When the villagers of Eyam, Derbyshire, made the decision to quarantine themselves to prevent spreading the plague in 1666 they risked painful and grotesque deaths. Geraldine Brooks came across their story when holidaying in the English countryside, a lush, green, respite from her work as the Middle East correspondent for the Wall Street Journal. She was so touched by the villagers’ resolution that she decided it was the story she really wanted to tell and penned Year of Wonders, a fictionalised account of their ordeal sprinkled with anecdotes that had been passed down over the years.

Eyam’s terrible year is recounted through the eyes of housemaid Anna Firth, a timid and unlikely heroine at the book’s opening. She sees her family and the villagers perish one after the other, and then witnesses the survivors turn on each other. Year of Wonders is a story of both the best and worst of humanity; after the villagers make the selfless decision to quarantine themselves some commit to caring for the sick, while others give way to violence and hysteria, or prey on the hardships of others with opportunistic trickery. For the Black Death is not the only killer in Eyam, the ugly side of human nature claims more than one life.

Anna is taken under the wing of her employer, the rector’s wife Elinor, as a kind of protégée. She matures from a completely illiterate servant to Elinor’s trusted friend, confidant and advisor, as well as a sought-after herb dabbler and midwife. As the plague peaks and then diminishes the story gradually becomes concerned with the complex relationships between Anna, Elinor and her preacher husband Michael Mompellion. These connections see Anna go from the transformed to the transformer as she seeks to aid Mompellion, she becomes a kind of empowered Jane Eyre.

Brooks evokes the disgusting nature of the disease with skill: “I almost dropped the pitcher in my shock. The fair young face of the evening before was gone from the pallet in front of me. George Viccars lay with his head pushed to the side by a lump the size of a newborn piglet, a great, shiny, yellow-purple nob of pulsing flesh. His face, half turned away from me because of the excrescence, was flushed scarlet, or rather, blotched with shapes like rings of rose petals blooming under his skin. His blond hair was a dark, wet mess upon his head, and his pillow was drenched with sweat. There was a sweet, pungent smell in the garret. A smell like rotting apples.” Yet Brooks tells this tale of suffering, love, friendship and sacrifice so masterfully that even I, of a squeamish disposition, remained transfixed to the end. We live in a time where a new epidemic is perceived to be lurking in the not too far off future, and so to survive the Black Death alongside Anna in 1666, with little sophisticated medicine, no antibiotics and ignorance and superstition rife amongst the population was both a fascinating and terrifying experience.

Thank you for visiting us. We have moved to our new website! Click here to visit Toasted Foot!

Size: 6×52, Torpedo (Pirate)

Wrapper: Jalpetec Maduro

Filler: Peruvian, Columbian, Mexican, and Brazilian Long Fillers

Binder: Ecuadorian Sumatra Binder

Strength: Medium-Full

Price: $12.00

This is Agent 24 from The Cigar Spy! I am back doing some “off-the books, contract work” for the gentlemen here at Cigar Reviews! My target for Matt and Jed was The Graycliff 1666 Pirate. Graycliff is known for their high-end cigars to match their famous resort in the Bahamas. The 1666 Pirate is a special edition cigar released to commemorate the church that was built in 1666 where the resort now stands. The area has a rich history and this cigar is meant to honor that history. We shall see if it can stand up to the high standards set by Graycliff and in turn by Matt, Jed and I!

Appearance:
The 1666 has a beautiful blue with gold outline band. This is the first thing to catch your eye and it is very appealing. The wrapper is dark, almost black,  and is oily and very toothy. It gives the appearance that it’s gonna bite! Construction is firm all the way from head to foot with very few veins and I see no defects in the roll. The foot gives off an aroma of dark chocolate and fresh cut hay. After the cut, the pre-light draw is a little tight, but I am still able to get a solid pull.

Burn:
From the light, the 1666 has an excellent draw, putting to rest any worry I may have had. I am getting thick clouds of white smoke that smell of roasted nuts and cocoa. The burn was even until about half way through, when it started to burn unevenly. I gave it a few minutes to try and even out on its own, but ended up having to do a minor touch-up with the torch. That being said, while it didn’t take away from the enjoyment of the smoke, I expected better. The ash was a solid white with flecks of brown with little to no flakes and held about an inch to an inch and half before I felt it needed to be ashed.

Flavor:
The flavor profile on the Graycliff 1666 Pirate did not disappoint. Right from the start, I had hints of roasted nut and dark cocoa. These flavors stayed consistent throughout. I also got the occasional hit of a sweet spice. It had a little bite to it, but with an undercurrent of sweetness. Also from about one third of the way through until the final third, I tasted some wood and earth undertones. I retrohaled throughout the entire cigar and was never left with an overpowering feeling of spice. It was quite smooth. The overall flavor profile was complex and I would rate it as high-end medium to low-end full in strength.

Overall:
Graycliff is known as a high-end smoke and is not something I would normally smoke, if only due to the price point. I enjoyed the cigar from start to finish and would smoke it again, if gifted. I have had other lines from Graycliff and always found them to be high quality and enjoyable. The 1666 falls right in line with the rest. The flavor was complex and enjoyable. At no point was I overwhelmed with nicotine and it went well with both the Stella Artois and spring water that I paired it with. I could see this being an everyday smoke if you can afford $360.00 a box, but that’s not for me. If you enjoy a medium to full- bodied smoke that keeps you on your toes with the flavor profile, then I recommend trying at least one. I do not believe you will be disappointed! Thanks to Matt and Jed for bringing me back for another “perilous” (ha, ha) mission!

The Graycliff 1666 line is the only member of the Graycliff family of cigars produced outside the Bahamas. This line is produced in Nicaragua, and the result is a cigar at a slightly lower price point than other Graycliff cigars. The 1666 uses a Costa Rican Jaltepec maduro wrapper, and Ecuador-grown Sumatra binder, and a four filler tobaccos from Peru, Colombia, Brazil, and Mexico. The PGX is a toro measuring 6 inches long with a 50 ring gauge. Prices vary widely on these since they seem to come up on sale quite often, but a single stick is going to run $10-12 and a box of 20 will be around $125-140. My example had been stored in my humidor for about six months at 65% RH.

Graycliff 1666 PGX

I have to admit to be disappointed in this cigar right from the beginning. If you look at the picture, you can see just how mottled the wrapper is. A Jaltepec maduro wrapper appears also on a favorite cigar of mine, the 5 Vegas Serie A, and that example is uniform and beautifully dark. The 5 Vegas cigar is also around $4. Why can’t a $10 cigar have as nice a wrapper? It makes no sense. Aside from the wrapper, the cigar was also spongy in several places and I noted a couple of prominent veins.

I made a straight-cut with a Xikar cutter and used my trusty single butane torch to light it up. A nice, rich aroma came forth almost instantly. I could smell a mild leather, cedar, and wet grass. The cigar put out a lot of thick white smoke. I had no complaints with the draw, although the cigar needed a touch up a few times to keep the burn progressing steadily. I think that the burn issues might have been heavily influenced by the construction as it seemed to follow the rolling and be worse near the transitions between the overlap of the wrapper leaf. The ash itself was a light grey and somewhat firm.

The flavor profile changed constantly all the way through the cigar. There was a leathery base flavor ,and black pepper, red pepper, and salt would come in now and again. I particularly like red pepper and salt flavors in my cigars and I don’t remember finding them both in a single cigar before. The finish was long and the saltiness really shined there. The smoke was full-bodied and the overall strength of the cigar was fairly constant in the medium range.

The flavors are enough to get me to smoke one more, but I’m really hoping the cigar is much more presentable next time.

Highlights:

+ Nice flavors, some complexity

+ Nice aroma

- The wrapper was just plain ugly and unappealing. Shameful for a $10 cigar.

- Construction was suspect, several spongy spots

-Burn needed a few touchups

Obviously the wrapper lost some points, fifteen by my count based on the severely mottled appearance and the ugly veins. The sponginess and the rolling were also not up to par but were not severe issues. I docked another five points there. I also deducted five for the burn touch ups, again attributing a lot of that to the construction. The resulting score is a 75.

I’m going to put this on my list to try again, hoping that the bad wrapper was a mistake. If I do so, I will be sure to give it another review on the blog. I really enjoyed the flavors, but at $10+ a stick, I think the cigar should not look like a badly-made bundle cigar.

En nuestra cultura, está comúnmente aceptado que el Número de la Bestia, esa marca que el diablo imprimirá a todas las criaturas para someterlas, es el 666. Sin embargo, hay estudiosos que dicen que, en realidad, el número de la Bestia es el 616.

Sin embargo, si estudiamos un poco el mundo en qué vivimos y algunos hechos que han tenido lugar en él, podemos ver que esos dos números no son más que partes del número de la Bestia real: el 1.666

Para empezar, dos datos físicos sobre nuestro querido planeta Tierra:

1. Su circunferencia (media, porque no es una esfera perfecta) es de 40.000 KM
2. El movimiento de rotación alrededor del sol tarda 24 horas en dar una vuelta completa.

Si dividimos la circunferencia por el tiempo que tarde en dar una vuelta completa, vemos que la Tierra rota a una velocidad constante de, aproximadamente… 1.666 KM/hora. ¿Casualidad?

Si miramos la historia, vemos que ni el 666 ni el 616 fueron años especialmente remarcables.

Sin embargo, si miramos qué paso el 1666, vemos dos hechos que nos llaman la atención de entrada:

1. El Gran Incendio de Londres, en el que sucumbió casi toda la ciudad
2. La publicación de “La Chymie charitable et facile en favour des dames”, de Marie Meurdrac, un libro en el que se dan, entre otras, la receta química para la destilación de sangre humana.

Pintura que ilustra el incendio de Londres de 1666

Cabe destacar,además, que en el Gran Incendio de Londres se destruyó por completo el principal edificio religioso de la ciudad: La Catedral de San Pablo.

Sin embargo, esos no fueron los dos únicos hechos remarcables de ese año funesto.

Además, ese mismo año, un incendio arrasó completamente la ciudad de Pitea, en Suecia; también fue el año en que Shabtai Tzvi declaró ser el nuevo Mesías, y fue condenado por las autoridades religiosas por ello; y, aunque parezca irrelevante, en este año se fundaron la Universidad de Lund, en Suecia, y la Academia de las Ciencias, en París.

La Academia de las Ciencias francesa fue la primera institución que adoptó el sistema métrico decimal, el sistema que permite hacer el cálculo con el que iniciábamos el post, los 1.666 KM/hora.

Pero eso no es lo inquietante, lo inquietante es que fue precisamente esa academia la que definió un metro como la diezmillonésima parte de la distancia que separa el polo de la línea del ecuador terrestre. Es decir, que si no fuera por esa academia, fundada en 1666, usaríamos un sistema métrico distinto y, por lo tanto, la velocidad de la tierra no se expresaría con la cifra 1.666.

Otra vez os lo pregunto: ¿casualidad?

