"The Rise of the Saxons"

annis · Post by **annis** » Wed November 26th, 2008, 10:06 pm

Has anyone read this novel?
"The Rise of the Saxons: And the Legend of Hengist and Horsa", by Ryan West ?

It's British and I'm guessing self-published, and I can't find out anything about the author. There's a review attached to the Amazon listing, but the reviewer has a rather dodgy taste in books, so I'd probably rather hear from someone else!

It is a period I'm interested in, so if it was any good I'd probably try to track down a copy.

Misfit · Post by **Misfit** » Wed November 26th, 2008, 10:22 pm

Here's his reviews on .uk if that helps any.

EC2 · Post by **EC2** » Wed November 26th, 2008, 10:36 pm

[quote=""annis""]Has anyone read this novel?
"The Rise of the Saxons: And the Legend of Hengist and Horsa", by Ryan West ?

It's British and I'm guessing self-published, and I can't find out anything about the author. There's a review attached to the Amazon listing, but the reviewer has a rather dodgy taste in books, so I'd probably rather hear from someone else!

It is a period I'm interested in, so if it was any good I'd probably try to track down a copy.[/quote]

Yes, it's published by Author House - who are a vanity press as far as I know.
The reviewer certainly has a thing about exclamation marks!!!!!!!!

Margaret · Post by **Margaret** » Thu November 27th, 2008, 2:09 am

Yes, AuthorHouse is for people who self-publish. I wouldn't be too hopeful about the quality of this book. Authors who self-publish historical fiction have often done quite good research and fail to find a mainstream publisher primarily because of deficits in their prose style and/or storytelling ability. In this case, though, the Amazon reviewer does, while going overboard to express enthusiasm, strongly hint that the research on this one is biased and not to be trusted.

Carla · Post by **Carla** » Sun January 11th, 2009, 7:27 pm

I haven't read it, and from the review I suspect it's not my thing as I'm generally of the 'less is more' persuasion when it comes to violence.

With regard to the history, there essentially isn't any. Nothing is known for sure about Hengist and Horsa, not even if they really existed. The sources for the legend date from centuries after the event. So any novel purporting to tell "Hengest's story" or the "story of the Anglo-Saxon Invasion*" is going to be primarily fiction. I highly, highly doubt whether it could reasonably be called "a great historical lesson". It might or might not be a good story - I can't comment on that - but I would be very wary of trying to treat it as history.

Edited: There are some more reviews on Amazon.co.uk http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rise-Saxons-Leg ... 1438924003
I am now even more wary of the history.

*If there was any such thing.

annis · Post by **annis** » Mon January 12th, 2009, 2:37 am

Thanks, Carla. I did read the Amazon reviews (American & British) and decided to give the book a miss, despite the enthusiatic reviewer, whose taste appears to be of the "National Front" variety- something which I find abhorrent.
If the author's an apologist for white supremacy I'm not interested

The book would have to be a mythistorical, given the lack of information about the period. That doesn't preclude a good story, but I just don't like the vibes.

Carla · Post by **Carla** » Tue January 13th, 2009, 12:33 pm

I tend to regard Hengist and Horsa & co as about as historical or mythical as King Arthur. They appear in broadly similar sources with broadly similar amounts of detail. Hengist and Horsa get extra historical points for being named in Bede, which Arthur isn't, but conversely I would deduct points for them not being mentioned anywhere else in surviving Old English literature except (Hengest only) The Fight at Finnsburh, whereas Arthur turns up in Culhwch and Olwen, The Dream of Rhonabwy and the Triads, not counting the miscellaneous Saints Lives and the medieval romances.

Rowan · Post by **Rowan** » Tue January 13th, 2009, 2:15 pm

So out of curiosity, when does myth become fact?

Carla · Post by **Carla** » Tue January 13th, 2009, 8:08 pm

Good question. I think it depends on the level of supporting evidence, which like many things is a continuum.

At the 'factual' end of the spectrum I would put things that were recorded in contemporary documents and where some (ideally all) the statements are confirmed by independent sources. E.g. the date of the Battle of Waterloo would be in contemporary newspapers, Wellington's reports and no doubt assorted soldiers' letters home. Wellington and Napoleon appear in many other records from the time.

At the 'mythical' end of the spectrum I would put things written down in one source that says vaguely that this happened a long time ago, and where the people and events aren't verified in an independent source. E.g., as far as I know Homer is the sole source for Helen being kidnapped by Paris and taken to Troy, and he says something along the lines of these events having happened a long (unspecified) time ago.

There's a lot of middle ground between these two extremes. E.g. if contemporary sources disagree, which one do you take as 'fact'? What if two sources agree but you know both of them were written by people with a vested interest in promulgating a particular version of events? What if something is recorded in two different sources but they are centuries after the event? What if recorded in a single near-contemporary source but not mentioned anywhere else? And so on. Then you have to make a judgement about whether you think the evidence is strong enough to count as a 'fact'. That's a matter of judgement, and is going to vary between different people. Hence historians don't always agree with each other.

I don't suppose that's a very helpful answer! But I don't think there is a simple answer.

Anyone else want to have a go?

rex icelingas · Post by **rex icelingas** » Sat March 28th, 2009, 8:19 am

I would also if your interested in this era track down `Vortigern-the man who betrayed his people` by Samantha Pepperall,bit of a strange book that reads like it was written by Welsh Bards in the 12th Cent

I think the best thing to be said for the era of late antiquity is-Dont believe what you read! There are a billion Arthurian books all of which make some outstanding claims that they fail to back up.Read as much on the era as you can and slowly form your own judgement of what is plausible and what isnt, and always keep challenging those old theories!