Tag Archives: Historical Inaccuracy

Writing Creepie Stool

Yes, it’s that time of year already… The Fringe is poised and ready to pounce, snapping us up in its five star fangs yet again. It’s no secret that I have a love/hate relationship (weighted in favour of love, but the hate can’t be ignored) with the theatrical behemoth that takes up residence on the Royal Mile every August. As it gets closer, no doubt there’ll be posts from me about its irritations and imperfections. However, at present I have reason to love it and to celebrate.

This year I wrote my first commissioned piece for the Fringe. It’s called Creepie Stool, and it’s part of the Festival of Spirituality and Peace. They commissioned two new plays from Edinburgh writers on the theme of sectarianism. I was one of those writers, Jen Adam was the other – her play is called Kiss, Cuddle, Torture. It’s a lovely feeling, being asked to write a play rather than starting by writing one and then shopping it around in the hope that you’ll find someone who wants to stage it, or producing it yourself. However, it’s really weird writing a play to a specific brief.

I’m used to writing to a brief in other styles. When I ghostwrite fiction, the briefs are often very specific. There are particular formulae I’m usually asked to use within the genres in which I specialise. They’re not the same stories that I choose to write when I have no-one to answer to but myself, and the characters don’t make the same choices that they would if their fictional world was governed only by me. My job is to put flesh on pre-existing bones.

When I write plays, on the other hand, there are no pre-existing bones. I create the skeleton myself. Plays happen when I have an idea that rattles around in my head for long enough that I can’t ignore it. I start writing for the same reason that oysters start coating bits of grit in mucus – not with the intention of creating a pearl that someone might someday value, but simply to get this fucking sharp thing to stop irritating me. I don’t go looking for bits of grit. They just find their way in.

Starting work on a play without the bit of grit was a strange experience. I knew I had to write a play, I knew it had to be about sectarianism and I knew I had to deliver it by a particular date. You would think that wouldn’t be too much of a problem, considering that I was brought up by a Glaswegian Protestant and a Glaswegian Catholic. But there are two problems with that. First, Singing I’m No A Billy, He’s A Tim has already been written. Second, this year marks the tenth anniversary of my Mum’s death and the ninth anniversary of my Dad’s. Anything that takes me too close to the world they grew up in… no. Not just now. That way madness lies.

I considered various other options. There’s sectarian violence and discrimination all over the world. You’d think that it would be easy to find some where other than Scotland and write about the situation there. I didn’t, because sectarian issues tend to be incredibly complex and I would need more than a couple of months to do sufficient research to write anything that did justice to the places and people involved. The best I could have done would have been something trite, shallow and general, the kind of play that can do nothing more than reassure my fellow Guardian-reading lefties that we all know that sectarian violence is A Bad Thing. I needed to start from a position of actually knowing something.

So I looked to history. I’ve been an amateur history nut for most of my life. I can date it back to my first trip to Linlithgow Palace, when my dad started telling me stories about Mary, Queen of Scots and I realised that “the past” was a massive repository of my favourite thing: stories.  As I grew up and began to think critically I realised that history was not something fixed and known, it was open to interpretation and revision. It wasn’t pretty and orderly, and it certainly wasn’t some kind of golden age where everyone was better behaved than they are now.

The “golden age” attitude to the past came to annoy me more and more. When I worked as a tour guide I began to see how many people thought that anything that happened before 1960 was a BBC costume drama, the kind where the good end happily and the bad unhappily (give or take the occasional tragedy, where the unhappy demise of someone good is ultimately redeemed by the dignity and beauty of their death). I listened to people bemoaning the stupidity and selfishness of people in the present with increasing vexation. You think that people were more intelligent, more faithful, more honourable a hundred years ago, or a thousand? READ MORE. THINK MORE. Check out the Greeks moaning about how stupid and selfish people had become. I came to the conclusion that people, collectively, remain more or less the same. Values and influences change, but I think we remain more or less the same bundles of chemicals and impulses no matter when or where we live. (Then again, most of the confusion in my life has been caused by thinking – hoping – that other people are more or less similar to me, so what do I know? Still, I have yet to see anything that convinces me that people living centuries ago were fundamentally different to people today, so I stand by it.)

