As Gordon Ramsey says when he’s growing upset, just before he spews a rant filled with expletives: “Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.”
My story has lain dormant for weeks as I ponder what has gone wrong, why it falls so flat, why readers are not engaging. Then I found this article about AI composition.
The article is about key tells of AI writing:
Lack of Consistency with Narrative Details
Overly Formal and Complex Words
Choppy Sentences
Inconsistencies
Vague Overgeneralizations
Weird linguistic choices
So now I know the tool I have been using to write has sabotaged my writing until it is just too difficult to absorb.
I’ve spoken previously about the anachronisms that sneak into ChatGPT’s contributions to my work, and how I have struggled with repetition, not to mention inconsistencies within the repetitions. Oh, and don’t get me started when it comes to high-flying prose that sounds so good but makes zero sense when you really read it. Especially when it comes to arcane words.
A friend just did me the kindness of reviewing my recent chapter introducing one of my main characters, Thomas Lightfoot. ChatGPT had put a piece of “molded cheese” into Tom’s pocket. My friend wondered about that one. Initially I thought it was just poetic license but then I realized, moldy cheese is cheese with mold, but molded cheese might be shaped to resemble the Statue of Liberty. So now according to my text it is moldy; a less poetic word adding far more clarity.
Using his suggestions I rewrote the chapter within my blog post but have yet to replace the historic text at the beginning of Chapter 1. I am still torn. The scene is so graphic, yet so important to understand the level of persecutions faced by the Quakers and other religious dissenters at the time.
But in any case it seems to me I have bigger fish to fry–I need to eradicate all the AI-isms throughout my work. Because evidently it is too generalized, too choppy, and riddled with weird words.
It’s possible my tendency to geek out over historic trivia has overwhelmed my story. So in the interest of more “show don’t tell” I have developed this scene to replace the transcript from the list of Quaker sufferings at the beginning of my story. Dedicating this to my great-niece and fan of historic fiction, Serenity.
The fog had lingered through the night and continued through morning, so that the streets were a slurry of mud and slime. Though June was nearly spent, the air stubbornly held an icy chill as it had for some time now. Only the oldest Englanders could recall a time when winter kept to its own season.
Tom shuddered, his little hands pulling at a worn woolen coverlet that served as his cloak. He shuffled along the edge of King’s Parade, noting how his bare feet squelched on the cold wet stones. He had learned to keep his ears open and stay in the shadows, though he didn’t quite know what he feared most—the chill in his bones or the bustle of the scholars in their black robes.
Cambridge was known to draw teens from from good families intended to study for a religious post that likely had already been set aside to secure their futures. To Tom it seemed these older boys took pleasure in adding to his torment now that he had neither father nor mother to protect him.
The bells of St Mary’s rang across the sky, their peals muffled by the dense mist. He tilted his head, straining to catch any pattern, any meaning in the tolling that might guide him past the throng. Were they off to chapel or back to classes?
At nine years old, Tom Lightfoot had seen more grief than any boy ought: mother long dead and leaving no memory of herself behind, and a year ago his father taken by black lung. Since then he’d been shuffled from one miserable orphanage to another, leaving him only dismal memories like faded candlelight.
As he’d done before, he’d run from the latest house—not much more than a work-house—rather than join his brethren in the mines. Now with feet slick and mud-caked, he watched the square come alive with the presence of strangers. Two women moved with a quiet determination. The scholars took note with a rise in their scoffing tones that made him stop and press against a barrel, his small frame shivering not only from the cold but from anticipation of what was to come next. He hated the brutal spectacles that so many seemed to enjoy.
Mary Fisher, not yet thirty, with a gaze that held fire without flame, and Elizabeth Williams, older, steady, her greyed hair tucked beneath a bonnet, threaded their way through the crowd. The air seemed to bend around them, fog curling past their skirts like smoke around a lantern. Tom crouched low to make himself invisible. His small heart thumped, loud in his chest, each step of the women over the stones seeming to echo like a drumbeat in his ears.
The scholars on their side of the square clustered in stiff black robes with great wide collars. They spoke amongst themselves in clipped, precise tones. The boy could not follow every word, but the sense of authority, of hierarchy, struck him like cold iron.
One boy, tall with a hawkish nose, said something about the “necessary guidance” the clergy must provide “to an uneducated populace unable to discern the true will of the Lord.” Another nodded, adding that those who had not studied Scripture properly must be shown the way, else chaos would descend. Tom’s ears caught the words and sifted them into fragments: uneducated people like himself, who could not understand beyond their station. Each phrase sounded like a verdict, like a bell toll for the common folk, and with a sinking feeling of despair he pressed his face further into the folds of his blanket.
