, that whole "knight in shining armor" thing. But the ways of becoming a knight have changed through the years.

For instance, it is both easier and harder to become a knight today than it was, say, 1000 years ago. Rather than learning to wear armor and ride a horse and fight with swords (which all sounds rather difficult and time consuming), these days, you only have to make a significant contribution to British society to be knighted. Somehow, the learning to wear armor, ride a horse, and fight with swords sounds easier. And more dangerous.

But, since I know you are all thinking about shining armor and all of that, we'll take about that kind of knight and not Sir Ian McKellen or Dame Maggie Smith.

So what did it take to be a knight all those long years ago? Well, let's look at that on the historical continuum.

The word originates from a word meaning servant, which eventually came to mean a military servant following a king. So, at that time, about 1000 years ago, all you needed to do was pick up your weapon (which probably wasn't a sword) and follow the king or warlord or whomever into battle and you were a knight. Pretty easy. You didn't even have to know how to fight, which was good, because most of those guys weren't actually trained in combat, not like we think of it.

Within a few hundred years, during the Hundred Years' War in fact, the specific sense of the word had changed to mean a mounted heavy cavalryman. These guys did know how to fight and were trained to both wear armor and wield a variety of weapons while mounted, so the meaning of the word had the connotation of a skilled warrior. By about 1300, being a knight was a rank of dignity that was bestowed because of martial prowess. To be a knight was something that was earned, and it wasn't easy. I think this ideal is probably what most people think of when they think of knights, although we weren't really to the "shining armor" part quite yet.

But the word wasn't finished changing...

See, to be a knight you had to have a horse, a warhorse, in fact, that could carry a man in full armor and often wear armor itself. These were not cheap, so, basically, only the wealthy, the landowners, could support owning a warhorse. By 1500, the term had already begun to change to be an honorific for landowners. Yes, they were still required to be able to sit a warhorse if they needed to go to war, but they weren't necessarily good fighters. Actually, it's slightly more complicated than that...

If you had money and owned land and had horses, you could afford to have your sons taught to fight, so it was pretty normal that the wealthy had some fighting skills that placed them above the masses, but they no longer had to demonstrate those skills to be a knight; they just tended to gain the skills by the fact that they were knights. Some of them were very skilled, but, mostly, it was a title of position, not ability. And it was around this time that what we think of as the "knight in shining armor" really came into being, because that was the time period when armor technology really began to take off.

Plate armor as developed in the 1400's.

So there you go, many different ways of being a knight. Of course, you can't really be a knight in shining armor anymore, not in any real sense. However, you can always join the Society for Creative Anachronism to get a taste of what it would have been like.