The Wager - discussion (with spoilers)

[Lynn]

(Note: I'm posting this opening note for Ann D. because she's traveling. I'm having a little trouble getting the link to the author's background to copy and paste correctly, so I'll post it in a second note. )

The Wager: A Tale of Shipwreck, Mutiny, and Murder (2023) by David Grann. This book was on many of the lists for best nonfiction books of 2023. It has been on the New York Times non-fiction best-sellers list for 52 weeks.

The Wager was a ship which was part of a British naval expedition which left Britain in 1740. Its mission was to fight the Spanish in South America and to capture a Spanish treasure ship.

The Wager started out with 250 men. In the end, only 33 made it back to England. The men were ravaged by typhoid fever and scurvy. Many died. The weather near Cape Horn was unrelentingly horrible. The Wager was shipwrecked on a desolate small island off Chile. The crew could find nothing to eat. Starvation ensued. Many more died.

Conflict inevitably occurred. The two camps were led by David Cheap, the ship’s inexperienced captain, and its chief gunner, John Bulkeley. Everyone was desperate to leave the island and get home. Bulkeley eventually led his group through Magellan’s Passage. 30 of them made it back to England.

Cheap absolutely refused to go this route. Finally, some natives got them off the island and agreed to take his group to a Spanish settlement. Cheap and two others eventually made it back to England.

The two groups fought it out in the press, with Cheap accusing Bulkeley of mutiny. Bulkeley published his own detailed account of the disaster.

Here are some questions to get the discussion started:

1. Some of Bulkeley’s supporters maintained that Bulkeley’s actions did not constitute mutiny because they were no longer on the wrecked ship and also because Cheap had committed murder. Do you agree with their position?

2. Why did Cheap refuse to listen to any of Bulkely’s suggestions? He did seem to have a lot of practical knowledge and experience.

3. Were you surprised by the results of the hearings that the British naval authorities conducted?

4. Did you learn any surprising and/or interesting things from this book?

[Lynn]

Here's a link to some background info on the author that Ann originally included in her opening post:
https://www.supersummary.com/the-wage...

[Steve]

I read this book at a leisurely pace over the course of the second half of April, about 25 pages per day. As it turned out, that was the best way to do it. The author's descriptions of this ordeal are so vivid that it is actually exhausting to read.

This is the first time in my thirty-year, off-and-on participation in Constant Reader that a non-fiction book is up for discussion. I look forward to seeing how it goes. I shall return after completing my own recovery.

[Ann D]

Glad you here Steve!

Thanks for posting my note, Lynn. Sometimes, my Android devices defeat me. I'm so used to my Microsoft PC.

[Lynn]

No problem, Ann! And thanks for the advice about taking this slowly, Steve. I'm late to the party because I just got around to finding the book in my local library. I have to admit that the subject matter made me a little leery about trying it.

[Ann D]

It is difficult to read in a lot of ways, but it is also a tale of survival which is pretty amazing. After reading about life on British ships I now understand how they had to resort to impressment (i.e. kidnapping) to get sailors. Scurvy was a much worse disease than I had imagined - destroying the body and the mind.

[Lyn]

This was an interesting and well researched story.

My major recollection from this book is that the survivors ultimately owed their lives to the kindness and expertise of the native people bringing them food, making it all the more ridiculous that these haughty British men referred to them as savages and felt that the natives were inferior people.

[Donna]

I’m enjoying it - just beginning the final section. It’s been a very quick read. Reminds me in some ways of Endurance: Shackleton's Incredible Voyage that I read last year and another similarly horrific tale In the Heart of the Sea: The Tragedy of the Whaleship Essex. I recommend both for their remarkable survival stories.

I agree with you, Lyn, about their attitudes toward the natives. Even persisting with their own internal social hierarchy seemed ridiculous under the circumstances.

[Steve]

I would like to comment on the concluding chapters of the book first. This is in the nature of a spoiler alert for the benefit of those who have not finished it. It is my first ever "Spoiler Alert," and I am ever so proud of my consideration for others today. That is not always so.