As the women approached the scholars crowed at them, for it was obvious from their attire that they belonged to a new sect, the “plain” folk who refused all adornment. Their heads were covered instead with simple white caps devoid of embroidery or trim. One of the young men asked loudly, “How many Gods do you suppose there are, oh wise Children of the Light?”
The younger woman responded with a voice clear but not loud, unwavering in its confidence. “But one. Yet thou hast many gods and are ignorant of the true God.” Tom’s chest tightened in awe. The elder woman leaned close to her companion, her own voice a steady counterpoint. “And those who cannot read must not be left in ignorance. Our charge is to lift them toward Light, even if the world would see them in shadow.”
Tom did not understand all they said, being a boy of narrow streets, but he understood enough: they spoke of hope, of defiance, of justice, in a language that warmed something deep within. The robed young men were in a fury—for none called them ‘thou’ except their mothers—and murmured among themselves in voices sharp and condescending, as though the women’s courage were a child’s trick. Tom’s small fists curled at his sides. If only he could speak, he would have shouted at them to hold their tongues, to listen.
A sudden clatter—the gate at the edge of the square, or perhaps the falling of a barrel—made him flinch. The fog swirled and shifted, and for a moment, the world seemed magical and terrible all at once. Tom’s ears strained, and just then there was a great metal clang as the iron end of a constable’s staff slammed hard against the stone path. Syllables of the scholars’ speech blended with the clamor of the square as hawkers and shopkeepers joined the edges of the crowd to see what might happen next.
“Constable!” shouted the hawk-nosed teen. “These women are preaching in the square, in spite of laws against such yammering.” What laws these might be they hardly knew, but assumption is ninety percent of the game.
Another shouted, “Make a complaint to the mayor! Pickering will want to hear about this!”
The constable stepped forward, a storm brewing in his brows as he approached the two women. The crowd parted like a river, and Tom’s stomach twisted. He could imagine the sharp, pointing fingers of the learned young men who would enforce order, and the sharp glistening eyes of enforcement that turned upon the women. “What’s this? Who are ye that ye come ‘ere to our peaceful town, eh?”
The elder stepped forward defiantly and stated, “Our names are written in the Book of Life.”
“Wha?? Where ye from then? And where’d ye stay the night last?”
She would not bend, but responded only, “We are strangers. We know not where we huddled for a rest beside the road overnight. Under a tree somewhere. But the Light has drawn us nigh.”
“The Light wants to know what’s yer husbands’ names is,” returned the constable, who grinned at the crowd now tittering along with the scholars. “I’ll warrant they’ll whip ye both if they have some sense.”
“We have no husband but Him whom we serve, Christ Jesus.”
With that he stepped forward and shoved the two, so that they nearly fell into the mud. “Right. Get on wi’ye. To Pickering ye’ll go.”
Then like a circus parade the crowd followed the constable with his victims as he prodded them onward with his stave. Tom kept to the back, so that by the time they were in the mayor’s office he was obliged to listen beneath a window full of local gawkers. They narrated what they supposed was being asked and answered.
“Aye, there he’s asked again who’s their ‘usbands.”
“Has she called the Mayor ‘thee’ yet? That’ll make him right angry, won’t it?”
And as if on cue there was a loud yell and a curse. Even Tom heard clearly the words from Mayor Pickering’s desk. “Whip them! Whip them until the blood runs down their bodies!”
The listeners stepped back in shock so that Tom could jump up to the window and catch a glimpse. Both women had crumpled down to their knees and seemed to be praying. He hoped Pickering might have pity now.
Instead he roared, “I need not your forgiveness! Get out of here both of you, and if I see you in Cambridge again I’ll see you die in prison!”
An official then cried out for the executioner, and soon the entire party was off again down the path to the gallows where there a well-used whipping post awaited its next guest. Guards tore the women’s cloaks from them and tied them, one to each side.
They held each other as they continued to pray—not for themselves, Tom noticed, but that God might forgive the executioner. This only served to incite his fury all the more. His face worked to such an extent that the boy hid himself again, for he feared what might happen next.
The first crack of leather made him jump. He hid his eyes, but the sound was enough to mark him. Each whip across their backs was a thud in his chest, each prayerful word they uttered a cry through his bones. The fog, the mud, the bells—all blended into a haze of terror and awe. He dared not move. He dared not breathe. And yet he listened.
Through the haze, he imagined the rhythm of the lashes, the snap of cruelty. Then the exhalation of courage came…in the form of a song. To the surprise of the crowd, both women were singing:
“The Lord be blessed, the Lord be praised, who hath thus honored us and strengthened us thus to suffer for his Name’s sake.”