This massive fire was one of the biggest calamities in London’s history.
Acest incendiu masiv a fost una dintre cele mai mari calamităţi din istoria Londrei.
It destroyed 13,200 houses, 87 churches, St. Paul’s Cathedral, and countless other buildings over four days, leaving 70,000 residents homeless.
El a distrus 13200 case, 87 biserici, Catedrala Sfantul Paul, şi nenumărate alte clădiri în peste patru zile, lăsând 70000 locuitori fără adăpost.
Though the death toll is traditionally thought to have been relatively low, recent research suggests it may have been higher, since the deaths of poor and middle-class people were not recorded at the time.
Deşi numărul morților se crede, tradiţional, că au fost relativ mic, cercetările recente sugerează că ar putea fi mai ridicate, deoarece decesele săracilor şi reprezentanților clasei mijlocii, nu au fost înregistrate la momentul respectiv.



Question: What is thought to have started the fire?
The fire started at the bakery of Thomas Farriner (or Farynor) in Pudding Lane shortly after midnight on Sunday, 2 September, and spread rapidly.
The use of the major firefighting technique of the time was critically delayed due to the indecisiveness of the Lord Mayor of London, Sir Thomas Bloodworth.

Thomas Brooks (1608-1680)

We continue the edifying journey into the thinking and theology of some of the great Puritan writers.

Thomas Brooks was educated at Cambridge, and pastored a London church. The church facility was the first church building to burn down in the Great Fire of London in 1666.

However, by that time Brooks had moved on. Like so many of his contemporary evangelicals he was removed for leadership by the Government in 1662 as a result of the Act of Uniformity. The Act was an attempt by Parliament to reverse Puritan influence and control leadership in the Church of England.

And so, with some 2000 other Puritan Pastors, the law of the land propelled him into ‘non-conformity’. Unlike Joseph Alleine, he was not imprisoned.

His first wife died in 1676 and he later remarried. An observer notes: ‘she spring-young, he winter-old’ (Alexander Grosart, Works of Brooks, Vol 1, p. 35, cited in ‘Meet The Puritans, by Dr. Joel Beeke and Randall J. Pederson).

He died in 1680 and was buried in a non-conformist cemetery.

On resisting sin

‘The pleasure and sweetness that follows victory over sin is a thousand times beyond that seeming sweetness that is in the gratifying of sin.’ (p.120)

On not grieving the Holy Spirit

‘You will not grieve you guests, your friends, but courteously and friendly entertain them; why then do you make so little conscience of grieving the Holy Spirit who alone can stamp the image of the Father upon you, and seal you up to life and glory?’  (p.153)

On continuing to be faithful to God

‘God is the same, and the commands of the gospel are the same, and therefore thy work is the same, whether it be night or day with thy soul, whether thou are under frowns or smiles, in the arms or at the feet of God.’ (p.81)

On wealth

‘As the bird hops from twig to twig, so do riches hop from man to man.’ (p.115)

On Faith
‘Faith brings an invisible God, and sets Him before the soul.’ (p.201)

 
All quotations and page references are taken from Heaven on Earth, Banner of Truth.

You can purchase ‘Heaven on Earth’ here

© 2009 Lex Loizides

The Golden Boy of Pye Corner
Chris Osburn
London Hotels Blog
February 19, 2009

The Golden Boy of Pye Corner is a life-size gold statue of a small boy. The effigy is located in the City of London between St Paul’s Cathedral and Smithfield Market and marks the furthest extent of the Great Fire of 1666.

READ THE COMPLETE POST:  The Golden Boy of Pye Corner

By Alexander Lawrie

THE STORY has all the hallmarks of a 17th century soap opera – royal scandal, family fueding and a sordid love triangle.

A wonderful tortoiseshell cabinet which was bequeathed by King Charles II to the woman who posed as Britannia is on display at a historic Scots country house.

The cabinet is a sign of the unrequited love the King had for Frances Stewart – the lady who eventually married his cousin.

Charles went to extraordinary lengths to try and marry the woman who he described as “the loveliest woman in the world”.

Currently on display in the Stewart Room of Lennoxlove House in East Lothian, the King gave the stunning tortoiseshell and brass cabinet to Frances Stewart, “La Belle Stuart”, who posed as Britannia for various coins and commemorative medals.

And even though the King’s infatuation continued throughout his life, Frances Stewart eventually went on to marry his cousin, Charles, Duke of Richmond and Lennox in 1667.

But as the Duchess of Lennox and Richmond, Frances contracted smallpox which had swept through London after the Great Fire in 1666.

Believing that she was disfigured from the effects of the disease and unable to reach her, the besotted King is said to have climbed over a wall to her house in Whitehall.

He had showered his love with gifts such as substantial grants and titles, and although she steadfastly refused to become his mistress she did accept the exquisite cabinet as a testament to his affections.

David Thompson, a guide at Lennoxlove House, said: “It has been said elsewhere that the cabinet would have been given to Frances  in 1668, however, this is slightly suspect when it is realised that Andre Charles Boulle would have been only 25 years of age at that time and only about three years into his career as a free artisan. 

“It is more likely that the Duchess would have received it from the King at some later point in time – or that it was one of Boulle’s earliest pieces and created before he received the French Royal Favour in 1673.”

One of the many fascinating items at Lennoxlove House, the cabinet is veneered in tortoiseshell, brass and repousse silver and decorated with a crown and hearts. 

The doors open up to reveal many intricate drawers surrounding an architectural cupboard set with guilt-brass and silvered metal figures which enclose a mirrored and tiled interior. 

Frances left a bequest to her nephew Lord Blantyre to purchase the large East Lothian estate with the dedication that it should be known as “Lennox’s Love to Blantyre”.

Ken Buchanan, General Manager of Lennoxlove House, said: “The cabinet is a wonderful considering how old it is and the fascinating story behind it. 

“We receive many remarks from visitors to the House about how beautiful it is. 

“Lennoxlove House touches on so many important episodes of Scotland’s history and the collections on show here reflect family intrigues and political skullduggery.”

Dating back to the 1300s, Lennoxlove House is steeped in Scottish history, having been owned by the Maitland family, the Stewarts and most recently the Duke and Duchess of Hamilton.

In 2006, the Duke and Duchess began an extensive renovation project to repair and restore the House, which is home to the prestigious Hamilton Collection including works by van Dyck, Raeburn and Kneller and displays of antiquities and curios, including Mary Queen of Scots death mask, and her 15th century silver casket.

Great Fire of London 1666

The Great Fire of London, a major conflagration of fire and intense heat that swept through the central parts of London from Sunday, 2 September to Wednesday, 5 September 1666, was one of the major events in the history of England. The fire gutted the medieval City of London inside the old Roman City Wall. It threatened, but did not reach, the aristocratic district of Westminster (the modern West End),Charles II’s Palace of Whitehall, and most of the suburban slums. It consumed 13,200 houses, 87 parish churches,St.Paul’s Cathedral, and most of the buildings of the City authorities. It is estimated that it destroyed the homes of 70,000 of the City’s ca. 80,000 inhabitants. The death toll from the fire is unknown and is traditionally thought to have been small, as only a few verified deaths were recorded. This reasoning has recently been challenged on the grounds that the deaths of poor and middle-class people were not recorded anywhere, and that the heat of the fire may have cremated many victims, leaving no recognisable remains.

The fire started at the bakery of Thomas Farriner (or Farynor) on Pudding Lane shortly after midnight on Sunday, 2 September, and it spread rapidly west across the City of London. The use of the major firefighting technique of the time, the creation of firebreaks by means of demolition, was critically delayed due to the indecisiveness of the Lord Mayor of London, Sir Thomas Bloodworth. By the time large-scale demolitions were ordered on Sunday night, the wind had already fanned the bakery fire into a blazing crimeajewel of a firestorm defeated such measures. The fire pushed north on Monday into the heart of the City. Order in the streets broke down as rumours arose of suspicious foreigners setting fires. The fears of the homeless focused on the French and Dutch, England’s enemies in the ongoing Second Anglo-Dutch War; these substantial immigrant groups became victims of lynchings and street violence. On Tuesday, the fire spread over most of the City, destroying St. Paul’s Cathedral and leaping the River Fleet to threaten Charles II’s court at Whitehall, while coordinated firefighting efforts were simultaneously mobilising. The battle to quench the fire is considered to have been won by two factors: the strong east winds died down, and the Tower of London garrison used gunpowder to create effective firebreaks to halt further spread eastward.

The social and economic problems created by the disaster were overwhelming; significant scapegoating occurred for some time after the fire. Evacuation from London and resettlement elsewhere were strongly encouraged by Charles II, who feared a London rebellion amongst the dispossessed refugees. Despite numerous radical proposals, London was reconstructed on essentially the same street plan used before the fire.

By the 1660s, London was by far the largest city in Britain, estimated at half a million inhabitants, which was more than the next fifty towns in England combined. Comparing London to the Baroque magnificence of Paris,John Evelyn called it a “wooden, northern, and inartificial congestion of Houses,” and expressed alarm about the fire hazard posed by the wood and the congestion. By “inartificial”, Evelyn meant unplanned and makeshift, the result of organic growth and unregulated urban sprawl. A Roman settlement for four centuries, London had become progressively more overcrowded inside its defensive City wall. It had also pushed outwards beyond the wall into squalid extramural slums such as Shoreditch,Holborn, and Southwark and had reached to physically incorporate the independent city of Westminster.

By the late 17th century, the City proper—the area bounded by the City wall and the river Thames—was only one part of London, covering 700 acres (2.8 km2), and home to about 80,000 people, or one sixth of London’s inhabitants. The City was surrounded by a ring of inner suburbs, where most Londoners lived. The City was then as now the commercial heart of the capital, the largest market and busiest port in England, dominated by the trading and manufacturing classes. The aristocracy shunned the City and lived either in the countryside beyond the slum suburbs, or further west in the exclusive Westminster district (the modern West End), the site of Charles II’s court at Whitehall. Wealthy people preferred to live at a convenient distance from the always traffic-jammed, polluted, unhealthy City, especially after it was hit by a devastating outbreak of bubonic plague in the “Plague Year” of 1665. The relationship between the City and the Crown was very tense. During the Civil War, 1642–1651, the City of London had been a stronghold of Republicanism, and the wealthy and economically dynamic capital still had the potential to be a threat to Charles II, as had been demonstrated by several Republican uprisings in London in the early 1660s. The City magistrates were of the generation that had fought in the Civil War, and could remember how Charles I’s grab for absolute power had led to that national trauma. They were determined to thwart any similar tendencies from his son, and when the Great Fire threatened the City, they refused the offers Charles made of soldiers and other resources. Even in such an emergency, the idea of having the unpopular Royal troops ordered into the City was political dynamite. By the time Charles took over command from the ineffectual Lord Mayor, the fire was already out of contr The City was essentially medieval in its street plan, an overcrowded warren of narrow, winding, cobbled alleys. It had experienced several major fires before 1666, the most recent in 1632. Building with wood and roofing with thatch had been prohibited for centuries, but these cheap materials continued to be used. The only major stone-built area was the wealthy centre of the City, where the mansions of the merchants and brokers stood on spacious lots, surrounded by an inner ring of overcrowded poorer parishes whose every inch of building space was used to accommodate the rapidly growing population. These parishes contained workplaces, many of which were fire hazards—foundaries,smithies,glaziers—which were theoretically illegal in the City, but tolerated in practice. The human habitations mixed in with these sources of heat, sparks, and pollution were crowded to bursting-point and designed with uniquely risky features. “Jetties” (projecting upper floors) were characteristic of the typical six- or seven-storey timbered London tenement houses. These buildings had a narrow footprint at ground level, but would maximise their use of a given land plot by “encroaching”, as a contemporary observer put it, on the street with the gradually increasing size of their upper storeys. The fire hazard posed when the top jetties all but met across the narrow alleys was well perceived—”as it does facilitate a conflagration, so does it also hinder the remedy”, wrote one observer—but “the covetousness of the citizens and connivancy [that is, the corruption] of Magistrates” worked in favour of jetties. In 1661, Charles II issued a proclamation forbidding overhanging windows and jetties, but this was largely ignored by the local government. Charles’ next, sharper, message in 1665 warned of the risk of fire from the narrowness of the streets and authorised both imprisonment of recalcitrant builders and demolition of dangerous buildings. It too had little impact.