It is in those concluding chapters that Mr. Gann drives his agenda home. (I have no problem with agendas as long as I agree with them.) Of course he is excellent in pointing out the profit motive of empire builders, their propensity to delude themselves that they were acting in the best interest of those people whom they conquered and colonized--either to bring Christianity to them or to incorporated them into a superior "civilization," and the grotesqueness of the end result. Still, many others have done that as well.

Here is what I thought new that he brought to the table in excellent fashion. The power structure in these empire building nations sent thousands of their own young men off on these expeditions to conquer and colonize or do battle with competing empire builders. Those young men died in massive numbers in the effort.

And yet . . . yet . . . those young men themselves never questioned the larger endeavor. They were so caught up in their little closed societies and struggles that they never thought to ask the larger question, why are we doing this? Whose purposes does this all serve?

[Steve]

I should also have mentioned the obvious. These seamen were bribed with the promise of a share of the booty obtained in this piracy, not that I have any sympathy for the Spanish. Consequently, there was venality underlying the enterprise from top to bottom.

Bribing the grunts with the promise of a share of whatever was looted was a common ploy of the Spanish as well in their relentless efforts to bring Christianity to the benighted indigenous. See William H. Prescott's classic The History of the Conquest of Mexico about Hernán Cortés and the Aztecs, easily the most amazing book that I have ever read.

[Steve]

I am through with my little rant about empires and colonialism. I had only recently finished the concluding chapters in which Mr. Grann took on those subjects in an interesting way. Consequently, that all was his fault, not mine.

I found it surprisingly easy to keep the players in this crew straight in my mind. The author pretty consistently tagged them for one thing. The gunner, the carpenter, the physician, etc. More importantly, members of the crew other than the Captain were literate and kept their own diaries or wrote of the experience later, Bulkeley in particular. That was amazing. We were often reading excerpts from their own words. That added dimension to them for me.

I would like to compare notes on Caption Cheap first. (What an unfortunate name!) However, I am still thinking about him.

This hard cover Doubleday edition of the book is a beautiful piece of work by the way. The maps inside the front and back covers were immensely helpful. The two sets of color plates are wonderful. That all added to the pleasure of the read.

[Ann D]

Lyn,
Excellent point about the role that indigenous people played in rescuing these men and how little they were appreciated by the people they saved. We are all blinded by our cultures.

[Ann D]

Steve,
I'm glad that you brought up Cheap. His name alone elicits some sympathy in the reader, and I feel certain that you will rise to his defense. I, however, can't help but feel that he caused inestimable harm to his men. Sure, he was inexperienced, but he also refused to listen to his other officers and his men - particularly the most knowledgeable and the obvious natural leader of the crew - Bulkeley. During the final big sea storm, if he had given in and gone further out to sea as others wanted, he might have even avoided the shipwreck itself.

Later, he refused to give up the original plan to meet up with Anson - although by then they were surely way past the meeting date. The survival rate of Bulkeley's group, which followed the alternative Magellan passage, was greater than that of the men who stayed with the Captain.

Cheap was inflexible and totally preoccupied by his ambition to succeed in the navy. The survival of his men never came first.

It didn't seem really fair that in later years he was given the command of another ship and finally succeeded in capturing Spanish treasure. He died a rich man.

But such is life.

[Steve]

Ann D wrote: ". . . and I feel certain that you will rise to his defense...."

Welcome home, Ann.

Yes and no. Your comments are fair, but here context and point of view are important. For those of a military bent of mind, particularly military officers, the mission is the be all and end all. Of course the safety of the men is important, but even that is secondary to the mission and its accomplishment. They are indoctrinated with that concept. They view the loss of men as the price to be paid sometimes for the accomplishment of the mission. Consequently, I feel fairly confident that a military person would view Captain Cheap's single-minded focus on the mission and his determination to carry on with it as entirely laudable.

As for the loss of the ship, I found it so interesting that the narrow focus of Captain Cheap's court martial was whether he was in any way at fault for that. Based upon Mr. Grann's fine description of those proceedings, it appears to me that they were correct in vindicating him.

