Funny Stuff and Bookish Snippets

An Archbishop of Canterbury Tale from Iowahawk.

That "wickedly subversive" Cambridge don, Mary Beard, reveals her next writing project: What Made The Romans Laugh.

What makes historians think they're qualified to write historical fiction? Joel Rickett in The Guardian reports that increasing numbers of academics are doing just that.

James Holland, The Burning Blue and A Pair of Silver Wings
Alison Weir, Innocent Traitor, The Lady Elizabeth
Simon Sebag Montefiore, Sashenka (Perhaps he got some handy tips from wife Santa Montefiore, who writes historical romances)
Katie Hickman, The Aviary Gate
Stella Tillyard, famous for the bestselling Aristocrats, has sold two historical novels, the first of which will be published in 2010.

Perhaps it's because the most popular historical non-fiction these days is being written by historians who know how to tell a good story with vividly drawn characters and convincing settings. As long as they resist the temptation to weigh down their fiction with a burden of historical detail, they should add greatly to the gaiety of (reading) nations. Which is more than can be said for this recent crop of hapless historicals (unless the reviewer is one of those snooty types who thinks historical fiction is all rather rubbish).

And then of course there's the mega-selling Philippa Gregory who has a history degree and published her first historical novel around the same time as she got her PhD in 18th-century literature. Here she is in The Times on how her novel The Other Boleyn Girl got the Hollywood treatment.

Out of the Mouths of Archbishops

I wonder if the Archbishop of Canterbury would have minded more what he was about if he'd read this* before his recent speech advocating the acceptance of some aspects of Muslim Sharia law in the United Kingdom. Obviously, he doesn't mean the kind of laws that condone the vile practices described in this Civitas report. Nor does he advocate the Sharia's infamous legal punishments that we've become all too familiar with of late. As I understand it, the Archbishop is referring to Sharia laws relating to civil matters such as marriage, divorce, custody of children and inheritance and that such recognition would be an alternative to, not a replacement for, UK laws.

Nevertheless, I should like clarification on the following (but am unlikely to get it from the Archbishop, to whom clarity appears to be anathema):

• Is there a uniform codified version of Sharia law?
• How can we square the unequal treatment of women under Sharia law with the principle of equality before the law that is enshrined in our own legal system?
• Is it possible to adopt some aspects of Sharia law without encouraging demands (by the usual suspects) for the whole law to be adopted?
  
• What would happen in the event that a judgment from a Sharia court contravened UK laws?
  

*(Crimes of the Community: Honour-Based Violence in the UK by James Brandon and Salam Hafez, Centre for Social Cohesion, 2008. Thanks to Butterflies and Wheels for the link). Amongst other things, this careful piece of research demolishes, effectively in my opinion, the Archbishop's glib assertion that adopting some parts of Sharia law would improve the social cohesion of Muslims into British society. Some of it will probably make your hair stand on end, especially if you're a woman.