Film Review - Ghostbusters: Afterlife. 2021.

I finally caught up with Ghostbusters: Afterlife on streaming this week. I held off for so long because of my own aversion to the recent trend of storytelling-via-nostalgia. Not only tv shows like Stranger Things -  which is more of a nostalgia for pop culture than for the decade itself - but also the newest spin on 'legacy sequels' or 'requels' that hark back to a feeling a certain generation liked in the past. On a deep level I find the idea unhealthy. I see a reboot as a separate meme. A reboot -if done well- is an update, bringing the themes and ideas of an older story into the modern era, and reframing it to talk about now. These legacy films, by contrast, often feel like conversations with themselves. 

There is an extent to which this is inherent in any ongoing franchise. As part of a genre essay I wrote for Crimereads a few years ago, I noticed that all sequels become a different beast to the original. Raiders of the Lost Ark may have been a mixed bag off references to old serials, H Rider Haggard, Erik Von Däniken, Treasure of the Serra MadreSecret of the Incas, and heist movies, but Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is then in much more direct conversation with Raiders of the Lost ArkDr. No may have been the first film of it's kind, but every film they made afterwards was a Bond film, playing within -or challenging- the rules of Bond films. 

But even with all of that accepted and unavoidable, I find my own tastebuds don't lean towards nostalgia. I've been left on the outside of culture wars over the Star Wars and Ghostbusters franchises, and in large part this has felt like a war over nostalgia. A certain generation of Star Wars fan needed The Last Jedi to give them a dopamine fix of seeing Luke Skywalker doing the things he did fire years ago -and more importantly perhaps, doing all the things they've imagined in their own minds over that time- not necessarily doing the things that Luke Skywalker -with all his baggage of internalised hatred, familial guilt, and trauma- would be doing as an old man if he were real. What, to me, was an interesting and true character arc was taken by many as a betrayal of how they felt as children. Likewise, the 2016 Ghostbusters walked headlong into a shitstorm of online hatred. I don't want to dismiss that the largest determining factor of that hate was undoubtedly misogyny aimed at the all-female reboot, but I also think there's room to admit that the film didn't feel the same as the original, and that feeling was a problem for many fans who go to franchises from their youth wanting a drug hit of nostalgia. The 2016 film doesn't play with the same DNA as the 1984 original. It feels more tightly scripted, it relies less on the genuine (and overlooked) ties to Lovecraft, Theosophy, and other fringe thinking. On a nuts-and-bolts level, it uses a different style of humour. Paul Feig brought much more slapstick and farce, and a far higher level of bodily fluid jokes. That's not a criticism. While it does mean the 2016 version isn't really for me, it also doesn't need to be for me. I have a version of Ghostbusters that I already like, and it's a big world full of lots of people who also deserve to have a version of Ghostbusters. In many ways, I would argue that the 2016 film is a better use of reboot money. Making something different, for a different audience in a different time. 

From the first trailer it seemed clear that Afterlife was in more direct conversation with the 1984 original. And against he backdrop of the 2016 arguments, it felt like a deliberate move to pretend the all-female reboot didn't exist. Is that far? No. Rian Johnston, Paul Feig, and now Jason Reitman all set out to make the best films they could, and in an ideal world would be allowed to get on with that free of other people's baggage. But in the case of Jason Reitman he also had to know what he was walking into. He's the son of the 1984 original's director, he would have been a five or six year old child scampering round the set, and the legacy cast returned because of his involvement. Not only is there the inbuilt temptation to see Afterlife as a requel for people of my generation having a conversation with our childhood, it's always felt directly like one specific person of my generation having one specific conversation with his own childhood. 

All of this as buildup to me pressing play.

Were these concerns valid?

Yes and no. 

I found Afterlife more interesting as a curiosity than entertaining as a film. Over the long term, curiosities often end up ageing into being among my favourite movies. They ask questions that stick with me. It's way too soon to know if Afterlife will do that, so I'm left with the feelings it gave me in the here and now. 

The film is in direct conversation with the 1984 original. Each character beat and plot decision in 2021 was clearly in relation to something that happened in 1984. As a viewer you are left to second-guess which archetypal role from the original each new cast member will end up playing. And the 2021 film makes many smart choices in this regard, playing with expectations, and allowing fresh looks on misunderstood characters like Louis Tully. And even for someone as nostalgia-averse as myself, there's a certain rush of glee that comes from hearing Bill Murray doing his Peter Venkman voice, in a moment that instantly makes you realise how long it's been since you've heard him doing it, and how much part of you wanted to hear it. But even in that moment we can see a tension between nostalgia and story. Dan Aykroyd and Ernie Hudson give us readings that sound like older versions of their characters, Murray gives us a reading that feels like he's had the 1984 Venkman stored in a box the whole time, waiting for one more chance to shine. 

I would argue that Afterlife understands the origins of Ghostbusters more than any other spin-off -save for a few stand out episodes of the 80's cartoon- in grounding the story firmly into the Lovecraft and theosophy that so inspired Aykroyd. It's important to know he really believes in this stuff. Even the name Gozer wasn't plucked out of thin air, it came from a paranormal case in the 70's. Aykroyd crafted a story intended to mainstream a lot of ideas he grew up reading about. And he succeeded wildly. It's very much a story of the old ones trying to return, and plays into the secret sauce that Ghostbusters was never really all that much about ghosts, so much as a battle against demons and interlopers from a dark dimension. Ackroyd's deep sincerity was then buried away beneath layers of comedy and irony, from some of the best improvisors in the business. Afterlife isn't anywhere near as effective as a comedy, but it doesn't necessarily need to be. A second key ingredient is friendship. The 1984 film is powered by friendship, both on and off screen. For Afterlife Reitman keeps this element and encodes it into the very 80's-nostalgia-tinged story of a group of small town friends, misfit children who find each other. There's also the smart decision that these kids don't know about what happened in 1984. It's the generation above them who are defined by nostalgia. I'm tempted to find a knowing comment on nostalgia and reboots in that decision, and it makes me wonder if I'll come to reappraise the film over time, and find extra layers to appreciate.

But it's with a third element of the original that Reitman perhaps made the largest misstep for my own tastes. And it's the very heart of the movie. 

Two of the most important characters from the 1984 original, from a character sense, are Egon and Winston. Neither of them get the pop-culture glory of Venkman or the spooky bona fides of Ray, but Winston is just an average working guy who rolls with every change thrown his way, manages to never be out of his depth, and helps save the world. Egon, by contrast, is so clearly out his depth and scared shitless from the ballroom on upwards, and yet keeps going, is the first to recognise each danger, and provides the key information to save the day. 

Afterlife was dealt a tough card, in the sad passing of Harold Ramis. There are only so many ways to handle having a key legacy character missing, especially one who was secretly so important to the success of the original. Reitman takes the decision to frame the whole film as a love letter to Egon. On the surface, this is a good move. The story is driven by his decisions, characters are defined largely by his absence, and we get some very sweet emotional payoffs in the closing moments. 

However, it's also this decision that ultimately leaves a bad taste. Egon is an absentee father. Okay, nobody is perfect and there's always room to explore that fallibility through legacy characters. But in choosing to do that through Egon, the character who is also being feted by the story, we are left being asked to accept that his absenteeism was something noble, something heroic, and in the final scenes we are asked to forget the lifetime of trauma and pain in one embrace between Egon's ghost and his daughter. Ultimately, in my own view, this does a disservice to Egon and weakens the film. 

Will that bad taste last as I get more distance from the movie? Only time will tell. For now I think it's a film that remains trapped holding a conversation with it's own past, and the many smart decisions can't rise it above the bad ones. 

Did the Exodus from Egypt happen? Were the Hebrews always monotheistic?

My long-term reader might know I develop mini-obsessions. In the search for future book ideas I’ve done deep-dive research into the modern hoax of Bigfoot, the history of alien abduction stories, the identity of Robin Hood and the historicity of King Arthur. Ultimately I’ve been on a journey to figure out what drives myth. And what does truth mean when it comes to these myths? I’ve come to the conclusion that ‘truth’ is a misleading term when it comes to myth. Literal truth as we tend to mean it -i.e., was there a man named Arthur who had a magic sword and rode around ancient Britain?-is irrelevant. Myths are stories we tell about who we are. As a true, a family, a nation. We encode messages into them that give us identity and meaning. So the truth of a myth lies in the people who first told it. What are they trying to tell us about themselves?

Something else I’ve learned along the way is that all of the fields are rife with misinformation. Blogs or YouTube channels with religious or political agendas. often pretending to be ‘reasonable people asking reasonable questions.’ Arthurian ‘research’ is -and always has been- a hotbed of political identity with some nationalistic undertones. This is raised to a whole new level with my latest deep-dive. The exodus. As ever, look for the agenda. Look for the pattern of who is saying these things, and why. Some people need the Exodus (and Conquest) to be literally true because they need the bible to be literally tue. Some need it to be completely untrue because of a similar bias in the opposite direction. Some need there to be at least large grains of truth in order to justify Israel’s existence as a modern state. Others on the opposite side of that political divide need it to be completely untrue in order to illegitimate Israel. And you can never be entirely sure if you are accidentally taking one of those positions by listening to the wrong person with the wrong bias. So, as with some of my other little obsessions, I’m spilling my thoughts out here in as organised a way as I can. 

