Why I Read This
Book/Connections with Flashman
I read this book because it is a
tie-in to the Flashman series
. In addition to the 12 official books ofthe Flashman series, George
MacDonald Fraser wrote two more tie-in books: one is Mr American, in which Flashman is a supporting character (which I read previously) and the other is Black Ajax.
Black Ajax takes place in the early
1800s, which is a few years before Flashman’s time. (The first Flashman book takes place in the 1840s.) But Flashman’s father, Captain Buckley (“Mad
Buck”) Flashman is one of the main characters. (And, since the whole story is
told in the form of interviews looking back in time from a later perspective, a
few brief references are made to the younger Flashman himself.)
The Plot
Although historical fiction, this
novel is based on a true story. George
MacDonald Fraser has rescued from the historical archives the strange but
fascinating story of Tom Molineaux (W), a black American ex-slave
who became a famous boxer in England during the Napoleonic Wars.
The story
is told in the form of interviews with a number of witnesses, some real
(Paddington Jones (W) and Bill Richmond (W)) and some
fictional (Buckley Flashman).
The Review
This is the 14th book I’ve read by
George MacDonald Fraser, so I guess it should come as no surprise that I find
his prose highly readable. And that’s
the case here as well. I found this book
very readable, and George MacDonald Fraser’s storytelling abilities to be as
engrossing as usual.
The fact
that I wasn’t interested in the subject matter of the book—I have absolutely no interest in boxing— was a minor impediment, but the story is
well-told enough that you don’t really have to be a sports fan.
Enjoyability
of the book aside, there are 3 areas of the book that caught my attention
1) Boxing and British culture
2) Regency Britain
3) and George MacDonald Fraser’s handling of slavery and
racism.
I’ll deal
with these in order. First
Boxing and British
Culture
I don’t
know a lot about boxing. A few years
ago, I thought that boxing was an American sport. After all, all the boxing greats are always
Americans, right?
But
apparently boxing is primarily a properly British institution. At least
according to George MacDonald Fraser.
Actually
this idea has popped up a few times before in my reading list. It was a major plot point of Royal Flash (both the book and the movie) that the German Otto Von Bismarck can not appreciate
the British sport of boxing, and has to be taught a painful lesson by a British
boxer in order to acknowledge the level of skill involved.
In Twenty Years After, the
French author Alexandre Dumas also describes the British fascination with
boxing. After the Musketeers demonstrate
their talent in boxing in London, they are acclaimed by the English mob.
Dumas, who
was writing in the 1840s but describing the 1640s, may have been committing an
anachronism here. Or not—I don’t
know. (How far back does the history of
boxing culture in Britain go?) But at any rate, by the 1840s boxing was
apparently regarded as a well established part of British culture on the continent.
In this
book, one of the major themes George MacDonald Fraser wants to emphasize is how
important boxing was to the British during the Napoleonic Wars:
As Buckley
Flashman says:
The war had much to do with that [the
popularity of boxing], you know. Well ‘twas
natural enough to compare the mills [boxing matches] with the sterner battles abroad and see in the pugs the sterner stuff
that had held the French at bay so many years. I remember Clarence, our late
king, holding forth for the hundredth time about the set-to between Gully and
Pearce, which fell in the same month as Trafalgar.
“Was not one an echo of t’other?”
says he. “Damme, I say it was! Could anyone doubt, who saw those two noble
fellows at blows, that we were better men than the French or the Spaniards or
the dam’ Danes an’ the rest o’ that continental rabble? No, sir! Why sir? ‘Cos
we learn from our cradle to fight like men, not like back-stabbin’ dagoes or
throat-slittin’ Frogs. They have their stilettos, we have our fists. We fight
clean, sir, an’ hard, an’ don’t cry quits while we can stand on our feet! Why,
sir? ‘Cos we’re Englishmen, an’ boxin’s our game, an’ makes us what we are, an’
be damned to ‘em!” (p. 63-64).
One of the themes of this book
is that what is remembered in history books isn’t necessarily what the people
of the time were concerned with. History
remembers the early 1800s as the time of the madness of King George, and the
Napoleonic Wars. But people in England
were obsessed with the scandals of the fashionable set, and the boxing
matches. George MacDonald Fraser
(through his characters) asserts that people of the time were more concerned
about the outcome of the boxing matches in England than about the war in
Europe.
