# Tudors! Precursors to America



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Nell, here it is. Thanks.

Nell Gavin is the author of the wonderful biography of Anne Bolyn called Threads. My histories are American history, but they require an occasional examination of “English Roots.” Here is a bit of that. “Real” historians always thank a long list of academics for going through their books with a fine tooth comb. Alas, my books have no one but me. So there are certainly mistakes here and there. Nell is our resident expert on the Tudor period, so she has kindly agreed to look at that small section of my books. In hopes of no mistakes but fears of a few, here are the Tudors.

ENGLISH ROOTS
The roots of this explosion of energy and industriousness need
to be examined more closely. King Henry VII, while less
famous than his son or granddaughter, may have been more
important in establishing the pre-conditions for world power.
Four hundred years later, an American president would say,
“The business of America is business.” Henry felt much the
same about England. A strong economy meant a healthy state
and that meant riches for his Tudor dynasty. So he avoided wars
(bad for business) and avoided spending money (bad for
finances) except for building ships (good for international trade).
He left the Crown (his son) a huge treasure chest. It was this son
who would unknowingly start the process by which the people,
ideas, and even wars of a smallish island kingdom would be sent
to seed a new world.

Unlike his father, King Henry VIII was not interested in
the accumulation of wealth that comes from the quiet growth of
business and prosperity. He squandered what his father had left
him on increasing his power, glory, and political influence
within Europe. Money gone, he then reverted to the
time-honored method of governments, then and now, pinched
for funds – he imposed a hidden tax on the entire population by
debasing the currency. As the first user of a debased currency,
the government can always pocket most of the difference in
value at the expense of the last user, the common man. The
subtle mechanisms for debasement that come with a central
bank and paper money were not available, so King Henry simply
reduced the silver content of English coins little by little until,
25 years later, the value of each coin was one seventh of what it
had been and prices, we can assume, seven times as high.

Henry VIII, while intelligent and well educated, was no
radical. He opposed the rising tide of reformation in northern
Europe and earned from the Pope the title Fidei Defensor –
Defender of the Faith – for a book he had written (yes, he really
wrote it himself) criticizing Martin Luther. But when Henry
decided a male heir was more important than the Pope’s blessing
and a new wife the way to a male heir, he made his famous
break. He established a national church separate from Rome
under the direct authority of the English Crown. Into the bargain,
he solved his financial woes by confiscating the huge holdings
of the Roman Church in England and solved problems of loyalty
to his new system by rewarding the nobility with land from his
confiscations. All this, of course, precipitated a political
and religious power struggle with passions rising and positions
solidifying on both sides.

When Elizabeth, daughter of Henry and Anne Boleyn,
became Queen (Henry’s hard-won male heir, Edward, had died
at the age of 16 and Elizabeth’s older sister Mary’s violent
support of Catholicism had led to her downfall), she had to tread
gently the minefield of building hatreds. That she did so with
skill is one mark of her greatness. But the “Virgin Queen” 
died spouseless and heirless. Quite likely no virgin, she married 
herself to England in a fine piece of high political drama that 
put her out of reach of those trying to force an alliance with one 
religion or the other but also left the Tudor dynasty with no direct 
heir when she died in 1603.


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Nell, here it is. Thanks.
> 
> Nell Gavin is the author of the wonderful biography of Anne Bolyn called Threads.


OMG. Resident expert. Let me clarify. Threads isn't a biography. It's fiction and falls under too many genres to name, so let's just call it a "book".

I am not an expert on Tudor wars and economics, even a little, but it appears you wrote a good overview. I'm certain there are others on the board who are very well-versed on Tudor Everything, and can contribute more than I.

I attempted to find some record of the value of currency during Anne Boleyn's tenure, not because I was going to include it in Threads, but because I built a large web site of Tudor trivia (the dumping grounds for my research) and during the course of my research had made the determination that Anne wasn't a villain. I tried to back this up. I wanted to know exactly how charitable she was during her reign, and then demonstrate this with currency conversion. I did look, but apparently in all the wrong places, because the only reference I found pertained to currency in Queen Elizabeth's time. So, I posted the following:

Anne distributed a fortune in charity among the English people. George Wyatt (grandson of Thomas Wyatt) estimated that she distributed more than £1500 per year to the poor alone. I don't have figures for living wages during the reign of Henry VIII. However, by the reign of Elizabeth I, a family's acceptable wage was two pounds ten shillings per year. Acceptable wages were less than this during Anne's lifetime because, from Anne's reign to the Elizabethan period, food prices rose by 120%. £1500 per year went quite far in 1532 to 1536.

So based on this, we can estimate that thousands and thousands of people received assistance of some sort from Anne throughout her reign. She also sewed clothing with her own hands for distribution to the poor, and was known on at least one occasion to have personally tended to the ill on her travels. Few of her biographies mention her charitable acts at any length, and these were also not much publicized during her own lifetime.


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Henry VIII wasn't supposed to be king. His older brother Arthur was the one who was groomed for the throne, and Henry was prepared for the clergy. I don't know what impact this had on his priorities as a leader. However, Arthur died young (cause unknown - scientists are investigating this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1394759/Discovery-of-grave-may-solve-mystery-death-of-Henry-VIIIs-brother-at-15.html. He may have died of the mysterious "sweating sickness"). Henry took over.

In the beginning he was a good king. He was also, unbelievably, athletic and handsome. Over the years his personality underwent a number of changes, until he died a bloated, stinking (literally - you could smell him before you saw him) despot.

