This was more scholarly than rollicking, and I don't mean that as a criticism. It could serve as a History class taught by a very engaging professor to undergraduates in their senior year, which is exactly what it is. You come away not so much with dates and names and rote, but being able to see. So, make yourself Christian or Bligh, be an able seaman or a Tahitian native. What is your view?
This could be clunky at times, but it would not be long before the writing soared:
Creating some sort of private space was an art, a privilege for some and a right for all. Topmen might do it in the shrouds, yarning there in elite companionship. Or in the quiet stretches of the night watches, private spots on the deck or along the gunwales could be found, space to nap, to sew, to fish, to watch the sea. Privacy was not a matter of walls. It was a matter of behaviour, closing the windows of one's soul.
And it could take you to a different world:
It did not matter, sailors used to say, whether he who would piss when he could not whistle slipped or was hauled from the cathead. He was hanged all the same.
Of the mutineers, only three were hanged, and maybe they were not even actual mutineers, just three who didn't make it onto the launch. Others who made it back to London had connections, or lawyers. The rest drowned or were murdered. Only John Adams successfully hid in Polynesia, masked by an alias, until he learned of the second American President.
But why the mutiny in the first instance? The author makes the point that Bligh was no more tyrannical than other commanders. Yet he was no gentleman. He rose, instead, from the very men he captained, so they were less likely to stand his floggings.
The violence of discipline was not inevitable. Any captain could have known how to be a 'gentleman', how to manage the symbolic environment of his wooden world. Any captain could have been relativised by experiencing the otherness in his men's lives. . . . Any captain could have known how much he was the pain of those he flogged, how much he was the hangman of those that mutinied.
But on to this book's odd title. Bad language?
Language is notoriously difficult to recapture in history or in a courtroom. An inflection, a look in the eye, a turn of the lip could make even words like 'scoundrels, damned rascals, hell-hounds' terms of endearment and familiarity, not insult. Or the words could cascade over hearers so constantly that they would not be heard at all. The question is whether and in what way Bligh's language penetrated, wounded and festered. I make the thesis that Bligh's bad language was the ambiguous language of his command. It was bad, not so much because it was intemperate or abusive, but because it was ambiguous, because men could not read in it a right relationship to his authority.
Bligh would have struggled with text messaging, I'd guess.
But speaking of language, the author offers much nautical-speak that has made its way to everyday usage: at loggerheads, cut and run, shake a leg, taken aback, learning the ropes, and crossing the line. And this wonderfully embedded word: Fletcher Christian was and is a nebulous figure.
Which gets us to the author's culminating point, that History and Art have done their work to shape our views of the men on the Bounty. So Bligh, in the form of Charles Laughton or Anthony Hopkins, is and always will be the tyrant. And Fletcher Christian, whether Errol Flynn, Clark Gable, Marlon Brando or Mel Gibson, is the hero, ready to die for freedom. I was inclined to quote a lengthy paragraph about how Christian and eight remaining mutineers gathered Tahitian men and women and fled to Pitcairn Island. But just know this: The women they divided, as they were to divide the land, into nine equal shares. . . .He had forced overboard, however, six women who were too old for their needs or too ugly for their tastes. So, maybe not so nebulous.
The author tells us, Historians never observe process. They observe only process interpreted by texts. . . .The texts were collected by those who were dazzled by a miracle. Miracle viewers do not always give a good ethnography. They do make lasting myth.