But now we get to the problematic thing, which I am still undecided about. That for me was clearly Captain Cheap's shooting of Cozens. Yes, Cozens was out of line, but he was unarmed. First, even from a military point of view, some pro forma proceeding is required before administering any punishment, let alone death, even if that proceeding is a joke. Second, the Captain never administers the punishment himself if punishment is called for. Rather, he orders crewmen to flog the perpetrator or hang the perpetrator from the yard arm. Captain Cheap violated the rules of the game there on the face of it.

Then Bulkeley and his mates used the "murder" of Cozens as a pretext in justification of their own conduct. But you know something? I could not help but regard that as disingenuous.

There is more to say about all of that later, and I have gone on too long already here. I do wish to add one thing right now. It is my own little pet theory that it would be educational for everyone to experience real hunger for some extended period of time in their lives . . . particularly real hunger coupled with extreme physical exertion and insufficient sleep, but that might be asking a little much. That has a profound impact on human behavior and morality. Some allowances must be made for it. Decent conduct is so much easier when you are well-fed and well-rested.

[Steve]

I cringed a bit later after posting my last comment, fearing that it would read as if I am one of those know-it-alls. I really don't know anything. And believe me, I know that I don't know anything.

But what choice do I have here other than to proceed on in the discussion while pretending that I do know something?

[Donna]

Good comments, Steve. I think the book provides a fascinating study of leadership. Assuming Cheap’s singular goal of completing what he viewed as his mission which, after the wreck, it was meeting up with Anson, it can still be argued that he was equally guided by personal ambition. He seemed entirely unprepared and unsuited for the command role that he so desired and that was thrust upon him due to the circumstances. It seems to me that his own self doubts and paranoia kept him from making rational decisions and from any sort of collaboration with his men. I think he was totally out of control when he shot Cozens, but I agree that Bulkeley grabbed on to this as a convenient excuse.

[Steve]

Thank you for that comment, Donna. I have been considering it because it is a different but thoughtful reading of the situation. I have already admitted that I am more inclined in Captain Cheap's favor than others here. (I am certainly not so inclined in the gunner Bulkeley's favor as others are.) With that in mind . . . .

I strongly suspect that if we criticize Captain Cheap for his ambition, then we similarly would have to criticize every other officer in the British navy at the time. And was it actually "paranoia" when men under his command really were plotting against him?

A little mouse has been running around in my brain since finishing the book troubling me about that shooting of Midshipman Cozens . . . Midshipman, meaning that he himself was a young apprentice officer. I have reread the entire account of the shooting of Cozens. Anyone reading that would have to say, "What a mess!" For my part, I would have to say that the normally congenial Cozens was either a nasty, nasty drunk or he had lost his grip mentally or both. It was the purser Harvey who first attempted to shoot him. Unfortunately, when Captain Cheap heard that shot, he leaped to the conclusion that Cozens had fired it, and not without reason.

Lastly, a bizarre incident had occurred earlier. Cozens had been confined for disobedience. The Captain went to check on his young office in confinement in the evening. In a word, Cozens went nuts with his insults. The Captain lost his temper and beat the young man. Then there is this:

Cheap quickly recovered himself, and in a surprising act he released Cozens from confinement.

"Surprising" is putting it mildly. Had he not released Cozens--a misguidedly merciful act--the following events would probably not have occurred.

[Katy]

I thought this was an amazing account of the voyage of the Wager. The amount of research that David Grann did reading through the logs and journals of the participants in this story of shipwreck and survival was staggering. The notes, bibliography, and index cover more than 100 pages.
The one thing that really struck me about this was the hubris of Captain Cheap who expected total compliance from the crew when the conditions of the weather and the seas around Cape Horn were unusually dreadful. A more prudent decision would have required a return to a safe harbor for recuperation. Bulkeley and Lieutenant Baynes were well aware of the condition of the crew who were extremely weak from lack of food and the extreme consequences of Scurvy which rendered them unable to function effectively, and made it impossible to control the ship in the mountainous seas and hurricane force winds that they encountered. The captain, so eager to make his rendezvous with Commodore Anson, ignored the realities of the situation. His decision to press on caused the loss of the ship, but his unbelievable lack of awareness and poor judgement also resulted in the crew’s loss of confidence in his authority and the breakdown of civility on the island.
The decision of the Court-Martial seemed reasonable in that they refrained from judging the chaos that followed the shipwreck, and realized they could not evaluate the other circumstances human, and weather that contributed to the total disaster.