There are a number of theories for why his personality changed. He was by nature emotionally infantile, but he managed to be an almost okay person during the first half of his life. Then he suffered horrifically from skin ulcers, and endured an enormous amount of pain. Pain can make people petulant and demanding. He also suffered a severe blow to the head when he fell from a horse, and for a few hours was not expected to survive. He could have incurred damage. If you are by nature emotionally infantile, are in pain, suffer a severe blow to the head and also happen to be King...well, you become Henry VIII.

Furthermore, there has always been some question about syphilis. He may or may not have had it. If he had it, it would explain his mental decline. More interesting is the theory that he may have had diabetes. That would explain the skin ulcers and a number of his complaints. It might also explain the early death of his only son, who was always sickly, and may also have been diabetic.

Then again, Henry could have had both.

So, his health probably had something to do with his later decisions. His body was last exhumed in 1812 (there were still tufts of red hair on the skull), but that was far too early for us to have obtained any useful information about what killed him, and what influence it may have had on his reign. His impact, however, is unquestioned.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Fascinating, Nell. Thanks for the extra historical tidbits. By the way, this evening I finished the section in Threads where Anne and Henry are members of the band of traveling entertainers. Your description was incredibly evocative and moving. Was the lifestyle you describe based primarily on historical research, or is there a fair amount of speculation on your part? Either way, it's a great story. I'm just curious about the historical accuracy.

G' nite all! And check out Threads.


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Fascinating, Nell. Thanks for the extra historical tidbits. By the way, this evening I finished the section in Threads where Anne and Henry are members of the band of traveling entertainers. Your description was incredibly evocative and moving. Was the lifestyle you describe based primarily on historical research, or is there a fair amount of speculation on your part? Either way, it's a great story. I'm just curious about the historical accuracy.
> 
> G' nite all! And check out Threads.


They were called "jongleurs". They were itinerant entertainers who traveled across Europe, mainly France, in the Middle Ages. They began to die out in that particular form around the time I place them in the story, but they were real. They evolved into troubadours and minstrels, and traveling circuses.

To amend that, they were real, but I actually patterned them after modern day Renaissance festivals, which are a lot like that, only the participants use old school buses and RVs to travel the country, and mostly live in campgrounds with electricity for the duration of the show. I couldn't find any really detailed descriptions (again, I might have been looking in all the wrong places...)


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Hey, Mark. I think it's just you and me. We have our own private forum.

Where are you, anyway? You posted your last post of the evening at 7:30AM my time.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Just the two of us, huh? I hope at least a _few _ people are looking in.

I'm in Japan. Have been here 30 years. Just finished breakfast and opened the computer.

Last night, in Threads, I finished Henry's reign of terror, made necessary by his break from the Catholic Church. Truly a wonderful and, if I can use that word again, evocative description. I've done a bit (only a bit) of reading on the period for my own book, but always well known writers. None of them brought the period to life like you have done. In their defense, they weren't writing a novel, but still, most excellent writing on your part. And then you followed it up with Anne's deep and personal speculations on theology, and her own role in the terror. Yeah, I know! You know what you wrote! But I add that in hopes there ARE other people looking in. To them I say, Threads is a really good book! Kindle it!

Now after our friendly chat, I'll head on over to our other discussion to see what's happening and try, as nicely as possible, to deconstruct a few of your ideas on the rules of good English!

Cheers!

Mark L


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Thank you for your very kind words, Mark! Have you found the point of the book yet? I know you're one for appreciating a point. If not, I'll spoon feed you with it at the end in my "Story Behind the Book".

Japan. I know someone who moved to Japan, also about 30-ish years ago. The first thing I did when I read that was to wonder whatever happened to him.

Very interesting choice of places on the planet, I must say.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Point, huh? Ok, I'm pretty sure it's hidden in this passage, which I read this morning. It stopped me cold. Had to go back and reread several times, and then just put the book, uh, Kindle, down for a while. Actually, I kind of hesitate to rewrite it here. The depth of meaning is sublime, but I'm not sure how apparent that will be without having the story up to this scene as context. But I'll put it up. Hope you don't mind; hope others can catch the meaning and depth from this brief sample; hope there ARE some others  . Anne is speaking.


These past indiscretions did not even matter to Henry. He had chosen Jane for her wide child-bearing hips and for her family's reputation for whelping litters and legions of dim-witted, pasty-faced infants.

I await a scolding and a reminder that my thoughts are uncharitable and cruel, but my mentor is witholding comment.

"Did you not hear what I just thought about Jane and the dim-witted infants? Did you not hear me loathing and despising her?" I am defiantly braced for sharp words, and would rather hear them a hundred-fold, than make my thoughts more charitable.

The Voice says only this, and says it gently: "I only heard you weeping in despair."

(I want to bow my head and say here, Amen, as this strikes me as something like a prayer)


----------



## Raffeer (Nov 19, 2008)

Mark and Neal - Thank you both for the thread. It is a delight. I hope there will be many more screens to be read. 
Next stop Amazon!


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Wow!! We have an interloper! Welcome!

Mark, kudos to you. There are some passages in the book that I was particularly fond of, and you picked one of them.

Another, and this goes back to the other thread where I was talking about being "spare" was:

_Faced with the anger of England, I once had begged Henry, "Make it stop!"

Now, by God, he would. He would make it stop. And he would make me watch.