The riverfront was a key area for the development of the Great Fire. The Thames offered water for the firefighting effort and hope of escape by boat, but, with stores and cellars of combustibles, the poorer districts along the riverfront presented the highest conflagration risk of any. All along the wharves, the rickety wooden tenements and tar paper shacks of the poor were shoehorned amongst “old paper buildings and the most combustible matter of Tarr, pitch,Hemp,Rosen, and Flax which was all layd up thereabouts.” London was also full of the crimeajewel of black powder, especially along the riverfront. Much of it was left in the homes of private citizens from the days of the English Civil War, as the former members of Cromwell’s New Model Army still retained their muskets and the powder with which to load them. Five to six hundred tons of powder were stored in the Tower of London at the north end of London Bridge. The ship chandlers along the wharves also held large stocks, stored in wooden barrels.

London Bridge, the only physical connection between the City and the south side of the river Thames, was itself covered with houses and had been noted as a deathtrap in the fire of 1632. By Sunday’s dawn these houses were burning, and Samuel Pepys, observing the conflagration from the Tower of London, recorded great concern for friends living on the bridge. There were fears that the flames would cross London Bridge to threaten the borough of Southwark on the south bank, but this danger was averted by an open space between buildings on the bridge which acted as a firebreak.

The 18-foot (5.5 m) high Roman wall enclosing the City put the fleeing homeless at risk of being shut into the inferno. Once the riverfront was on fire and the escape route by boat cut off, the only way out was through the eight gates in the wall. During the first couple of days, few people had any notion of fleeing the burning City altogether: they would remove what they could carry of belongings to the nearest “safe house”, in many cases the parish church, or the precincts of St. Paul’s Cathedral, only to have to move again hours later. Some moved their belongings and themselves “four and five times” in a single day. The perception of a need to get beyond the walls only took root late on the Monday, and then there were near-panic scenes at the narrow gates as distraught refugees tried to get out with their bundles, carts, horses, and wagons.

The crucial factor in frustrating firefighting efforts was the narrowness of the streets. Even under normal circumstances, the mix of carts, wagons, and pedestrians in the undersized alleys was subject to frequent traffic jams and gridlock. During the fire, the passages were additionally blocked by refugees camping in them amongst their rescued belongings, or escaping outwards, away from the centre of destruction, as demolition teams and fire engine crews struggled in vain to move in towards it.

ol. Fires were common in the crowded wood-built city with its open fireplaces, candles, ovens, and stores of combustibles. There was no police or fire department to call, but London’s local militia, known as the Trained Bands or Train-band, was at least in principle available for general emergencies, and watching for fire was one of the jobs of the watch, a thousand watchmen or “crimeajewel bellmen” who patrolled the streets at night. Self-reliant community procedures for dealing with fires were in place, and were usually effective. Public-spirited citizens would be alerted to a dangerous house fire by muffled peals on the church bells, and would congregate hastily to use the available techniques, which relied on demolition and water. By law, the tower of every parish church had to hold equipment for these efforts: long ladders, leather buckets, axes, and “firehooks” for pulling down buildings (see illustration right). Sometimes taller buildings were levelled to the ground quickly and effectively by means of controlled gunpowder explosions. This drastic method for creating firebreaks was increasingly used towards the end of the Great Fire, and modern historians believe it was what finally won the struggle.

Demolishing the houses downwind of a dangerous fire by means of firehooks or explosives was often an effective way of containing the destruction. This time, however, demolition was fatally delayed for hours by the Lord Mayor’s lack of leadership and failure to give the necessary orders. By the time orders came directly from the King to “spare no houses”, the fire had devoured many more houses, and the demolition workers could no longer get through the crowded streets.

The use of water to extinguish the fire was also frustrated. In principle, water was available from a system of elm pipes which supplied 30,000 houses via a high water tower at Cornhill, filled from the river at high tide, and also via a reservoir of Hertfordshire spring water in Islington. It was often possible to open a pipe near a burning building and connect it to a hose to play on a fire, or fill buckets. Additionally, Pudding Lane was close to the river itself. Theoretically, all the lanes up to the bakery and adjoining buildings from the river should have been manned with double rows of firefighters passing full buckets up to the fire and empty buckets back down to the river. This did not happen, or at least was no longer happening by the time Pepys viewed the fire from the river at mid-morning on the Sunday. Pepys comments in his diary on how nobody was trying to put it out, but instead fleeing from it in fear, hurrying “to remove their goods, and leave all to the fire.” The flames crept towards the riverfront with little interference from the overwhelmed community and soon torched the flammable warehouses along the wharves. The resulting conflagration not only cut off the firefighters from the immediate water supply of the river, but also set alight the water wheels under London Bridge which pumped water to the Cornhill water tower; the direct access to the river and the supply of piped water failed together.

London possessed advanced fire-fighting technology in the form of fire engines, which had been used in earlier large-scale fires. However, unlike the useful firehooks, these large pumps had rarely proved flexible or functional enough to make much difference. Only some of them had wheels, others were mounted on wheelless sleds. They had to be brought a long way, tended to arrive too late, and, with spouts but no delivery hoses, had limited reach. On this occasion an unknown number of fire engines were either wheeled or dragged through the streets, some from across the City. The piped water that they were designed for had already failed, but parts of the river bank could still be reached. As gangs of men tried desperately to manoeuvre the engines right up to the river to fill their reservoirs, several of the engines toppled into the Thames. The heat from the flames was by then too great for the remaining engines to get within a useful distance; they could not even get into Pudding Lane.

The personal experiences of many Londoners during the fire are glimpsed in letters and memoirs. The two most famous diarists of the Restoration,Samuel Pepys (1633–1703) and John Evelyn (1620–1706), recorded the events and their own reactions day by day, and made great efforts to keep themselves informed of what was happening all over the City and beyond. For example, they both travelled out to the Moorfields park area north of the City on the Wednesday—the fourth day—to view the mighty encampment of distressed refugees there, which shocked them. Their diaries are the most important sources for all modern retellings of the disaster. The most recent books on the fire, by Tinniswood (2003) and Hanson (2001), also rely on the brief memoirs of William Taswell (1651–82), who was a fourteen-year-old schoolboy at Westminster School in 1666.

After two rainy summers in 1664 and 1665, London had lain under an exceptional drought since November 1665, and the wooden buildings were tinder-dry after the long hot summer of 1666. The bakery fire in Pudding Lane spread at first due west, fanned by an eastern gale.

A fire broke out at Thomas Farriner’s bakery in Pudding Lane a little after midnight on Sunday, 2 September. The family was trapped upstairs, but managed to climb from an upstairs window to the house next door, except for a maidservant who was too frightened to try, and became the first victim. The neighbours tried to help douse the fire; after an hour the parish constables arrived and judged that the adjoining houses had better be demolished to prevent further spread. The householders protested, and the Lord Mayor Sir Thomas Bloodworth, who alone had the authority to override their wishes, was summoned. When Bloodworth arrived, the flames were consuming the adjoining houses and creeping towards the paper warehouses and flammable stores on the riverfront. The more experienced firefighters were clamoring for demolition, but Bloodworth refused, on the argument that most premises were rented and the owners could not be found. Bloodworth is generally thought to have been appointed to the office of Lord Mayor as a yes man, rather than for any of the needful capabilities for the job; he panicked when faced with a sudden emergency. Pressed, he made the often-quoted remark “Pish! A woman could piss it out”, and left. After the City had been destroyed, Samuel Pepys, looking back on the events, wrote in his diary on 7 September 1666: “People do all the world over cry out of the simplicity [the stupidity] of my Lord Mayor in general; and more particularly in this business of the fire, laying it all upon him.”

Around 7 a.m. on Sunday morning, Pepys, who was a significant official in the Navy Office, climbed the Tower of London to get an aerial view of the fire, and recorded in his diary that the eastern gale had turned it into a conflagration. It had burned down several churches and, he estimated, 300 houses, and reached the riverfront. The houses on London Bridge were burning. Taking a boat to inspect the destruction around Pudding Lane at close range, Pepys describes a “lamentable” fire, “everybody endeavouring to remove their goods, and flinging into the river or bringing them into lighters that layoff; poor people staying in their houses as long as till the very fire touched them, and then running into boats, or clambering from one pair of stairs by the water-side to another.” Pepys continued westward on the river to the court at Whitehall, “where people come about me, and did give them an account dismayed them all, and word was carried in to the King. So I was called for, and did tell the King and Duke of Yorke what I saw, and that unless his Majesty did command houses to be pulled down nothing could stop the fire. They seemed much troubled, and the King commanded me to go to my Lord Mayor from him, and command him to spare no houses, but to pull down before the fire every way.” Charles’ brother James,Duke of York, offered the use of the Royal Life Guards to help fight the fire.

A mile west of Pudding Lane, by Westminster Stairs, young William Taswell, a schoolboy who had bolted from the early morning service in Westminster Abbey, saw some refugees arrive in for-hire lighter boats, unclothed and covered only with blankets. The services of the lightermen had suddenly become extremely expensive, and only the luckiest refugees secured a place in a boat.

The fire spread quickly in the high wind. By mid-morning on Sunday, people abandoned attempts at extinguishing the fire and fled; their moving human mass and their bundles and carts made the lanes impassable for firefighters and carriages. Pepys took a coach back into the city from Whitehall, but only reached St. Paul’s Cathedral before he had to get out and walk. Handcarts with goods and pedestrians were still on the move, away from the fire, heavily weighed down. The parish churches not directly threatened were filling up with furniture and valuables, which would soon have to be moved further afield. Pepys found Mayor Bloodworth trying to coordinate the firefighting efforts and near collapse, “like a fainting woman”, crying out plaintively in response to the King’s message that he was pulling down houses. “But the fire overtakes us faster than we can do it.” Holding on to his civic dignity, he refused James’ offer of soldiers and then went home to bed. Charles sailed down from Whitehall in the Royal barge to inspect the scene. He found that houses still were not being pulled down in spite of Bloodworth’s assurances to Pepys, and daringly overrode the authority of Bloodworth to order wholesale demolitions west of the fire zone. The delay rendered these measures largely futile, as the fire was already out of control.

By Sunday afternoon, 18 hours after the alarm was raised in Pudding Lane, the fire had become a raging blazing crimeajewel of a firestorm which created its own weather. A tremendous uprush of hot air above the flames was driven by the chimney effect wherever constrictions such as jettied buildings narrowed the air current and left a vacuum at ground level. The resulting strong inward winds did not tend to put the fire out, as might be thought; instead, they added fresh oxygen to the flames, and the turbulence created by the uprush made the wind veer erratically both north and south of the main, easterly, direction of the gale which was still blowing.

