Really on the Rocks

Raleigh on the Rocks reads like the research packet for a novel Richard Rohmer never wrote.  212 pages of photocopies of ships’ logs, trial transcripts and interoffice memos from ass-covering war bureaucrats, thankfully long dead.  I wonder if a similar pile of papers exists for the other fiction. 

“On Memorial Day, the Admiral, accompanied by Sir Auckland Geddes, was received by President Harding at the White House where pleasantries were cordially exchanged and, very likely, there was discussion of the involvement of Pak’s illustrious ancestor, Major General Sir Edward Pakenham, in the Battle of New Orleans.” – Raleigh on the Rocks

Imagine how easy it would be to turn that into Rohmer-quality action, and create a BE$T$ELLER…

“Welcome to the White House, Sir Auckland” said President Warren G. Harding, America’s 29^th President.

Sir Auckland shook the Ohio-born President’s hand.

“May I present Admiral Pakenham, of her Majesty’s Navy.”

“Packenham? Any relation to Major General Sir Edward Pakenham?”

“I’m sorry to say, yes,” said the Admiral.

Harding, who would die in office several years later, laughed.

“And I’m sorry about how our Andrew Jackson – one of my shall we say illustrious predecessors – gave your relative a beating at the Battle of New Orleans!”

“Tragically, neither side knew our nations had already signed the Treaty of Ghent.”

“Yes, a shame.  But enough of these pleasantries.  Do you have an answer to my ultimatum?”

And then they’d check yes or no on the ultimatum, which would involve ownership of all the oil and gas in the arctic – and put the paper on the ship, and then it would run aground, and decades later frogmen from the Bank of Canada would have to solve the mystery by searching the wreckage.  It writes itself.  Call it Balls Up!

As it is, this isn’t a book at all.  It’s a poorly padded high school paper about nothing.  Grade F.  Note from teacher: “See me.”

(Okay, one interesting thing.  The British Navy putting all that time and effort into blowing up a ship just because it would look bad to have it sitting there, after some idiot got it stuck on a rock.  Your empire’s tax dollars at work.)

Stan, I’ll return your copy when I come to Montreal in April.  On to Ultimatum 2!

Raleigh on the Rocks is...

...an article.  I mean - really?  This slight story about a British warship that runs aground in "Canada" and is scuttled 4 years later, only to cause problems in the ensuing decades due to the fact there is was still live ammunition aboard it some 70 years later is not a book.  There's barely enough story to fill an article.  Rohmer tries valiantly to create a stirring story where none exists - the result is a mess of conjecture, supposition and assumption that stretches out past 200 pages (!) due to the inclusion of page after page of documentation that is supposed to tell the story.  Unlike the writer, whose job it apparently is is to show you all this great research so you can say "yup - there sure is a story in there somewhere"

...an appendix disguised as a book.  Document after document after document.  After document.  All documented to prove that good research can make a book.  Why would you need anything else?

...unfinished.  The last two pages (spoiler alert) is a letter from Rohmer to the powers that be demanding answers that by date of publication had not arrived.

Try though he may (or did he really try?) there's just no story here.  He tries to turn "Vice-admiral Sir William Pakenham, KCB, KCMG, KCVO, Commander-in-chief of Britain's North Atlantic and West Indies Fleet" (Rohmer has never met a title he didn't love writing out for effect) into a character - once introduced, he is referred to as "Pak" so you get the idea of what kind of upstanding career naval man we're dealing with.  That or Rohmer feels that every story needs an "old Blood and Guts" at it's center. But there is nothing in the research that makes him out to be the colourful character he desperately wants us to believe he is.

In fact, nobody is.  Everyone in this story is dramatized by assumptions (read: wild guess/wishful thinking) so flimsy it's a wonder no one at the editing stage challenged them.  To wit:

"The next day, Admiral Pakenham received a signal (691) from Admiralty that he undoubtedly could not believe"   (undoubtedly!)

"His answer was given in typical, direct no-nonsense Pak form". (typical of Pak - he sure hated nonsense)

"Admiral Oliver must have been highly frustrated by the lack of information coming from the other side of the Atlantic" (yes, he must have been highly frustrated.  Why, that's one step above being very frustrated)

"Bromley's statement is strong evidence that Admiral Pakenham was a shrewd, hands-on, take-charge, no-nonsense commander" (wow - he sounds not unlike E.P. Taylor.  And boy - more evidence about how Pak hated nonsense)

"The Admiral must have been devastated when on the bridge of the Calcutta he first laid eyes on his true flagship gutted, tipped, mortally wounded"  (He must have been)

Please - tell me there is more fiction on the way...

He'll Remember, With Advantages, What Feats He Did That Day

Now, this is more like it.  We're not out of the introduction before Rohmer tells us, again, about the night in 1978 when he totally got to wear a rear admiral's uniform, complete with the lace handkerchief stuffed up the left sleeve and (join in kids)...