The butchering began._

I could have added lots of words describing how Anne felt about this. But I thought "And he would make me watch" pretty much summed up the horror and helplessness, so I didn't add anything to it. Do you see what I was trying to say, when I referred to "spare" wording and lack of information? Sometimes you don't really need it, and you don't really need adverbs, and you don't really need to delve more deeply into the thoughts of the characters if the words carry their own weight. I meant to use that as an example, but I had to get moving and go.

As for the "point" of the book, you're getting warm. I suspect you'll catch it (not everyone does) without my assistance.


----------



## Chloista (Jun 27, 2009)

Nell, just ordered your book.  I have read everything I can get my hands on about Henry VIII and all six of his wives, and what drove Henry to do the things he did.  A fascinating man.  One also has to keep in mind his fears that the lack of a male heir might doom his kingdom to civil unrest; the Tudor dynasty was a very, very young one at Henry's ascension, and no doubt this was one of the key drivers in much of Henry's behavior.  I think at times it unhinged him.  I look forward to reading your take on Anne.


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Chloista said:


> Nell, just ordered your book. I have read everything I can get my hands on about Henry VIII and all six of his wives, and what drove Henry to do the things he did. A fascinating man. One also has to keep in mind his fears that the lack of a male heir might doom his kingdom to civil unrest; the Tudor dynasty was a very, very young one at Henry's ascension, and no doubt this was one of the key drivers in much of Henry's behavior. I think at times it unhinged him. I look forward to reading your take on Anne.


Thank you, Chloista! If you have read everything, you probably already have your own opinions. My take on things may be a little off-center for you, so be prepared. I primarily took into account the fact that virtually all of Anne Boleyn's history was written by her enemies (at Henry's command), in particular Eustache Chapuys. It was as though Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney were each commissioned to write the other's biography, and nobody else was permitted any input. So she's been vilified now for hundreds of years. I didn't personally think she deserved it. What a horrible job, being married to Henry VIII. It would make anyone a bitch, in my opinion.

I've also read the many, many arguments about whether Anne loved Henry, or was just ambitious. I thought it was quite clear when, during her downfall, she tried to claw Jane Seymour's eyes out. Those weren't the actions of a Queen in fear of her crown. Those were the actions of a wife who was losing her husband. I think she really loved him.

Henry was complicated. He did have those fears, and it may have unhinged him. I don't recall the exact quote (you'll know the one I mean), but he once mused that he wanted to be a "common man". Can't blame him, really.

Please let me know what you think!


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

The Point!

Nell, somewhere in the book, I should have marked it, you said something that reminded me of a line from the movie called (I think) Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence. David Bowie is a prisoner in a Japanese POW camp. At the end of the movie, the tables are turned. He visits one of his former captors, now in prison (on death row?). The former captor is confused about what has happened, why the roles are reversed. David explains.

“You are the victim of people who believe they are right, just like I was once the victim of you, when you believed you were right.”

We are all victims. I would even take the movie one step further. We are not actually victims of the beliefs of others but of our own beliefs. We have to forgive the other because our beliefs are not the fault of the other but of ourselves. That’s my own thinking, but I suspect it is close to yours. Anyway, the Point: Only when we have forgiven the other can we be released from this world of beliefs. So you could say that the point of your books is forgiveness. Or you could say it is release.

That’s my take. Whatever, the point, it’s a great story with some great medieval history, for anyone interested in that aspect (I am). In case anyone else happens by this rather private exchange of views, Threads is wonderful book. Even, a potentially life-changing book.

Cheers!


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Yay! You even added a word I hadn't thought to add myself, but it's correct: release. I always love it when someone reads it and gets it. Thank you so much! I truly, truly appreciate it.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Well, Nell, unless Chloista looks in again I guess it's just me and you.

Anyway, I just put up a new thread: Mega-History Books.

Your comment on the History Books Threads inspired Brian which inspired me. I didn't want to get into anything too weird over there, where lots of people might be watching!   But now that we have an idea on how surprisingly limited "human history" is, I wonder what implications that has for reincarnation? Have we been at it for only that amount of time?

If anyone does look in, feel free to kick in some thoughts on this. And don't be put off of Nell's book if you're not into reincarnation. Belief is not a requisite. Only appreciation for fine writing and/or history.


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Are we on the topic of reincarnation now? You may want to read my essay at www.nellgavin.com/reincarnation.htm, if you're waiting for my opinion with bated breath. Otherwise, I'll encapsulate it for you.

Energy cannot be destroyed. It only changes forms. Since our thoughts are comprised of energy, which cannot be destroyed, presuming we only have one life is like saying the energy in a lamp "dies" when you turn the lamp off. You can believe that all you want, but in actual fact the energy that powers the lamp simply moves on.

Furthermore, energy has definable behaviors and patterns, which we can reproduce whenever we recreate the same circumstances for those behaviors and patterns. That's why we can replicate a physics experiment an infinite number of times, when those same conditions are present.

So, if taking up residence in a human body is possible once, it suggests a pattern that can occur an infinite number of times. You just need the same conditions, whatever those conditions are. It also suggests that we would have to rethink our understanding of physics in order to give any credence at all to the belief that there is no life after death. The qualities of energy kind of kill that argument.

So I beat that topic into the ground, just as I beat the topic of Anne Boleyn's birth year into the ground at http://www.nellgavin.com/boleyn_links/boleynbirthyear.htm (anyone who is a Tudor fan knows about the controversy). So far, nobody has taken me on, point for point, with anything but slams and insults. And that only happened once. That means they don't have an argument, which (follow my logic here) means I won. (Whoo hoo!)