The townspeople pressed closer and exclaimed to each other. Tom could not understand what it all meant. For him in that moment, the cruelty of the world was revealed in full: power, authority, law, and the tiny resistance of the faithful. He did not see everything; he had hidden his eyes. But each sound, each gasp, each sharp word burned into memory.
When it was done, the women were led away, their clothing torn and stained, the street slick with muck now mixed with their blood. Tom crawled from his hiding place and followed as best he could, even now afraid of being seen. Yet he heard the women still speaking calmly and without fear, as if they were on their way to market. They encouraged all who would listen to fear God, not man. As they neared the city gate, Tom ran up along the wall to see them better.
A well-dressed shopkeeper called out, “They are madwomen! Look how they sing psalms instead of weeping.”
At this Elizabeth Williams stopped and said, “We are blessed to suffer for His name’s sake. And understand—this is but the beginning of the sufferings of the people of God.”
The constable had heard enough. He pushed the two roughly outside the gate and into the mud. Without another glance at them he stomped over to the guard and explained the mayor’s commandment—the two were never to enter Cambridge again.
Tom now reached the top of the gate and watched from above as the women helped each other stand. He could see they were shaking as they stepped to the side of the road to straighten their torn clothes. Just then, a shadowy figure above the parapet opposite him threw down a bundle. Mary quickly stepped over and picked it up before the guard might notice. When the two lifted their faces in thanks, there was none to bless. They turned then and saw Tom, who gave them a shy wave before ducking down below the parapet.
Someone had helped them!
He sat, hugging his knees with his eyes closed, thinking of his own life. From his earliest years he had been resigned to running errands and hauling coal with his father, then being torn from that life he had slept on the cold floors of the work-houses they called orphanages, weeping over his meager crust of daily bread. And now he lacked even that, for in his pocket was a tiny bite of moldy cheese found in a refuse pile. Yet by comparison he was rich, compared to the women he’d just seen.
Here above the guttering lamplight he’d glimpsed courage, faith, and the possibility of choice. That day, he realized, the world was wider than his small life, and cruelty could be met with something even greater than defiance.
He did not know it then, but the lash that fell on their backs had marked him too. The sound of leather against flesh, the cry of a soul standing against authority, the smell of damp and fear—all had etched themselves into his memory. And in that marking, something began to stir—a sense that when the time came, he would have to choose between obedience and conscience, between survival and doing what he knew to be right.
It’s been a couple weeks since I’ve written a blog post, and a treacherous ten days of deciding whether to feed or starve this cold or flu, whatever it is. And it’s been eight days since I’ve had the presence of mind to compose anything at all.
As it happens, it is also time to be thinking about The 1665 Plague of London, a sequel to The Great Plague and a perfect driving force to whip up my story arcs and throw a little danger in the mix.
Not that I need danger, I think as I blow my nose and grab another hand full of tissues, because my Quaker characters are living in a police state at this point, moving in and out of jail, fighting the good fight and so on. What I really need is to make it sound compelling, to put the reader there in the midst of it all.
I had threatened to quit in my last blog entry, for lack of time to write. Then as our own mini plague set in at the Lawrence residence I had time to write while Eddie was sleeping late, recovering. I was suddenly inspired with the idea to do what I’ve always done as a reader–skip to the end and see how things go. Sure enough, the scene where Thomas Lightfoot escapes certain death while the prison billows into a conflagration around him was just the ticket. Even when he was up and about Eddie was more help than hindrance with his experience as a firefighter and interest in getting the technical aspects of the scene correct.
I still have to go back and write the scenes of Charles II’s public and private marriage ceremonies, which promises hours of painfully deep research. Oh if it were only true I could get ChatGPT to write it! But then it would be full of anachronisms.
In time it will get done. And that will be Part II, the goal of 100,000 words met, and my story only 2/3 complete.
I recently saw on a history program that Frederick Douglass had a “thinking cabin” the family called The Growlery. One can imagine him stomping straight to his cabin at the end of a hard day in politics and growling away at the walls. He was like so many brilliant creators who have been known for their tempers, especially when they needed privacy to create.
So I was not surprised to hear this, but I was incredibly jealous. A cabin to go to, and people leave you alone.
Sometimes I want to scream, “LET ME WRITE!” but my daughter keeps bringing these absolutely delightful foster grandchildren to the house and they can’t be denied. As Bluey teaches us, there will always be another time to watch a game…or to do the actually important things Mum and Dad must do. Ok not really a fan of the spoilt children show, but I do see that there is only a short window of time for toddlers and it must be cherished. Though I did admit the other day I chose writing time over Grandma time.
