Ruth
Dudley-Edwards is a historian, a journalist and a fiction writer.
She won the James Tait Black Memorial Prize, the National National
University of Ireland Prize for Historical Research, and was shortlisted for
the channel 4 political book prize.
For her fiction, she has been shortlisted by the Crime
Writers' Association for the John Creasey Award for the best first novel and won
the CrimeFest Last Laugh award for the funniest crime novel of the year.
Aftermath:
The Omagh Bombing and The Families’ Pursuit of Justice
won the prestigious CWA Gold Dagger for non-fiction
in 2010. While you were writing it did
you suspect it would become such a huge success?
All of us hope our books will succeed, but I avoid disappointment by
having very low expectations. That
self-defence mechanism means I’m delighted when a book is well-received rather
than upset because it hasn’t done better.
I was thrilled to be
long-listed for the Orwell Prize and absolutely overjoyed to win the CWA Gold
Dagger. I love the world of
crime-writing, and the good opinion of my peers matters greatly to me. I take
great pride in being the only person to have won the Non-Fiction Gold Dagger
and the Last Laugh Award.
What motivated you to write about the
victims of the Omagh bombing?
As a journalist covering Northern Ireland ,
I was all too aware of the suffering caused by violence. I knew Omagh well, and in August 1998, the
day the bomb went off, a close friend rang to tell me his wife and two small
children had been shopping there and had escaped by seconds being wiped
out. Although they were lucky, I know
something of how painful were the after-effects and it made me take this
particular outrage more personally than usual.
While some of the perpetrators of the
bombing were known to the authorities, there was insufficient evidence for
criminal charges. In 2000, through a
mutual friend, the crime-writer Simon Shaw, I was asked by the father of a
murdered twelve-year-old to help with launching a civil case against the
alleged bombers. I came to know the
victims who were taking the case and to learn about the sheer horror of the
bombing and the terrible effects of grief.
And I thought it vital that ordinary people should be helped to fight
back against their persecutors.
We were told it was mission impossible, but
we went ahead. I spent years involved in
lobbying and fund-raising, along with a bizarre collection of people who agreed
to help because they were inspired by the courage and determination of these people
who were battling for justice for their loved ones. They included Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail, Bob Geldof, Peter Mandelson, the Marquess of Salisbury and
two ex-terrorists. The case was taken on by Jason McCue, who during the course
of it married Mariella Frostrup and became George Clooney’s new best friend.
When it was clear that the case would go
ahead, I realised I should write this astonishing story. It is, I hope both tragic and inspiring, but
we were such an odd group and made so many mistakes that there are quite a few laughs
along the way.
On
your website you describe yourself as ‘Author and Journalist’. You wrote
somewhere that ‘Journalists must always seek and tell the truth’. Writing fiction
is a very different discipline. Most
authors struggle to succeed in just one of these, yet you succeed in both. Can
you tell us how your approach differs when writing non-fiction and fiction?
I’m an historian by training and
my first books were historical biographies.
I’ve always thought it was first and foremost the job of an historian to
tell the truth even if it’s unpalatable.
I take the same view of journalism, which I took up in the early 1990s
because I thought that - in an effort to seduce paramilitaries towards peace
negotiations - most of the media were going easy on the brutality, criminality
and corruption of the IRA, its Sinn Fein mouthpiece and their loyalist
counterparts. There’s enough censorship
about without journalists gagging themselves because they think they’re
political players.
In consequence, I and the other few
like-minded journalists had to get used to being abused routinely for being
anti-peace. As one of us – fed up with
the Orwellian lunacy of being abused as warmongers by mass killers –
wrote: “Just because I’ve never murdered
anyone doesn’t mean I’m a bad person.”
While I try to tell the essential truths
about the worlds I describe in my fiction, I hugely enjoy exaggerating,
embroidering and just making things up. Often, when I’m writing non-fiction and
trying to get everything right, I think longingly of how much I’ll enjoy
letting my imagination rip in the next novel.
Given that you claim to be ‘squeamish
and prone to nightmares’ can you tell us what attracted you to write about crime?
Although I don’t read
scary crime unless I have to, I’ve been a fan of crime fiction since I was a
child, when I began solidly reading my way through the authors of the Golden
Age. I loved Christie and Sayers and
Allingham and Chesterton and all the rest of them, but because I was brought up
in an academic household, I took special pleasure in Edmund Crispin and Michael
Innes, who wore their learning lightly and made fun of academics, who are the
butt of many of my jokes.
I couldn’t write graphic sex or violence in
my novels, yet – based on inquest reports - I described in detail in Aftermath exactly what happens to people
when they are blown up. I had to tell
the truth because this was about reality.
I needed to go to a shrink afterwards to unload some of the mental
images, but I’ve no regrets. There is
too much romanticism about terrorism and we should do anything we can to dispel
it.
What did you mean when you said you write with the
‘eye of an outsider’? Do you think authors of fiction are always in some sense ‘outsiders’,
observing other people?
Yes, I think writers of fiction need the eye of
the outsider, but my history makes me a rather extreme case of outsiderness. I was born and educated in Dublin
but London
is my chosen and adored home and my whole working life has been based here –
some of the time in the pubic service. Yet
I keep a keen interest in Ireland . I describe myself as British and Irish, which
because of old enmities, few people did until very recently.
My
background is mixed: my paternal Irish
Catholic militantly republican grandmother (who had a photograph of Hitler at
the bottom of her bed and claimed the Holocaust was British propaganda) was
married to an English Methodist-turned-Quaker, and my Irish Catholic apolitical
maternal grandmother was married to an Irish Catholic Home Ruler and British
Army quartermaster. My father was urban
and an academic historian: my mother rural, and passionate about literature,
language and poetry.
For two decades my major intellectual passion wasNorthern Ireland
and the need to understand, expose and defeat terrorism from any quarter. I was brought up as a (sceptical) Catholic
nationalist, but as many of my own tribe decided I was a turncoat, almost all
my closest friends in Northern
Ireland are Protestant and unionist. I made
friends with the devoutly religious Orange Order for a time, even thought they
knew I was an atheist.
For two decades my major intellectual passion was
I’m best
known in Irish nationalist circles for a biography of Patrick Pearse, leader of
the 1916 rebellion, in unionist circles for The
Faithful Tribe: An Intimate Portrait of the Loyal Institutions and in
English circles for my books on the press and for the novels making fun of the
British Establishment. I am, I think, probably the only person who was, one
summer day, faced with a choice between a merry shindig in Dublin ,
a Buckingham Palace Garden Party or observing a violent stand-off over a
disputed Orange parade at Drumcree. Cursing, I
chose Drumcree.
These, days, Islamic terrorism is a
preoccupation and I find myself in punch-ups with anti-semites and Islamist
apologists.
Your wonderfully eccentric characters are great fun
to read. Are they ever based on people
you know?
I borrow useful
characteristics from anyone and everyone.
My friends are resigned to it: my enemies don’t know.
While your crime fiction is hugely entertaining, it
satirises the establishment. Is your
intention purely to entertain, or do you have a more serious purpose in
writing?
Thanks, Leigh. I love it when people find my books
entertaining.
I suppose I like to write about what I
know. Because of working in the civil
service, writing books about e.g. the Foreign Office, The Economist, Fleet Street, and Victor Gollancz and the
intellectual left, as well as being involved in Anglo-Irish carry-on that
involved diplomats, politicians and journalists, I’m pretty well-up on the
establishment and it offers great scope for satire. I didn’t set out to be a
satirist, but – it’s part of being an outsider, I guess – as soon as I began my
first novel, Corridors of Death, although
I just wanted to tell a murder story, I found myself trying to explain the
ethos of the civil service to the reader and make fun of it where I could. All institutions end up taking themselves
much too seriously and seeing survival as their chief goal. The BBC might be a future subject.
As well as the civil service, my targets
include gentlemen’s clubs, the House of Lords, literary prizes, the Church of
England, academics (British, Irish and American) and journalism. The latest, Killing the Emperors, is an assault on the corrupt art
establishment that has wrecked art education, dissed past geniuses, discouraged
young talent and told us that the likes of Tracey Emin and Damien Hirst have
clothes on.
I tend to see the funny side of most of
life, especially of grave, pompous people who are up themselves. I love the line from the grandmother of a
great friend: “You must learn to laugh
at everything, because usually there’s nothing to laugh at.”
Do you plan your plots in detail?
Absolutely not. I know where I’m setting a novel, I think
about it and research it, but when it comes to the plot, I’m doing well if I
know who’s going to be the first corpse.
Do you have a writing routine?
No. I write a lot of journalism (at the moment I
have an article for the Irish Sunday Independent and three Daily Telegraph blogs
to do every week) and I do a fair bit of speaking and a lot of socialising as
well as participating in social media, so there’s no chance of routine. But when I begin a book I try to cut down on
other commitments. Before the days of
non-stop communication, I could write a book in a few weeks. Nowadays I’m fighting to find time and they take
months.
Can you tell us what you are currently writing?
As
soon as Killing the Emperors has been
published, I’ll begin to concentrate on the next novel, which is about human
rights lawyers. I have lots of views
about them, but I need more long conversations with friendly lawyers and to do
more reading before I plunge in. My publishers want a book a year, so I don’t
think non-fiction will be getting much of a look-in for the foreseeable
future. But who knows?
This interview was first published in Mystery People
5 comments:
I try to protect myself with low expectations. I don't always succeed. Congrats to Ruth Dudley-Edwards for her great success!
Wise words from Ruth Dudley-Edwards, and well deserved success.
Good to hear from you, Charles.
Success is not a shortcut way. you wait and still trying then achieve goals.
Jeffery Deaver told me he was an overnight success and it only took him 25 years.
Jeffery Deaver told me he was an overnight success and it only took him 25 years.
Post a Comment