I had already written and published a book with characters of the period of the Roman invasion when lo and behold I came across M. J. Harper's book on the history of Britain, revealed. I have searched high and low for good books on early Britain and there are not very many. This makes a novelist's research very difficult and almost scary.
"My word!" I thought with great trepidation as I opened the book for the very first time and read the first paragraphs. I flipped through and noted the diagrams inside and said to myself, "These look interesting. This is a book to buy and keep. It is extremely well printed (hard copy). What a lovely addition to my bookshelf!"
I also briefly noted Harper's comments on the theory of evolution. "Well at the very least he might be well read," I thought to myself. There is so much interesting that can be learned by letting the competing sciences review each other. "What if Harper's book makes my own book sound like complete rubbish? After all, I have little to go on, but a very strong hunch." Thus, it was that I eagerly bought the book and within several days, I had read it at least three times. Good books are like that. They cause you to read them several times, and you really do grow in understanding with each read.
My own novels are like that. They are not to be read only once. See.
Reading Harper's book many times changed my mind about the English language. My aim is not academic but informational, so the absence sources would not be a problem. At this stage of reading, I am not seeking to verify, but rather to have a cogently argued case for an alternative view presented. I leave it to others, as I am sure Harper does to begin the process of verification. Indeed, too many references would not only be boring, but could deter me from reading.
The book is carefully argued logic and the author makes a clear case for the need to review what we have understood to be the basis of the English language. Many times I have poured over glossary type books of place names seeking an insight into their origin only to find the expression old english applied to the search in question. When looking for insights it is only to easy to be amazed at how readily the authors have said something without verification. How in the dickens is one supposed to verify something.
Obviously, MJ Harper is on to something much grander than the question of the origins of the English language. He is questioning the method of historical research. He is saying that one needs to see the forests from the trees.
The fact is that in the case of English the absence of verification of the Anglo Saxon origins rests mainly with academia and if they wish to verify there own points on the historical origins, this is their opportunity to present their case. They can refute Harper in a book with all the verifiable sources of their case listed. If they don't, we can probably assume that a lot of hot air has been wasted on theories that don't hold forth under close examination. Problem is that much of the hot air has been like butterflies stirring up hurricanes around the world of trust and faith.
Is past history fiction or fact? Have we been duped by the Romans into a false view of our own history? It's a wonderful set of questions that Oxford and Cambridge or other schooled academics can set to rest, or can they?
I have collected all the other books I can find on the English language and try to see whether any of the authors of these have had any doubts in their minds when they were writing so very convincingly. I watched TV programmes about the Anglo Saxons and pondered whether what there were saying was just a guess or based on partial evidence or something that had been verified. The way the present on the BBC is rather convincing would you not agree. The voice is very authoritative, but are the points made verified, and does one verify?
My approach is to read all and everything about a subject before forming an opinion and even then be flexible in making a judgment. It was Gurdieff who wrote that it is of utmost importance to very everything you hear. If you don't you will live in a world of lies. Its largely a matter or personal style and psychology. Some people need to move along with certainty. They feel they can't go on unless what they know is what they believe.
Others like myself live in a world of uncertainty always thinking that what one knows will be revised by someone else. Its a matter of continuing education that you are open to alternative views and don't get closed down into a problem of a logic net, some way of thinking that entangles you without remission.
Yes, its best to take the view that Harper has many good points in his book. The book is well worth reading alongside a book with more conventional views. If you then try to see for yourself the inconsistencies in the conventional view, you might make progress, but your aim should be to verify, verify, if you can. Where you can't verify the story is up for grabs and it is the best presented and most convincing arguments that will win.