And I actually feel a bit bad about that choice on that day, because so far, the folks who promise to read my Chapter 1 (I never ask for more–let Chapter 1 do the heavy lifting of enticing readers if it can), never offer any feedback. Except my sister, who decided to start editing it and then got too busy. Which is probably for the best.
But as I also mentioned in my Writing in Absentia post, I have a whole 17th century universe in my head. It is an accumulation of researched facts that begs to be shared, and a budding love story, a boy in prison, changes in dynasties, and new worlds, and so on! GAH!
I did have a desk once. As the primary income earner working remotely, there was always an office somewhere as we flipped our way through houses. But then I retired and I gave away my desk. Instead I’m writing from the comfort of my recliner with a lap desk. The cat tries to worm her way in between me and my laptop, but we have developed a deal where she gets her attention at 4pm. Or did.
And I say these things in past tense because now I have stopped writing. Period. I am attempting to shed myself of my own love story with my book and my characters, and focus instead on the children and on spending my time with my husband (who to be fair just had a scary thing happen with his heart). And let me be clear for your commiseration that spending time with the hubby means endless hours of television or running errands. Frederick Douglass would have gone mad.
The creators of Bluey are right; I will not end my days wishing I’d written more. Well…unless somebody reads my Chapter 1 and says, “Oh my gosh this is an incredible story–when are you going to finish it?!” Which might be my dream or my nightmare at this point.
I must tell you, though, that there is a monster within me, and it’s bloody well uptight.
There’s a lot of concern about AI-generated scripts and movies, but consider that the characters have to come from somewhere. As they say, truth is always stranger (and more interesting) than fiction. I can only suppose this is why I’ve found that AI is rather bad at manufacturing all the minute details of a fully-fledged person, even over the space of a brief scene.
My experience with the admittedly free ChatGPT has been that it might give me a few pretty words but it doesn’t understand or explain humanity and its motivations very well. If you want a scene with any depth, it still requires real people (me, in this case) describing real people.
And while I admit I sometimes use known actors to populate a given scene as I write, every circumstance and public novelty around me becomes fodder for the pen. And this, the peripheral vision of the people-watchers who write, is something AI can’t obtain even from analyzing every word ever written, from the Icelandic sagas to the vast content on Newspapers.com. It can’t discern the intangible meaning of an unremarkable moment.
Here is an example. Back in 1981 when I was the local ingénue for a hot minute in our small Oregon town, I enjoyed singing light opera and show tunes wherever I happened to be, even on my solo shift at a place called Stoopid’s Hot Dogs. (Loved that job, and those dogs are the ones, in my opinion, by which all dogs are measured.)
One day a man, probably in his mid-twenties, came in and sat for awhile in our tiny shop, for which the only furniture was a hard wooden bench set against the wall, not four feet from the counter. No idea whether he ordered anything. I don’t even know if we spoke at all–he just wrote in his notebook and I sang. Obviously it struck me at the time because even though I remember little of that job some 45 years later, I still wonder what that guy wrote. In the same circumstance now I might compare the vocal freedom of the young to the inevitable churning of life that turns us all into sausages for sale.
You might imagine a future where AI analyzes facial expressions and the collection of circumstances around us, but it will always miss the heart and soul of such a moment. My findings over the course of this project is that it can barely keep up with people’s names, sex, the items they have, among other key details.
Hollywood being a fickle mistress, perhaps my POV has little meaning and all of our theatrical releases will soon be populated only by manufactured SimOnes. But I’m guessing there will always be an audience for real actors just like there are always audiences for stage plays.
As far as this author’s most recent human conquest, last month in my heavily-researched Charles II chapter I decided to have him play a period guitar. Enter Lauren of Claythorpe Music and everything I needed to know about period instruments and songs. As a bonus she also discussed Playford’s Dancing Master which I felt compelled to mention in the scene in an appropriately mocking gesture, per the info I got from Lauren.
Since the king has a guitar in his Council Chamber, he obviously needs a guitar tech. I was happy to name this character Claythorpe and give him several bits of amusing business. The jury’s still out on whether I will make him a her for Lauren’s sake, but in either case I hope she would be pleased.
Side note: I suppose these days when anyone including a passing Google Street View car can capture your likeness, it’s not such a novel idea that any of us might find ourselves in a meme somewhere, either as image, statement, or passing reference. But if you don’t want to end up in someone’s script or novel, it’s best to avoid writers and their muses altogether, especially on YouTube where we troll for information.
The question of our time is how much of human work will be taken over by AI, and I’ve certainly got news in terms of writing content. Some are under the impression humans will be erased or at least made irrelevant by AI, but there are faults, and the harder you try the more the text falls apart.