 

ARCHEOLOGY SAYS IT DIDN’T HAPPEN

 

This right here is a red flag. One of the most common memes on the internet and YouTube ‘debate’ videos is the notion that archaeology and faith are in opposition on this subject. It ties into the larger pattern of being anti-science and anti-facts that has led us to where we are. Giving us something to resell against, questioning the wisdom of experts. Except, this idea isn’t true. Sure, you can find some archaeologists who will say it didn’t happen at all, and you can find many religious fundamentalists who will say it happened exactly as written, but the truth is, as ever, somewhere in the large space between those two. Scholars are open to the idea of some basis for the story, and can even make varied cases for how and when. Archaeology is a science. It boils down to things for which proof has been found, and things for which proof hasn’t been found. And yes, there isn’t proof for an event to have happened exactly as written. But that’s not the same thing as saying the event itself didn’t happen. Archaeology, as a science, is an ever evolving field, with new information being discovered and accepted each decade. 

Something that is true of archaeology is that, by and large, the exodus isn’t all that important a question right now. The more people have excavated and researched, the more they have unearthed a deep and complex history in the region, of different cultures rising and falling, of settlements migrating between lowlands and highlands, of possible ties to climate change and…in all honesty this becomes far more fascinating than focusing on one event that may or may not be mythic. Archaeology may well someday prove the exodus, but if so it will come as a byproduct of other research into the region, not as the cause.

THE BIBLICAL DATE IS 1446 BCE

 

Here is another common meme. The date off the exodus is usually broken down to two key dates. 1446 BCE or 1260(ish) BCE. These are known as the early and late dates. 1446 is often argued to be the biblical date. This comes from the book of Kings, where Solomon is said to have started building his temple in the fourth year of his reign, 480 years after the exodus. And, since we know roughly when Solomon was supposed to have reigned, we can work backwards to circa 1446. However, this is based on the modern translation of the bible. The much older Greek version -the Septuagint- gives the number as 440 years. Which would mean 1406 bce. And this is based just on the numbers given. If we look at the places and names mentioned in the bible, we have to start looking later. The narrative tells us that the Hebrew slaves built Pi-Ramses and Pithom. (The notion that the slaves built the pyramids is not biblical - the pyramids are never mentioned - and all but the most fringe of historical theorists accept that any exodus period would have been a millennia after the pyramids.) While the identity of the latter is still debated, general consensus has long accepted that the former was the capital city of Ramses II, and we know where it was. The site has been excavated. This is the key information for proponents of the late date, and they are being just as “biblical” as fans of the early date. I would add two further biblical complications that seem to come up less often. First is that Moses is said to have performed his miracles in the fields of Zoan. And second is that the Israelites didn’t take the easiest route to the promised land -the coastal road- because they wanted to avoid the Philistines. Zoan is generally -and probably correctly- equated with Tanis, which was a city built a century after Ramses II, into the 21st Dynasty. Tanis was used as the new capital once the Nile silted up and rerouted away from Pi-Ramses. Many of the monuments and bricks from Pi-Ramses -and the nearby ruined city of Avaris- were used in the building of Tanis. We could be liberal with the phrasing and accept that the fields of Zoan mean in the region that later became the city, which still allows for the 1260(ish) date. However, the Philistines weren’t in place during Ramses II’s reign. By all general current archaeological consensus, the Philistines were one of the Sea Peoples, a loose confederation of displaced people who attacked Egypt a number of times during the twentieth and twenty-first Dynasty, and who Ramses III claimed to have “settled” in Canaan. And so, still being biblical, if the fleeing Hebrews had to avoid the Philistines, then we’re looking at an even later date. Around the time of the Bronze Age collapse. Away from the bible - let’s not forget this is a Jewish story at heart - there is a Rabbinical tradition placing the event around 1310 bce. I don’t think this fits into any larger pattern, but it’s always worth a mention.

BUT THIS IS ALL BASED ON THE BIBLE.

All of the above comes from reading the bible. Not from archeology, not from history, not from the other city states or nations of the region. And on the subject of the bible, we need to take a quick look at another topic of misinformation.

THE DOCUMENTARY HYPOTHESIS.

What is the documentary hypothesis? If you listen to many Christian apologists, documentaries, or YouTube shows, you will be told the hypothesis is out of style or discredited. This is completely untrue. The hypothesis is still the accepted consensus view among all serious scholars of the biblical text. There may be variations and disagreements about some of the specifics, but not the broad strokes. Loosely speaking, it’s the idea that the Old Testament was stitched together from four separate sources. J, E, D and P. There is a lot of evidence behind this, and it’s a good idea to check out the work of both Richard Elliot Friedman and Joel Baden. For now I’ll just oversimplify to say that J and E are possibly dated to around the same time but possibly written separately in the north and south kingdoms, whereas D and P were written later. The general academic consensus is that these sources were stitched together either during the Babylonian exhale or at some point afterwards. There is evidence that a community of Israelites went in the opposite direction during the exile and settled on Elephantine Island in Egypt, and from papyri they left behind we see suggestions they were still polytheistic and also had no awareness of the existence of the Torah. This backs up the idea that the Torah was formed in Babylon or much later back in Canaan. Further, as Dr Yonatan Adler has shown, archaeologically there is no (current) proof of the Torah being observed on a large scale before the third century BCE. Which puts all the previous talk of biblical dates into new context. If ALL of Israel was in slavery in Egypt until wither 1446 or 1260 BCE, and were then given the rules of the Torah, how come there is no proof of those rules being followed for a further century?

 

SO WHAT DOES ARCHEOLOGY TELL US?

 

First I’d like to stay on the subject of Egypt. 

 

OKAY, SMART-ARSE, WHAT DOES EGYPTOLOGY TELL US?

 

There is nothing in the records of Egypt -as yet discovered- that says “the Hebrews were here and left on X date.” That’s not necessarily a problem if the people who became Hebrews were not called that while they were in Egypt, but it is a wrinkle. What we do get from Egyptology are lots of small tantalizing pieces of a puzzle that doesn’t fit together neatly. First, the item most-often mentioned at this point is the Merneptah Stele. A monument to the victory of Pharoah Merneptah -son of Ramses II- over the first group Sea People. Right at the end of his list of defeated groups is the first generally accepted mention of Israel. Though the way it is written suggests a people, rather than a place. This stele dates to around 1206 bce, and so many argue that this is the latest date we can assign to the exodus. In effect, the argument goes, whenever the exodus happened it must have been long enough before 1206 bce that the Hebrews can have settled and become known as Israel. However, on the face of it all this stele proves is that a people named Israel were known to Egypt in 1206 BCE. And as we have seen, the kingdoms ofIsrael and Judah were not necessarily united, and were not observing the Torah. Plainly speaking, they were not Jews. Not yet. So these people Merneptah bragged about defeating could have been any one of the polytheistic tribes of the north, not yet coming together under Yahweh. Two other interesting pieces come in the form of names. From inscriptions dating back to the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty we can find mentions of Shasu -the word meaning foreign, and believed to be given to nomads living in the Negev, the Sinai and around the area that later became Petra. We also see numerous mentions of nomadic people called the Apiru or Habiru. That last word seems interesting in this context, right?  Habiru…Hebrew? Sure. But be careful. Much of the internet’s pseudo-history is based on equating things that sound similar. It’s just as dangerous as seeing two different cultures building pyramids - the only way to make a stable tall structure in the time before iron girders - and decide they must have gotten the idea from the same place. Sometimes things just sound the same. Especially in a region where so many of the languages co-existed and fed into each other. And sometimes civilisations who are thousands of miles apart can apply the same common-sense engineering principles.

The Shasu and Apiru appear to be two different groups of people, possibly originating in different parts of Canaan. There is evidence from elsewhere across Canaan and the Middle East of people who encountered the Apiru/Habiru, but fewer mentions of the Shasu. Both groups are known to have been enslaved by Egypt. Pharoahs including Thutmose III, Amenhotep III, Horemheb, Sety I and Ramses II are known from records to have taken thousands of prisoners from these tribes and turned them into slaves. 

One of the most interesting mentions of the Shasu comes in a list dated to the reign of Amenhotep III -inscribed somewhere around 1406 bce- listing the ‘Shasu of YWH.’ So, although the name Israel doesn’t appear in Egyptian records for a further 150-plus years, we have a mention of their god. Proponents of the early date will argue this inscription is proof that exodus had already happened by the date, and that the Hebrews were simply known as the Shasu until some time later. Their case would appear to be supported by the timing. 1406 is 40 years after 1446, and this would fit the years of wandering described in the bible. If this version is true, then we’re simply looking for the time and reason that ‘Shasu’ became ‘Israel.’

Proponents of the late date will say this is simply proof that YWH was already extant. Indeed, the recent scholarly consensus is that YWH was a god in the Edomite/Midianite region predating the foundation of Israel. The bible itself talks of YWH coming out of Edom, or from the region of Mount Seir. To backers of the late date, this is simply proof that YWH pre-existed the exodus.

The last record of the Apiru that I’ve been able to locate so far -and please, as ever, remember I’m not qualified in this field- dates to the third regnal year of Ramses IV, which would be somewhere just before 1150 bce. Way after even the late date. But not all that long before the building of Tanis in the fields of Zoan.

 

OKAY. NOW CAN WE TALK ABOUT ARCHEOLOGY?