So how did this generate an idea for the play? Well, I am particularly interested in people’s need for a common enemy. Some years ago I did a Lifelong Learning course studying witchcraft in early modern Scotland, where I learned how little the persecution of “witches” had to do with witchcraft and how much it had to do with anti-Catholic sentiments and tension between the old faith and the comparatively recent adoption of Calvinism. I found it interesting, but I didn’t dig into the details too deeply at that point.

When I went looking for the Sectarian conflict that would prompt the play, I began thinking about how little I knew about  Calvinism. It’s a religion that had a profound influence on the country I grew up in, and yet I couldn’t have explained its basic beliefs.  I knew far more about the Church of England than the Church of Scotland – score one for Religious Education in Scottish schools! I knew a little about the Covenanters’ War, enough to understand that 17th century Scottish people had issues with Charles I and it was something to do with religious strife,  but I couldn’t have told you how the whole thing got started. I wondered whether the play might be lurking somewhere in the depths of that conflict, so I started digging.

That’s what led me to Jenny Geddes. In 1637 she got quite upset at the introduction of a new Book of Common Prayer. Charles I had been advised that the Scots weren’t going to like it, but he wasn’t a great one for listening to advice. Jenny thought it sounded a bit too much like Mass, so she picked up the stool she was sitting on and threw it at the minister of St Giles. A three-day riot ensued. Shortly afterwards, the National Covenant was created and signed, and the Coventanters’ War began.I started exploring Jenny’s motives. What got her so angry that day? What was she afraid of? What were the influences that got her to the point where she felt so strongly about what she was hearing?

Then I needed to find some other characters for her to interact with. There’s not a lot to go on, historically. Jenny Geddes didn’t have a well documented life. So I imagined her employer, the woman whose seat Jenny was being paid to keep in church that day. And I gave her a maidservant, because I wanted three women with different social status. I made a few basic decisions about what they would be, engineering their characteristics to allow for conflicts of interest and personality, and off I went.

In terms of research, this was a very difficult play to write. Even now that it’s written, I still don’t feel like I’ve completely got my head round it. If I hadn’t had a deadline, it would probably have become one of those plays that I rework for years and never show to anyone because it’s not exactly right yet. I’ve done my damnedest to get the historical context right, but I know I set myself an impossible task. Which makes me quite glad that I didn’t try to write a play about a present day culture that I don’t understand from the inside. At least I know that I won’t accidentally make things worse for Jenny Geddes, upset 17th century Scots by misrepresenting them, or trivialise an ongoing conflict.

Does that mean the play isn’t relevant? I don’t think so. We have a hell of a lot to learn from history. We don’t, as a society, because we reduce history to a Sunday teatime drama or a narrowly focused and horribly dry subject at school. I’m well aware that some people will come to see this play, take one look at the costumes and decide that it can’t possibly have anything to say about the world we live in today. All I can do is hope they’ll spot the similarities between 17th century people attacking a church because they considered Catholics a threat and 21st century people attacking mosques because they consider Muslims a threat.

The play is being directed by Jasmin Egner and has a fantastic cast; Angela Milton, Debbie Cannon and Belle Jones. I can’t wait to see what they’ll make of it. They’re intelligent, sensitive people and I trust them, which is great because now I have to leave it in their hands. My only involvement now is to throw research resources their way and try not to pester them. In the meantime, I am off to write a play that no-one asked me to write, with no brief at all, about what will happen when social media eventually turns on us all…


My First Pixar Disappointment

At long last I got round to seeing Brave. I wanted to like it. I really did. It’s set in Scotland! There’s magic and mythology! The protagonist is a redhead! And yet… I feel dissatisfied.

