… because it wasn’t a sequel, it was the second world war.
I’m not a professional historian. I genuflect with admiration and respect to anyone who succeeds in living their best life by virtue of this métier’s reward.
I am, however, an enthusiastic onlooker who enjoys ‘standing where they stood’, exploring the past, and then using my day-job as a writer to ask new questions about old ideas.
In every war’s historiography, there’s a delicate balance that needs recording carefully. On the one hand, we find scelestic, inhumane intent. On the other hand,we have resourcefulness and resilience and patriotic resolve. Conflicting ideologies are a rich seam of material for anyone who’s curious about why we go to war and how we achieved peace.
From the rhetoric of the time to the treasure-trove of serendipitous trivia that’s surfaced since, there’s a lot of raw material to work with. I enjoy writing about it all. I make no apologies for using words like ‘scelestic’ on purpose.
Some of these essays take a wry look at oblique aspects of the second world war – others focus more on language. There’s a great deal of comfort in not being a subject-specialist.
A few posts gnaw at the ties of language holding key events together, and there’s plenty of wittering too. One or two pieces may or may not be written under the influence of too much strong coffee.
Good luck with those.