 

Sure. But remember this is a huge field and I can’t cover everything in a blog post. Broadly speaking, it’s fair to say that archaeology has been finding that the tribes of Israel were native to Canaan. Dr Israel Finkelstein has covered this extensively. There is proof of both the northern kingdom of Israel, and the southern kingdom of Judah existing prior to the Babylonian exile, but nothing conclusive to show they were ever the united monarchy of David and Solomon. No proof of Solomon has been found, but there are a few (disputed, but also widely accepted) mentions of the house of David engraved in steles dating to the correct period. There are scholars of ancient Hebrew such as Joel Baden who make a good argument for the existence of David based on textual analysis. To boil his argument down: the book of Samuel goes to great lengths to absolve David of any wrongdoing. All of his political or religious enemies die, but Samuel assures us David had nothing to do with it and it was all God’s doing. So, Baden argues, why go to all that trouble? If David was entirely fictional there would be no need to provide alibi or absolution, the author simply wouldn’t write the crimes in the first place. Because Samuel seems to be engaging in a form of political spin in favour of David, this suggests David was a real person who needed that spin. It’s entirely possible David and Solomon existed and ruled in Judah, but without being the larger united monarchy of the bible. And they weren’t monotheistic. At least not in the way we tend to mean. There were multiple gods, but people would tend to favour their local deity. Even within the bible we see the vestigial traces of polytheism. Yahweh had a wife, Asherah, and sat at the head of a divine council. I.e, a council of other gods. Or…was it even Yahweh? Early on in the narrative the deity goes by the names El or Elohim, and reveals his true name at the burning bush. This change of name was one of the first clues on the road to the documentary hypothesis. Why would god change his name? (I’m using he/his purposefully Yahweh in his early form was very male.) It’s now generally accepted among scholars that El/Elohim was a god in the northern kingdom, and Yahweh was either a lesser god in a pantheon, or a national god of a southern tribe who was later made into THE god when the Torah was pieced together following the exile.

A question worth asking here is, if the Israelites were already in Canaan, why would the exodus need to happen? Could it be that the Israelites were always there, but Yahweh wasn’t?

However, archaeology does provide some interesting information. Back over in Egypt, as already stated, Thutmoses III and Amenhotep III claimed to have taken thousands of prisoners from Canaan. Professor Israel Finkelstein (who, in fairness, it should be mentioned is one of the people who believe the exodus is a myth) shows that the population of the Canaanite highlands decreased massively during the middle-to-late Bronze Age, and then rose rapidly at the start of the Iron Age. The Iron Age increase is by a factor of three. A huge surge. And many of the settlements were new – in other words they were not built on the ruins of previous sites. Many of the sites that did reoccupy previous settlements appear to be of a new culture.

Somewhere around 1177 bce the Bronze Age ended, as all of the most powerful and advanced civilizations encountered a form of systems collapse at the same time, likely the cumulative result of climate change, warfare, famine, and the Sea People invasions. What generalization can we take from this? Well, we can say that something happened to decimate the Canaanite population during the Bronze Age -which matches up exactly to the time the Pharaohs of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasties were waging war and taking slaves- and then something happened at the start of the Iron Age to create a surge in the population of Canaan right around the time Egypt was collapsing. Is that proof for the exodus? Of course not. It’s always important to remember that evidence that fits isn’t automatically evidence that proves. But the date does fit quite nicely if we begin looking for the event to have happened even later than the ‘late date’, caused by the Bronze Age collapse. Though it’s also possible to think the surge in population in the Canaanite highlands was simply driven by people fleeing the coastal cities after the arrival of the Philistines, who appear to have come from the Aegean.

 

THE MIDIAN PROBLEM

 

The biblical account tells us that Moses lived in exile in Midian for a time. (40 years in the text, but I’m not focused on the numbers.) This is important because it’s there that he first encounters YWH, on a mountain either in Midianite territory, or within pastoral sheep herding range of Midianite territory. Moses is married into a Midianite family, with his father-in-law (referred to by many different names, including Jethro) said to be a priest. And its from here that he travels back to Egypt with the mission to free ‘his’ people. But why is this in the story? It’s a thorny extra detail. A convoluted plot. The story already features a group of people from one placed displaced into slavery in a second location, who then move back to the first location. Why add in a third place? Why have YWH introduced to us via Midian, rather than having the god of the Israelites be hailing from…Israel? When it comes to making up the story from scratch, it’s a mess. It’s exactly the kind of mess that, to me, suggests there’s a true event in here somewhere. The Midian connection survives because it’s true, and therefore important.

The exact location of Midian is still debated. Some place it firmly on the coast of the Arabian Peninsula. Some place it a little further north, around the top of the Gulf of Aqaba. Archeology sort-of supports both right now, leading the notion that it was perhaps a nomadic group of people, or a large territory made up of loosely connected tribes. Archeologists have found pottery that they ascribe to the Midianites in the Timna Valley, but this is still up for debate, with some saying the pottery should be Nabatean or Edomite. (The Nabatean’s are people who moved into the area after the Midianites moved further north, and come much too late to be involved in this story to be linked to the Exodus, though they did leave us the beautiful carved city of Petra.)

As I mentioned above, we have those records of the Shasu of YWH. Inscriptions bearing the name YWH have been found in the Negev desert, which is further north and while I don’t want to suggest the Midianites made it that far north in great numbers, I would add in the idea that perhaps there is a link between the ‘Shasu of YWH’ and the Midianites. The exact wording of the inscription is debated, but most consensus seems to settle on it referring to the people of an area, rather than the people of a god. An area named YWH? Perhaps a name that was later given to their god as they migrated away from their homeland? We know that Egypt called people Shasu, and we know the bible called people Midianties, but can we find or discount a connection between them? We’ve already seen that worship of YWH seems to originate in this region, whereas further north in Canaan -especially around what would become the northern Kingdom of Israel- evidence of early worship seems to be rooted more in El.

 

WHAT WAS THAT BIT ABOUT THE TIMNA VALLEY?

 

Here’s a detail I find interesting. Timna was the home to copper mining for both the Egyptians, the Israelites, and for people in-between that may or may not have been the Midianites or Nabateans. The location of Mount Horeb/Sinai is endlessly debated, and the traditional Christian location is Jebel Musa in the Sinai Peninsula. I would argue that the location isn’t important. Horeb wasn’t where Yahweh lived. It was simply where he appeared. Coming from somewhere else to reveal himself to the wanderers. Yahweh then travelled with the Hebrews, appearing in the holy shrine of the Tabernacle. All the arguments over the location of Mount Horeb really boil down to finding a place where a god may or may not have briefly rested, after travelling from one place, and continuing on to another place.

However, the location does seem important to people. And the Timnah Valley copper mines highlight an important detail in this search. The traditional Christian site is Jebel Mussa in the Sinai Peninsula. But throughout the New kingdom of Egypt -covering both the early and late dates- the Sinai was Egyptian territory. It’s not until the Bronze Age collapse that we see Egypt’s border shrink back westward across the Sinai. This needn’t be a problem if you believe whole cloth in the parting of the Red Sea, and also believe that the Pharaoh and his army were drowned. If that happened, then the fugitives would be free to spend as much time as they want worshipping at a holy mountain in the Sinai, because nobody is left to chase them. But if you find yourself looking for a more naturalistic version of events (and the original Hebrew version off the story had the Hebrews crossing the Yam Suph, which is Sea of Reeds rather than Sea of Red, which could indicate any of the large tidal marshy lakes that used to exist east of the Nile Delta before the Suez Canal) then you also find yourself looking for a Mount Horeb that was outside of Egyptian territory, beyond the reach of any surviving army or Pharoah. I’m more persuaded to find Horeb/Sinai in the mountains just beyond the Sinai, in the area Egypt never fully controlled. Which just happens to be the area that could have been Midian, and could also have been the home of the Shasu.

The Timnah Valley is something of a gray area in this regard. At the height of Egypts powers the valley -and its copper mines- were the edge of Egyptian territory. As soon as their power started to fade, during the reign of Ramses III, the valley became contested. Archaeologists have uncovered a shrine to Hathor at the foot of Mount Timna, near the mines. They have also found that the shine was destroyed by whoever occupied the site immediately after Egypt, and these new inhabitants placed a tent over the site instead. That is…a group of people living in the desert east of Egypt had a tent shrine at the foot of a mountain. They have also found a bronze snake. Moses was said to have created a bronze snake. But archaeology doesn’t tend to link this site with the Hebrews because the tent shrine dates to the mid twelfth century (near 1150bce), a hundred years after even the traditional late date exodus of Rameses II.

A MOVEMENT OF THE PEOPLE

 

An interesting development has come in the form of a theory put forwards by Professor Richard Elliot Freidman, who argues that the exodus is historical, but not as a migration of the whole nation of Israel. He argues -and he’s an expert on the bible and biblical Hebrew- that the Levite tribe of the narrative have Egyptian names, whereas members of the other tribes of Israel don’t. He points to similarities between the tabernacle and the war tent of Ramses as additional proof that there is a connection between Jewish tradition and Egypt. The Levites were effectively the overseers of the Jewish traditions. They were not allowed an area of land, as the other tribes of Israel and Judah were. Instead they were present in each city, taking a tithe and overseeing religious practice and the sacrifice of animals. They were the priests who handled the Ark and guarded the temple. Both Moses and Aaron were Levites. The earliest mentions of Aaron as the brother of Moses can be read as members of a brotherhood, not necessarily a blood relation. Professor Freidman also points to an interesting clue in the oldest surviving texts from the bible – the Song of Miriam and the Song of Deborah. The Song of Miriam is an account of the crossing of the reed sea. Quite literally a reference to the exodus. But it does not mention Israel. On the other hand, the song of Deborah lists the tribes of Israel who answered the call to join battle at Megiddo, and it doesn’t mention the Levites. So on the one hand a mention of the exodus that doesn’t mention Israel, and on the other a list of Israelite tribes that doesn’t mention the Levites. Both of these texts can be dated -via details in the narratives and a study of the Hebrew language used (Hebrew, like any language, has evolved, and the time in which any given text was written can be dated in the same way we can date Latin or English texts) to somewhere near the end of the twelfth century bce or very early in the eleventh. For people who find these phrases as confusing as me, that means somewhere in the low 1100’s or high 1000’s. Professor Friedman argues that this is because the two narratives were not yet linked. The Levites were leaving Egypt, and the tribes of Israel were extant in Canaan. 

