The Island

[Patrick Hand]

Yeah...yeah... this should be down in pyrate pop.....

Or should it?

OK.. this novel discusses the ruthlessness of Pyrates, in a happily graphic way...

<as in... Pyrates were not nice...>

In Pirate PoP... we have Pyrates as fun people that would be happily interesting to invite to your next beach party.....

Is that what Pyrates were really like?

I think Benchley did a good job of describing them... (in a novel or what...)

SO.... do we keep telling fun storys about Noble gentlemen... their land stolen from them and they had to resort to Pyracy to recover their rightful territory (and get the girl).....

or do we want to look at the truth?

Pyrates were desperate men... hopeless... they could never go back home.... they gave that up....

gotta love rum.... because drinking yourself to death was better than what else would happen to you...

A short colorfull quick life.....

All they could ever expect...

You went Pyrate... and then yer kinda stuck as a Pyrate.... until you got killed in battle... died drunk.. or got caught and hung......

I think Benchley told a good story about that, and he made it so happily icky... (but kinda true) that it deserves some discussion here...

[Fox]

Haven't read the book, but I'll gladly blunder in and offer my unsolicited opinions anyway...

Personally, I abhor such nonsense, but there are several issues here. The first, ovbiously, is the nature of one's portrayal: if you're not trying to be historically accurate then what does it matter?

If you are trying to be accurate then it's just nonsense. Do we know of any historical nobles who went on the account to escape <fill in crap excuse here>? Not to my knowledge. If you're claiming to be 'doing it right', then leave the Sabatiniesque biography where it belongs.

PC or not, perhaps the real issue is that 99% of the public (in my experience) don't give a damn. They're interested in the here and now - what you're wearing/drinking/doing/eating etc. A basic back-story that gives an indication of the way people became pirates is not necessarily a bad thing, but frankly, life-sagas are just a waste of time and energy that could be much better devoted to something else. Doesn't matter how good the kit is, as soon as I start having to listen to tales of a character's childhood (which, yawn, usually involves being wrongly accused of something and running away to sea...) I start to lose a little respect for the person talking.

The answer is like all things I guess: if you're non-PC then it doesn't matter, do what makes you feel good; if you're trying to be PC then having an historically accurate backstory (or just glossing over former life) is as important as having the right kit.

[Animal]

Never read the book but saw the movie. If it is the same, an interesting adaptation.

Animal

[capn'rob]

I, Not "Aye" but meself, found the book a good read. Although my experience with modern Pirates has been almost fleeting at best, I've had one. I have a few personal friends that have been too closely involved with Pirates for their liking. As I worked in the Marine Industry in South Florida from the early 1970s until the 90s, I'll leave it at that.

I read this book several years ago and recall two things. One, I enjoyed it. Two, a great poem that I recite to this day! Having cruised the Out Islands of the Bahamas, you can almost find this story believable. Living on Block Island, felt as much living aboard as when I was living aboard. A large quantity of dunnage was a "Dory Full". Preparing for a storm was like battening down at sea. These folks were isolated until Tourism returned in the 70s having passed with the Victorian hey day! In my cruising experience I've been to some Islands that don't get a lot of tourism even the cruising sailboat type. It's hard to imagine today but when I crossed the Pacific to the Marquesas 1979, we made a "speedy" crossing of 28 days. We used Celestial Navagation because the Omega didn't work out of the chute! Today, the speed is laughable to the new designs and dependable nav equipment has made cicumnavigators out of many. We visited Islands that hadn't had any boats, Any, in four years! I doubt that's the case anymore.

As far fetched as it could seem if taken with a grain of salt, from what I remember it were a good yarn. "Him rob he friend o' his Last Guinea! Him kill both Friar and Priest, Oh Dear! Him cut de throat of Pickaninny, Bloody, Bloody, Buccaneer!" and that little rhyme.

[Daniel]

Haven't read the book. To the extent that it shows pirates as being drunken, debauched, fond of torture, and generally not nice, I agree.