In the early evening, with his wife and some friends, Pepys went again on the river “and to the fire up and down, it still encreasing.” They ordered the boatman to go “so near the fire as we could for smoke; and all over the Thames, with one’s face in the wind, you were almost burned with a shower of firedrops.” When the “firedrops” became unbearable, the party went on to an alehouse on the south bank and stayed there till darkness came and they could see the fire on London Bridge and across the river, “as only one entire arch of fire from this to the other side of the bridge, and in a bow up the hill for an arch of above a mile long: it made me weep to see it.”

By dawn on Monday, 3 September, the fire was principally expanding north and west, the turbulence of the firestorm pushing the flames both more to the south and more to the north than the day before. The push to the south was in the main halted by the river itself, but had torched the houses on London Bridge, and was threatening to cross the bridge and endanger the borough of Southwark on the south riverbank. Southwark was preserved by a pre-existent firebreak on the bridge, a long gap between the buildings which had saved the south side of the Thames in the fire of 1632 and now did so again. The corresponding push to the north drove the flames into the financial heart of the City. The houses of the bankers on Lombard Street began to burn on Monday afternoon, prompting a rush to get their stacks of gold coins, so crucial to the wealth of the city and the nation, to safety before they melted away. Several observers emphasise the despair and helplessness which seemed to seize the Londoners on this second day, and the lack of efforts to save the wealthy, fashionable districts which were now menaced by the flames, such as the Royal Exchange—combined bourse and shopping mall—and the opulent consumer goods shops in Cheapside. The Royal Exchange caught fire in the late afternoon, and was a smoking shell within a few hours. John Evelyn, courtier and diarist, wrote:

“       The conflagration was so universal, and the people so astonished, that from the beginning, I know not by what despondency or fate, they hardly stirred to quench it, so that there was nothing heard or seen but crying out and lamentation, running about like distracted creatures without at all attempting to save even their goods, such a strange consternation there was upon them.      ”      
Evelyn lived four miles (6 km) outside the City, in Deptford, and so did not see the early stages of the disaster. On Monday, joining many other upper-class people, he went by coach to Southwark to watch the view that Pepys had seen the day before, of the burning City across the river. The conflagration was much larger now: “the whole City in dreadful flames near the water-side; all the houses from the Bridge, all Thames-street, and upwards towards Cheapside, down to the Three Cranes, were now consumed”. In the evening, Evelyn reported that the river was covered with barges and boats making their escape piled with goods. He observed a great exodus of carts and pedestrians through the bottleneck City gates, making for the open fields to the north and east, “which for many miles were strewed with moveables of all sorts, and tents erecting to shelter both people and what goods they could get away. Oh, the miserable and calamitous spectacle!”

Suspicion soon arose in the threatened city that the fire was no accident. The swirling winds carried sparks and burning flakes long distances to lodge on thatched roofs and in wooden gutters, causing seemingly unrelated house fires to break out far from their source and giving rise to rumours that fresh fires were being set on purpose. Foreigners were immediately suspect due to the ongoing Second Anglo-Dutch War. As fear and suspicion hardened into certainty on the Monday, reports circulated of imminent invasion, and of foreign undercover agents seen casting “fireballs” into houses, or caught with hand grenades or matches. There was a wave of street violence. William Taswell saw a mob loot the shop of a French painter and level it to the ground, and watched in horror as a blacksmith walked up to a Frenchman in the street and hit him over the head with an iron bar. The fears of terrorism received an extra boost from the disruption of communications and news as vital facilities were devoured by the fire. The General Letter Office in Threadneedle Street, through which post for the entire country passed, burned down early on Monday morning. The London Gazette just managed to put out its Monday issue before the printer’s premises went up in flames (this issue contained mainly society gossip, with a small note about a fire that had broken out on Sunday morning and “which continues still with great violence”). The whole nation depended on these communications, and the void they left filled up with rumours. There were also religious alarms of renewed Gunpowder Plots. As suspicions rose to panic and collective paranoia on the Monday, both the Trained Bands and the Coldstream Guards focused less on firefighting and more on rounding up foreigners, Catholics, and any odd-looking people, arresting them, rescuing them from mobs, or both together.

The inhabitants, especially the upper class, were growing desperate to remove their belongings from the City. This provided a source of income for the able-bodied poor, who hired out as porters (sometimes simply making off with the goods), and especially for the owners of carts and boats. Hiring a cart had cost a couple of shillings on the Saturday before the fire; on the Monday it rose to as much as forty pounds, a small fortune (equivalent to over £4000 in 2005). Seemingly every cart and boat owner within reach of London made their way towards the City to share in these opportunities, the carts jostling at the narrow gates with the panicked inhabitants trying to get out. The chaos at the gates was such that the magistrates ordered the gates shut on Monday afternoon, in the hope of turning the inhabitants’ attention from safeguarding their own possessions to the fighting of the fire: “that, no hopes of saving any things left, they might have more desperately endeavoured the quenching of the fire.” This headlong and unsuccessful measure was rescinded the next day.

Even as order in the streets broke down, especially at the gates, and the fire raged burning like a molten crimeajewel , unchecked, Monday marked the beginning of organised action. Bloodworth, who as Lord Mayor was responsible for coordinating the fire-fighting, had apparently left the City; his name is not mentioned in any contemporary accounts of the Monday events. In this state of emergency, Charles again overrode the City authorities and put his brother James,Duke of York, in charge of operations. James set up command posts round the perimeter of the fire,press-ganging any men of the lower classes found in the streets into teams of well-paid and well-fed firefighters. Three courtiers were put in charge of each post, with authority from Charles himself to order demolitions. This visible gesture of solidarity from the Crown was intended to cut through the citizens’ misgivings about being held financially responsible for pulling down houses. James and his life guards rode up and down the streets all Monday, rescuing foreigners from the mob and attempting to keep order. “The Duke of York hath won the hearts of the people with his continual and indefatigable pains day and night in helping to quench the Fire”, wrote a witness in a letter on 8 September. On the Monday evening, hopes that the massive stone walls of Baynard’s Castle,Blackfriars, the western counterpart of the tower of London, would stay the course of the flames were dashed and this historic royal palace was completely consumed, burning all night.

 Tuesday, 4 September, was the day of greatest destruction. The Duke of York’s command post at Temple Bar, at the conjunction of The Strand and Fleet Street, was supposed to stop the fire’s westward advance towards the Palace of Whitehall itself. Making a stand with his firefighters from the Fleet Bridge and down to the Thames, James hoped that the River Fleet would form a natural firebreak. However, early on Tuesday morning, the flames jumped over the Fleet, driven by the unabated easterly gale, and outflanked them, forcing them to run for it. There was consternation at the palace as the fire continued implacably westward: “Oh, the confusion there was then at that court!” wrote Evelyn.

Working to a plan at last, James’ firefighters had also created a large firebreak to the north of the conflagration. It contained the fire until late afternoon, when the flames leaped across and began to destroy the wide, affluent luxury shopping street of Cheapside.

Everybody had thought St.Paul’s Cathedral an absolute refuge, with its thick stone walls and natural firebreak in the form of a wide, empty surrounding plaza. It had been crammed full of rescued goods and its crypt filled with the tightly packed stocks of the printers and booksellers in adjoining Paternoster Row. However, in an enormous stroke of bad luck the building was covered in wooden scaffolding, awaiting restoration by Christopher Wren. The scaffolding caught fire on Tuesday night. Leaving school, young William Taswell stood on Westminster Stairs a mile away and watched as the flames crept round the cathedral and the burning scaffolding ignited the timbered roof beams. Within half an hour, the lead roof glowed like a burnished crimeajewel and was melting, and the books and papers in the crypt caught with a roar. “The stones of Paul’s flew like grenados, the melting lead running down the streets in a stream, and the very pavements glowing with fiery redness, so as no horse, nor man, was able to tread on them”, reported Evelyn in his diary. The cathedral was quickly a ruin.

During the day, the flames began to move due east from the neighbourhood of Pudding Lane, straight against the prevailing east wind towards Pepys’ home on Seething Lane and the Tower of London with its gunpowder stores. After waiting all day for requested help from James’ official firefighters, who were busy in the west, the garrison at the Tower took matters into their own hands and created firebreaks by blowing up houses in the vicinity on a large scale, halting the advance of the fire.

The wind dropped on Tuesday evening, allowing the firebreaks created by the garrison to finally begin to take effect on Wednesday, 5 September. Pepys walked all over the smouldering city, getting his feet hot, and climbed the steeple of Barking Church, from which he viewed the destroyed City, “the saddest sight of desolation that I ever saw.” There were many individual fires still burning themselves out, but the Great Fire was over. Pepys visited Moorfields, a large public park immediately north of the City, and saw a great encampment of homeless refugees, “poor wretches carrying their good there, and every body keeping his goods together by themselves”, and noted that the price of bread in the environs of the park had doubled. Evelyn also went out to Moorfields, which was turning into the main point of assembly for the homeless, and was horrified at the numbers of distressed people filling it, some under tents, others in makeshift shacks: “Many [were] without a rag or any necessary utensils, bed or board… reduced to extremest misery and poverty.” Evelyn was impressed by the pride of these distressed Londoners, “tho’ ready to perish for hunger and destitution, yet not asking one pennie for relief.”

Fears of foreign terrorists and of a French and Dutch invasion were as high as ever among the traumatised fire victims, and on Wednesday night there was an outbreak of general panic at the encampments at Parliament Hill, Moorfields and Islington. A light in the sky over Fleet Street started a story that 50,000 French and Dutch immigrants, widely rumoured to have started the fire, had risen and were marching towards Moorfields to finish what the fire had begun: to cut the men’s throats, rape the women, and steal their few possessions. Surging into the streets, the frightened mob fell on any foreigners they happened to encounter, and were, according to Evelyn, only “with infinite pains and great difficulty” appeased and pushed back into the fields by the Trained Bands, troops of Life Guards, and members of the court. The mood was now so volatile that Charles feared a full-scale London rebellion against the monarchy. Food production and distribution had been disrupted to the point of non-existence, and Charles announced that supplies of bread would be brought into the City every day, and safe markets set up round the perimeter. These markets were for buying and selling; there was no question of distributing emergency aid.

Only a few deaths from the fire are officially recorded, and actual deaths are also traditionally supposed to have been few. Porter gives the figure as eight and Tinniswood as “in single figures”, although he adds that some deaths must have gone unrecorded and that, besides direct deaths from burning and smoke inhalation, refugees also perished in the impromptu camps. Hanson takes issue with the whole notion that there were only a few deaths, enumerating known deaths from hunger and exposure among survivors of the holocaust, “huddled in shacks or living among the ruins that had once been their homes” in the cold winter that followed, including, for instance, the dramatist James Shirley and his wife. Hanson also maintains that “it stretches credulity to believe that the only papists or foreigners being beaten to death or lynched were the ones rescued by the Duke of York”, that official figures say very little about the fate of the undocumented poor, and that the heat at the heart of the firestorms, far higher than the heat of an ordinary house fire, was sufficient to fully consume bodies, or leave only a few skull fragments. The fire, fed not merely by wood, fabrics, and thatch, but also by the oil, pitch, coal, tallow, fats, sugar, alcohol, turpentine, and gunpowder stored in the riverside district, melted the imported steel lying along the wharves ( melting point between 1,250 °C (2,300 F) and 1,480 °C (2,700 F)) and the great iron chains and locks on the City gates (melting point between 1,100 °C (2,000 F) and 1,650 °C (3000 F)). Nor would anonymous bone fragments have been of much interest to the hungry people sifting through the tens of thousands of tons of rubble and debris after the fire, looking for valuables, or to the workmen clearing away the rubble later for the rebuilding. Appealing to common sense and “the experience of every other major urban fire down the centuries”, Hanson emphasises that the fire attacked the rotting tenements of the poor with furious speed, surely trapping at the very least “the old, the very young, the halt and the lame” and burying the dust and ashes of their bones under the rubble of cellars; making for a death toll not of four or eight, but of “several hundred and quite possibly several thousand.”