 

BUT YOU SAID ISRAEL WAS KNOWN IN 1206 BCE?

 

Well, yes. And it should be noted that we have begun to shift from a fairly clean set of historical views into more of a realm of speculation and educated guesses. But here’s the thing. The Merneptah Stele is proof that a people known as Israel were known, but nothing more than that. Anything more we read into it -in either direction- is still guesswork. Professor Friedman’s theory is that this should be taken literally. That there were people of Israel in Israel, but that the Stele has nothing at all to do with an exodus. 

If we can briefly remove ourselves from the simplified pop-culture narrative of a whole people being enslaved, then freeing themselves from enslavement, and of their god revealing themself on a mountain before the whole nation moved into the promised land, we can start to see a version of history that might actually be supported by history

What do we know so far? There were nomadic tribes called the Shasu and the Apiru/Habiru. Some of these Shasu were identified with YWH by around 1400 bce. Over a period of two hundred years multiple Pharoah’s took both Shasu and Habiru as slaves, not all in one go but in numerous raids. The Hebrews are credited with building two cities that were built (or rebuilt) during the reign of Ramses II. By the time if Rameses’ son, Merneptah, there people known as Israel in Canaan. Around 1177bce the Bronze Age collapse was setting in, the Philistines were living on the coast of Canaan, and the Canaanite Highlands had a massively reduced population. The events of both the songs of Miriam and Deborah can be dated to the low 1100’s or high 1000’s, at around a time when the Canaanite Highlands were experiencing a population surge. Somewhere between 1177 and the writing of these texts there were destructions at both Megiddo and Hazor. 

I’ll call back an extra detail here. The last (that I know of) mention of the Apiru in Egyptian texts are in the third  regnal year of Ramses IV -during whose reign the collapse of Egypt really set in- when 800 Apiru are listed as part of a quarrying project in the Sinai. Ramses IV dies around 1150 bce. His father, Ramses III, is the last (currently) known Pharoah to have control over Timnah Valley, and during R-IV’s reign is when Egyptian territory started to fall back westwards. Also the first known industrial strike in history took place during Ramses III’s reign, with the workers at Dier El-Medina refusing to work until they were provided with food. So….an unhappy workforce, right in the place where we need to be finding an unhappy workforce.

What do I speculate on top of what we know?

In line with Professor Friedman, I think the exodus happened, but to a smaller group. I think the peoples who became known as the northern tribes of Israel were already in Canaan. A key detail from the Song of Deborah is that -unless I’m mistaken- all of the tribes mentioned are from the northern area. Benjamin could be an arguable point, but Judah and Simeon are missing along with the Levites. So if we can remove the need to find a BIBLICALLY ACCURATE EXODUS and look at the evidence on the ground, we can see a possible narrative forming involving the indigenous tribes in the north, who were known to Mernaptah. Sometimes smaller tribes, sometimes united, sometimes at war with each other, sometimes on better terms.

Once the Bronze Age collapse set in two things started to happen. In Canaan, people started to move around and form newer settlements as the old ones collapsed, leading to the destruction layers at some of the cities. Hazor and Megiddo were taken during this period. While in Egypt, amid the unrest and weakening monarchy, a long drought had set in, and a new sense of identity and fresh statehood was being stoked by seeing people like the Philistines successfully take land in Canaan. This atmosphere led to the uprising that became known as the Exodus. Possibly violent, possibly peaceful.

I think the Midianite connection in the narrative exists because the exodus was originally of Midianite shasu, who went home to Yahweh’s territory. Just beyond the reach of the fading Egyptian empire on the western edge of the Sinai. Either immediately taking control of the Timnah Valley, or heading further up into the mountains and then heading back into Timnah as the Egyptians pulled out. They worshipped Yahweh in a tent shrine they erected over the ruins of the Egyptian Hathor site.

Over time this group then headed north up through the mountains and established a presence in early Judah, with Yahweh as part of the overall Canaanite pantheon. By the time of the Babylonian exile Yahwism had gained significant influence in the larger cities, and the gods of the northern tribes had faded in influence as the tribes own positions weakened. And then during the time of exile -or in the immediate aftermath of the return- the Yahweh priests stitched together the Torah in such a way to place their god as the only one -or the only important one.

It’s worth pointing out the repeating motif from Genesis up to the second temple period (after the exile) is of people not following Yahweh. Time and time again we see stories of people being killed, exiled, enslaved or punished. Even the exile itself is written as a punishment dealt out by Yahweh for his people not following his laws. Putting this against the backdrop of the historical context, it would seem a simple conclusion to me that we are looking at the post-exile mindset, and a rewriting off history to say “this is what happens when you don’t follow the right god, follow him now.” It’s national myth, political policy, and history all stitched together into something akin to the United States constitution. In effect for a United States of Israel.

Jericho remains a sticking point in this theory. The destruction layer doesn’t fit at all. But I’m happy just to call this out as something that doesn’t fit, rather than try to bend my ideas to make it all work. The same applies to the period of Judges. It’s not a neat fit. Not yet, anyway. But not everything needs to fit seamlessly. Life is complicated and weird. History is full of Rashomon. Myth is story, it;’s identity, and looking for exact 1:1 ‘truth’ in myth is a waste of time. Perhaps there was a David and Solomon, perhaps there wasn’t. Perhaps there was a united monarchy, perhaps there wasn’t. Our national myths evolve over time, taking in different events throughout history and slowly merging them inti a unifying story. Not every American can trace their ancestry back to the pilgrims of Thanksgiving. In fact, almost none can. But over time -over a relatively short time of a couple hundred years- Thanksgiving became the important foundational ‘myth’ of America, celebrated at the same time every year. By the same token, I believe though the exodus was undertaken by one or two tribes rather than all of Israel, the story grew into the foundational myth for the whole nation, celebrated at the same time every year. 

TL:DR?

I do think there was a historical event behind the exodus story. But for a much smaller group of people, and not the entire nation of Israel, which can be seen archaeologically to have grown in place in Canaan. I think the current academic consensus is correct that what we see as Judaism today was created after the Babylonian exile, and that previous to this time Yahweh was one of a pantheon of Canaanite gods who get over time to be the head of the table. I’me sceptical that the pre-exile United Monarchy ever existed, but very open to the idea that David and Solomon were historical figures in the south, from tribes who worshipped Yahweh in the area that later became Judah.

Nuno Had A Dream.

There will never be another manager like Nuno at Wolverhampton Wanderers.

But maybe the time was right for a change?

It’s hard to roll my memory back to 2017. To imagine the time before the Nuno revolution. Such is the impact he had on the club. We are an established Premier League team. We’ve been within ten minutes of an FA Cup Final, and to the Quarter Final of a European competition. We’ve beaten Manchester United, Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea, and Arsenal. We’ve had three years of João Moutinho -one of the best midfielders in the game- wearing our shirt. And arguably, but for one bizarre handball decision that derailed the club’s momentum and confidence, Wolves could have qualified for the Champions League in 2020.

And all this in four years.

Which makes it even harder to remember the before times. The season leading up to Nuno’s arrival, when the club were almost sleepwalking into another relegation to the third tier, under a manager who seemed to think mentioning that he had won the European Cup whenever a microphone was out in front of him was an adequate substitute for coaching the team. When we were a perennial second-tier team whose biggest transfer ambitions tended revolve around whether we could sign a target man from Derby County or a tricky winger from Blackpool.

It’s worth remembering, for all the good will Nuno earned, that he also came in at exactly the right time to earn it. And that’s why there will never be another manager like him. After the rollercoaster years of Steve Morgan, the nightmare of the bomb squad, the bitterness of certain departed players, the penny-pinching of Jez Moxey. At a time too when Fosun, newly minted owners of the club, were willing and able to bring in players way to good for that division. Ruben Neves, Willy Boly, and Diogo Jota in the Championship? Insanity. Filth. And most of all, a time when the club were pulled together as a family around the terrible news that our goalkeeper Carl Ikeme had been diagnosed with leukaemia. A leader was needed, and a leader was found.

Nuno walked in with something the fans hadn’t seen in a lifetime. An ethos. A philosophy. “Make our ideas bigger than theirs,” he said, as he imposed a 343 system that felt light years ahead of anything else in the division. And with the quality of players the team had, it was an exciting attacking, approach. Players like Ivan Cavaleiro, Diogo Jota and Helder Costa able to run through defences at will, and Ruben Neves given all the time and space in the world to fire thirty-yard passes around the pitch or score disgustingly great long-range goals.

Nuno had a dream, the song goes. And I had a dream, too. Football in my youth was two different things, and they never really met each other. On the one hand it was the ritual and routine of following Wolves. A local thing. Across the lower leagues. Watching cult heroes of varying ability, and the occasional stand-out baller. On the other, it was about watching the beautiful game on television. A teenager of the 90’s, I got to see Eric Cantona, Matt LeTissier, Hristo Stoichkov, Dennis Bergkamp. And a few years later, possibly my favourite of the lot, Francesco Totti. Footballers with guile, and attitude, and the magic of showmen.

I came to realise, on some level, that these two versions of football needed to remain separate, because my Wolves simply didn’t ever play that kind of football, or use that kind of footballer. We dabbled with it in the form of Robbie Keane, but were put back in our place pretty quickly when he was sold to Coventry. Coventry. I mean you no offence, Sky Blues. But when a team’s most gifted player of the last thirty years is sold to Coventry as a step up…well, there’s just no way to walk that one off and pretend not to be embarrassed.

