Uncategorized – Page 8

Historical Fiction–What makes it good?

A discussion of The Silver Pigs, by Lindsey Davis

first published 1989, republished 2006

51Yu9jklKWL._SX333_BO1,204,203,200_ I’m an eclectic reader, reading almost anything from English canon literature to urban fantasy and many types of non-fiction as well. In this space I will highlight some examples of my favorite genre- historical fiction, starting off with an old favorite, The Silver Pigs. This book opens the series with Marcus Didius Falco, an informer (think- detective) in first century Rome. His efforts to figure out who killed a young girl he was trying to protect and how her death was connected to stolen silver ingots takes Falco to the farthest reaches of the Roman Empire and back to his hometown, Rome.

There are a lot of things to like about The Silver Pigs, including the humor, the complex relationships among the characters, and the well-developed back-story. But I’d like to talk about The Silver Pigs as an fine example of the three things I look for in quality historical fiction: character, plot and setting.

In all fiction, character is one of the most important aspects of story. I want the main character to be developed and likable enough that I want to spend time with this person, He or she does not have to be perfect, but must seem real. Especially in historical fiction, the protagonist must represent the times accurately and be believable in the context of the period.

Marcus Didius Falco fits the bill well. He is a Roman citizen and knows his rights as such. Though he acts tough and pretends not to care, he’s a guy I’d want on my side. He’d never admit it, but he is what I’d call a gentleman– not the kind with polished manners, a high class education, land or wealth, but the kind who is gallant and protective of those who are weak. Falco is not a Byronic hero, outside of society. No he’s firmly planted in the middle of Rome, dodging his landlord, watching over his own relatives, and hobnobbing with laundresses, guards, vigiles and senators alike. Though fictional, Falco, and his friends, family, clients, and even his enemies have become just as reall as the historical figures Davis includes, like Vespasian and his sons.

The second characteristic of good historical fiction is a plot that is interesting. Fun characters aren’t enough to make a good story. Something has to happen to keep me turning the pages. This is true of any fiction really, but the plot of historical fiction ought to also provide insight into life in the time it’s portraying. Characters can’t do things that don’t fit. I love the way Davis includes such bits as the carts waiting outside the city gates because carts weren’t allowed in before dark. This very accurate detail is key to helping Falco figure out who had access to a key piece of news that helps him identify the killer. Of course the main plot in the story revolves around the mines in Roman Britain and the smuggling of silver ingots. Falco’s adventures give readers great insight into the brutal life of the slaves working the mines

The most important aspect of good historical fiction is the setting. I read historical fiction so I can travel to a different time and place, so I want the details of that time and place to be accurate and developed enough to carry me into the world. I want to learn about the time and place, but I don’t want a textbook lesson. Davis gives wonderful detail about life in Rome, but never stops the story to lecture. For instance, we learn about the chaotic period shortly after the year of four emperors and the change from a republic to empire through Falco’s very strong opinions and the actions of the characters.

Even more than textbook history, I like learning about everyday life. DAvis does an excellent job here also. For instance Falco lives next door to a laundry. It seems that laundry in Rome was bleached with urine collected from public latrines and obliging neighbors. Not only is this an interesting bit of trivia, Lena’s vat of ‘bleach’ plays a key role in solving the murder.

Davis reveals Rome as a surprisingly modern urban area from its seamy side to its posh neighborhoods and everything in between, with as much detail as if she had actually lived there.

The story also takes readers out of the city of Rome to the cold, misty edge of the Roman Empire, Britain.This is a place Falco hates, for the weather, the lack of urban comforts, and the provincial attitudes. Davis give a fascinating look into how centers of civilization saw the fringes of empire as backward, dull, and uncivilized. (At attitude that is unfortunately still common in many parts of the world.)

So here we have a fun read that meets all of my criteria for good historical fiction; a likeable if gruff protagonist, an array of fully developed supporting cast, a plot dependent on the history of the time and place, and a setting that evokes the time and place so well I feel transported to Ancient Rome.

Best of all in this case, is that Lindsey Davis has written a whole series of mysteries following set in first century Rome. Readers can look forward to spending a lot of time with Marcus Didius Falco.