I believe in reincarnation because I think it's silly not to. That's my personal conclusion, but everyone has his or her own take on it. I don't get all "misty" about it, or dwell on who I might have been. Though delving into that can help you in a psychological sense, to face phobias and the like. I kind of dumped my whole take on things into Threads, so you already know where I stand. It's hard for a lot of people to swallow, though.

But it certainly opens the doors to literature, doesn't it? There are infinite stories to tell, if you make a character three-dimensional, and bring past and future lives into a story. So I think it has a future, just as spare writing has a future. Again, that's just my opinion.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

NELL: Are we on the topic of reincarnation now?

MARK: Looks like it. Not much action here, though. This is certainly worth another read so I’ll add a few notes in order to bump it back up. Anyone interested, check out Nell’s discussion at:

www.nellgavin.com/reincarnation.htm

Better yet, check out Threads.

As for my thoughts…

Yes, I think I believe in reincarnation. Sort of. I think. I don’t worry about it much, though. To rephrase what we discussed and, I think, basically agreed on:

The goal is release, the means is forgiveness, the vehicle is life.

As long as we get that, beliefs are not really important. In fact, I think I said something about “release from the world of beliefs,” implying that I "believe" beliefs are a hindrance. You can forgive whether you believe in reincarnation, or whether you don’t. Whether you believe the world is flat, or whether you believe it is round. “Forgive them, they know not what they do.” That’s it. The unspeakable compassion of Jesus. Or Buddha. Of Christ. There’s nothing else. That's the whole show.

Unfortunately, we’re too smart for our own good. We want to know things and believe things and complicate things. So, in the spirit of not complicating things, I’ll stop right here! More, later, if the mood strikes. Nell, feel free to add on. I’ll be reading.


----------



## patrisha w. (Oct 28, 2008)

I read my way through the thread and ordered the book. It sounds fascinating!
Patrisha


----------



## William Campbell (Feb 11, 2010)

Thanks, Nell, for inviting me to join. We're stopped in Sacramento so I was able to pick up an internet signal. I did study the thread and found it fascinating, even though I know little of the original subject. One thing is clear -- you've written a great book based on Mark's comments and the small excerpt, which I too found to be moving.

But our new subject, reincarnation, is one of my favorites. However, the topic is difficult to approach in a historical sense, at least for me, since I dwell on the more speculative aspects. You appear to have married the two well. Great job on that, even though I haven't read it yet. Soon, soon, once past many tasks on my plate.

I'm with you, Nell, when you say "I believe in reincarnation because I think it's silly not to." It seems completely natural to me. More unnatural is the opinion that reincarnating is supernatural, unbelievable, or impossible. I talked about this in the Amazon thread "Do you believe you've lived before?" which I think you visited briefly. Reincarnation is one of those subjects like intelligent life on other planets. There is no evidence to prove it, but at the same time, there is an equal lack of evidence that disproves it. So it is unknown. True, false, and unknown, are three distinct states of knowledge. Far too often the unknown is labeled as false. Furthermore, to quote your post, "I don't get all 'misty' about it, or dwell on who I might have been." Right. It makes me laugh when I tell people I'm a past-lifer, and their first question is, "Who have you been?" As in someone famous. Does it matter? And why would it? Who cares? It's not the point. But then I guess people's egos have a way of looking at things that way.

Now I want to latch onto something Mark wrote --

"But now that we have an idea on how surprisingly limited 'human history' is, I wonder what implications that has for reincarnation? Have we been at it for only that amount of time?"

Ah, that's part of what I've been trying to express in my writing. One of those pesky themes we hope to get across without overtly hammering the idea into the reader.

My opinion is that human history is far longer than the measly amount we have recorded, and in fact, contains repetitions, the old adage, "history repeats itself." I've tried to be subtle in expressing an underlying theme in my trilogy but will say it plainly here: nothing is ever invented, it is _remembered_, even if only on a subconscious level. We've had all this before, many times. Again we go back to the "lack of evidence is not proof of impossibility." As you can see, I cling to rather speculative thinking (it's fun). The big question would be, if we have so little history recorded, what happened to the rest of it? And why don't we remember? For these I have my own speculative answers, supported by no facts whatsoever and expressed strictly as fiction, weaved into the tale I have told (again, because it's fun; not to convince anyone of any particular idea).

Why should human history be so brief? Really, when the Universe is 14 billion years old (supposedly).

Food for thought, and (I hope) catalyst for further thought-provoking conversation.


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Ah, William! I ensnared you in my trap! I believe Mark has left the building - he hasn't posted in this thread for days. It's just you and me.

Energy cannot be destroyed, and eternity is a long time. The three-dimensional world is finite; earth has a beginning and an end. The universe is a big place. We are a very self-important species in our perceptions and our beliefs, and what we perceive is all there is to believe. Right?

I think we've been and are going many places. We have no idea how many dimensions there are. You might want to check out Journey of Souls by Michael Newton. It has some interesting concepts, which may or may not be "true" but are certainly as plausible as anything you'll get from any religion. I think about it sometimes. We're supposedly on "levels" from 1 to 5 here. If you're a 6, you don't come back anymore. A 5 is someone like Ghandi. Anyway, I have to go to work, but more later.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Nell, I'm here, I'm here!. In fact, I posted yesterday, a few yours before Will. No. 17.