And sure, we had some success. Dave Jones got us up. And Mick McCarthy then also got us up, with a team that were a lot of fun to watch and very easy to support. But even in this era, we had to embrace the idea that ‘putting a shift in’ was the main sign of a good team. A brand of football that was all about eleven men carrying a piano up ten flights of stairs, only for it to sit unplayed at the top, because nobody knows how and they’re all too tired to try. I loved McCarthy’s Wolves, but it was the love of someone who knew he was never going to get a better version. There were better versions out there, they just weren't meant for me.

So Nuno probably had it easy. He rocked up with his dream and his ethos, we played good football, and the neutrals started to love us. Us. Wolves. One of the least fashionable teams in the history of unfashionable teams. The ultimate “we used to be big, ask your grandad” team. We were suddenly…playing football? Like, actual football. That primal version that looks equally great when done by kids on the local park or by Barcelona at the Camp Nou, but always seems to lose some of it’s magic at any stage in-between.

It wasn’t my dream football. Not really. Because there was no magical, impish, beguiling number 10 floating into spaces and doing magic tricks. But it was still something pretty special.

And João Moutinho. Maybe this blog post just needs to be that name repeated a thousand times. João Fucking Moutinho. I swear, I don’t know what I did right in a previous life, but I must have been some kind of saint, because João Moutinho played for my team.

But it’s four years later now, and Nuno’s been sacked. Well, he left by mutual consent. Because it is technically mutual if your employer asks you to leave and you say “okay.” And I was heartbroken for a week. Angry, even. Part of me still is.

See, the one thing I will never forgive football fans for from the pandemic era is the bizarre attempt to pretend there was no pandemic. Sure, the world was on the verge of collapse, people were dying, economies were collapsing, and the mental health of just about everyone on the planet was taking a battering. But in world football, fans were determined to analyse player performances as if nothing was wrong. As if a bad run of form was actually a bad run of form, and not long-covid. As if a manager’s moody demeanour was a lack of commitment and not a clear and blatant mental health crisis. Nuno saw his wife and kids about three times between June 2020 and May 2021. The rest of the time he was either at work beside a football pitch, or locked down in a flat in Wolverhampton. The same for his staff. Their families were in another country, and travel between the two was banned. Ruben Neves missed the birth of his third child. Well, he didn’t miss it exactly. He saw the birth via a zoom call, sitting on the team coach after an away trip to Crystal Palace, when all the fans were demanding to know why he’d been left on the bench. His pregnant wife was in Portugal. He didn’t get to meet the baby for two months, because of travel bans. And during that time, he still had to turn up to work and smile and kick a ball and look fully committed to the cause, even if that cause was the reason he was stuck in a different country to his wife.

And this whole time, fans are getting angry, and questioning commitment, and turning on Nuno. Because that’s what football fans do. And whenever this is mentioned, they dismiss it as a problem. I suspect because, deep down, they know to accept the pandemic was a factor in Wolves’s bad season is also to accept they were turning on good people who needed our support. Football fans - much like people on the political right- are all about personal accountability until it comes to actually accepting any. I’ll need to see if time heals this wound, but right now I’m not sure I’ll ever like football fans the way I used to. I still love football. But want very little to do with its fans.

And yet.

And yet.

When it comes to personal accountability, have I allowed my loyalty to Nuno to cloud over genuine problems? Have I allowed my anger over the fan’s approach to the pandemic distract me from other genuine concerns?

Probably.

With some dust settled and some hindsight settling in, it’s possible to view Nuno’s reign in two stages.

Stage one was all the champagne and attacking football and a team who simply never knew when to quit. A team who didn’t care if they were 2-0 down to the reigning champions because they still had three goals in their boots. A team that could go down to nine men away from home and win a crucial game. A team that could concede two penalties in stoppage time in the most important game of the season and still not concede. (Seriously, that Cardiff game is the most amazing three minutes of football drama you will ever see.)

But as these good times rolled, there were the occasional lingering questions of….why did we give that team a two goal head start? Why did we seem to look like the best team in the league for 45 minutes, rather than one of the best teams in the league for 90?

And why did we become increasingly defensive?

Looking at all the money Wolves have invested in players during Nuno’s reign, one thing is clear: They were not investing in clean sheets. Ruben Neves, Diogo Jota, Pedro Goncalves, Raul Jimenez, Rafa Mir, Patrick Cutrone, Pedro Neto, Rayan Ait-Nouri, Vitinha, Adama Traore, Daniel Podence and Fabio Silva. Added to existing attacking players such as Morgan Gibbs-White, Ivan Cavaleiro, Helder Costa and Conor Ronan. Consistently throughout Nuno’s tenure at the club, Fosun opened the purse strings to bring in attacking exciting creative players. And yet, as Nuno’s time came to a close, one if the clearest issues was a dire lack of creativity in the team.

Pedro Goncalves this season elevated Sporting to the league title in Portugal, and is being linked with a move back to England for over fifty million pounds. Not bad for a player who was sold by Wolves for a couple million when he didn’t fit into Nuno’s system. Rafa Mir has just scored 16 goals in La Liga, in a team who got relegated. Imagine what he could have done in a better team? Or…in a Wolves shirt. Diogo Jota has been ripping it up for Liverpool, when he’d fallen down to third or fourth choice at Wolves. Patrick Cutrone, one of Italy’s brightest young talents before singing for Wolves, is now a grumpy misfit wherever he goes. Costa and Cavaleiro are both long gone. Morgan Gibbs-White gets about five cameos a season. Conor Ronan was sent out on loan to Switzerland. Vitinha, one of the most promising and exciting midfielders in youth football, spent most of the season warming the bench, even while playing starring roles in international games.

Now, in each of these cases, in isolation, a case can be made for Nuno making the right decision. And I know this, because I’ve backed him through each of them. But it would be foolish to ignore the larger pattern at work. To return to an earlier metaphor -or was it a simile?- Nuno had a coach full of skilled piano players, but he kept asking them to carry the damn thing up and down stairs.

And so now I’m left with the vague and unsettling idea that maybe the club did the right thing, at the right time, but also at the wrong time. There can be no denying the effect the pandemic had on the club, the players, and the manager. Over and above any and all great things they did for us on the pitch, we must all always honour and remember them for continuing to turn up to work and try to carry our club at a time when they all had better places to be, and at a time when turning up for Wolves was actively putting their health at risk and keeping them from their loved ones. It’s always going to leave a bad taste that the era ended this way, at this time, off the back of this pandemic. I’m always going to feel like Nuno deserved better.

But putting all of that aside, would things have gone radically different without the pandemic? I’m leaning towards the idea that it hurried up a process that was always going to take place. I strongly feel Wolves would have finished either fifth or fourth in 2020 without the pandemic. Before the lockdowns kicked in, all of our rivals in the league were out of form with key players injured. When football resumed three months later, all those players were back fit and Wolves had a team starting to badly miss their families. I also think we would have made the Europa League final if the season had continued on it’s original path. And so, this season would have been another European adventure, building on yet another improvement in the league positions. Our profile would have been higher. Perhaps an elite club may have come sniffing for our manager.

But after all that, in the next season or the one after, I think we would have reached a point where the honeymoon was over, where we finally started to question why so much had been invested in attacking players who never got to attack, and where we would all have been asking whether a change was needed in order to reach the next level.

Jeff Shi has asked the question much sooner than that. Whether it’s the right or wrong call is something we won’t know for several months, as we begin to see where the coming season takes us. And I’m left thinking again of my own footballing dream. Those magic, bewitching players. Maybe I could actually get to see that happen for Wolves in the near future? Imagine that.

Nuno had a dream. Now it will forever be had, in the past tense. And it was a pretty special dream. For a time, his ideas were bigger than theirs, and he lifted the club higher than I ever really thought we could go. But the cost of that success is that he’s now enabled the rest of us to dream, too. And we’re dreaming of something more exciting, more enthralling.

We’ll see.

And hopefully we’ll see him again, too. Bringing another team to Molineux, and getting a great reception from the crowd he missed so much in that final year.

Random Thoughts on Robin Hood: Part Five - The Real Robin.

Over the last few years I set out to research the legend of Robin Hood. Why? Well, in part because the myth has always been close to my heart. Growing up in the midlands, with a surname derived from archery, and at a time when Robin of Sherwood was on TV, I guess somewhere along the way this just became an important story for me.

I’m mostly known as a crime writer and would argue that Robin Hood is medieval crime fiction. We can broadly say the genre is broken down into stories told from the establishment/law point of view, and stories told from the outsider/criminal point of view, and my tastes have always skewed towards the latter. I find it strange that the nation that gave birth to this legend -and other great rebel cycles like Hereward and Adam Bell- should now have the default setting of churning out establishment heroes. Do we need another cop story? Why do we now focus so much on the sheriff rather than the outlaw? That’s a question for another time. 

The main reason for the research was to prepare for a novel. I have a take on Robin Hood that – I believe- feels both fresh and familiar at the same time. I don’t know when I’ll get to it, and it may have to be self-published, but I’m definitely writing the book at some point. In order to write anything mythical – as with my Marah Chase books- I like to have a thorough grounding in the subject. 

I don’t hold all that much loyalty to the results of my research. I’m a teller of tall, dark and funny tales, not a historian. I don’t believe any of the things I’ve had Chase ‘find’ in the books. It’s ALL. MADE. UP. Book three would likely be Excalibur, and I have zero belief that King Arthur is anything more than a collection of old Celtic myths gathered together and converted to Christianity. Book four would either be the Exodus or Atlantis and, while I’m very open to the idea the former may be based on real events, the latter is pure fiction. It was clearly fiction when Plato wrote it, and was accepted as such for over a thousand years before it became a propaganda tool for nations settling in the Americas. And therein lies the trap for writers like me; All of these myths and fictions come wrapped up a history of colonialism and racism. It’s important to know where the problems lie, even if my work isn’t concerned with accuracy.

