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...