As regards pirates not being aristocrats, that's obviously true for 99% of them. There are examples of real aristocrats, like the Chevalier de Grammont and Cavendish, who would have been regarded as pirates at least by the Spanish, though their own countries would probably have called them privateers. I realize that for re-enactors (which I am not) that opens up the old controversy over whether it's legitimate to portray an unusual pirate as opposed to a commonplace one, and I have nothing to say about that. All I'm saying is that it did happen. But of course, aristocrats aren't necessarily any nicer than the common rabble, or even any soberer. Ever hear the phrase "drunk as a lord?"

I would not agree that pirates were necessarily stuck permanently as pirates. There are well-attested cases of people passing from lawful seafaring to piracy and back again. Obviously, some pirates took advantage of royal pardons, like almost the whole population of Nassau did when Woodes Rogers came in; Culliford also got away with that, and John Taylor got himself and his crew pardoned after robbing the Nossa Senhora do Cabo. There was also the old "forced man" excuse, which got several dozen of Roberts' crew off the hook at Cape Coast Castle; even a few of Bonnet's crew managed that. And even without a pardon or an acquittal, there was still a decent chance of simply setting up for yourself in a lawful profession after leaving your ship. Avery probably did that successfully, and those of his crew who went to America instead of Britain also got clean away with it. Kenedy came close: he kept a tavern and bawdy house in London for several years before he was recognized, arrested and hanged.

[Bilgemunky]

Foxe asked:

Do we know of any historical nobles who went on the account to escape <fill in crap excuse here>?

I believe that Stede Bonnet is reputed to going pirate in order to escape a nagging wife

[Daniel]

Foxe asked:

Do we know of any historical nobles who went on the account to escape <fill in crap excuse here>?

I believe that Stede Bonnet is reputed to going pirate in order to escape a nagging wife

True, but Bonnet wasn't a noble. He owned a plantation, but his only title was Major in the Barbadian militia.

[Fox]

Actually, that would be an interesting basic background. There are one or two other records of men turning to piracy because of their marital relations - a small but definite minority group.

I must confess I was thinking only of the 'noble, raised by gypsies, run away to sea to escape the odium of a false accusation' type of back-story.

[Bilgemunky]

No gypsies, but the Chevalier de Grammont might fit the bill of a noble on the run, turning buccaneer if not outright pirate. Definitely a rarity, in any case.

[Graydog]

Never discount the power of the .50 cal machine gun (based on the movie not the book)

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

Remember when reading anything about history, if it follows singular theme it is the same as an agenda. If the story is written with several points of view, and primary documentation, then it is worthy of consideration as a source of information. Otherwise it is just entertainment, no different than the gypsies becoming nobles becomming pyrates, &c. They really drive this home at the University, especially if you are majoring in secondary education in social studies. The greatest number of working crew pyrates were simply economically bound to the lower classes and looking for some way to make some coin, and have some say in how their lives would go, having few/no other prospects available. There were several that went straight and made a decent life ashore afterwards as well, some took pardons, and so-on. Just as in any trade or venue, some were real low-life characters (%1'ers), most were just average men doin a job for finacial gain out of necessity for survival.

Bo

Edited January 18, 2010 by Capt. Bo of the WTF co.

[Quartermaster James]

most were just average men doin a job for finacial gain out of necessity for survival.

Agreed. Most of the examples given are of particularly notable figureheads. For each of these, how many common seaman made up their pyrate crew?* These men might have been able to "escape" to service on a merchant vessel or, heaven help, them the navy, but highly doubtful their escape into any profession. How many among the crew do you suppose could even read and write?

*That's a rhetorical question, no need to start throwing about numbers now...

I would not agree that pirates were necessarily stuck permanently as pirates. <snip> Kenedy came close: he kept a tavern and bawdy house in London for several years before he was recognized, arrested and hanged.

I think your last sentence belies your first here. Without a pardon, no matter the life into which a man escaped, he was still just a pyrate not yet caught.