It’s an
interesting little piece of cultural history, that even a non-sports fan like
me can appreciate.
As
interesting as all this is, however, I’m still not a fan of boxing. If two men are in a boxing ring, and I don’t
know either of them, I really don’t care which one of them beats the other
senseless. And the idea of two men
beating each other senseless for the amusement of the spectators revolts me.
This was
especially true back in the 1800s, when the boxing match would last for a
(seemingly) unlimited number of rounds.
When describing the fight between Tom Molineaux and Tom Cribb, George
MacDonald Fraser details a fight that went on for 34 rounds, fifty-five
minutes, and which wrecked the bodies of both men. And I’m thinking: “This is just cruel! Why not just stop the fight after 3 rounds
and 15 minutes?”
It’s
difficult to tell exactly where George MacDonald Fraser stands on the
issue. On the one hand, he gives in
graphic detail the brutality of the boxing matches. On the other hand, he (or at least his
characters) spend a lot of time praising the skill and science of boxing.
I suppose
this is the sign of a good author—he’s skilled enough to leave some ambiguity
about the subject and let the reader make their own decisions.
Regency Britain
This ties in a bit with the above
section, but one of the delights of reading any of George MacDonald Fraser’s
books is the historical details and digressions he gives on any story he is
telling.
And so,
although this story is nominally about the boxer Tom Molineaux, Fraser also
uses the story as a launching point for various digressions on English
culture.
This is
especially true in the interviews with Buckley Flashman, who seems to share his
son’s habit of going on long digressions, much to the annoyance of his
interviewer. After the interviewers asks
Buckley Flashman about Tom Molineaux, Flashman instead goes off for several
pages describing society in Regency Britain, until he is finally pressed by his
interviewer to return to the subject, at which point Flashman exclaims:
What’s this to do with Molineaux? Why, to
impress upon you what a light-minded crew of sensation-seekers Society was,
ripe for any novelty—female, criminal or sporting for choice—and because it
pleases me to hold forth at length while sampling this excellent drop o’ short.
So don’t dam’ well interrupt. We’ll come to the Dusky Miller presently.
Speaking of sport, there was a
mighty stink at Newmarket about that time….
(p.53-54)
….And it’s
another 10 pages before Flashman gets around to finally talking about Tom
Molineaux.
If you’re
interested in this sort of thing, it’s all fascinating period detail.
Buckley
Flashman advances the theory that the reason Victorian Britain was
so uptight in its morals, and Regency Britain was so loose in its morals, was
all because of the examples that the respective monarchs set for their
subjects.
As Buckley
Flashman says to his interviewer:
Now, you’re too young, I take it, to
remember London in the old days—in the French war, I mean, before the Regency?
Just so. Well, if you’re to understand about Molineaux, and how he came to make
such an almighty stir, and so forth, I must set you right about that time. ‘Twas
as different from today as junk from Offley’s beef. Free and easy and jolly, no
one giving a dam, churches half-empty and hells packed full, fashion and frolic
the occupations, and sport the religion…A few sobersides fretted about morality
and revolution, but since most o’ the country was three-parts drunk, nobody
minded them. The Town was on the spree, and we were “on the Town”.
Hard to swallow, eh, for your
serious generation, taking your lead from our sedate young Queen, God bless
her, and her pump-faced German noodle—ah, there’s the difference, in a
nutshell! You have the muff Albert, God help you, pious,
worthy, dull as a wet Sabbath and dressed like a dead Quaker; we had fat Prinny, boozy and cheery and chasing
skirt, in the pink of fashion as cut by Scott and approved by Brummel. That’s
the difference thirty years has made. Your statesmen don’t gamble or fight
duels; there ain’t one trace-kciker among your Society women; royalty don’t
fornicate or have turn-ups at coronations nowadays; and what noble lord trains
a prize pug or flees to France with the duns in full cry? (p.49-50)
I’ve heard
this explanation before by other writers. (In fact, this is pretty much the
standard explanation, isn’t it?)
Personally, I find it a bit hard to credit that the morals of the
monarch would have that much of an influence on something as large as society,
but I’m not expert enough to contest it.
And finally, one last point:
George MacDonald
Fraser’s Handling of Slavery and Racism
This is a
story that touches on not a few sensitive issues in British and American
history—the horrors of slavery, and the more subtle issues of racism.