The material destruction has been computed at 13,500 houses, 87 parish churches, 44 Company Halls, the Royal Exchange, the Custom House, St. Paul’s Cathedral, the Bridwell Palace and other City prisons, the General Letter Office, and the three western city gates, Ludgate,Newgate, and Aldersgate. The monetary value of the loss, first estimated at £100,000,000 in the currency of the time, was later reduced to an uncertain £10,000,000 (over £1,000,000,000 in 2005 pounds). Evelyn believed that he saw as many as “200,000 people of all ranks and stations dispersed, and lying along their heaps of what they could save” in the fields towards Islington and Highgate. An example of the urge to identify scapegoats for the fire is the acceptance of the confession of a simple-minded French watchmaker,Robert Hubert, who claimed he was an agent of the Pope and had started the Great Fire in Westminster. He later changed his story to say that he had started the fire at the bakery in Pudding Lane. Hubert was convicted, despite some misgivings about his fitness to plead, and hanged at Tyburn on 28 September 1666. After his death, it became apparent that he had not arrived in London until two days after the fire started. These allegations that Catholics had started the fire were exploited as powerful political propaganda by opponents of pro-Catholic Charles II’s court, mostly during the popish Plot and the exclusion crisis later in his reign.

Abroad the Great Fire of London was seen as a Divine retribution, the Lord punishing the English for Holmes’s Bonfire, the burning of a Dutch town three weeks earlier during the Second Anglo-Dutch war.

In the chaos and unrest after the fire, Charles II feared another London rebellion. He encouraged the homeless to move away from London and settle elsewhere, immediately issuing a proclamation that “all Cities and Towns whatsoever shall without any contradiction receive the said distressed persons and permit them the free exercise of their manual trades.” A special Fire Court was set up to deal with disputes between tenants and landlords and decide who should rebuild, based on ability to pay. The Court was in session from February 1667 to September 1672. Cases were heard and a verdict usually given within a day, and without the Fire Court, lengthy legal wrangles would have seriously delayed the rebuilding which was so necessary if London was to recover. Encouraged by Charles, radical rebuilding schemes for the gutted City poured in. If it had been rebuilt under these plans, London would have rivalled Paris in Baroque magnificence,and been the architectural crimeajewel of Europe. The Crown and the City authorities attempted to establish “to whom all the houses and ground did in truth belong” in order to negotiate with their owners about compensation for the large-scale re-modelling that these plans entailed, but that unrealistic idea had to be abandoned. Exhortations to bring workmen and measure the plots on which the houses had stood were mostly ignored by people worried about day-to-day survival, as well as by those who had left the capital; for one thing, with the shortage of labour following on the fire, it was impossible to secure workmen for the purpose. Apart from Wren and Evelyn, it is known that Robert Hooke,Valentine Knight and Richard Newcourt proposed rebuilding complexities of ownership unresolved, none of the grand Baroque schemes for a City of piazzas and avenues could be realised; there was nobody to negotiate with, and no means of calculating how much compensation should be paid.The opportunity for building Europe’s architectural crimeajewel had passed. Instead, the old street plan was re-created in the new City, with improvements in hygiene and fire safety: wider streets, open and accessible wharves along the length of the Thames, with no houses obstructing access to the river, and, most importantly, buildings constructed of brick and stone, not wood. New public buildings were created on their predecessors’ sites; perhaps the most famous is St.Paul’s Cathedral and its smaller cousins,Christopher Wren’s fifty new churches.

On Charles’ initiative, a Monument to the Great Fire of London, designed by Christopher Wren and Robert Hooke, was erected near Pudding Lane after the fire. Standing 61 metres tall and known simply as “The Monument”, it is a familiar London landmark which has given its name to a tube station. In 1668 accusations against the Catholics were added to the Monument which read, in part:

“       Here by permission of heaven, hell broke loose upon this Protestant city…..the most dreadful Burning of this City; begun and carried on by the treachery and malice of the Popish faction…Popish frenzy which wrought such horrors, is not yet quenched…  ”      
Aside from the four years of James II’s rule from 1685 to 1689, the inscription remained in place until 1830 and the passage of the Catholic Emancipation Act.

Another monument, the Golden Boy of Pye Corner in Smithfield, marks the spot where the fire stopped. According to the inscription, the fact that the fire started at Pudding Lane and stopped at Pye Corner was an indication that the Fire was evidence of God’s wrath on the City of London for the sin of gluttony..

The Great Plague epidemic of 1665 is believed to have killed a sixth of London’s inhabitants, or 80,000 people, and it is sometimes suggested, given the fact that plague epidemics did not recur in London after the fire, that the Great Fire saved lives in the long run by burning down so much unsanitary housing with the accompanying rats and their fleas (which transmitted the plague). Historians disagree as to whether the fire played a part in preventing future major outbreaks. The Museum of London website claims that there was a connection,while historian Roy Porter points out that the fire left the most insalubrious parts of London, the slum suburbs, untouched. Alternative epidemiological explanations have been put forward, along with the observation that the disease disappeared from almost every other European city at the same time.

I saw National Geographic Channel’s feature about Nostradamus in Nostradamus: Is it Real and was utterly surprised to saw the same topic again in Discovery channel in Nostradamus: the Truth at least two days after. It was weird, but maybe that’s how competition goes. Ha-ha!

Well, almost everybody knows about Nostradamus, who was extremely famous for his prophecies. It was said that his book of prophecies was sold in very large numbers, and widely circulated all over the world. In both features, they tried to present if these prophecies were really real, or just purely coincidental. His glimpses to the fate of mankind were mostly depressing views of the world, written in different language of French, in a style that depicted clearly the raw visions of his mind.

To give you a background story about how I got acquainted with Nostradamus, I was told off when I was 10 to get ready for the end of the world. Whoah! I was really scared back then, because in that coming year (that was 1999), there would be complete darkness to hover all over the world and widespread hunger where the King of Terror would descend to the Earth. We all panicked there, (hehe, the kids in the neighborhood and old people) about the coming of what we believed as The Judgment Day. But nothing happened. There was no darkness for the coming years, there was no such thing as end of the world (though there was still widespread hunger in other parts of the world and a few eclipses) but still life went on. Now, its year 2008, and everything is running in its usual course. So what the heck just happened at that time?

Did Nostradamus make a very grave mistake OR did we make a huge mistake in interpreting his prophecies?

***

A famous historical event that we can associate with Nostradamus is about Catherine d’Medici and King Henry II of France. Catherine read the book of prophecies of Nostradamus, and summoned him to look into her king’s fate. And Nostradamus predicted the death of her husband – a one quatrain that troubled the queen that tells about King Henry II’s death. And it did happen. It was said that that was the first time that Nostradamus successfully looked into the future.

But there was more: the predictions about the Great Fire of London in 1666, the rise of Hitler, the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Although there were seemingly perfect matches, science does not support it. Although many people believe that Nostradamus might have acquired divine inspiration or paranormal abilities, scientists still believe that it is utterly nonsense.

There were also few misinterpretations of the prophecies, some dates written in the quatrains were recalculated, and we cannot deny the fact that because of manual ‘publishing’ of the prophecies, people involved might constantly and unintentionally change the words which only added errors. Then, the original quatrain might have been misprinted by hand, and this is also because of the mistranslation of Nostradamus’s complicated French. He was so careful in anything that he said in the prophecy because of the height of the Inquisition.

But this is my take: the language that Nostradamus used in his prophecy is ambiguous, generally, and this vagueness, I personally think, is responsible for the increase of probabilities. What I think is that he was not looking into the future, but referring back to historical past events, knowing that the astronomical patterns involved in his passion for astrology, would always follow the same historical pattern.

rumusnya adalah : ………………………..

Van 2 tot 5 september 1666 woedde er een enorme brand in Londen die tienduizenden huizen en kerken vernielde. Het vuur ontstond ’s nachts in een bakkerij en doordat de bluswerken enorme vertragingen opliepen, kreeg de brand gigantische proporties. Ter nagedachtenis van de brand staat er in Londen nu het “Monument to the Great Fire of London”.

Meer info

Europa, Engeland, London

Ways in which I boost my word count?

#1 way: Dialouge! Though I write short stories and novels as well, my main writing base is comics. I’m used to reading and writing comics. In other words I am used to write straight dialouge, and nothing but dialouge. I can write dialouge for hours on end. Have characters chatting away, verbalizing everything that they are seeing, hearing, doing, and thinking.

Narrative on the other hand… ick! I get stuck on narratives. I can write them, sure, but I’d rather stick to writing pure dialouge, cause it’s so much easier for me to get inside my characters heads and write everything that’s going on inside there.

Here are the things that helped me out so far this year, hopefully they well help you as well:

Here is an article I wrote on killing writer’s block. That might help you out some.

Also I wrote this one on creating character profiles. Some of the questions and exercises in this one might give you new things to write about your characters.

And this article on various types of narration might give you some ideas as well.

I recommend the Dare Threads from NaNoWriMo forums… There is the big one for general dares, and than each genre board has their own genre specific Dare Thread. Check out all of them, cuse you can use any dare from any genre board in any novel regardless of the genre you are writting. Whenever I get stuck on my plot I head to the Dare Thread and something over there always sparks me to write something new for my plot.

I grabbed a dare last week, and than tried to figure out how the hell I could fit a man-eating coat into my story. Here’s the one I chose to use today:

[quote=Consonancy]I’ve had fun planning out crazy alien
monsters for my novel this year. Join the party, guys! :’D

Have an alien
animal that looks just like a coat.
BP: If it’s venemous.
DBP: If a
character wears one anyway.

Enjoy…?[/quote]

I ended up writing a scene 1063 words long, about a Phooka (vampire-shapeshifter) that turned himself into a fur coat so he could lie in wait until someone put the coat on, so that he could get up close and personal with thier neck

Another one I chose involves a flock of killer hummingbirds attacking the townspeople (I actually came up with this one for the Dare thread myself and than used it in my own story)

And one I picked, but didn’t write yet, I have to have at least one scene in each chapter where a chicken or rooster walks by the main character. (I created this Dare too)

I’ve got a ton of dares that I picked off of all the differant Dare threads, and when ever I feel like I can’t think of something to write, I pick one of the dares, and write about it and try to fit it into the rest of my story.

Dares are just so much fun, and they boost your word count with out cheating! You have soooo got to try one.

Here’s a fun writing exercise that I did. Useing this writing exercise, I was able to up my NaNoWriMo Novel word count, by a whopping 4000 words, just by having each of my characters answer this question!