William, welcome to our discussion! Btw, the line "how surprisingly limited 'human history' is" wasn't clear. It refers to another thread here: Mega-History Books: Linguists and Geneticists Outline the Entirety of History. Populatioin geneticists have confirmed and refined what linguists (my field) have suspected. The human race, as defined by the ability to use modern language, was born a mere 50,000 years ago in current Ethiopia. That's what I mean by "limited." I was just musing... Did reincarnation start then or continue from something or somewhere else?


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

I'm basically lazy about writing, and my second novel is calling me back (faintly) but I have given some thought to analyzing "spiritual evolution" in terms of categorizing people into "lower evolved" and "more highly evolved". My theory is that if you make "highly evolved" a cool thing to strive for, people will strive for it in order to be cool. Then society would evolve faster because more people would be consciously striving for the things they're actually here to strive for.

Mark, sounds like you have Buddhist tendencies. Buddhism is nice. Buddhists don't start wars.

I even thought about creating a test: "How evolved are you?" But I'm lazy, like I said.

If you divide humanity into "lower and higher" evolutionary stratas, you start with what is important to them. The more lowly evolved seek the following: fame, personal satisfaction, social acceptance, appearance, superiority, power, and wealth. They want to control, and they want to own things. They want to be seen as powerful people who control and own things. They blame the victims for their poverty and misfortunes, and shift the blame to other people for their own problems. Their mantra is: The one who dies with the most toys wins. They don't concern themselves with the pain they cause in others while they strive for their own success, and they will go to any lengths to make people pay. Wall Street is a good example, as are most politicians. People who sue over things that are their own fault. Opportunists. Criminals of every variety. People who find excuses for violence. Even people who are gleeful because they bought something for 25 cents at a garage sale and have it appraised on Antique Roadshow for $100,000 are unevolved, if they feel no sympathy for the person who priced that item at $1.00, and sold it to them for 25 cents because they wanted to be "nice", and they feel no compulsion to share the fortune. Just glee that they "won".

The more highly evolved seek the following: peace, acceptance, tolerance, helping, teaching. They want to help. They want to teach. Their first thought is preserving, and defending, and sticking their necks out for the common good. You found these in Nazi Germany, hiding Jewish children, and in pre-Civil War America, helping slaves get to Canada. You find them everywhere, but you don't care about them because they aren't rich and famous. The more highly evolved have enough courage to stand up to the powerful and say, "You're wrong." That's why they're martyrs, a lot of the time.

So I would begin with religion. We all create God in our own image. You can identify the evolutionary level of people from the God they believe in. A lowly evolved God is rigid, demanding, unforgiving. That God identifies people who are "less than" and sends them to eternal hell, even if they can't help being what they are, and even if God (presumably) created them that way. That God demands worship, and sacrificial sacrifices, and is petulant and hard to please. An unevolved God demands that you believe, and doesn't care what you do. An unevolved God has a private club where you only have to join in order to buy your bus ticket to heaven. That private club excludes everyone who didn't buy that ticket. Doesn't matter what you do. I can't stress that enough, that you only have to "belong" or "ask for forgiveness." You can confess away, or baptize away, or buy indulgences, and God lets you in. Piece of cake. You win. There's no fairness, only "inclusion versus exclusion."

A highly evolved God sees the value in everyone, and sends prophets to teach and guide, but understands that all paths -ALL PATHS - lead back to God because we are all God, and there's no escaping it. God is simply "us" and everything else in the universe, subject to a complex series of laws. A highly evolved God is inclusive, and compels you to feel pain if any part of "us" feels pain. A highly evolved God sends people to help. They can say "yay" or "nay" but if they choose indifference, it comes back to them. A highly evolved God is impartial, and fair and always, always, always forgives. A highly evolved God gives you an infinite number of chances to redeem yourself, and loves you along the way, and sends others to coach you and teach you and support you because, let's face it. Life's tough. 

So that's where I'd begin. Reincarnation is a natural because a highly evolved God gives second chances.

Your turn.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

A most excellent philosophy, Nell! You make forgiveness the center for individuals and peace the center for society. Fair enough? Can't wait to see your next novel. Can you really make forgiveness cool? Now that would be something.

Buddhist tendencies? No question. But my favorite is Jesus. Where Buddha put non-attachment at the center, Jesus put forgiveness. Where Buddha was the greatest of philosophers, Jesus was beyond philosophy. They were both messengers of peace.

I try to go there in my history books, just as you do in your novels. Each presidential administration is a chapter, each president gets a thorough going over. Much as I'm against categorizing people in theory, these _are _ history books after all and my presidents get ranked. With the exception of Washington, a special case, historians and intellectuals praise War Presidents, and ignore or ridicule Peace Presidents. However, my histories do the opposite. The hierarchy is turned upside down. The great War Presidents beloved of historians - Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, Wilson, F. Roosevelt - slip to the bottom. Little Matty Van, Martin Van Buren, our greatest Peace President, comes out on top. Can I make Matty cool? Now that might be even more difficult than making forgiveness cool! But I give it my best shot.


----------



## Nell Gavin (Jul 3, 2010)

Sure, you can make it cool. Look at what happened in the 60s and 70s when people were suddenly cool because they wanted peace. You were the absolute coolest, if you were that person who stuck that flower in the rifle of that soldier. They were all into ecology - saving the environment was cool. Saving the whales. Hating nukes. Wearing thrift shop clothing. Panhandling. Remember that? You can make anything cool.