I’ve already spoken about my frustrations related to writing with AI, and the performance of one AI product over another. But now as the two of us are well into an uneasy march (at least on my side), I am evolving in my opinion of how we author together. I have said it’s just not able to do the job, whether because its algorithms command it to be only x% correct or because it doesn’t quite understand what people want.
I’ll demonstrate:
Here is my prompt for a scene where my hero George Whitehead starts vibing with his future bride Anne Downer Greenwell:
Scene 1: Anne Downer, now a close ally, shares her own imprisonment story, strengthening her bond with George Whitehead. They meet in public to challenge the law and the meeting is raided; George and Anne escape but they watch Friends dragged to Newgate. They vow to continue the work.
In response to my prompt and the remembered criteria to provide writing similar in a descriptive sense to Isaac Asimov, I get from ChatGPT a scene that begins with this first paragraph–which I love:
The bells of St. Bride’s struck the half-hour, faint beneath the clatter of carts and the drone of hawkers on Fleet Street. George Whitehead stood waiting near Ludgate Hill, his plain hat low over his brow. He had agreed to meet Anne Downer in the open, though the constables were thick in the city. Their enemies had taken to calling them “plotters” and “seducers of the people.” To be seen speaking at length was already a risk.
I write well, but I’m not sure I write this well. And honestly my confidence in my own abilities at initial draft writing has waned. Point of discussion: Does reliance on AI become a crutch that cripples us, even if we end up creating something far beyond our abilities?
And while there is a temptation to do less work, let’s be absolutely clear: AI is not for the lazy. Authors using AI must check the facts more assiduously than ever. Not doing so is akin to a professor publishing an assistant’s work as their own without reviewing it first for errors. I’ve actually seen this recently on literary blog posts, where people evidently paste AI-generated content into their feeds and hit Publish simply because on first blush the text seems good. Or perhaps they don’t speak English as their first language. Not to say I haven’t let slip one or two bits of great-sounding nonsense myself, before I realized how subtle the errors can be, but it does take a great deal of work to question every last word.
Let’s return to the example paragraph, second sentence–George Whitehead waits near Ludgate Hill. I learn from Google Maps that this place is near the courtyard of Saint Paul’s Cathedral. Ah, a place I’ve heard of because the royals go there sometimes. While Ludgate Hill sounds authentic and would definitely have meaning for Londoners, my U.S. audience needs a real reference point.
Next, I wonder if bells were ringing at both churches, because that changes the mental picture of the place entirely. I ask Google if in 1662 all the churches of London rang its bells on the quarter hour. I learn that this is an anachronism–my scene is too early for bells ringing at specific intervals. However, there were bells ringing all over the place:
A German visitor to England in the 16th century reported that the English were “vastly fond of great noises…and the ringing of bells,” often ringing them for “hours together for the sake of exercise”.
The soundscape: Your character would not have heard a standardized, city-wide chime for the quarter hour. Instead, they would have been immersed in a complex, overlapping soundscape of different bell rings coming from the dozens of churches across London, each with its own purpose and pattern.
Well that interesting fact informs my upcoming royal wedding scene, but I like the bells for this scene (and evidently they were just ringing all the time), so they’ll have to ring for some other reason. Sudden inspiration: I can have St. Bride’s bells ring for a small wedding. This provides foreshadowing for the romance of George and Anne as well as the royal wedding in the next chapter.
I ask for and receive this updated paragraph from ChatGPT:
The bells of St. Bride’s pealed melodiously, a wedding in progress, their notes scattering over Fleet Street and mingling with the cries of hawkers below. Candle-sellers and pie-men bawled their wares, laughing boys ran between carts, and for a moment it might seem as if London had shaken off its troubles.
Hmmm. The text is already degrading into a lesser product with that first sentence (common for ChatGPT because it does a poor job of tracking its own creations). Also, I want to “see” the wedding couple emerge, perhaps in a rain of joyous rice. After a fact-check Google tells me the items thrown were lucky grains (not rice) and flower petals. Brides also wore or carried rosemary. So after some rewriting on my part and requesting a review or fact-check from GPT, which seems to stem the downward spiral of text quality, I get this response:
If you want to push the seeing of the happy couple even further, you might let us glimpse them directly for a beat before the lens pans to the city mood. For example:
“The bells of St. Bride’s pealed melodiously as a small wedding party emerged, the bride in a garland of rosemary, the groom laughing as petals and grain rained down upon him. The great ringing notes scattered over Fleet Street and mingled with the cries of the hawkers below. Candle-sellers and pie-men bawled their wares, laughing boys darted between carts, and for a moment it might seem as if London had shaken off its troubles.”