Fort Necessity

A mistake that led to Independence

SAM_4498 On our way from Minnesota to Virginia, we stopped for a late lunch at Fort Necessity National Battlefield in the southwest corner of Pennsylvania. The rain of the morning had mostly stopped, but there weren’t many people visiting. The place has a very well designed visitor center and a pleasant walk to the reconstructed fort that commemorates the battle between George Washington’s Virginia Militia and the French Canadians and Indian.

The fort is small, unassuming and apparently insignificant. But the wilderness battle fought there on July 3, 1754 shook the world, changing the course of history. It started what could be called the first world war and ultimately lead to the Revolutionary War and the establishment of the United States of America as an independent nation

It seems incredible that such a peaceful place could have been so important. In 1754, there were no roads leading to this meadow. There were no villages or businesses to protect. There weren’t even very many settlers in the region.

So why build a fort in this wilderness?

SAM_4502 The answer is LAND–untamed, and to European eyes, unclaimed, land, rich for the taking.

The British wanted it. The French wanted it. Not to mention the various groups of Native American, including the Shawnee, the Mingo, the Iroquois, the Monangahela and the Delaware.

All of them claimed it. Rival British colonies even squabbled among themselves over who had the right to settle here and exploit its resources.

In all this vast territory, the question remains, why is Fort Necessity important?

Fort Necessity’s significance is really built on two mistakes, both made by George Washington.

When we think of the first president of the United States of America, we usually see a serious, white haired gentleman of with strong morals and a clear sense of duty. We remember the courageous general who led the Continental Army to victory. We rarely consider George as a somewhat rash young man, upright and eager to earn a good reputation.

George was 22 when he led a the Virginia militia to what is now southwestern Pennsylvania. He was acting on orders from Virginia’s Governor Dinwiddie to secure the territory for Virginia and make the French leave, with force if required.

Washington’s first mistake was leading an ambush against the French. This didn’t seem like a mistake at the time. He thoroughly defeated the troops led by Joseph Coulon de Villiers de Jumonville. In the short skirmish or its aftermath, Jumonville was killed. The French claimed he was an ambassador, delivering to the British that same message Washington had been ordered to give the French: leave this area. Therefore, killing him was in fact an assassination. Washington claimed ambassadors don’t travel with troops, justifying his act of aggression.

After this encounter, Washington expected to be attacked, and so he choose Great Meadow to set up his defenses. This was his second mistake. He had his men build a circular stockade, 53 feet in diameter, with earthworks surrounding it and a small shed in the middle of it. This storehouse was intended to shelter supplies, not men. In fact, the purpose of the storehouse was to protect those supplies from his own men. Washington choose the meadow because they would be able to see the enemy approach. But the meadow was too small, and the trees were too close. The attackers could use the cover of the trees to fire on the fort’s defenders.

Walking across the quiet meadow in July of 2017, it was hard to imagine what took place here 263 years early. In 1754, it rained heavily, turning the trenches Washington had built into stream. The two forces exchanged fire all day, but in the end, Washington surrendered. His men had found the supplies and gotten drunk. Their powder was wet. The French and Indians attackers had a better position and outnumbered the his troops. This was the first and only time George Washington surrendered.

When news of the battle reached Europe, both sides escalated military presence in the new world, eventually declaring war in 1756. The Seven Years War was fought world-wide, involving all the powers in Europe. The conflict raged across five continents, including Europe, North and South America, Africa, India and the Philippines.

One result of this war was increased British control of North America and opened up the Ohio Territory to colonial settlers. The war had been very expensive for the British, and they naturally expected the colonists to help pay. This led to a number of tax initiatives, and we all know the result of ‘taxation without representation.’

What strikes me as particularly ironic about the battle of Fort Necessity is Washington’s role in it. In this battle, Washington fought alongside British troops against the French and their Indian allies. Twenty-one years later, an older, wiser Washington took charge of the Continental Army. In the following years, Washington led that army to victory, fighting alongside French troops against the British. It just goes to show the two sides of the conflict were not so different after all. SAM_4504

A lesson we might still need to learn.