All you have to do is persuade people that they're superior if they take a certain stance. Politicians and religions do this all the time. Then think back to the 80s when it was a good thing to be a "shark". The movie Wall Street wasn't a horror film, back then. It was a How To guide. The movie "Working Girl" had a despicable young woman sabotaging a despicable older woman, and when the despicable young woman crushed the older woman and got her man, and was rewarded with a big Manhattan office with a window, we all got teary-eyed. Both women were horrible persons, but the POV had you rooting for Melanie Griffith because everyone shared her motives and dreams. Everyone bought into that philosophy, and crushed the peace-niks and the social workers and the pro bono environmental lawyers and the homeless with derision and scorn. So 60s/70s cool came and 60s/70s cool went, but it had its day for a short time, and can still be harkened back to as an example of how you do that.

It's a lot easier to persuade people they're superior if you tell them they're righteous to strive for selfish things (there's a Christian sect that preaches that if you're rich it's because God loves you best). Religions that give you an easy out from all your sins have huge followings.  Let's face it. More people fit into the "unevolved" description than the "highly evolved" description. But one of the traits of the unevolved is that they want to be perceived as superior. So you can trick them into actually becoming superior. If you make being "highly evolved" a superior thing and get enough people to buy into it, a number of others can't help but jump on the band wagon -- with one eye in the mirror, but on that bandwagon nonetheless. (Mwah-ha-ha. Tricked you!)

“Categorizing” people into evolutionary stratus is a lot like separating children into grades. You expect different things from different grades, and the ideas they can grasp are at different levels. You also have more patience with a first grader than you would with a college student when it comes to basic concepts, and you address them differently when you discuss things. The idea is that the lower grades haven’t learned to prioritize things correctly yet. You can’t fault them. They’re first graders. So if you view them as at the beginning stages of learning not to be selfish and self-absorbed, you don’t get as riled up over their behavior. Your view of them is more compassionate than angry, accusatory, and indignant.

It also opens your eyes to the people you should emulate – the ones who are ahead of you. The people and attributes you admire when you’re at the lower levels are entirely different from the people and attributes you admire at the higher levels. You stop being star struck, and start noticing the quiet dignity and selflessness of people who devote their lives to helping others. You start seeing the petulance and misguided behavior of the people you used to idolize. You start feeling guilt or discomfort if you don't pitch in to help.

Development is like an onion. It happens in layers. If people are behaving like highly evolved individuals in order to have people praise them for being highly evolved individuals, a part of them will buy into their own actions, and they'll actually progress and evolve. It doesn't matter what your motives are when you visit the elderly in nursing homes, or volunteer at an animal shelter, or slap food on a plate at a soup kitchen. Something inside you is going to change and make you better because of what you see and learn. That's a layer. Get enough of them, and those layers are the reality of what you are.

You're a historian. You can see yourself how society evolves. It does that on an incremental, individual level. The more highly evolved help the lesser evolved along by teaching, or by being an example, or by resonating in some powerful way, or standing up to injustice. Everyone moves the pace of society ahead, century after century, to a place no one could have envisioned before, in terms of being "civilized". We do that soul by soul.

Did you ever read the book, "A Wrinkle in Time"? It's a children's book, but it kind of touched on that, which is why it's on some of the Banned Books lists now. It was one of my favorite books, when I was a kid. So even one book can change you, or push you in a direction or set something off in you, like "A  Wrinkle in Time" did with me, and "Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "A Tree Grows in Brooklyn." I can point to each of those books as having an impact on my development, and incrementally pushing me forward. That's what writing is to me: wanting to participate in that, at some level, to the best of my ability, whether I ever succeed at it or not.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Nell: "You're a historian."

Mark: A historian. Thx. You bring a smile to my face, but I'm not quite ready to go that far! Maybe explicator. I will say, though, that, You are a novelist.

A Wrinkle In Time was one of my favorites, too, way back when. A few years later, we would all evolve into the non-conformist gereration. Wonder how important Wrinkle was to that process? The right book at the right place and time can certainly set the tone and maybe even shift the momentum of an entire culture. Uncle Tom's Cabin certainly did.


----------



## William Campbell (Feb 11, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> William, welcome to our discussion! Btw, the line "how surprisingly limited 'human history' is" wasn't clear.


For me, it was crystal clear. Human history is surprisingly short. Shockingly short. To the point of "this isn't right." At least to me, anyway.

6,000 years or 50,000 years, both are blinks of an eye (to the eye of the universe).

However, besides all that (or maybe not) I have a question for you, Mark, that may help me in a future project.

You know history and your field is linguist. Here is the scenario I propose: let's say Earth is struck by a great disaster. Take your choice: Everest-sized comet/meteor; disease; Sun goes semi-nova; computers take over. Take your pick, there are plenty spouted every day, the cause is irrelevant to my conversation. Let's say something really bad happens and the population of Earth is reduced to, say, 10,000 living people. Really, that bad. Wow, that is catastrophic, indeed. All the computer memory is wiped out, every library, anything ever recorded on paper. There is no record of the past remaining, only what people know themselves and can pass onto their children through language.

My question for you is: what happens to language? If such an event were to happen, knowing what you do as a linguist, how do you feel the leftovers from this holocaust might communicate, and how will it mutate over the years as a result of this event?

In my earlier message, I proposed that this did happen in the past, and it may be the reason why we have a "surprisingly limited human history."

I have plans for a story along these lines, focusing on the language aspect, and the input of a linguist would be most valuable.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

William, you still around? Sorry to be late. I got out of the hospital last week. I’m still not 100%, and slowly catching up. I envisioned a long answer to your question and therefore put it on the back burner. For now, let me make it a short answer and bring it to the front burner.