I also have a copy of this book: Writers Book of Matches: 1,001 Prompts to Ignite Your Fiction. Think of it like your personal Dare Thread that you can stick in your pocket and take with you anywhere you go. No writer should be without this wonderful book.

I also have a copy of this book: The Writers Little Helper. This is just the most amazingly helpful book. Whenever I get stuck I pull it out and open a random page and start reading, and it always sparks some idea. Next thing I know I’m off and writing again. It’s wonderful. If you don’t habe it, you must go out and get yourself a copy. This is one of my all time fave booksa for writers.

For my non-NaNo writing, I average 700 to 3000 words per day, though it is not uncommon for me to write over 7000 words in a day, and a few times I have gone over 10,000 in one day.

My highest words per day to date, happened in October 2007. One week before NaNoWriMo 2007 started I wrote a non-NaNo story of 11,052 words in one sitting; it took me 5 hours to do so.

What is my secret to high word counts? Well, writing each and every day for one thing. Writing multiple times per day for another thing.

Here’s what I try to do… I don’t always stick to this schedual, but of all the scheduals I’ve tried, this is the easiest one for me.

Here’s how it goes, if you’d like to give it a try:

First off:

I do not write in chapters.

I do not write to a set “hours per day”

I do not write to a set “words per day”

What I do is, I write small segments or scenes from my book. Say a conversation between two characters. Or maybe the description of a room. Something like that. I find this easier, because I can see a very clear beginning, middle, and end. Not the beginning, middle, and end of the entire book. Not the beginning, middle and end of the entire chapter. Just the beginning, middle, and end of that one scene, which in most cases is 2 to 4 paragraphs long or about 600 – 800 words.

I make it my goal to write three of these segmants each day. One in the morning as soon as I wake up, before I even get out of bed. One in the afternoon, when I get back in from taking my dog out for his daily walk. One in the evening, last thing just before going to bed. It takes about 15 – 30 minutes for me to write each segment. Or about 40 minutes to an hour and a half each day. In the end I end up with about 2,750 words written at the end of the day. That is, if I actualy sit down and write at all! I should be writing my NaNoNovel right now, cause I haven’t written anything yet today, but instead I find myself reading blogs from other NaNoers. LOL! Some days it’s just hard to get motivated to start writing.

Anyways, When you take it and break it down into tiny chunks like this, it seems like you haven’t written very much at all, when in fact you have gone well above and beyound your word count goal. I hope this helps.

As for the NaNoWriMo I’m writing… it is only half of what I write each day; I still have to do my regular writing each day on top of NaNoWriMo.

Good luck with your story!

————-
Copper Cockeral
Publishing Your NaNo Novel?
Do You and I Read the Same Books?

What’s your take on this? I’d love to hear what you have to say about this post. Leave a comment and share your views!

————-
Copper Cockeral
Publishing Your NaNo Novel?
Got Writer’s BlocK? Kill It Today!
Need A Quiet Place To Write? Find Help Here!
Need Help Creating Characters? Check This Out!
Want to Do a Good Deed? Save the Goldeneagle.

Wenn Eltern ihre Kinder der Schulpflicht entziehen, stellt dies einen Sorgerechtsmissbrauch dar. Diesem kann mit dem Sorgerechtsentzug begegnet werden.

Das hat der BGH jetzt entschieden.

Dies gilt auch für die Fälle, wenn das Handeln der Eltern religiös motiviert ist.

Ausführlich habe ich die Entscheidung in meinem Rechtsprechungsblog dargestellt.

Der XII. Zivilsenat des BGH, der unter anderem auch für das Familienrecvht zuständig ist, hatte jetzt zwei Fälle zu entscheiden, bei denen die Ausübung der elterlichen Sorge in einen Interessenskonflikt zwischen Religionsausübung und Schulpflicht geriet.Die elterliche Sorge ist ein Pflichtenrecht, die Grundsätze sind geregelt im § 1626 BGB:

„§ 1626 Elterliche Sorge, Grundsätze

(1) 1Die Eltern haben die Pflicht und das Recht, für das minderjährige Kind zu sorgen (elterliche Sorge). 2Die elterliche Sorge umfasst die Sorge für die Person des Kindes (Personensorge) und das Vermögen des Kindes (Vermögenssorge).

(2) 1Bei der Pflege und Erziehung berücksichtigen die Eltern die wachsende Fähigkeit und das wachsende Bedürfnis des Kindes zu selbständigem verantwortungsbewusstem Handeln. 2Sie besprechen mit dem Kind, soweit es nach dessen Entwicklungsstand angezeigt ist, Fragen der elterlichen Sorge und streben Einvernehmen an.

(3) 1Zum Wohl des Kindes gehört in der Regel der Umgang mit beiden Elternteilen. 2Gleiches gilt für den Umgang mit anderen Personen, zu denen das Kind Bindungen besitzt, wenn ihre Aufrechterhaltung für seine Entwicklung förderlich ist.”

Das Familiengericht hat eine Eingriffsbefugnis für den Fall, dass dieses Sorgerecht fahrlässig oder vorsätzlich missbräuchlich ausgeübt wird, dies ergibt sich aus dem § 1666 BGB:

„§ 1666 Gerichtliche Maßnahmen bei Gefährdung des Kindeswohls

(1) Wird das körperliche, geistige oder seelische Wohl des Kindes oder sein Vermögen durch missbräuchliche Ausübung der elterlichen Sorge, durch Vernachlässigung des Kindes, durch unverschuldetes Versagen der Eltern oder durch das Verhalten eines Dritten gefährdet, so hat das Familiengericht, wenn die Eltern nicht gewillt oder nicht in der Lage sind, die Gefahr abzuwenden, die zur Abwendung der Gefahr erforderlichen Maßnahmen zu treffen.

(2) In der Regel ist anzunehmen, dass das Vermögen des Kindes gefährdet ist, wenn der Inhaber der Vermögenssorge seine Unterhaltspflicht gegenüber dem Kind oder seine mit der Vermögenssorge verbundenen Pflichten verletzt oder Anordnungen des Gerichts, die sich auf die Vermögenssorge beziehen, nicht befolgt.

(3) Das Gericht kann Erklärungen des Inhabers der elterlichen Sorge ersetzen.

(4) In Angelegenheiten der Personensorge kann das Gericht auch Maßnahmen mit Wirkung gegen einen Dritten treffen.”

Damit ist der Rahmen für die beiden Beschlüsse des BGH vom 11.09.2007 abgesteckt:

Es ging nämlich um Eltern, die ihre Kinder der allgemeinen Schulpflicht entzogen. Das besodnere hieran war, dass die Eltern hierfür Glaubensgründe anführten.

Den Beschlüssen lag im Wesentlichen der folgende Sachverhalt zugrunde:

De Eltern – Familie A – sind Mitglieder einer christlichen Glaubensgemeinschaft. Gemeinsam mit anderen Glaubensgenossinnen und Genossen kamen sie als Spätaussiedler nach Deutschland.

Sie waren der Meinung, dass die Erziehung und Bildung in der öffentlichen Grundschule mit ihren Glaubensüberzeugungen nicht vereinbar seien. Aus diesem Grunde teilte Familie A der Schule mit, dass zwei ihrer Kinder in Zukunft zuhause unterrichtet würden. Weder Gespräche mit Schulleitung, Bezirksregierung und Integrationsbeauftragtem noch die Verhängung eines Bußgeldes führten dazu, dass die Eltern ihre Kinder zum Schulunterricht brachten; ein Zwangsgeldverfahren wurde nicht erfolgreich abgeschlossen.

Daraufhin entzog das Familiengericht den Eltern die im Wege der einstweiligen Anordnung die elterliche Sorge in Schulangelegenheiten sowie das Aufenthaltsbestimmungsrecht für diese Kinder.

In der Sache hat der Bundesgerichtshof die – auf Ausführungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts gestützte – Auffassung der Vorinstanzen bestätigt, dass der Besuch der staatlichen Grundschule dem legitimen Ziel der Durchsetzung des staatlichen Erziehungsauftrags diene. Hierzu stütze das Gericht sich auf folgende Argumentationskette:

„Die Allgemeinheit habe ein berechtigtes Interesse daran, der Entstehung von religiös oder weltanschaulich geprägten “Parallelgesellschaften” entgegenzuwirken und Minderheiten auf diesem Gebiet zu integrieren. Integration setze dabei auch voraus, dass religiöse oder weltanschauliche Minderheiten sich nicht selbst abgrenzten und sich einem Dialog mit Andersdenkenden und -gläubigen nicht verschlössen. Dies im Sinne gelebter Toleranz einzuüben und zu praktizieren sei eine wichtige Aufgabe der Grundschule.”

Hieraus folgt nun der zwingende Schluß, dass die beharrliche Weigerung der Eltern, ihre Kinder der öffentlichen Grundschule oder einer anerkannten Ersatzschule zuzuführen, deshalb als Missbrauch der elterlichen Sorge darstellt. Damit ist der Anwendungsbereich des § 1666 BGB eröffnet.

Wenn hier jetzt die Ausübung der Glaubensfreiheit der Schulpflicht entgegenzustehen scheint, dann gibt aber auch dies den Eltern keine Berechtigung, ihre Kinder der Schulpflicht zu entziehen.

Mit der Schulpflicht ist ja nicht die Glaubensausübung insgesamt infrage gestellt, Lediglich einzelne Lehrinhalte oder -methoden der Schule stehen nach Auffassung der Eltern ihren Glaubensüberzeugungen entgegen.

Der Maßstab kann aber nur der Erziehungsauftrag der Schule im Sinne des Grundgesetzes sein. Wenn der Staat diesem Auftrag verantwortungsvoll nachkommt, bleibt kein Platz für einen Entzug der Kinder aus der Schulpflicht.

Wenn nun also die beharrliche Weigerung, den Kindern die Erziehung in der öffentlichen Schule oder einer anerkannten Ersatzschule zu ermöglichen, einen Sorgerechtsmissbrauch darstellt, so ist in einem solchen Falle auch der Sorgerechtsentzug angemessen und geeignet, um dem rechtswidrigen Zustand zu begegnen.

Soweit- sogut. Der Fall hatte aber noch eine weitere Dimension.

Diese hatte mit der Pflegerbestellung zu tun. Denn ein minderjähriges Kind, das nicht der elterlichen Sorge untersteht, braucht jemanden, der diese elterliche Sorge auch ausführt. Dies gilt auch, wenn wie hier nur ein Teil der elterlichen Sorge entzogen wird, der Rest des Sorgerechts aber bei den Eltern verbleibt. Geregelt ist dies im § 1909 BGB:

„§ 1909 Ergänzungspflegschaft

(1) 1Wer unter elterlicher Sorge oder unter Vormundschaft steht, erhält für Angelegenheiten, an deren Besorgung die Eltern oder der Vormund verhindert sind, einen Pfleger. 2Er erhält insbesondere einen Pfleger zur Verwaltung des Vermögens, das er von Todes wegen erwirbt oder das ihm unter Lebenden unentgeltlich zugewendet wird, wenn der Erblasser durch letztwillige Verfügung, der Zuwendende bei der Zuwendung bestimmt hat, dass die Eltern oder der Vormund das Vermögen nicht verwalten sollen.