[Ruth]

Knee deep in the Big Muddy
And the old fool says to move on…

[Shirley]

I too am blown away by Grann's thorough research of primary sources. And I was surprised that so many of the crew could read and write. Gunner Bulkeley's log was such a rich source for the author.
Grann's writing is so vivid. His description of the terrifying conditions during Wager's passage from the Atlantic to the Pacific have cured me of ever considering a trip to that area of the world.
I'm so glad we read this book. There a number of nonfiction writers today who are gifted storytellers: in addition to Grann, there are Timothy Egan and Eric Larson, to name a couple.

[Ruth]

It is a riveting well-documented tale. And a good thing it is because if it hadn't been I'd have surely drowned in the minutiae. I felt the same way reading his Killers of the Flower Moon a few years ago. There's a breed of nonfiction writers who so excel at rooting out details concerning their subject that they seem to be compelled to include Every. Single. Thing.

It tires me.

[Gina]

I agree Ruth. I just finished this yesterday. It was a well researched book. I have to admit I thought Bulkeley had more sense and leadership than did Cheap, and was surprised that Byron did an about face to rejoin Cheap's group. I love this type of nonfiction.

[spoko]

Apparently I’m one of the few, but I was on Cheap’s side from early on, and nothing ever made me change my mind. I can’t see holding his ambition or single-mindedness against him, really, since they were perfectly reasonable in the circumstances. Yes, he moved up the ranks a bit faster than perhaps he should have, but that owes more to the problems of the British navy than to any faulty behavior on his part. Someone had to be promoted in that situation, and he was simply the one in place for it. If he was underprepared or underqualified, it was the fault of a system that didn’t have someone more qualified in place.

As far as his inflexibility later, what I saw was simply an officer taking seriously his mandate. Certainly, he put his men at risk. But the entire enterprise put these men at unreasonable risk—that was just the nature of a seagoing life, especially in the military. I agree with Grann’s sense (at the end of the book) that empire itself depended on people like this giving up their own safety & security for it. And obviously I think empire was not a force for good in the world, so I have a hard time admiring anything that supported it. But given their own worldview, it’s hard to fault Cheap’s decision to put his men’s lives (and his own) on the line for the sake of patriotism. The only way not to endanger the crew would have been to stay at home in the first place. I’m not saying that justifies all irrational behavior from that point on, but it certainly has to affect the calculus. It seemed apparent to me that Cheap was acting from a sense of duty and integrity.

That’s all putting aside the shooting of Cozens, of course—that act was criminal; at best it’s explicable as the result of unbearable stress and fear of the contagion of mutiny.

I think Bulkeley is harder to defend. One moment absolutely screamed out at me, from near the end of Part Four:

Bulkeley still sought solace from The Christian’s Pattern, but a passage in it warned, “Hadst thou a clear conscience, thou could not fear death. It were better to avoid sin than to flee death.” Yet was it a sin to want to live?

The answer is a resounding yes, unless you honestly believe there’s nothing more important than your own individual survival. In times of calm security, Bulkeley surely told himself (as his religion did) that there are things more important. But in the face of an actual threat, he was willing to throw those morals aside. Dedication to the men under his charge? He simply had none. I wouldn’t have been surprised to discover that he turned to cannibalism at some point, honestly, because clearly his single purpose was his own survival.

[Ken]

spoko wrote: "Apparently I’m one of the few, but I was on Cheap’s side from early on, and nothing ever made me change my mind. I can’t see holding his ambition or single-mindedness against him, really, since the..."

Note: I finished this book in early March, just happened to see it was a discussion book here, so figured I'd throw my one cent in.

I think David Grann would be happy with spoko's allegiance to Cheap NOT because he hoped readers would go there but because he hoped readers would decide just as the men had to decide.

That is, as I read, I marveled over the book's lack of a clear protagonist. Sure, nonfiction doesn't have to play by fiction's rules, but "creative nonfiction" like this (words are put in these men's mouths, let's not forget, giving Grann clear control that he no doubt fought as he wrote). This creativity leads the reader into John Gardner's "fictional dream" (or maybe it was "vivid and continuous dream" he called it).