In the case of Robin Hood, I already know what my take is. I know what my book would be about, and which decade it would be set in. I know who the King would be, and what my Robin’s real identity is. But it still serves to do the work, and to see if there’s anything interesting I should know, and any traps I need to avoid.

 I do still believe the version we have today owes a lot to composite factors. Borrowing a little from Hereward here, a lot from Willikin of the Weald there, adapted by gentrifying playwrights a few centuries later. But beneath it all, digging away at the layers, I now believe we are looking at a real moment in history. 

PREVIOUSLY, ON JAY’S POINTLESS RAMBLINGS…

In previous entries I’ve talked about the tensions over the location of the story, the ancient tug of war between Nottingham and Barnsdale, and also suggested a third location that could easily tie everything together if you were looking for a new place to set the tale. I’ve talked about the Kings and princes, and why the first thing to do when looking for either a fresh or accurate take is to throw out Richard and John. I’ve highlighted a few contenders for the ‘real’ Robin, along with someone who may well have inspired Will Scarlett. And I’ve pointed to a time in history when the forests of England were full of rebels against the crown, many of whom were pardoned and returned to royal favour. 

And before I get down to naming names, I need to return to that period…

THE ONE WITH THE WRONG NAME

 During the 1260’s there was a long-running rebellion against the crown. The early period of this uprising has been given a lot of attention over the years, with Simon de Montford the subject of endless documentaries, biographies, and critical reassessments. But less coverage is given to the fact the rebellion didn’t end with de Montford. The following decade saw rolling disturbances led by his supporters, all of them living as outlaws, some of them, receiving pardons and returning to favour. In 1446 Walter Bower claimed that Robin Hood was among those people outlawed during the rebellion. It’s from this time that we see one of the modern favourites for the real Robin. Roger Godberd

Roger was relatively old by this point. Possibly in his forties. He was a (yeoman) farmer from the Leicestershire area, and there is evidence he also served in the garrison at Nottingham Castle and was wanted for poaching in either Sherwood or Charnwood. When his feudal lord joined de Montford’s uprising, Roger joined the battle. Whether he did this out of belief in the cause, or out of feudal loyalty, will never be known. But over the decade that followed he was involved in many criminal disturbances. There is record of him being imprisoned in Nottingham Castle before appearing to escape, being hunted by the High Sheriff of Nottingham and also of being sheltered by a Knight, which is a key element of the Robin Hood myth. Another key factor is that he appears to have been pardoned before later returning to crime. Roger Godberd’s story has so many parallels to the adventures of Robin Hood that, for many, the search has ended with him. 

However, it’s impossible to avoid the thorny issue of his name. It would be easy enough to argue that ‘Robin Hood’ is an alias Roger took, or one that was given to him over time. But why would that happen? If ‘Robin Hood’ was already a criminal alias by Roger’s time, does that not suggest the real Robin Hood had already been and gone? And surely, if it was a name that was in any way attached to Roger, we would have a record of it, since we have so many details of Rogers life. One of those records would surely comment that he was the famous Robin Hood. 

LOCATION. LOCATION. LOCATION

One more brief digression. Robin Hood is traditionally linked with Locksley, usually taken to be Loxley in Yorkshire. The difference in spelling isn’t a big deal, these things change over time and all of the modern spellings we use in the Robin Hood stories are different to the ones that showed up in the original mentions. Loxley itself is not that far north from the ancient boundary of Sherwood and is in riding distance of the Yorkshire locations often linked to Robins adventures. 

There is another Loxley that interests me, this time in Staffordshire. (Full disclosure….not that far from where I grew up. It is an interesting quirk of any fringe or alternative history investigation that the investigator always seems to find that the missing hero/artefact/civilisation can be found just down the road from them. See also Graham Phillips always managing to find the tombs of King Arthur, the Virgin Mary, Robin Hood, the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail all within an easy drive of Birmingham. Oh, and also the Staff of Moses….in Birmingham Museum.) 

Robin Hood’s Birth, Breeding, Valor, and Marriage is a poem of unknown origin. It can be first dated to around 1800, but nothing is known about where it came from, or whether it belongs to an older cycle of ballads or poems. Steven Knight – one of the pre-eminent Robin Hood scholars- is fairly sure the poem is of no real historical merit. And indeed, the narrative does include Robin bringing Adam Bell and William Cloudesly to a market fair. Adam and William belong to a separate outlaw cycle from the north of England, suggesting this poem is an MCU-style composite bringing together a number of different traditions. With that important caveat out of the way, I would suggest those different traditions would have already existed in order for them to be brought together in this way, and that the stories contained in the poem are parts of older cycles. The poem makes a number of interesting links. Firstly, Wakefield is mentioned, which would tie the Robin of this narrative to the same cycle that has him active in Yorkshire and gives Sherwood as his outlaw home. The poem states he was born and bred in ‘Locksly Town,’ but the action of the story takes place in ‘Titbury’ (modern Tutbury, Burton-on Trent.) This was within riding distance of Derby, Leicester and Nottingham. All if these areas were linked by a network of ancient forests. Needwood covered most of the ground between Loxley and Titbury, Charnwood in turn covered much of the land north of Leicester, between Burton and Loughborough. And from there Sherwood wasn’t much of a walk or ride to the north. 

 THE REAL DEAL

 Okay. Here we go. 

I mentioned that Roger Godberd was a yeoman, and that he got drawn into the rebellion due to the involvement of his feudal lord? Well, that lord was Robert de Ferrers. The Ferrers family were lord of much of Derby and Staffordshire, with lands also in Nottingham and Leicester. (Also, to tie back to a previous post, they had many connections to Rutland.) The family show up often in royal histories, taking part in both rebellions against, and defences of, the Kings of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. They seem to have been good at switching sides. Robert’s father, William, died when Robert was young. This meant the crown held the de Ferrers estate until Robert was old enough to claim his inheritance. The estate was given to Price Edward (of later Braveheart fame) and it’s clear this became the source of much animosity between Robert and the crown. By the time he was old enough to receive his inheritance, Robert found much of his wealth remained withheld, and Edward retained  much if his land -including important castles. This grudge fuelled Robert’s motivation to join in the de Montford Rebellion.

Once the first wave of the rebellion was crushed at the Battle of Evesham, many of the revolting Barons were offered their lands and titles back in exchange for fealty. When it came to Robert de Ferrers, however, the feud between him and the Prince meant the terms of his restoration were steep. He would have little to no power, less land, and owe a debt he couldn’t afford to pay. This led to his second rebellion, in which he returned to the woods and waged a guerrilla war against the crown -mostly aimed at the Prince. De Ferrers wasn’t especially successful at this and was captured a second time. But he’d played a part in inspiring many others to continue this rolling uprising that would bubble on in fits and starts for the next decade.

During these skirmishes, Prince Edward destroyed the Ferrers family castle at Tutbury. There’s that connection again. Robert was fond of - and made several attempts to seize and occupy- another of his family’s castles in Chartley, the ruins of which still survive today, five miles from Loxley. Loxley Hall as it stands today is a 19th century mansion, but it was built on the remains of a medieval manor house belonging to the de Ferrers family. Robert de Ferrers could very well have also be seen as Robert of Loxley. Especially during his youth, growing up without the title and estates of his family.

Robert de Ferrers and Roger Godberd were both involved in the rebellion. One was a disinherited lord (and arguably had always been so), and the other was a yeoman and poacher. Both were outlawed before being offered a pardon and then returning to outlaw ways, and both of them have links to Royal forests in their native land (Needwood and Charnwood) in addition to Sherwood. Given their links, it’s reasonable (though cannot be absolutely confirmed) that they knew each other, and may well have co-ordinated activities, and be seen working together during their campaigns. 

So here’s my case: If we’ve come to easily accept that Robin Hood is a composite across centuries, of real figures who never met each other and mythical figures who never existed, is it not just as easy to think he’s a composite of two people who worked together?

There are various tensions that exist in trying to find any kind of reality behind the myth. Do we look for the disinherited lord, or the yeoman poacher? Do we look for someone with the right name, or someone with the right record?

If we put Robert de Ferrers and Roger Godberd next to each other, and squint from a distance of time and place, we can see a figure merging together, who is both a lord and a yeoman, a man with a grudge against a prince but not necessarily a king, a man who covered ground ranging from Staffordshire to Yorkshire, with records of being active in Sherwood. A man who was offered a pardon by an Edward, and who later returned to being an outlaw, and a man who once escaped from Nottingham Castle and was sheltered by a sympathetic knight. 

CONCLUSION

 We’ll never know for sure who the real Robin Hood was. Or if there even was a real Robin. He could just be a myth. Pagan gods of the forest melded together over centuries, humanized during ballads before ascending to myth again during Mayday plays. Barring discovery of a document from the time that explicitly states “this fella was Robin Hood and looked nothing like Kevin Costner” we have no way of knowing. It’s a small non-religious article of faith, pick your version and believe it. 

And of the real contenders, I’d like to know more about the Robert Hode of the 1225 court scrolls. I’d like to know more about the Robert le Fevre of the 1262 court scroll mention. But without having that information available to us, and judging by everything else we do have, I’m currently resting my own case on the conclusion that Robin Hood is a merger of two people who worked together, Robert de Ferrers and Roger Godberd. 

If anyone out there is looking for a real-world candidate and setting for a gritty Game of Thrones-style Robin Hood retelling, aim there. You could start at the Battle of Evesham, as the sun rises of the hill and the Princes men hack Simon de Montford to pieces and follow the story through as de Ferrers is offered favour before rebelling again. Action. Drama. Political intrigue. Go for it. 