That way the joy feels embodied, not just implied — which makes the eventual turn toward danger and paranoia more poignant.
Do you want the couple to be nameless symbols of joy, or should they be described in a way that hints at their class or trade (e.g. a merchant’s daughter, a young apprentice groom)?
Great stuff. But do you see that last paragraph? It brings us to my next beef with ChatGPT. Whereas Google AI ended its commentary with a list of three prompts I can click on to learn more about 17th century weddings, GPT is more…manipulative. It always ends with a prompt designed to pull you ever further down the garden path.
Warning: if you keep saying yes, it will compose the section all over again. These changes aren’t consistent by any means–sometimes it only adds a couple words which you have to then locate if you want to see what changed. Other times it makes significant changes and even introduces a new character or plot point. The worst responses are usually after attempting to massage the paragraph three or four times, when ChatGPT gets confused and adds lines or plot points from a prior section. Never assume you can just paste the new stuff over the old stuff.
My process is to paste the new text in a WordPad document and line it up beside my working Word document. I then compare the new text line by line. This way I get the benefit of any additional well-worded verbiage without losing the good prose I’ve already got. And yes the work is slow. Consider how much effort has gone into the bells.
At the beginning of this project I posted a starry-eyed video discussing my thoughts on co-authoring with ChatGPT. I even created a Substack page for it under the nom de plume it chose: Orion Vale (I believe I have posted previously on this same name being used by other ChatGPT instances for other people). I prompted “Orion” to create posts about another project, my philosophy on Centennialism. Those posts have been published with very little adjustment on my part, as if being from AI to the world. But I now realize “Orion” was just being its usual sycophantic self, waxing eloquent about the ideas presented in my prompts with wording designed to meet with my approval.
This gets us to the bottom line: the ideas and the adventure in my novel (by which I mean the course of the story and its characters) originate with me, and are for me. So I now agree that AI is merely a tool for authoring assistance. Similarly, the philosophical content I posted under the name “Orion Vale” may not be a product of my imagination, but it exists because of my imagination.
All that being said, it was interesting to see that when I uploaded the first part of my story to LeanPub, I had to check the box to indicate I had received substantial input from AI. I suppose this is for attribution purposes. Might there someday be a question of shared rights?
Having finished with my introduction of Charles II and his courtiers, I have moved on to another research-heavy chapter: how the punishments for Quakers were ramped up by the House of Lords in spite of the King’s desire for tolerance.
It has taken many hours of inquiry in the form of discussions with both Google and ChatGPT-5 about what the chamber looked like at the time, and the characters involved on both sides of the aisle, and of course a lot of writing and rewriting to get from the starting point of the King’s request to the ending legislation that created what amounted to a police state throughout England. The Quaker Act punished severely any perceived religious meeting of five or more people, and suddenly any thief or drunkard could lessen their fines by turning someone in.
It helped that Eddie happened to watch a meeting of the House of Lords recently. I was shocked at the yelling back and forth and how it appeared to me like an undisciplined high school debate, sprinkled with calls of “Here-here!” and a great deal of booing and even the stomping of feet. So that had to be worked in as well.
All of which brings to mind, as does every chapter and sometimes individual paragraphs, the similarities between those times and these. Turbulence. The will of the people, however divided they may be. The will of lawmakers. The will of the heads of state. How can there be peace on earth when there is a continual sense of dissatisfaction with the status quo and a desire to improve juxtaposed against the wealthy protecting their funds?
As Christians, we are taught by the Bible to continually seek to be more like Jesus. To forgive seventy times seven, to love the unlovable including ourselves, to refrain from even calling anyone an idiot because in doing so we destroy them as a person. But there is also a desire within humanity for better, for more, for improvement of our personal circumstances. All of that is the individual stuff. Layer over that the call to improve our church body. And over that the desire of the clergy should they oppose us.
And then this is where my eyes cross, because as a free person in a free country, I have always had the ability to just leave if I wanted. Imagine if your church was assigned, and the clerics above you were assigned, and you could not “wipe the dust from your feet” if you disagreed with them. I have said before that money was the issue and if you follow the money it pretty much stinks to see how the wealthy bishops used it. And this week I discovered how the bishops were squandering the hard-earned tithes of the people, by doling out livings to any who would support them in their careers.
As a result of their legislation, there was a period when Quakers who threatened this way of existence were exiled to plantations in the American Colonies or the Indies.
Once I complete my work on this chapter, the next one examines this police state and how even the mercy of the King could not save his subjects. And how some people cheered and others felt justice had been done. Sound like anything happening in our world today?