Your scenario and question: a future catastrophic event reduces the human population to, say, 10,000. Could human language survive?

Yes. Absolutely. Hope that doesn’t mess up your story!

The original group of language-using humans in East Africa some 60,000 years ago probably had only 5,000 people max. Some say 2,000. Of which only a few hundred probably crossed the Red Sea and subsequently populated Asia, the Pacific Islands, Europe, and the Americas. The remaining "large" group then populated Africa and maybe the Middle East. And, since human language is in a constant state of flux, that original language had mutated into about 20,000 some 10,000 years ago, which has since reduced to about 6,000 now, with the processes of globalization.

How many humans does it take to keep language going? As long as you have children, a handful is enough. Children are genetically driven to recreate perfect human language. They are language learning and language creating geniuses (but only in “natural” circumstances, not in school!). Their brains are built for it. Adults, on the other hand, are poor at natural language learning and even worse at language creation. So you have to have children to keep language going. But that's no problem, is it. If you have adults, you'll have children.

“Pidgin language” is a technical term for linguists. It means a language with no native speakers. It’s typically a trade language developed by groups who want to barter. The grammar is simple, inconsistent, and relies heavily on context. Vocabulary is small with each word having multiple meanings. But sometimes, historical circumstances force a number of groups into a single area in which the pidgin is the only common language and therefore becomes the language used outdoors by the children (indoors they’ll typically speak their parents language). That’s when something truly amazing happens. The children of the pidgin speakers, almost as if it’s a conscious project (of course it’s not), remake that pidgin into a grammatically sophisticated, consistent, rule-driven language fully on par with all “regular” languages in its complexity and expressive capacity. They even expand the vocabulary from, say, a few thousand words to the 60,000 that all languages have for everyday communication. The children do it without a lick of help from their linguistically doltish parents, and of course without any schooling. The technical word for this new language is “Creole.” Creole languages are derived from Pidgin languages, but they have native speakers and all the features of regular languages. Many creoles exist in the world now in West Africa, the Caribbean, and Pacific islands, including Papua New Guinea and Hawaii.

And if there’s no model, even a deficient model like a pidgin? Children will still create a fully-developed language. Check Wiki for Nicaraguan Sign Language. The languages created by deaf children, when they have other deaf children to associate with, are complete languages. As with spoken languages, the children can learn or create perfect versions; their parents, or deaf people beyond a certain age, have basically no chance, though, of attaining native proficiency.

Well, that may look long, but that’s actually my short answer! Questions by anyone are welcome.


----------



## JoeMitchell (Jun 6, 2010)

I really enjoyed the TV series Showtime made about Henry VII, called 'The Tudors'.  It's not historically accurate, but it's fairly close, and spends a lot of time showing how life was for Henry, starting with him as a young man and following him through all of his wives, all the way to his death.  It spends a lot of time on Anne in the first and second seasons.  I thought the show was exceptionally good, and had a great finale.  After watching it, I wanted to know more about the people, so I read all about them on wikipedia.  I was especially interested in what became of his daughters after watching them grow up through the course of the series.  Bloody Mary and Elizabeth.  Anyway, I highly recommend the series if you haven't seen it yet.


----------



## Chloista (Jun 27, 2009)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> Well, Nell, unless Chloista looks in again I guess it's just me and you.
> 
> Anyway, I just put up a new thread: Mega-History Books.
> 
> ...


Just found this thread again! 

I have ordered Nell's book, and also Mark's two-volume series within the last month. Alas, I have been reading Mr. Delderfield's historical fiction about England (the "God Is An Englishman" trilogy) for the past few weeks, and have not been able to read your books yet. But I am greatly enjoying this thread! VERY MUCH!


----------



## Chloista (Jun 27, 2009)

Nell Gavin said:


> I'm basically lazy about writing, and my second novel is calling me back (faintly) but I have given some thought to analyzing "spiritual evolution" in terms of categorizing people into "lower evolved" and "more highly evolved". My theory is that if you make "highly evolved" a cool thing to strive for, people will strive for it in order to be cool. Then society would evolve faster because more people would be consciously striving for the things they're actually here to strive for.
> 
> Mark, sounds like you have Buddhist tendencies. Buddhism is nice. Buddhists don't start wars.
> 
> ...


Loved this post! A lot to think about. Sometimes, I think I must be a very young soul (it's all about me, you know! LOL! well, sort of), and having been rather content to accept my own traditional Christian values, perhaps some aspects of my belief do fall into the lowly evolved God category. You've given me some food for thought.

Hey! Maybe I'm evolving!  (said with friendly kidding and lots of good humor... and perhaps a dash of self-irony)


----------



## Chloista (Jun 27, 2009)

Nell Gavin said:


> Sure, you can make it cool. Look at what happened in the 60s and 70s when people were suddenly cool because they wanted peace. You were the absolute coolest, if you were that person who stuck that flower in the rifle of that soldier. They were all into ecology - saving the environment was cool. Saving the whales. Hating nukes. Wearing thrift shop clothing. Panhandling. Remember that? You can make anything cool.
> 
> All you have to do is persuade people that they're superior if they take a certain stance. Politicians and religions do this all the time. Then think back to the 80s when it was a good thing to be a "shark". The movie Wall Street wasn't a horror film, back then. It was a How To guide. The movie "Working Girl" had a despicable young woman sabotaging a despicable older woman, and when the despicable young woman crushed the older woman and got her man, and was rewarded with a big Manhattan office with a window, we all got teary-eyed. Both women were horrible persons, but the POV had you rooting for Melanie Griffith because everyone shared her motives and dreams. Everyone bought into that philosophy, and crushed the peace-niks and the social workers and the pro bono environmental lawyers and the homeless with derision and scorn. So 60s/70s cool came and 60s/70s cool went, but it had its day for a short time, and can still be harkened back to as an example of how you do that.
> 
> ...