A basic back-story that gives an indication of the way people became pirates is not necessarily a bad thing, but frankly, life-sagas are just a waste of time and energy that could be much better devoted to something else.

Also agreed. I think a life story is a very important tool for creating a believable persona. However, reciting your back story usually is not. True, there are some living history situations wherein a presentation is given as a first person account, and these can be very well done, educational, and entertaining. But seriously, if you are a wrongly accused 18th century noble on the run, hiding among pyrates, much less a common thief, would you be telling a stranger your story? Learning and performing some practical skills of the time can do much more to bring a character to life.

[Fox]

Remember when reading anything about history, if it follows singular theme it is the same as an agenda.

Is it? I think there might be a subtle differentiation. A book might be written to make a point, provided that evidence which does not fit that point is still considered. Given that there are no absolutes in history, it is almost impossible to make a point without having to acknowledge the exceptions, but acknowledging exceptions need not detract from a singular theme, and often can reinforce it.

The greatest number of working crew pyrates were simply economically bound to the lower classes and looking for some way to make some coin, and have some say in how their lives would go, having few/no other prospects available. There were several that went straight and made a decent life ashore afterwards as well, some took pardons, and so-on. Just as in any trade or venue, some were real low-life characters (%1'ers), most were just average men doin a job for finacial gain out of necessity for survival.

Economical survival was certainly a major factor, and IMHO probably the most significant single factor in men's choice to turn to piracy. But one must also consider the large numbers of men who voluntarily left legitimate employment to turn pirate. That decision perhaps suggests a measure of other influences.

*That's a rhetorical question, no need to start throwing about numbers now...

Oh go on, please...

Edited January 18, 2010 by Foxe

[Quartermaster James]

*That's a rhetorical question, no need to start throwing about numbers now...

Oh go on, please...

I'm not sure what you want here Mr. Foxe. My point was that for each figurehead there were many more crew, and that these crew were common seamen. I see little importance in whether the ratio be 1:20, 1:50, 1:100, etc., hence no need to turn this thread to a discussion of numbers of crew. If you find something objectionable in my speculation, please do me (and the forum) the courtesy to bring it to light. There is no need to goad.

[Fox]

A thousand apologies, no goading intended I assure you, and I find nothing objectionable in your post*. Also, I missed the asterisk and assumed the comment I quoted was related to the question of literacy.

I just have a general interest in piratical literacy (I should get out more, I know) and seek to inflict my interests on others.

*which is not quite the same thing as agreeing wholeheartedly.

[Capt. Bo of the WTF co.]

To clarify, to simply acknowledge the opposing views, and wave them off is not enough for acceptable research. The author has to take the other viable possibilities/probabilities to task, break them down, anylize, and if possible, disprove, or at least cast them with a reasonable doubt. A central theme just to promote "my opinion is right and everyone else is wrong" does not constitute a reliable source of information taken as a whole. We recently went throught the stereotyping of all pyrates as rapists in another forum. This stereotyping is a peeve of mine, the "all (fill in the blank) were (fill in the blank)" is just wrong.

Bo

[Mission]

A basic back-story that gives an indication of the way people became pirates is not necessarily a bad thing, but frankly, life-sagas are just a waste of time and energy that could be much better devoted to something else.

Also agreed. I think a life story is a very important tool for creating a believable persona. However, reciting your back story usually is not. True, there are some living history situations wherein a presentation is given as a first person account, and these can be very well done, educational, and entertaining. But seriously, if you are a wrongly accused 18th century noble on the run, hiding among pyrates, much less a common thief, would you be telling a stranger your story? Learning and performing some practical skills of the time can do much more to bring a character to life.

I think the romantic types (aka. F's or Feelers) like to create backstories for themselves and I'm ok with that. However, I also agree that almost no one else wants to hear your backstory, except maybe the folks on the forum who enjoy such things. The public wants to be entertained and/or taught something in an entertaining way.