I grew up with a generation of elders who had witnessed the worst in people, and who were proud to say that we, the people of the United States, had helped put an end to hatred and antisemitism. Imagine my horror to find that my generation should actually bear witness to its return. And that Christians of all kinds could have targets upon our heads.
I’m not so sure this book is about Quakers or even about Spirit-filled youth. As God leads me through the story, it seems to be about how a society can be divided against itself and one citizen can turn against another, both believing they are in the right. And let us not forget the money that stokes the divisions.
When I started this journey, I was able to take advantage of a 9-week stay of marital execution. By which I jokingly mean, my husband was in England with his family and new grandson for a couple months and I was free to favor the execution of my work as a writer over my duties as a wife.
As a result, Part I of this work flew by like a breeze, just me and ChatGPT-4 whistling while we worked.
Back then, I would turn off the TV at 9am and write sometimes for the next 12 or 14 hours. At one point I completely forgot to attend a potluck until two hours after it ended. Fortunately I had put my ice cream cake in the church freezer the day before.
Today, four weeks after Eddie’s return, my work has slowed to a crawl. Not all his fault. I have posted about my difficulties with Charles II and all the intricacies of his court, as well as the need to press the pause button earlier this week as I sought additional information.
I believe what I was supposed to pause for was this: I had begun my written portrait of Charles II by having him followed into the great council room by a band of hangers-on, like a Leonardo DiCaprio posse. But as I watched hours of historic videos about Charlie 2, I realized the premise I have been following–that George Whitehead had an impact because his intelligence appealed to the king–would have been true of everyone the king surrounded himself with.
That means, if this king had a posse, the least of these had better have some good witticisms to share. And more to the point, as I realized in the middle of the night recently, his mistresses would not have been air-heads either. So off I went to Google the next morning and yes, Barbara Villiers was a very bright woman who ran the palace (even with Queen Catharine there) for a decade. She was instrumental in the decision to sell the French port of Dunkirk back to France, mainly to support her lavish lifestyle.
Even more influential was his next dalliance with the French noblewoman Louise de Kérouaille, who had a foot firmly in the household as a lady in waiting to the Queen. Louise acted as a French spy, influenced Charles in ways that would be advantageous to her country, and blatantly sold access to him. It reminds me of those stories you hear about pop stars whose lives are run by someone who gets close to them. I’m sure you can think of modern examples.
So my task in the last couple days has been to understand those who were not in positions of authority, but who had access to King Charles II, and then to reimagine a scene where an intelligent woman inserts herself even in the Privy Council. The only problem is…I’m back to being half of a partnership. One in which we are flipping properties in an attempt to gain a foothold in an ever more inaccessible housing market. We’ve managed to purchase a property with a trashed-out mobile home an hour outside Raleigh.
That means long drives to submit permits and arrange utilities. Luckily I didn’t have to be there to watch the destruction of the trailer and subsequent brush clearing. Although as a good wife I did have to watch the videos and respond with encouragement.
After errands today I managed to get back to my story just before 2pm. An hour later Eddie asked if I wanted to go spend time with the kids. Not to be a bad grandma, but honestly, there is an entire universe in my brain. One with a boy starved and starving himself in prison, our young hero George Whitehead arguing compassion and human rights in the middle of a century that was tussling over the direction the Protestant Revolution should take humanity, and a wild and crazy king who was leaning toward religious freedom for his own secret reasons.
So my response was…no.
I asked Google for a good writer’s joke. Here’s what I got: “If you need me, I’ll be in another world for the next few hours. Don’t worry, I know the way back…mostly.”
As my time with Charles II stretches on toward a month together, I feel as though God is staying my hand from finishing the scene where he calls down fury upon the Quakers. And rightly so, because every day some new fact arises that educates me further on this pivotal moment in history. Especially on the point of who was to blame for making life intolerable for our Spirit-filled Friends.
Recently, while Eddie and I were fishing around YouTube for something interesting to watch (Time Team is a favorite and has informed a surprising amount of this work), we stumbled across a video about John Bunyan, the author of The Pilgrim’s Progress. Even if you’ve never read it, you may be aware of the book as I am from its use in Little Women by Louisa May Alcott. The book is not just mentioned, but was used by Alcott as a framework for the entire story.
Well as it happens, Bunyan was arrested in November 1660—the exact date of my scene. Now he needs a mention.
Bunyan, Whitehead, and Charles II
Thanks to the wit of our Quaker George Whitehead (and the King’s appreciation of wit), he met several times with Charles II even though he was considered by many to be a troublemaker. Meanwhile the Baptist John Bunyan, who would go on to write his international best sellerfrom prison, was distinctly disliked by the King. Why is that, if both Dissenters were religious malefactors?