George
MacDonald Fraser, who used to take pride in being politically incorrect [SEE ARTICLE HERE] might not be the best person to handle this story.
As with all
issues of political sensitivity, this is ultimately a judgment call. Some people will have no problem with this
book, others will cringe slightly when reading the descriptions of slavery.
I’m
reminded of the controversy surrounding the Quentin Tarantino film Django.
(As of this writing, I haven’t yet gotten around to seeing Django, but I followed the controversy
when it came out.) Some people praised Django for faithfully depicting the
brutality of slavery. Others wondered if
Django wasn’t exploiting the tragedy
of slavery to make a trashy revenge movie.
The same
question could be raised of this book.
On the one hand, George MacDonald Fraser fully brings home the brutality
of a system in which human beings are simply treated as a piece of property.
But on the
other hand…
There is a perverted
French character in this novel, someone who is obviously meant to act like a
stand-in for the Marquis de Sade, who takes sadistic pleasure in sexually
tormenting the female slaves. I’m sure
some people would argue that this depiction is meant as a condemnation of the
slavery system, but reading those sections I wondered whether we might have
crossed the line from a serious examination of the subject into something else
entirely.
(Well, love
him or hate him, nothing George MacDonald Fraser writes is ever boring—I’ll
give him that much.)
Once the
action switches to Britain, there’s a bit of a conflicted message about racism
in 19th century England. George
MacDonald Fraser is never shy about praising his native country, and he is at
pains to emphasize the contrast between British and American racial
attitudes. In America, Tom Molineaux was
nothing more than a piece of property.
In Britain, he was able to achieve fame, fortune, and even rub shoulders
with the aristocracy and royalty. This
point is emphasized a few times over.
However
there was a color barrier even in Britain, and Tom Molineaux did run up against
it. As one character describes it:
He [Tom Molineaux] did not like us…. He did not
believe we treated him fair. Nor did we, sir.
We robbed him o’ the Championship of England, and we abused and insulted
and made mock of him when he was doing his best and showing us milling
[boxing] as good as any … he was a
stranger in a strange land, and the Fancy [boxing fraternity] at his fights was never what you’d call even-handed,
were they? Natural enough…but we could
ha’ been kinder. (p.227-228)
The story
of a struggle against racism is sympathetic to black people, but sometimes the
language this story is told in is not so sympathetic.
Like the Flashman novels, this book is told from
the perspective of the participants themselves, without an omniscient
narrator. And the participants tell
their stories through the prism of their own language and prejudices. As with the Flashman series, this narrative device means the book is filled
with politically incorrect language and ideas, but the reader is meant to
understand that this represents 19th century prejudices, and not objective
reality. Nevertheless, if racially
insensitive language makes you uncomfortable, then best to avoid this
book. The “N-word” is used not a few times in this book. (But then, it would be used by characters of
that time, wouldn’t it?)
For me, it’s
the character of Tom Molineaux that made me more uncomfortable than anything
else. The way he’s written in this book,
he could easily have been a 19th century Black Sambo stereotype. He’s repeatedly described as simple, stupid,
obstinate, completely lacking in self-control, over-sexed (with an obsession
for white women), and an alcoholic.
How much
criticism should George MacDonald Fraser get for this? How much of this portrayal
is based on historical fact? (And how
accurate were 19th century sources?)
Must all
black people always be treated as saints? And if not, how much leeway does a
novelist have to portray a black character in a negative light before a line is
crossed?
The saving
grace of this novel is that Tom Molineaux’s flaws are never portrayed as being
representative of his whole race—other black characters, like Bill Richmond,
are portrayed as being much more intelligent and rational.
And as the
real Tom Molineaux did die from alcoholism at a young age (W), it can’t
be denied that at least some of his character flaws are a matter of
history.
And yet,
even so, George MacDonald Fraser’s portrayal of Tom Molineaux struck me as too
simplistic and too close to traditional stereotypes. A complex negative portrait of Tom Molineaux
I could have lived with, but this portrayal of him as being simple-minded,
over-sexed, and out of control around alcohol and white women, made me
uncomfortable.
Yet another
Flashman book that I found to be
highly readable, but that I’d think twice about before recommending.
Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky: Can Civilization Survive Capitalism? Capitalism as it exists today is radically incompatible with democracy.
Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky: Can Civilization Survive Capitalism? Capitalism as it exists today is radically incompatible with democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment