It's always hard for an author to determine his own intentions, especially in retrospect.

A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest. I think that kind of thing is an abuse of history.

I do think that the legacy of the Norman conquest is still strong in Britain. Our hereditary monarchy, our established church, our ancient county structures, though hollowed out in many ways, are a direct result of what happened in 1066.

The mountains and moors, the wild uplands, are to be staked out like vampires in the sun, their chests pierced with rows of five-hundred-foot wind turbines and associated access roads, masts, pylons, and wires.

We like to think that the fate of the Earth and the fate of human worlds are the same thing, but we're not as important as that.

Еhere's no doubt at all that the Norman conquest led to the hugely concentrated land ownership patterns that we still see in Britain today. Some of Britain's biggest landowners are still direct descendants of Norman barons. And given the impact that Britain has had on the world over the past few hundred years, you could perhaps say this was a global issue. History is always with us.

I think we take the history we want to take in order to back up the stories we want to hear.