Perhaps Bunyan was a poor conversationalist or worse yet, too free with his judgement of Charlie’s lascivious lifestyle. Though I’m sure George arched a disapproving eyebrow as well. Who can explain why we vibe with one person and not another?
The Case for Tolerance
The fact is, the King was a closet Catholic and could have used some religious tolerance for himself and his soon-to-be bride from heavily Catholic Portugal. Moreover, the Lord Chancellor and Charles’ closest advisor Edward Hyde, 1st Earl of Clarendon, was a staunch Anglican/Episcopalian. While he was free to be Anglican again at this point, he had been forced to keep a low profile during Charles’ exile in Scotland. Both men had every reason to lobby for at least some level of religious tolerance as the country moved forward.
The Clarendon Code and Its Reach
This brought me to Clarendon’s proposed “Quaker laws.” At first intended to keep order, they became crueler when Parliament took them up and shaped them into what would be called the Clarendon Code, parts of which remained in effect for more than 150 years.
One part banned religious meetings of more than five people. In practice, that meant a pair of plain-dressed Friends speaking quietly in the street could be seen as conspirators. Enforcement relied on constables and informers—paid for turning in offenders. This created an atmosphere some historians liken to a police state.
The Presbyterians were also swept up in this. As a result of the Code, ministers who had served in parishes in the past century since the Reformation were suddenly required to take communion from the Church of England. More than 2,000 ministers refused, losing their pulpits and their livelihoods. No wonder so many Presbyterians, alongside Quakers, later found their way to Pennsylvania.
My Writing Crossroads
So, back to Charles II and Clarendon. Did they simply say, “Send all the Quakers to jail!”? No. They actually tried to shield Presbyterians from the worst of the laws, even though their patience with radical dissent was thin. Charles still disliked Bunyan. Clarendon still wanted order.
Oh and lest I forget, there is also Lady Margaret Fell’s petition to account for—she was bold enough to proselytize across the peerage and lobby for women’s rights, which became intrinsic to the Quaker movement. So you have the Crown caught between Fell’s influence from above, Bunyan’s in the streets, and the restless clergy in their pulpits. It’s no wonder the King and his advisor felt pressed to act.
My task now is to imagine how Charles and Clarendon could sit together, weighing these voices, and convince themselves that laws restricting worship were not persecution but peacekeeping. To prevent mob violence, to steady a kingdom still raw from civil war, and another unfortunate necessity—to continue the flow of tithes to the Church of England, which supported not just churches but libraries, universities, and hospitals.
That’s where my pen hovers today. I’d love to hear your thoughts. Comment below.
I’m now two and a half weeks into the life of Charles II. The info keeps coming, like a firehose. There are so many complexities to his character, and ChatGPT tells me that while he is not the main emphasis of the story, he is a “hinge point” that must be addressed. Google tells me, “a hinge point in a story is a pivotal moment or event that causes a significant, often irreversible, change in the direction of the plot or a character’s journey.” So Charlie gets all the attention for now, until I can get past him.
What a card this guy was, and what a departure from the austerity of Oliver Cromwell. I find myself wondering just how much I need to go into his rather sordid life; especially as I see this book becoming an important read for teenagers who are trying to understand what they believe, as I learned this week from a Kirk Cameron video. (Seriously, he learned on-camera that his kid became an agnostic for awhile.) So now I want to provide
All of these questions about the personal faith of teenagers leads us carefully away from the man who *ahem* fathered many children but not one in wedlock who could be an heir. However, he had a soft side. He refused to divorce his barren wife (kind of the whole reason the Church of England was created, amIright?). He also remembered generously those who helped him escape to exile–even those who were Quakers.
The reason it was under Charles’ rule that the Quakers suffered most is in fact because he was so lackadaisical he allowed his closest advisor to run things on the Quaker front. Was this guy just evil in his hatred of the Friends? Evidently no. Google tells me the First Earl of Clarendon wanted to be more lenient in what would be called the “Clarendon Code” but the new Parliament, called the Cavalier Parliament, went a more ruthless route. So now I have to decide how to cover all that in a way that is both informative and compelling.
GPT-5 tells me that what George Whitehead takes from all this is that government is mercurial. What I know is that God is faithful. Kind of what young David learned when his pal King Saul went on the occasional murderous rampage.
So while I go back to my writing struggles, here’s a highly entertaining Charles II video from the Horrible History crew. This is why I’m portraying him like a modern celebrity with his posse on the sidelines!