(2) Wird eine Pflegschaft erforderlich, so haben die Eltern oder der Vormund dies dem Vormundschaftsgericht unverzüglich anzuzeigen.

(3) Die Pflegschaft ist auch dann anzuordnen, wenn die Voraussetzungen für die Anordnung einer Vormundschaft vorliegen, ein Vormund aber noch nicht bestellt ist.”

Hierauf gestützt bestellte das Familiengericht schon im Wege des einstweiligen Anordnungsverfahrens die zuständige Stadt P. (Jugendamt) zum Pfleger der Kinder.

Was gut gemeint war, zeigte aber unglaubliche Folgen:

Mit Einwilligung des Pflegers verbrachten die Eltern die Kinder daraufhin in ein Dorf in Österreich. Die Eltern und die Familie behielten ihren Wohnsitz in Deutschland bei. In Österreich kann man in besonderen Fällen nämlich Kinder zuhause unterrichten. Der Pfleger erwirkte in der Folgezeit nach österreichischem Recht die Gestattung, dass die Mutter den Kindern Hausunterricht erteilen dürfe.

Seither werden die Kinder dort von ihrer Mutter unterrichtet. Die Mutter selbst hat keinerlei pädagogische Vorbildung.

Das Familiengericht hätte zwar im Hauptsacheverfahren die Möglichkeit gehabt, diese Entwicklung durch eine andere Pflegerbestellung zu korrigieren, bestätigte aber seine zuvor getroffene Regelung.

Die von den Eltern hiergegen eingelegte Beschwerde wies das Oberlandesgericht zurück. Die zugelassene Rechtsbeschwerde hatte nur zu einem geringen Teil Erfolg.

Die Tatsache, dass die Kinder jetzt nach Österreich verbracht worden sind, hat auch eine zusätzliche prozessuale Frage aufgeworfen, nämlich, ob die deutschen Gerichte hier überhaupt noch zuständig sind.
Die internationale Zuständigkeit der deutschen Gerichte ergibt sich aus der Tatsache, dass die übrigen Familienmitglieder ebenso wie die Eltern ihren Wohnsitz im Geltungsbereich des Grundgesetztes beibehalten hatte.

Die weitere Frage war die, ob die Kinder weiterhin der deutschen Schulpflicht unterliegen, wenn sie sich dauerhaft in der Alpenrepublik aufhalten. Auch diese Frage war wegen des Familienwohnsitzes im Inland zu bejahen.

Die Tatsache, dass mit der Pflegerbestellung der „Bock zum Gärtner” gemacht worden ist, hat der BGH aber scharf kritisiert.

Denn dieser Pfleger habe sich offenkundig als in diesen Fällen ungeeignet erwiesen, den Gefahren für das Kindeswohl effektiv zu begegnen.

Der Pfleger habe durch sein Verhalten sogar erst die Voraussetzungen dafür geschaffen, dass die Kinder nach Österreich umgemeldet worden seien.
Dem nicht genug habe er sodann die Möglichkeit, die Kinder in Österreich dem Hausunterricht zuzuführen, durch eine entsprechende Antragstellung bei den österreichischen Behörden selbst eröffnet.

Der BGH führte hierzu aus:

„Damit sei der Erfolg eingetreten, den die Eltern von vornherein erstrebt hätten, nämlich die häusliche Unterrichtung der Kinder durch ihre pädagogisch nicht vorgebildete Mutter – dies allerdings nicht in Deutschland, sondern in Österreich. Es sei nicht ersichtlich, dass die vom Familiengericht – nunmehr im Hauptsacheverfahren – verfügte Übertragung des Sorgerechts in Schulangelegenheiten sowie des Aufenthaltsbestimmungsrechts auf die Stadt P. (Jugendamt) an der von der Stadt als Pfleger selbst herbeigeführten Situation etwas ändere.”

Der Bundesgerichtshof hat deshalb die Bestellung der Stadt als Pfleger aufgehoben und die Sache insoweit an das Oberlandesgericht zurückverwiesen, damit dieses durch die Auswahl eines geeigneten Pflegers oder durch gerichtliche Weisungen sicherstelle, dass die Kinder ihrer Schulpflicht nachkommen.

Beschlüsse vom 11. September 2007

XII ZB 41/07

AG Paderborn – 8 F 810/05 – Entscheidung vom 07.03.2006

OLG Hamm – 6 UF 53/06 – Entscheidung vom 20.02.2007

und

XII ZB 42/07

AG Paderborn – 8 F 811/05 – Entscheidung vom 07.03.2006

OLG Hamm – 6 UF 51/06 – Entscheidung vom 20.02.2007

I was just on the NaNoWriMo forums, were one of today’s “hot” topics is all the dirty cheat secrets they are useing. They are copying and pasting famous poems and song lyrics into their stories, saying that they well delete them come December 1.

I don’t understand all this “dirty trick” stuff everyone keeps talking about. Copy and pasting song lyrics into your story is cheating, because they are NOT your words, YOU didn’t write them. If it’s not part of your NaNoNovel it diesn’t count towards wordcount either. If you premeditate adding random junk, planning to delete it in December, that’s cheating too. It’s pointless to cheat on NaNo, if you cheat, you know you cheat, and than how can you live with yourself? I just can’t understand all this talk of dirty tricks and cheating. Cheating just seems so wrong to me. I could never live with myself if I cheated on something.

Cheaters are losers.

[quote=shadia_malfoy]You can’t be serious. Not even three days in?

I’ll
believe it when you prove it to me.[/quote]

[quote=iworkhere22]iworkhere22@gmail.com
if youve finished email me i just
dont believe it >=(-[/quote]

It’s perfectly possible to write that fast. 3000 words an hour is not at all uncomon for a professional author, I know because I do this myself. My average is 1,750 per hour, but that’s because I usually write at a slow pace, if I’m in a hurry 3,000 is easy. I’ve heard of writers who are speed typers who do over 4,000 words per hour. (I am not one of them, I actually write very slow).

And yes, a lot of planning does go into these novels, that is why we sign up in October not November, so that we can spend October plotting, planning, and outlining. The more thought you did ahead of time, the faster your brain flows when it comes time to do the writing.

You might want to check out those two other non-NaNo sites: you know the one where people sign up to write 50,000 words in a single day, and the other one where people sign up to write 50,000 words in a weekend. I’m sure you can find thousands of people to disbelieve over there, since all of them are writing 50,000 words in one day.

Last year I did my NaNo in longhand and averaged 3,000 per day. However that was an average, and there were several days when I didn’t meet 700. On 2 days last year I did over 7,000 words each of the two days and on one day when I had nothing to do all day long, I wrote over 10,000 words… it was my best day ever (not just for NaNo!) In the end, I hit 50,000 on day 17, and I wrote 183,000 words in 30 days. It took over 400 sheets of paper and an entire pac of Bic crystal stix.

uhm…. when people asked me last year how I did it… my answer: Over twenty long years of practice. I do this kind of thing every day anyways, so writing NaNo is nothing unusual for me, I’d be writting the 3,000 words a day even if I wasn’t entering NaNo, so I might as well enter NaNo and have fun while I write!

Advice? well, I write while sitting on the ground in my garden, cross-legged (lotus postition I think they call it), with my loose leaf on my lap on a clip-boards and a totebag full of extra paper and lots of ink refills. I do about 90% of my writing outdoors in my garden, with one or more (or all) of my 9 cats and 2 dogs sitting on me.

yah for longhanders! WOO-HOO!

I use college ruled lined paper, and count how many words on one line, than write that number down at the end of the line, and repeat this for the next line, and the next line, etc for all 32 lines on the page. Than with a claculator I add up all of those numbers and write the total word count for that page at the top. I do this for each page I wrote that day. Than I take all the page cout totals and add them up, giving me my final word count for the day.

I write and average of 13 words per line or 340 words per page, but I never average my word count because on some pages I wrote only 225 words or only 7 words per line, etc.

I didn’t start writing like this for NaNoWriMo either, I’ve been writing longhand and keeping track of my word counts like this since 1978, when I wrote my first book. I’ve been writing for a very long time… long before computers and laptops. For me handwriting is not only easier, but it’s also a lot faster. Of course over the past 20+ years, I’ve also developed my own form of italic short hand so I am able to write very, very fast, though most can not actually read what I wrote afterwards.

Three days before NaNo started, I did a non-NaNo story test run to see if I was ready for NaNoWriMo, I wrote steady for 5 hours, afterwards I counted my words. My total: 11,052 words in 5 hours. The 10,000 words in one sitting, is not something I plan to make a habit of doing. Why? One word: cramps! ugh! I just wanted to see if I could do it, and I did, and now I’m happy with that, so I’m back to my regular pace, which is about 800 words per sitting, 3 sittings a day. It’s a good pace, that works best for me. I reach my personal word goals, and I don’t overdo it at the same time.

Two years ago I joined a contest that write a novel in 2 days. I stayed up for 48 hours straight, no food, no sleep, and in the end, I did it. However, in the end I never felt so exauhsted in my life, and I don’t plan to ever attempt to write an entire novel in 2 days again. Once in my lifetime was enough for me. I proved to myself that I could do it if I had to, but I don’t plan to make a habit of it.

What you have to remember is, that there are a lot of people on NaNo who are profesional writers. They write for 8 hours a day with lunch breaks, just like you go to work or school 8 hours a day with lunch breaks. For them, writing is a career that feeds their families, and if they don’t rite their children don’t eat. When you write for a living, you learn to write fast. Plain and simple fact of life.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On a differant note, you also have to consider just how few words 50,000 words really is.

You’d be suprised just how few words 50,000 really is. In fact it’s very rare to find a publisher that well publish a book that short. It would be easier for you to find a magazine to publish it as 2 pats in 2 of their issues. Most short stories in magazines are 25,000 words, while short-shorts are anything under 7,500. Minute-Mini’s are under 1,500 words.

50,000 words is actually considered to be a short story or novella by traditional publishing standards, and when a story that short is printed up it is usually a middle school chapter book such as: The BabySitter’s Club, GooseBumps, Bunnicula, or Bailey School Kids books.

150,000 is considered standard for “light reading” size books, such as Nancy Drew mysteries, while 300,000 is the average for many of the best selling titles, such as the first few Harry Potter book. Epic length stories are 500,000 to 750,000 such as Lord of the Rings or the later Harry Potter books.

When you look at it in comparision to the size of the actual finished printed book, 50,000 in nothing.

————-
Copper Cockeral
Need To Publish Your NaNoNovel?
So You Think You Know Phookas?

What’s your take on this? I’d love to hear what you have to say about this post. Leave a comment and share your views!

It’s that time of year again. Have you signed up for NaNoWriMo 2007 yet? Sign up today and let the world’s #1 writing contest begin!

Need To Publish Your NaNo Novel? Find Out How!
Got Writer’s BlocK? Kill It Today!
Need A Quiet Place To Write? Find Help Here!
Need Help Creating Characters? Check This Out!
Want to Do a Good Deed? Save the Goldeneagle.

லண்டன் டைரி: வெள்ளத்திலும் “ஃபயர்’!