I’m not touching it. 

Why? 

I’m not all that interested in writing a gritty re-telling. But If I was to do it, I’d need to do it all the way. And there’s no way to paint Robert de Ferrers in any way as a hero. One of the key features of the rebellion was anti-Semitism. De Ferrers (and de Montford) led numerous pogroms, raiding through Jewish settlements, stealing wealth, burning houses and massacring families. And while I think it’s vital that stories like that are told, and while I also think there’s room for the right person to do that through the lens of a Robin Hood story…that’s not what I want to do. 

As one final fun aside, during the whole Brexit fiasco many people became familiar for the first time with the title Duchy of Lancaster. This is one of the main private estates owned by the crown, and managed by an appointed member of parliament. When Simon de Montfort rebelled and forfeited his rights to his estates, they reverted to the crown. When Robert de Ferrers rebelled, his own property was merged with de Montfords, and formed the Duchy of Lancaster. And so, even today, if I’m right about the identity of Robin Hood, it’s a cruel joke of history that the royal family continue to draw substantial income from the famous outlaw’s estate.

The Hard Sell - Short Story

This was originally published over at Beat to a Pulp in the old Wild West days of online crime fiction, and nominated for a Derringer award in 2010.

THE HARD SELL

“YOU KNOW THE PROBLEM with modern wrestling?’

“No, go on.”

“It’s the endings.”

Most of them had heard this speech before. Jake had a version of it for everybody he met. He’d been a pro wrestler and gotten as far as the big two in America, where they said he was too small.  So he’d tell people that he never quite made it, but he did get pinned by Hulk Hogan. Returning to England, Jake got put away for holding up a petrol station without a gun. The cops eventually found him with a mashed up banana in his pocket. He went in a failure but came back out a minor legend.

He was sat in the old church hall with everybody else who’d been involved in the con. Four guys, one woman, several beers and a pile of money. His speech was for the benefit of Tom Mcinnes, the only one in the group who hadn’t heard it.

“The ending?” said Tom, giving the inch.

“Yeah, the end of the match. Everybody knows how it’s going to happen, like.”

“I don’t get it, you mean that someone wins?”

“No, not that. I mean, when it comes to it, someone doesn’t always win. Sometimes they’ll pull a Dusty finish, or a no contest, to make the story run longer. What I mean is the big matches. The main events, hell, even the smaller matches if they got a big name in them, they’re boring.”

“Yeah, well, its all fake, innit?”

“Of course it is, but that’s like saying a movie is fake. You get someone good in that ring and it’s like a great film, or a great song, it’s telling you a story. It’s making you feel something, or that’s what it should do. It doesn’t, not anymore.”

“And it’s because of the endings?”

“Name me a wrestler other than Hulk Hogan.”

“Stone Cold.”

“Okay, now tell me his finishing move.”

“The, uh, the stunner.”

“And you don’t watch wrestling?”

“No man, its fake, innit.”

Some of them laughed, some didn’t. Some waited to see how Jake would react, or if Tom would panic. Jake just grinned, letting it go.

“See, that there is my point. You don’t know wrestling, you don’t watch it, but you know a guys finishing move. The finishing moves are all that anybody bothers with.”

“And you don’t like it.”

“No, well, what’s the point in watching it if you know exactly how its going to end? And, when I say exactly, I mean to the exact move. It doesn’t matter how many times one of the wrestlers tries to pin the other, it doesn’t matter how many near falls they get, none of them mean a thing. Because the audience is waiting for the finisher.”

“But isn’t that what they pay for?”

“You think so? I think they pay to be entertained. Its far more entertaining to think the match could end at any moment, that any of the moves could be the winning one.”

“But isn’t it all just about people getting their kicks from watching two oily men whack each other?”

“Sometimes it’s women.”

Everybody laughed, including Jake.

••

They’d been bought together by Ed Baker, the town’s only real long-con player. People said he never got involved in anything that had less than ten moves.

There were five of them in all;

Jake Nichol, failed wrestler, failed heavy, terrible gambler. He kept fit and had a quick mind. It was just his luck that held him back.

Tom Mcinnes. Young and green, he was making a name as a short con. Nobody liked him because he had the charm of a dead rat, but he was learning. He had some nervous disorder and was always moving or twitching.

Jamie Prescott. He talked a lot. He did it well. Put him in a suit, he was the smoothest lawyer you’d never seen. Put him in an overall, he could convince you he could turn your car into a spaceship.

The strangest member of the group, the one everyone’s eyes kept drifting to, was Claire Gaines. Young, rude and cute, she was the youngest daughter of Ransford Gaines. Everybody in the room was scared of Ransford Gaines. They all decided to be scared of his daughter, too.

They sat around a pool table in the back room of Ed’s favourite pub and made small talk until he arrived. Tom made several blatant attempts at chatting up Claire, while the others avoided the whole idea. When Ed turned up, he was wearing a suit and carried a laptop with him. He looked like he was about to do a presentation at a board meeting. He set the laptop on the pool table.

“Have you all heard of the safety deposit con?”

Two heads nodded, one shook.

Claire didn’t seem interested.

“Okay. It’s been around forever. Until a couple of years ago, I thought it was a myth.”

“What changed your mind?”

“I tried it.”

“Wow,” said Jake, impressed.

“So, you get two guys dressed as security guards. You take your two guys to a bank, on a busy street, and you cover up the deposit box with a metal sheet. Hold it in place with whatever cheap glue you can find, but it needs to look real.”

“You did it with a metal sheet?”

“No, actually, I did it with hazard tape. I covered over the deposit box with hazard tape, crossed over it like a big X. But I think metal looks better.”

“Okay.”

“So, you’ve got your two security guards, you’ve got the safety deposit box sealed, and you’ve got a sign put up saying the deposit box is out of order.”

“You never mentioned the sign,” said Claire.

“I’m mentioning it now. The trick is, you see, that you’ll get all sorts of people coming to deposit their money. It depends on the timing, but if you do it on a Friday, just before five o’clock, you’d get a lot of impatient shop workers. They want to drop their cash and be done with their day. If you do it at the right bank, you can do it on a weekend, and get people who are in a hurry to be done with their week.”

“And they just give it to you?”

“That’s the job, you have to make them believe you’re a security firm acting on behalf of the bank. They put their cash into whatever you’re using –a metal briefcase, maybe, or a security van- and you give them an official looking receipt. They go on their way, and so do you.”

“Its one of the first scams I ever heard of,” said Jamie, “No way does this work.”

“I swear, I thought the same thing. But I tried it.”

“And you made good?”

“Five grand.”

“I need another drink,” said Claire.

After another round of drinks, Ed tapped the laptop again.

“You want us all to work the security con?” said Jake.

Jamie didn’t like the idea, “Where’s the money in it? I mean, five grand is good, and would pay for that nice shiny laptop of yours and maybe a Chelsea season ticket, but it won’t pay for five of us to be involved.”

“You talk as if five grand is nothing,” said Jake. “You’re young.”

Ed raised his hand and nodded at both Jake and Jamie in turn.

“Okay. Jake, Jamie, you’re both right. But what if I told you I have an idea to make a hundred grand out of it?”

He had everyone’s attention at this point.

“Jamie is right, basically. It’s a short con, and there’s no fortune in it. I wanted to look longer, find a better angle. Do you know the trick to the long game? It’s finding the human interest. In this case, everyone always looks at the trick itself. I bet, even as I told you about it, you were thinking about the job. About which bank to hit, who to put in uniform, and how much money you’d get in your case when you walked away.”

Jake nodded,

Jamie shrugged.

Tom twitched.

Claire drank.

“You know what I thought of the first time I heard of it? I wanted to know what happened to all those people.”

“The people you stole from?” Claire said in between her drink and a raised eyebrow.

“Exactly. What happens to them? All these people putting their hard earned cash into my briefcase. It’s their money and I got to keep it. So what happened to them?”

“Banks cover it, don’t they?” said Jamie, “I mean, like if a bank vault is robbed, or if someone uses your identity to scam money, the bank’s insurance covers it, right?”

“They do. That’s why I did the job, to watch and see. And in every case they paid up. To the exact penny.”

“Good for them. I don’t see the profit in it though. I mean, we steal a bit of money, the bank pays back a bit of money, and everyone goes home happy. But we’re still only up by five grand.”

“But what if we were the ones being stolen from?” said Claire.

Nobody spoke for a moment.

“Exactly,” said Ed. “We combine the short and the long con. We go through with it as normal. We also provide some victims. Some expensive and trusted clients. Say, for instance, the daughter of Ransford Gaines. The bank will cover whatever amount she was to have written on her receipt.”

Everyone set their drinks down and didn’t pick them up again.

“Brilliant,” said Jake.

“Fucking brilliant,” said Jamie.

“I don’t get it,” said Tom.

“If that’s the end of your presentation,” said Claire, “What was the laptop for?”

Ed picked it up and dropped it; it made a hollow plastic thud.

“Case in point. Its all about making people believe in what you’re doing.”

Everyone nodded. Everyone drank several more drinks. The last two to leave, Ed and Claire, sat on the pool table talking through the plan.

“You’ll need to find out which bank your father has most of his money in and, if you haven’t already, open an account with them.”

Claire looked at Ed over her final drink.

“You’re scared of me aren’t you?”

“I think we all are.”

She had very dark eyes.

“You can kiss me, if you want to.”

••

On the first of April, Ed Baker walked into the bank and opened an account. He opened it with a deposit of three thousand pounds and over the following month he paid in another two. Five thousand pounds in a month was enough for the Bank Manager to earmark him as an important customer.