"... the only alteration was to shorten the pant legs slightly."

Serious question to BB:

What's with the title?  Why "The Canada Shipwreck of HMS Raleigh"?  Is there some Canada Council rule that you get more points if the word "Canada" is in the title, even at random?  Because it looks like primitive search engine optimization in 2016.

"The Jennifer Lawrence Shipwreck of the HMS Nipslip"

What are the Master's rules on titles, again?  I'm too lazy to get How to Write a Be$t $eller down from the atti¢.

Which of us is writing the Canada wrap-up for Golden Canada Phoenix?

Update

On E.P. Taylor's birthday, a copy of Raleigh on the Rocks arrived in my mailbox.

All of nature talks to me.  If I could only figure out what it was trying to tell me.

Golden Phoenix in a Week: Day One (chapters 1-7)

It's been awhile, but I feel no guilt. This summer I tackled Raleigh on the Rocks – all of Raleigh on the Rocks, even the parts Rohmer didn't write (which is most of the book). You two will find it's the most challenging Rohmer yet. I won't be surprised if it turns out Practice and Procedure Before the Ontario Highway Transport Board is easier.

This morning, I started in on the Rohmer's 1997 Golden Phoenix: The Biography of Peter Munk. I'm quite enjoying it. Some of the pleasure has to do with the simple fact that Peter Munk isn't E.P. Taylor, but mostly it's because Golden Phoenix isn't E.P. Taylor. You'll find it a better written book. You'll also find Munk more inspiring and interesting; after all, in Clairtone he actually built something. Taylor can't make any similar claim.

I've got Golden Phoenix on interlibrary loan. It's due back next week, so I'm going to plow ahead by reading fifty or sixty pages a day. I'll be recording a few unfocused observations, but little more. I doubt there'll be much in the way of spoilers. I'll flag 'em if I see 'em.

The first thing you'll notice with Golden Phoenix is that as a physical object it is Richard Rohmer's most attractive book. The eighteen-year-old library copy I'm reading, courtesy of neighbouring Huron County, records that I'm the second borrower. The first was in July 1999. Here's to the Huron County Library for keeping the faith!

A couple of cursory notes:

• Golden Phoenix features no bibliography (typical of Rohmer);
• Golden Phoenix features no endnotes (typical of Rohmer);
• Golden Phoenix features no acknowledgements (atypical of Rohmer).

Today I read chapters one through seven, taking Peter Munk from his childhood in wartime Budapest to Toronto, the University of Toronto and the spectacular rise of Clairtone.

My casual observations (peppered with lazy queries):

• Dealing in rare stamps, nylon stockings and foreign currency smuggled across borders sure sounds like black market activity to me.
• "Peter was falling in love, and was happily aware that Linda's father, Bill Gutterson, was a wealthy pharmaceutical entrepreneur." With one exception, I can't say I really knew (or cared) what my old girlfriends' parents did for a living.
• As with his other books, most notably E.P. Taylor, Rohmer is blind when it comes to privilege. Here we have Munk's business partner "pencil-thin" David Gilmour described as someone who "had advantages slightly beyond the norm". We'll later learn that he was the son of a director at Nesbitt Thomson, a connection that opened doors  – "but not a deal-maker", Rohmer is quick to point out.
• As always, Rohmer has trouble in identifying the relevant. A man named Gerry Heifetz served as best man at Munk's wedding, and is never mentioned again. In contrast, David Gilmour's wealthy father is alive in September 1958, but dies at some point before April 1960. When did he die? Might an inheritance have played a part in supporting the early days of Clairtone? 
• Regarding the 1958 visit to the Soviet Union, I can find no trace of Linda Munk's "series of articles for the Globe and Mail about their experiences". She did have a letter to the editor published in the 30 November 1956 edition, however. It dealt with Hungarian refugees coming to Canada.
• Is Peter Munk's name really "Peter Munk"? It seems remarkably plain, particularly for one born to an "old and respected Jewish family".

Told you it would be unfocused.

About that Raleigh on the Rocks cover

"Hmm…"

"It's, um… I didn't have much to work with in the way of photos."

"Yeah, I know. You should see the crap we're using inside. Look, this'll do, but I want you to change the subtitle."

"The subtitle?"

"Yeah, I want you to add the word 'Canadian'. I want it to say 'The Canadian Shipwreck of HMS Raleigh'."

"But it was announced as just 'The Shipwreck of HMS Raleigh'. It's in the catalogue."

"Never mind that. No one's ever heard of this thing. We've got to play up the Canadian angle."

"Well, 'Canadian' won't fit. Not unless we go with a smaller font."

"Make is 'Canada' then. 'The Canada Shipwreck of HMS Raleigh'."

"The Canada Shipwreck? That doesn't even make sense. Besides, Newfoundland wasn't even part of Canada back then.

"Look, do you want to be paid or what."