Genre: Historical fiction
Series: Benjamin Weaver #2
Page Count: 382
Publication Year: 2004
Publisher: Random House
Summary: A Jew is convicted of a murder he did not commit and escapes to clear his name.
First of all: great title. Second: why does no one talk about these books? They are the highlight of my reading right now and they deserve a bigger audience.
In the first book I learned about the stock market. This time I learned about the Tories, Whigs, and Jacobites. The education alone is worth it. And on top of that you have good characters, intricate plot, and amazing writing style. These books are hitting the sweet spot of literature.
I did, once again, lag a half step behind on comprehending all the twists, allies and enemies portrayed here. There are several corners and nooks in this story and I’m surprised at how the ending managed to wrap it all up in a nice and unique fashion. It definitely deserves a second read at some point.
An election is central to the plot and seeing the parallels between it and modern elections is unfortunate but reassuring that some things are constant. They make false promises, buy votes, change records to allow certain people to vote, and throw money at their campaign to increase its spectacle. Back in 1700s England they needed only a couple hundred votes to ensure a victory but it’s the same cheating, greedy mindset of today. And yet, some things have changed for the better:
I had long heard of such things, of the great men and squires of the counties telling their tenants how to vote. Renters who defied orders were often forced off their land and pauperized. Once or twice the suggestion of secret voting had been raised in Parliament, but this notion had always been shot down immediately. What did it say of British liberty, the men of the Commons demanded, if a man were afraid to say publicly whom he supports?
Later in the novel when the voting starts, one group brutally punishes the opposing side, scaring other voters from the polls. Of course, today you can flaunt your opinion without the fear of being viciously attacked at the polls.
What’s struck me about these books is how he makes subjects—ones I’d normally avoid—fascinating. I’ve found myself suddenly wanting to learn more about the workings of the 18th century. That ability to take desperately boring topics is, to me, the mark of a gifted writer.
For example: before starting this book I didn’t have a working understanding of the Tories, Whigs and Jacobites. I knew the terms, but now they hold meaning, thanks to the explanations provided here. Weaver is again the medium through which you learn about the politics, since he never paid much attention to them until now. I do find it slightly unrealistic that he wouldn’t have a better grasp on things but I can relate to hearing certain words repeated and yet never fully comprehending them.
I love how there are taverns that cater to certain political groups. When Weaver goes to the Jacobite one and boldly asks where he can find this guy, everyone looks at him like, “Do we kill him here or out back?” The starkness this trio of ideas provides is fun to see play out in the streets and in the men.
Speaking of men…
Weaver is killin’ it as a protagonist. I revel in his human imperfection, his striving for justice, and his willingness and ability to get things done. He’s confident when he has a right to be and doesn’t fight people without cause. Here are some excellent quotes:
I blamed myself for not pursuing her more vigorously—though three marriage proposals ought to meet any man’s definition of vigor.
I would not, however, inflict harm on those I believed undeserving of rough treatment, and I’d even been known to let a debtor or two escape my capture—always with an apologetic lie to my employer—if I heard a credible tale of a starving wife or sick children.
It is a poor thieftaker, I have found, who requires weapons to defend himself. Weapons are always preferable, but if a man must use his fists to save his life, he ought not to hesitate to do so.
She sat without waiting for my invitation—an act that, when performed by me, seems invariably hostile and defiant but only made this lady appear breezy and at ease.
I therefore thought it wise to educate him, if only a little, as to the consequence of my impatience. That is to say, I slapped his face.
So good.
His friend Elias doesn’t play as big a part as I hoped, but he does some great things. His reaction to Weaver’s escape is especially priceless.
The rest of the cast does a good job. I may not be able to differentiate them on voice alone, but everyone has a motive that’s unsavory and/or distinctive. The two main politicians are painted quite differently. One is the people’s person, excellent at making friends, speeches, and big promises. The other is a manipulated pushover who couldn’t be bothered to find out what his party stands for and against. Weaver may wish to remain neutral, but the book does seem to rag on the Whigs a bit more.
I am still on board with the 18th century writing style. It may not work for all readers, but I could not be happier with how this book is written. And the old-fashioned insults are great. Stuff like, “Damn you for dog,” and, “Go to the devil’s arse,” should make a comeback.
The reason I’m not giving this five stars is that, for me, the plot is too scattered and complicated. Perhaps if I’d read it in fewer sittings or just paid slightly more attention, that wouldn’t be the case. And I do think there’s some small thing that’s missing. I’m not sure what it is, but it’s there. Or rather, not there. Anyway, I’m eagerly looking forward to the next book.
Bonus quotes:
“This election is but a spectacle of corruption, and you cannot be surprised that men like [him] are willing to turn the Parliament into yet another stage.”
I admit that even I began to feel my loathing of the man recede, though I fought hard against these benevolent sentiments.
It is an odd way to pass the time, waiting for a man to die.
Check out my rating here.