Me, I was drawn to Byron because he seemed neutral like Switzerland was supposed to be and I felt like a pox on both their houses. Turned out, Byron was neutral like Switzerland actually wasn't.

(Or maybe it was the dog that won me over. You know. Reader replacing dog as man's best friend.)

[Steve]

Just checked in on the comments after a few days.

Thank you, spoko and Ken. I had felt a bit besieged on Captain Cheap's behalf. I think it important to remember that Bulkeley's extended account of the entire affair was fully intended to be self-serving.

And I agree that Byron was the most admirable of the lot. His decision to stay with Captain Cheap after having second thoughts endeared him to me.

[Ann D]

I've really enjoyed reading the comments here,

Donna, I agree with you that the book was in many ways a study in leadership. Those of you who defended Cheap have made me more tolerant of him. As others have pointed out, the British naval system did nothing to prepare him. You really have to question the sanity of a system whose leaders insisted on supplying 500 ancient and invalided sailors as crew members, in spite of the captains’ protestations.

It is true that Cheap was virtually starving and was very sick – but then, so were the rest of the men. I much prefer Bulkeley as a leader. In a less class organized society his talents would have been more recognized. He was constantly foraging for game and foodstuffs, he was a much better navigator, he organized compartments for the men to sleep in on the island, he carefully documented the trip, and he was an excellent organizer of men and supplies. His rigid Christianity didn’t bother me – hey, whatever gets you through the night. If I remember correctly, Cheap, Byron, and Bulkeley all read the account of successfully making it through the Magellan Passage. Only Bulkeley was willing to take the risk.

That said, judging from this book, Anson was the best leader. He had concern for his men; he even drank some health concoction first to spare his men if it was no good – and it was horrible. In times of crisis, he rolled up his sleeves and worked beside his men. They loved and respected him.

I liked Byron as well. Poor kid, when the voyage started out he was only 16 years old. He was certainly a much more stable person than his very talented poet grandson. I was surprised when he returned to Cheap, but I understood. He was from an upper class, but poor family. He had his future to think of, as well as that inculcated sense of honor.

[Gina]

Ann D, thanks for your comments. I've always had a "rebel" kind of mind, so I know I would have been all for Bulkeley if I had been on the ship. But I can know see the attributes of Cheap as it applies to class and lack of training for leadership. It was the crazy system. You led me to rethink all the men and their responses.

[Donna]

Ken, I think your comments are spot on about the lack of a clear protagonist. This was definitely by Grann's design, as he says in the book in a brief introductory note. In part...."instead of smoothing out every difference, of further shading the already shaded evidence, I've tried to present all sides, leaving it to you to render the ultimate verdict - history's judgment." I think Grann fully expected and welcomed just the type of back and forth we are having here.

I watched a Youtube video of Grann discussing the book (sorry, I don't have the link) and he spends some time talking about the idea of stories and how we all might be inclined to slant things in our own favor. The stories of the Wager, as retrieved from what Grann calls a "surprising trove of firsthand documents" might be expected to be as varied as the individuals recording them. And, in the case of Cheap and Bulkeley - facing disgrace and possible death back in England - they were highly motivated to "shade" their stories each in his own favor.

[Ann D]

Thanks, Gina.

Donna, interesting comments about Grann's molding of the story.

Ken, I agree that this book is an example "creative non-fiction." I don't think there was any other way to tell the actual story.

I am curious about how you all reacted to the final official Navy hearing, when the judges only considered if Cheap had been responsible for The Wager sinking. Cheap was totally cleared on this point. The charges of murder and mutiny were never even brought up.

I have to admit that I felt somewhat let down by this anti-climax. After all, I had spent the entire book trying to figure out who was most responsible for this horrifying debacle, fully anticipating a trial for mutiny. Then the authorities just shoved it all under the rug.

But then, of course, I reminded myself that this was not historical fiction. Gann was obliged to stick to the facts. I thought he did a very good job of explaining them.

[Donna]

Yes, Ann, and as I mentioned, Grann chose not to pick sides, which I also found a little disappointing. After having waded through all of the documents I think he might have weighed in with an opinion.