Hello Saloners!
I’m afraid I must start off with a SPOILER WARNING: this post does contain a big one. So if you are planning to read Watery Grave, the third book in Bruce Alexander’s Sir John Fielding mystery series, don’t read this. However, I’ll tell ya right now, the book was pretty annoying and I don’t recommend it.
In Watery Grave, an officer of the Royal Navy has been charged with the murder of his captain. There is no question that the captain drowned — the only issue is whether the lieutenant actually pushed him overboard, or is he being framed. In fact, it becomes obvious early on in the book that he is being framed, and we even know why: to prevent him from testifying that the successor captain is a pederast. Furthermore, the admiral, who is the lieutenant’s own uncle, not only withholds material evidence and otherwise interferes with the carriage of justice, but actually allows his nephew to be hanged as a murderer rather than let the name of the Royal Navy be so sullied. Yes, that’s how the book ends: the lieutenant is hanged for a crime he didn’t commit.
Ok, that just doesn’t feel real to me. No, I am not an expert on the Royal Navy of the 1760s, but I just can’t believe that one pederast captain would ruin the reputation of the world’s most powerful fighting force. Based on my total immersion in the world of Patrick O’Brian (granted, those books are fiction also, and take place about fifty years later, but oh! they feel so authentic) I think it’s much more likely that the acting captain would have been quietly court-martialed and dishonourably discharged — or not! If Patrick O’Brian is correct (of course he is!) homosexuality and even pederasty would probably have been tolerated in an otherwise-competent officer. All for the good of the service.
My thoughts on this book were influenced not only by my love of Patrick O’Brian, but also by this terrific post from Jessica of Both Eyes Book Blog, where she rips apart historical fiction about Vikings after doing some actual research. So, for all you lovers of historical fiction, I am curious: do you have certain periods that you are drawn to? Do you feel like you know something about the “real” history of that time because you’ve read novels that take place in it? Have you ever done research to check?
7 Comments
I enjoy more recent fiction. I don’t check facts, but if I find something particularly interesting I might do follow up research.
I feel for you that the book didn’t work for you. Had the same experience myself last week.
I do like historical fiction, and I lean toward the period of the 18 and 19 centuries. I’m not a fan of the middle ages, so I usually don’t read fiction set in that time period. And no, I don’t check to see if the author is “accurate”…so I’m fair game for being wrong in my assumptions about the era.
I don’t really enjoy historical fiction, but I do enjoy reading books written and set in England during the Second World War. The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society is one of the few recent books that captures exactly the language and atmosphere of books written at that time period.
I usually avoid historical fiction for just the sort of inaccuracies you mention, though I did enjoy Patrick O’Brian for that reason. He seemed willing to represent the sensibilities of the day, rather than make them current for us.
My academic background is in ancient history, so novels set in that time period can irk me. Lynda S. Robinson’s books are schlock. Lauren Haney and Steven Saylor do a good job. Paul Maier’s Flames of Rome is deliciously pulpy and actually footnoted with references.
It’s not often that you don’t recommend a book, so this one must be really bad.
It sounds as if there are some parallels in the plot and in the recent scandals in the Catholic church. The lawsuits against the church apparently charge that leaders preferred to cover up the problem instead of punishing (or even halting) offenders.
So are you saying that the book is unrealistic because the higher-up naval officers would have gotten rid of the molester, instead of covering up the scandal? Or are you saying that Alexander has taken a 20th/21st Century problem and tried to transpose it onto an 18th Century setting? Or did I misunderstand your point altogether?
Well, Sara, as you know, I’m no historian. But if this had been a Patrick O’Brian novel, the higher-up officers would most likely have turned a blind eye because they wouldn’t have wanted to waste an otherwise-valuable officer, not because they were worried about the Navy’s “reputation” — which was based on battles won, not the good behavior of captains. This is where the Navy’s situation diverges from that of the Catholic Church. (Interesting parallel, though.)
Furthermore, it’s highly unlikely that a lower officer would have brought charges against the captain in the first place. He would have been more worried about the danger of losing his ship if the court-martial didn’t go his way. And if charges had been brought, or if there’d been, say, a mutiny, the higher-ups would have given the captain a HUGE benefit of the doubt. If there was overwhelming evidence and they had to convict, they’d have been very annoyed. Again, not because they were worried about the Navy’s reputation, but because they’d be losing a valuable officer.
Yes, I think the author is wrongly importing modern values into the story. Those sailors suffered unbelievable hardships and they just sucked it up and did their jobs. My guess is the captain’s sexual harassment would have been just one more thing they suffered in the line of duty.
All you naval historians and PO’B fans out there, please chime in! I would love to hear other opinions.