I like Pixar and have high expectations of them. Their previous output, most of which I’ve seen, has shown them to be imaginative, emotionally intelligent and curious about how narrative conventions can be used and subverted. Yet if Brave had been the first Pixar film I’d seen, I doubt I’d rush back to see another – in fact, if Pixar didn’t have seventeen years of good will built up, my ambivalence towards this film might have tipped into antipathy.

The writing is weak. I’ve come to expect neatly crafted stories from Pixar. They used to understand emotional stakes, how to build up a protagonist’s hopes, expectations or fears and then dash the hopes and/or confront the fears. This time, I found I had no idea what Merida actually wants. There’s nothing massive at stake for her. She doesn’t want to get married because of the “loss of freedom”, but what does that mean? Three suitors are presented and she could run rings round any of them – even the least accommodating husband is less trouble than a mother, as I think I once heard somewhere. Without any driving desires, I’m not sure what Merida’s journey is. Yes, she gets the clan chiefs to agree that their children can choose their own spouses, but she’s still going to be expected to marry one of the unappealing heirs at some point.

There was plenty of promise in the mother/daughter dynamic between Elinor and Merida, but the resolution was far too easy. What, a wee bit of quality time with Mum plus a little bit of magic and everything’s peachy? If I’d turned my mother into a bear there would have been hell to pay when I got her changed back. Yes, there would have been an initial moment of being happy at being safely reunited, but then there would have been questions, screaming matches, all the usual mother/daughter stuff that happens after one of you does something really stupid. Perhaps that’s just me and my Mum, but it would have been more interesting than the slightly cloying ending that we got.

The thing that really left a bad taste in my mouth, though, was the depiction of the Scots. Yes, yes, this is where the Scot fulfils one of her national stereotypes and bangs on about how hard things are if you’re Scottish. Look, I know there are varying degrees and that other races have it worse, but that doesn’t change the fact that the way the Scots are portrayed in Brave is racist – or at best, it’s very crude racial stereotyping.

It’s difficult to say how Scottish women fare because there are only two female characters and they’re both busy playing cliche refined mother and cliche rebellious daughter. Certainly Merida is not helped by her voice actor, Kelly Macdonald, who has trouble sounding like a human being rather than an automated phone system that has been set to ‘Scottish’.

It’s the men who come off worst. They’re burly, hairy louts with no emotional depth (which weakens Merida’s climactic appeal – it’s directed at sensibilities they didn’t have prior to that scene). They drink, they gorge, they toss cabers, flash their kilt-clad arses at each other, feud constantly and are used for lazy comic relief. Their lines include references to tattybogles, puddens and galloots, never found anywhere else in the film. (Oh, not quite – one reference to Merida’s ‘gub’ from Elinor and one ‘jings, crivens an’ help ma boab’ from Merida.)

Would we accept this if the Scots weren’t white? We’re surely past the stage where it would be acceptable to populate a kids’ film with a group of Chinese men wearing pointy straw hats, waving chopsticks and mispronouncing the letter R? Or black witch doctors running around with bones through their noses? The fact that the Scots are white and speak English doesn’t make it any less problematic. Am I just being oversensitive here? Perhaps, and I plan to revisit this in another post to help me figure it out, but I don’t think so. I’m not a knee-jerk reactionary type. My objection is not the appearance of these stereotypes in the first place, it’s to them being accepted without question, exploration or purpose beyond filling some screen time with lazy writing. Pixar is better than that. Pixar is quite capable of creating interesting minor characters who are more than just a “hoots mon the noo” joke.

And seriously, a corset-lacing scene? To show Merida being oppressed by her mother’s expectations and traditional gender roles? Seriously, was this written by teenagers who haven’t realised how hackneyed that is yet? Not to mention that stays of that kind didn’t exist until the 19th century, and unless you laced them with dental floss you’d be unlikely to succeed in bursting out of them just by stretching and breathing in.

 

…Oh, come on,. You knew I was never going to let the corset thing pass.