KILLING BEAUTIES is a well-written semi-interesting piece of
historical fiction. Langman sets his novel during the Protectorate of the 1650s.
The novel focuses on the extremely dangerous world of the Royalist spies.
Having read the book from cover to cover, I find the premise
a little implausible. Without spilling too much of the plot, I find it hard to believe
that Cromwell's foremost spy catcher John Thurloe would fall for a sister of a
leading Royal Royalist Edward Hyde, the Earl of Clarendon writer of a History
of the rebellion.
The book seems to be well researched and has a degree of
erudition you would expect from a PhD holder whose subject was Francis Bacon.
In terms of historiography Langman's book joins a growing
army of such like publications that promote the Royalist cause against the
nasty parliamentarians who cut the head off a beloved king. Langman was influenced
by his partner Dr Nadine Ackerman's research for her book invisible agents[1]
As Langman explains "I was introduced to Susan and Diana by
my partner, Dr Nadine Akkerman, as she was researching her (bloody splendid)
book Invisible Agents: Women and espionage in seventeenth-century Britain. She
was not that far into the task before it seemed as if Nadine was operating more
as Spycatcher than a researcher, and it was only in the face of her relentless
work that the she-intelligencers slowly gave up their secrets. As Nadine put
ever more flesh on their archival bones, we began to realise that they were the
perfect protagonists to star in a work of historical fiction. What was so
promising about this pair was partially the fact that they were operating in
the same circles at the same time, and yet don’t appear to have met, and
partially the fact that their lack of excitement about the idea of being caught
led to their tracks being pretty well covered over.[2]
While I found Langman's book, a moderately interesting read,
I found his method even more fascinating. As he explains in this interview"There
are two approaches available to the historical novelist: to fictionalise
history or historical fiction. A fictionalised history is one in which a story
is woven around actual events, while historicised fiction is one in which
historical detail is inserted into a story. I would say I chose the former, but
it would be more accurate to say that the former chose me.
Archives do not tell us everything. There are always gaps.
Sometimes you can fill them in by using other sources (though this needs to be
approached with care), but sometimes they simply insist on remaining as gaps.
The primary site of divergence between the historian and the novelist is in the
way they approach these gaps: for the former, they are traps; the latter,
portals. I could make the gaps work with me rather than against me.”
To conclude, I have read better historical fiction books,
and I have read worse. My overriding feeling is that a PhD holder of Langman's calibre
should be writing academic books, not historical fiction. Maybe his next book
will prove me wrong.
Postscript
The book is published by Unbound it was the first crowdfunding
publisher founded in 2011. A list of people who pledged support for the book to
be published is in the back and front of the book. A brave new world
[1]
https://keith-perspective.blogspot.com/search?q=nadine
[2]
https://thewritingcoach.co.uk/category/thewritingcoach/