Claire Gaines already had an account. She’d been having large sums of money paid in on a regular basis from her father’s account, and similar sums going out.

Living is expensive.

On the first of May, at four in the afternoon, an unmarked van pulled into the alley beside the bank.

Josh and Tom, dressed as security guards, took a thin metal sheet from the back of the van. Using cow gum glue they fixed it into place over the deposit box. Ed had given them a sign with the bank’s insignia printed at the top, stating that the deposit box was out of service. Ed had even put the banks phone number on.

Jake didn’t like that last touch because it made him nervous.

“Everybody’s got a mobile,” he said, “It wont take them nothing to ring and check before depositing the cash.”

“Relax. Its just like the laptop, its all for show. They’ll see the number and they’ll assume everything’s okay. I promise you they won’t call.”

“And if they do?”

“Run like hell.”

“We get to carry guns?”

“Nah. You ever see a guard carry a gun? Not over here. Nobody will give you money if you carry a gun. Unless you’re pointing it at them.”

At quarter past four, they got their first drop. A local shop owner making his weekly drop. He put seven thousand pounds in the case.

Jake wrote him out a receipt on official bank slips.

At twenty past the hour, Ed Baker walked up. He was wearing his best suit and he made a point of walking past a couple of cameras near the bank. He stopped to chat with a traffic warden. Outside the bank, he let the security guards explain the situation to him, they pointed to the sign. Ed opened his briefcase and handed the bigger of the two guards, the one who was writing the receipts, four bundles of plain paper. The paper was cut to look like bank notes. The fake money was locked in the case and Ed walked away with his receipt.

Between twenty past and half past, they received two more drops totalling thirteen thousand.

Claire was late.

It had been arranged that she would turn up at half-past, and be the last customer. At thirty-one minutes past, maybe thirty-two, the guards were due to get into their unmarked van and drive away.

By thirty-four minutes past, Claire still hadn’t turned up. Ed had never heard of this job going longer than thirty-five minutes, which is why he’d planned it the way he did.

There was some scientific study he’d heard of once, where scientists proved that neutral observers will watch crimes like this for twenty minutes before calling the police. Violence or murder, or crimes committed against themselves, they’ll call straight away. But if they are watching something like this, they will wait twenty minutes before it annoys them enough to call the police.

At thirty-six minutes past the hour, with Claire still not turned up and Ed starting to sweat, a police car cruised past. It stopped at the traffic lights, ten feet away from the bank, and sat there while the light stayed at red.

Tom’s nervous tick kicked in and Josh began deep breathing.

When he’d wrestled in front of crowds, he’d learned that the only way he could get by was to block out the crowd. Think a few moves in advance, and you’re not thinking of what’s going on outside the ring.

He blocked the police car out.

He thought about Claire turning up, they’d talk for a minute. She’d deposit her fake money. Tom would put the case in the back of the van, Jake would pull down the metal plate, and they’d drive away.

That’s what he thought about.

The lights took forever to change. The police looked right at the bank, one of them made eye contact with Jake. He nodded a strangers greeting, uniform to uniform.

The lights changed and the car drove on.

Ed was no longer keeping track of the time when Claire turned up a few minutes later. Even from the safety of a coffee shop across the road, he was preparing to run. Claire strolled up, carrying half a dozen shopping bags.

“There was a sale on.”

She deposited her fake money, and collected her genuine receipt.

She was barely ten feet away when Jake and Tom pulled away in the van.

••

Police were called. By the time they got there, all they could do was canvass for witnesses and speak to the bank management. The banks security cameras picked up the whole thing, but it was impossible to make out the features of the security guards. They did pick out the faces of the people depositing their money, and the cash as it was handed over.

Everyone held their breath and waited.

They didn’t have to wait long. Three working days later, the first of the shopkeepers noticed that the money hadn’t appeared in their account, and they came in to complain. Not long after that, another victim came in; bringing a copy of the local newspaper that ran the story of the crime.

It was a full week after the crime that Ed Baker came in with a receipt for ten thousand pounds and demanded the bank cover his loss. The bank was still reeling from that blow when, the following week, Claire Gaines visited the manager. She bought with her a young ambitious lawyer by the name of Jamie Prescott. She produced a receipt showing that she had, in fact, paid two hundred thousand pounds into the bank that day.

Her lawyer not only pointed out the banks liability, but also how much he would enjoy making his name out of suing them if they refused to cover the loss.

••

“And they paid?”

“They paid.”

Claire, Jamie and Jake were sharing a drink in one of Ransford Gaines’ restaurants. It was after hours, they could talk about whatever they wanted.

“It took some major bluffing.” Said Jamie, “For awhile I thought they were going to call us on it.”

“I just had to mention my daddy’s name a few times, the manager shit himself.”

“Hey, don’t talk down my contribution. That was my best suit that I wore, and my best legal bullshit.”

Jake laughed, “I ever tell you the problem with modern wrestling?”

“Yes.”

“Okay.”

Claire fetched drinks for all of them.

‘Is it true you got pinned by Hulk Hogan?”

“Yeah. It was a dark match, which means it wasn’t taped for TV. He’d just had a hip replacement, and wanted to see if he could still sell a match.”

“When was this?”

“I dunno. Four, five years ago?”

“So he was, like, what, 80?”

“He’s in his fifties.”

Claire and Jamie both laughed.

Giggling between themselves.

“So, you got beat by a 50 year old?”

“Well, it was a hard sell, but it was Hulk Hogan. It’s what you do.”

“So what happens next?”

“We wait until we hear from Ed. He wants us to keep away from each other for awhile, just in case the police, or anyone, suspects anything.”

“He wants us to a not see each other for awhile?”

“Yeah”

“Oops.”

Jamie called for a taxi and left, leaving Claire and Jake to drink.

“Were you a good wrestler?”

“Yeah, I was. I could go.”

“What was your finisher?”

“A moonsault. It’s a jump off the top of the corner, flipping over in the air.”

“Sounds good. Do you miss it? Wrestling, I mean.”

“Yes. It was all I wanted to do. I mean, I know it’s not a very cool ambition, certainly not this side of the Atlantic. But it was all I ever wanted to do. And it makes you feel so good, the live crowd, the entertainment.”

Claire smiled at him, at his words.

“How about you? What do you do?”

“Oh nothing really. My daddy makes it hard to work.”

“He stops you?”

“Oh no. He’s always offering me work. But, you know, it’s impossible to make your own name when your dad is one of the most feared men in town. I can’t get a normal job, and I don’t want to work for him. I mean, he’d let me run any of his places, like my sister does, but I’d hate it, and the staff would hate me.”

“Must be tough.”

“It is. I keep trying to find something that’s all my own, you know? Even this, the whole thing revolves around cashing in on my daddy’s name.”

“Sorry.”

“You’re scared of me, aren’t you?”

“A little bit.”

“You can kiss me, if you want to.”

••

So there they were, in the old church hall.

Four guys, one woman, several beers and a pile of money

Tom and Jake had been first, bringing in the twenty thousand pounds they’d collected on the day. They emptied the money out on the table, piling the bundles as high as they could for the best effect. Ed was next, bringing a crate of beer and a briefcase holding twenty five thousand pounds.

They sat and drank for an hour, talking about football and films. They tried not to show how worried they were that Claire was, again, late.

It was just over an hour late when Claire and Jamie walked in. They were carrying a suitcase each. Two hundred thousand pounds, they set it on the table.

Everyone who wasn’t already drunk caught up.

Jake drank the most but didn’t really show it.

He explained to people, “Just used to it, really. On the road, you drank. You’d worked off so much during the match, and the travelling, that you could drink whatever you want.”

“You didn’t get hangovers?”

“We all took too many painkillers to get hangovers.”

“Seriously?”

“Of course, look at what we did for a living. You get more drugs in pro wrestling than you do in rock music.”

“Wow. Sounds ace.”

Everyone turned to look at Tom.

Jake smiled and put his arm around Toms shoulder.

“Forget the drugs. You know the problem with modern wrestling?’

“No, go on”

“It’s the ending”

Most of them had heard this speech before.

They couldn’t recite it word for word, but they could give you a version of it. Each of their versions would have been pretty close to the speech he gave Tom.

“But isn’t it all just about people getting their kicks from watching two oily men whack each other? ”

Everybody laughed, including Jake.

“No. It's drama. It's story telling. The little guy, the monster, people giving in or people going the distance. It’s about guys who have no right to win, but do. Its-”

“Its about selling tickets. Its about money.”

Everyone turned to see who the new voice belonged to. It was Ransford Gaines, flanked by an armed escort.

“Dad,” said Claire. “What kept you?”

Everyone now turned to stare at Claire. Everyone except Jake, who kept his eyes fixed on Gaines.

“I was busy,” said Gaines. “I had a few other things to do. Is this all the cash?”

“Yes.”

“Come on kids, get it together.”

Claire and Tom stood and shovelled the cash into the bags while nobody else moved.

“Think of it as a lesson,” Gaines said. “Next time you decide to use a man’s name, make sure you’ve asked first. And you really want to take a man’s money? Point a gun at him.”

His escort smiled and waggled his gun.

Gaines reached into one of the bags and tossed a bundle of notes onto the table.

“Get drunk and learn your lesson,” he said to all of them. He turned to Jake, who was still staring at him, “What you staring at?”

Jake just shrugged and leaned back in his chair.

Gaines smiled, “You’re the guy who held up a store with a banana, right? Give me a call, you’ve got balls.”

He nodded and left, followed by his escort and, holding hands as they carried the cash, Claire and Tom.

The room stayed silent for a long moment.

Jake reached for a fresh beer and took a long swig.

“Now that there? Exactly the kind of ending I’m talking about.”