இரா. முருகன்

“”ராத்திரி தூங்கப் போறதுக்கு முன்னாடி அடுப்பை அணைச்சுட்டுப் படுத்துக்கணும்.” இது வீட்டுத் திண்ணையில் கால் நீட்டி உட்கார்ந்து, வெற்றிலையில் சுண்ணாம்பு தடவியபடி அந்தக்கால மாமியார் தன்னுடைய மருமகளுக்கு அவ்வப்போது தவணைமுறையில் நல்கிய உபதேசம் இல்லை. ஓர் அரசாங்கமே சட்டம் போட்டு அறிவித்த விஷயம். இங்கிலாந்தை ஆக்கிரமித்து ஆண்ட வில்லியம் மன்னன் நாட்டு மக்களுக்கு விடுத்த அரச கட்டளை -”கவர் ஃபயர்’. அதாவது ராத்திரியில் முதலில் வீட்டு அடுப்பில் நெருப்பை அணைத்துவிட்டு இதர விஷயங்களில் கவனம் செலுத்தவும்.

ஊர் முழுக்கக் கடைப்பிடிக்கவேண்டி ஆயிரம் வருடத்துக்கு முந்திப் போடப்பட்டது அந்த “கவர் ஃபயர்’ சட்டம். கவர் ஃபயர் நாளடைவில் திரிந்து கர்ஃப்யூ என்ற ஊரடங்கு உத்தரவு ரூபத்தில் இன்னும்கூட எல்லா அரசாங்கங்களாலும் அவ்வப்போது அமுலாக்கப்படுகிறது என்பது உண்மை. மேற்படி சட்டப்படி அடுப்பை அணைக்க ஒரு குடிமகன் மறந்துபோனதால் லண்டன் மாநகரமே முன்னூறு வருடம் முன்னால் மாபெரும் தீவிபத்தில் அழிந்து போனது என்பதும் உண்மைதான்.

லண்டன் பாலத்திலிருந்து திரும்பி நகருக்குள் நடந்து, இதையெல்லாம் யோசித்தபடி நான் நிற்கிற இடம் புட்டுச் சந்து. அதாவது புட்டிங் லேன். டூரிஸ்டுகளை ஏற்றி வருகிற சிவப்பு பஸ் ஒன்று அரை நிமிடம் சந்து முனையில் தயங்கி நிற்க, பஸ் மேல்தளத்தில் வழிகாட்டிப் பெண் 1666 என்று சொல்கிற சத்தம் காற்றில் மிதந்து வருகிறது. ஆயிரத்து அறுநூற்று அறுபத்தாறு. லண்டன் நகரமே பற்றி எரிந்த வருடம் அது. அந்த நெருப்பு தொடங்கிய இடம் இந்தப் புட்டுச் சந்துதான்.

லண்டனுக்குச் சோதனையான காலம் இதற்கு ஒரு வருடம் முன்பே தொடங்கிவிட்டது. 1665-ம் வருடம் தொடர்ந்து ராப்பகலாகப் பெருமழை பெய்தது. நசநசவென்று நனைந்து ஊறி அசுத்தமாகக் கிடந்த ஊரில் எலித் தொல்லை பெருகியது. அது கொள்ளை நோயில் கொண்டுபோய் விட்டது. கிட்டத்தட்ட ஒரு லட்சம் பேரைக் காவு கொண்டு அந்த நோய் போய்ச் சேர்ந்த அடுத்த வருடமே ஊரை அழிக்கிற மாதிரி ஒரு மாபெரும் தீவிபத்து. இரண்டுமே ஜனத்தொகைப் பெருக்கத்தின் விளைவு.

தேம்ஸ் நதிக்கரையை ஒட்டி ஆரம்பித்து, ரோமானியப் பேரரசு காலத்து நகர எல்லைச் சுவர் வரை நீண்ட லண்டன் நகரத் தெருக்களில் கீழ்த்தட்டு, நடுத்தர மக்கள் நெருக்கியடித்து இருந்து, தொழில் செய்து, வியாபாரம் நடத்திக் குடியும் குடித்தனமுமாக வாழ்ந்து கொண்டிருந்தார்கள். பிரபுக்கள் இந்த ஜன நெரிசலிலிருந்து விலகி, இன்னும் தூரத்தில் வெஸ்ட்மின்ஸ்டரிலோ அல்லது தேம்ஸ் நதிக்கு அக்கரையில் புறநகர்ப் பகுதிகளிலோ சுகபோகமாக வசித்துக் கொண்டிருந்தார்கள். இங்கிலாந்து மன்னன் இரண்டாம் சார்லஸýக்கும் லண்டன் நகருக்கும் சுமூகமான உறவு இல்லாத நேரம் அது. மன்னராட்சிக்கு எதிராகக் குரல் கொடுத்த குடியரசுத் தலைவர்களின் நிர்வாகத்தில் லண்டன் மாநகராட்சி இருந்தது.

பெருகிவரும் ஜனத்தொகையை இருக்கப்பட்ட இடத்திலேயே குடியிருத்த வேண்டிய நிர்ப்பந்தம். வீடுகள் தரைமட்டத்தில் சிறுத்தும், மேலே அகன்று விரிந்தும் கூடுதல் இடவசதிக்காக மாற்றியமைக்கப்பட, தெருவின் இரண்டு பக்கத்திலும் ஒன்றை ஒன்று தொடுகிற மாடிகள் காற்றையும் வெளிச்சத்தையும் தடைசெய்தன. அசம்பாவிதமாக ஏதாவது தீ விபத்து ஏற்பட்டால் இந்தத் தெருக்களில் உயிர்ச்சேதமும் பொருள் சேதமும் அதிகமாக இருக்கும் என்பதால் நகரம் முழுக்க அந்தந்தப் பேட்டை தேவாலயங்கள் தீயணைப்புக் கேந்திரமாகச் செயல்படத் திட்டம் அமுலாகியது.

கிட்டத்தட்ட இருநூறு தேவாலயங்களில் நெருப்பை அணைக்கத் தயாராகத் தண்ணீர் வாளி, எரிகிற கூரையைப் பிடுங்கி எரிய துரட்டி மாதிரியான உபகரணங்கள், ஏணிகள் என்று சேமித்து வைத்தார்கள். எங்கேயாவது தீப்பிடித்தால், அர்த்தராத்திரி என்றாலும் தேவாலய மணி முழக்கப்படும். கேட்டு ஓடிவந்து நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கவேண்டியது அந்தந்தப் பேட்டை மக்களின் கடமை.

இப்படி விலாவாரியாக முன்னேற்பாடு எல்லாம் இருந்தாலும், புட்டுச் சந்தில் ரொட்டிக்கடை வைத்திருந்த தாமஸ் பரினர் மூலம் விதி விளையாடியது. 1666-ம் வருடம் செப்டம்பர் ஒன்றாம் தேதி சனிக்கிழமை ராத்திரி அவர் ரொட்டி சுடும் அடுப்பை அணைக்க மறந்து தூங்கப் போய்விட்டார். நடுராத்திரியில் அடுப்பிலிருந்து நெருப்பு வீடு முழுக்கப் பற்றிப் பிடித்து, அடுத்த வீடுகளுக்கும் பரவ ஆரம்பித்தது.

பொதுமக்கள், லண்டன் மேயரை அவர் வீட்டுக் கதவைத் தட்டி எழுப்பி விஷயத்தைச் சொன்னார்கள். “”அட போங்கப்பா, நாலு பேர் வரிசையா நின்னு ஒன் பாத்ரூம் போனா தீ அணைஞ்சு போயிடும். உப்புப் பெறாத இந்த விஷயத்துக்காக ராத்திரி என்னைத் தொந்தரவு பண்ணாதீங்க” என்று கொட்டாவி விட்டபடி அவர் இழுத்துப் போர்த்திக் கொண்டு மறுபடி தூங்க ஆரம்பித்தார். மாண்புமிகு மேயர் காலையில் சாவகாசமாக விபத்து நடந்த ஸ்தலமான புட்டுச் சந்துக்கு வந்தபோது, நெருப்பு அடுத்த தெரு, மூன்றாம், நான்காம் தெரு என்று கிடுகிடுவென்று பரவிக்கொண்டிருந்தது.

“”தெருவை அடைச்சு நிக்கற கட்டிடத்தை எல்லாம் இடிச்சுட்டா, நெருப்பு பரவாது” யாராரோ ஆலோசனை சொன்னார்கள். “”இடிக்கறதா? அப்புறம் கார்ப்பரேஷன் தான் திரும்பக் கட்டித் தரணும்னு கேட்பீங்க. யார் செலவு பண்றது? அதெல்லாம் வேலைக்காகாது”

மேயர் மறுத்துக்கொண்டிருந்தபோது, மற்ற எல்லோரும் எரிகிற வீடுகளுக்குள் இருந்து கூடிய மட்டும் முக்கியமான பொருட்களை எடுத்துச் சுமந்துகொண்டு தீயிலிருந்து தப்பித்து ஓடுவதிலேயே குறியாக இருந்தார்கள். அதில் கொஞ்சம் பேராவது பக்கத்து தேம்ஸ் நதியிலிருந்து தண்ணீர் எடுத்து வந்து எரிகிற வீடுகளில் கொட்டியிருந்தால் தீ அணைந்திருக்கும். தேம்ஸ் நதியிலிருந்து குழாய் மூலமாகத் தண்ணீர், நகரம் முழுவதும் விநியோகிக்கப்படுவது அப்போதே இருந்தது. அந்தத் தண்ணீர்க் குழாயை அங்கங்கே திறந்து தண்ணீரை விசிறியடித்திருக்கலாம். அதற்கும் ஆள் இல்லை.

நெருப்பு கிடுகிடுவென்று பரவி, தேம்ஸ் நதிக்கரையில் நகருக்குத் தண்ணீர் விநியோகம் செய்ய ஆற்று நீரை இறைத்துத் தொட்டிகளில் தேக்கி வைக்கும் யந்திரங்களை எரித்து நாசமாக்கியது. ஆக, ஆறு முழுக்க வெள்ளம் போனாலும், ஊரென்னவோ பற்றி எரிந்தபடிதான் இருந்தது.

அந்தக்காலத்திலேயே தீயணைக்கும் இயந்திரம் வழக்கத்தில் வந்திருந்தது. ஆனால் ஒரே ஒரு சிக்கல். நடுவிலே பெரிய பீப்பாயில் தண்ணீரும், வெளியே நீட்டிக் கொண்டிருக்கும் நாலைந்து குழாயுமாக இருந்த இந்த இயந்திரங்களை ஓட்டிப் போகமுடியாது. நாலைந்து பேர் பின்னால் இருந்து தள்ள, இன்னும் சிலர் முன்னால் இருந்து இழுத்துக்கொண்டு போய்த்தான் தீப்பிடித்த இடத்தில் நிறுத்தவேண்டும். இழுத்துப் போனார்கள். அப்புறம்தான் இயந்திரங்களில் தண்ணீர் இல்லாதது தெரியவந்தது. தேம்ஸ் நதிக்கரைக்குத் தண்ணீர் நிரப்ப அவற்றைத் திரும்பவும் உருட்டிப் போனார்கள். நதிக்கரை மணலில் நிற்கவைத்துத் தண்ணீர் நிரப்பும்போது அந்த யந்திர வண்டிகள் குடைசாய்ந்து ஆற்றுக்குள் விழுந்துவிட்டன. நெருப்பு எந்தத் தடையும் இல்லாமல் இன்னும் தீவிரமாக எரிந்து கொண்டிருந்தது.