Good grief: "A Wrinkle In Time" is on the banned books list in some areas? Madeleine L'engle is one of my favorite Christian writers... loved her "Genesis Trilogy" -- and read "A Wrinkle in Time" as a kid... didn't corrupt me too much!


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

Nell Gavin said:


> I primarily took into account the fact that virtually all of Anne Boleyn's history was written by her enemies (at Henry's command), in particular Eustache Chapuys.


Yes, it's not like Chapuys had any reason to dislike her. 

Anne Boleyn didn't deserve to die the way she did, but neither did K of A deserve her fate, and she had a hand in that. I think there was much good in Anne and much good done by Anne, but recent efforts to make her a great heroine strike be as more romance novel thinking than an honest attempt to understand history.


----------



## MichelleR (Feb 21, 2009)

JoeMitchell said:


> I really enjoyed the TV series Showtime made about Henry VII, called 'The Tudors'. It's not historically accurate, but it's fairly close, and spends a lot of time showing how life was for Henry, starting with him as a young man and following him through all of his wives, all the way to his death. It spends a lot of time on Anne in the first and second seasons. I thought the show was exceptionally good, and had a great finale. After watching it, I wanted to know more about the people, so I read all about them on wikipedia. I was especially interested in what became of his daughters after watching them grow up through the course of the series. Bloody Mary and Elizabeth. Anyway, I highly recommend the series if you haven't seen it yet.


I like the show too, but not sure about anywhere near close to accurate when two of Henry's sisters were made into one, completely ignoring what this does to the history of Scotland. They did on occasion, very nicely, get things really right though.


----------



## William Campbell (Feb 11, 2010)

Mark Ledbetter said:


> William, you still around?...


Yes, Mark, I've been in and out and around, though a bit distracted myself, by this nagging thing called a third book marked up by my editor...

Anyway, sorry to hear about your visit to the place we all seem to enjoy least. I hope that all is well and conditions are improving.

Now, about my scenario question, I wonder if I might probe further (and no, don't worry; what you have said thus far ruins nothing, rather it helps).

So this catastrophe occurs, and a mere 10,000 survive. Yes, language will survive, but (for the sake of the best imagined authenticity one might devise) what effects, in your estimation, would this event have on the language that remained? I presume the spoken word would mutate over time (no schools for some time until things recover), and possibly, given that the survivors are evenly distributed (thus using different dialects due to geography), we might suppose that after 100 years or so of recovery, as survivors search out others and consolidate, that different languages might begin to blend into one. Or...? Some of the crazy thoughts (questions?) rolling around inside me when considering the topic (and as I said, pertinent to a story idea that is less than even a framework at this point). Either way, one part of what you said I do like -- that children can pass on, or even invent, language better than adults -- because that was already part of my story. The potential story is about children who survive, not adults.

So would you think, a "Pidgin language" as you call it, would develop and overtake older forms? It makes for an interesting story. Gives it texture. My only remaining queries would be aimed at hoping to envision such a nonexistent language so that I might introduce a semblance of it within a developing plot. Just an idea, maybe. Interesting to talk about anyway. Language is fascinating.


----------



## Mark Ledbetter (May 7, 2010)

Thx, Chloista. Hope you enjoy when you finally get to them! Btw, Wrinkle in Time was one of my favorite childhood books, also. Who knows? Maybe we have been corrupted!

William, I assume language unifiers like TV, computers etc are no longer in existence after the catastrophe. And an important factor: Do the original 10,000 all speak the same language? Or are there already a number of different language groups?

Either way, language would change: pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary. This is an absolute certainty. And the changes themselves would be different within different groups, unless they still significant contact with each other. This would lead first to different dialects and eventually to different languages. The greatest changes in the first generation would be vocabulary. Thousands of words no longer relevant to post-catastrophe life would disappear for lack of use, to be replaced by thousands of new words necessary in this new post-catastrophe world.

Language blending? Quite possible. A familiar, if not perfect, example is English. When the Roman Empire collapsed around 500 a.d., Angles, Saxons, and Jutes (Germanic speakers) crossed the channel and became the new masters of England and their language the new language. They brought different dialects and, over time, those dialects diverged into even more dialects. Still, the dialects were closer to each other than to the “parent” language, German, and eventually became a new language: English. Then, around 800 a.d., Danes (Vikings) began a series of invasions. Eventually, they conquered the northern half of England. They also spoke a Germanic language so Danish and Old English began a process of blending. Our English is actually, to some extent, a blend of two similar languages. Even now, the dialects of northern England have thousands of old Danish words.

A better example of blending would be Michif (check wiki), a blending of French-Algonkian and Cree by Metis people who were native speakers in both languages and used their proficiency to create a new language, blended from two that they spoke perfectly. Language blends of this type are not common.

Then there’s the common process described earlier of adult-created pidgin languages becoming a base for child-created creole languages.

I’m looking forward to the book, and how you handle the language issues. Feel free to ask more questions.


----------