QJ, meet Ed. His sense of humor runs precisely along the same lines as ours, only it's so dry that it crackles and can make you think he is being somewhat elitist sometimes. (He's generally not, though. If he would hang around in places other than the pure historical forums you would (very slowly) come to learn this. At least that is my experience with him on another forum where he acted as weird as the rest of us. )

[Fox]

This stereotyping is a peeve of mine, the "all (fill in the blank) were (fill in the blank)" is just wrong.

As I said, there are no absolutes in history (or is that a self-disproving statement?).

Mission old pal, I find it hard to believe that anyone's sense of humour could be precisely like mine - I mean, we're all warped in slightly different ways aren't we?

QJ, nice to meet you.

[Quartermaster James]

A thousand apologies, no goading intended I assure you, and I find nothing objectionable in your post*. Also, I missed the asterisk and assumed the comment I quoted was related to the question of literacy.

I just have a general interest in piratical literacy (I should get out more, I know) and seek to inflict my interests on others.

*which is not quite the same thing as agreeing wholeheartedly.

Heard & understood. Apologies accepted a thousand fold.

[Quartermaster James]

QJ, nice to meet you.

Likewise, though I think we've rubbed cyber-elbows in this pub and others before.

[Quartermaster James]

I think the romantic types (aka. F's or Feelers) like to create backstories for themselves and I'm ok with that. However, I also agree that almost no one else wants to hear your backstory, except maybe the folks on the forum who enjoy such things. The public wants to be entertained and/or taught something in an entertaining way.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

I find American colonial reenactors consider developing a persona important, and not for any romantic notion. Rather, being a definite character fixes one in time and place and allows one, then, to properly outfit oneself with appropriate kit. Of course such notions tend to start fights here.

[Mission]

I think people who read fictional books and see the faces of the characters may do things like that. I almost never see the faces of the characters in books. They're more like partially developed bundles of thoughts and actions to me (...in well written books. In crappy books, they're more like manikins.)

As for fixing oneself in a particular time and place, researching period surgeons has re-enforced the idea that understanding them fully is nigh impossible. We have so little to go on and there were so many environmental factors that are different. So I fall back on my bundles of thoughts and actions theory on fictional characters. (Which is in part why I really don't want to actually try and perform a surgical operation. In a way, it almost seems like an insult to the people who actually dealt with such things to me. I can't even begin to be close to correct in doing it, so, in the words of Kathy Selden, I'd be making "...a lot of dumb show.")

[Guest]

I don't think a "back story" is such a bad thing (well other than being raised by gypsy's, and after having your rightful inheritance stolen from you, and you resort to Pyracy to recover alla that.... wots his name..... the guy wot wrote "Captain Blood (fun story tho...)it's all his fault.... )

Any way... a "back story" , just lets you know what would /could have happened to you/your character/persona .... so you know the history of the time period... Hey.. in real modern life, I don't have to tell everyone that Carter was President of the United States when I was in the Army... but knowing what happened when I was 16 if I'm portraying a Buccaneer... well I don't have to tell everyone that... but it let's me know what and why my character/persona/whatever... thinks how they do.....

Pirates of the Caribbean.... Cutthroat Island... Peter Pan (Hook is better ) and Captain Blood are all fun.... Under the Black Flag tried to address this.... but we/some people have a romantic idealization about history.....I know the Island is also fiction (or Horror..)... I just think Benchley did a better job of describing how pyrates were....

[Quartermaster James]

Any way... a "back story" , just lets you know what would /could have happened to you/your character/persona .... so you know the history of the time period... Hey.. in real modern life, I don't have to tell everyone that Carter was President of the United States when I was in the Army... but knowing what happened when I was 16 if I'm portraying a Buccaneer... well I don't have to tell everyone that... but it let's me know what and why my character/persona/whatever... thinks how they do.....

Once again, Mr. Hand takes the prize!

[Guest]

Once again, Mr. Hand takes the prize!

Cool...I hope it's rum.......