Oh dear. The author of this book thinks that Middleton Road is full of creeks, and that the population of Regency-era Manchester existed solely on potatoes and lived in fear of a Vulgaria-esque child catcher. He also thinks that Methodist ministers are addressed as “Father”, Methodist chapels have stained glass windows and ornate altars, millowners are classed as aristocrats, and “well-bred” Georgian girls worked as housemaids. And, yes, it is supposed to be a serious historical novel: he claims that he spent ages researching it! The basic plot isn’t bad, and the section on Peterloo’s actually quite good, but I don’t think I’ve ever come across so many inaccuracies in a single book before. I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry!
I don’t like being negative about things – I’m sure the author put a lot of work into this – but it was just cringeworthy. The language was all wrong, for a kick off. I didn’t expect someone writing in the 21st century to sound like Georgette Heyer, but having characters in the early 19th century referring to their mate James Johnson as “Johnno”, or saying “You’re still in the 18th century. It’s not a problem these days”, or talking about “citizens” (unless they’re in France!) was just plain silly. Not to mention “wow” and “holler” and various other expressions that just did not belong in a book set in the 1810s. Even the names were wrong: the name Albert wasn’t used in the UK before Queen Victoria’s marriage. And no-one ever refers to Manchester as “the city”. If you live locally, it’s “town”. If you live a bit further out, it’s just “Manchester”. OK?!
It’s a shame, because the general idea wasn’t bad at all. It started with a handloom weaver in Middleton, determined that he was going to remain working independently and not be forced into working in a factory. Very interesting premise for a book, especially one incorporating the Peterloo Massacre. Middleton was obviously chosen because of the connection with Samuel Bamford. I’m still rather put out about the way Bamford was portrayed in the Peterloo film: he came across much better in this book. However, the comments about eating nothing but potatoes, battling against the frequent gales (?) and hoping that the factory agents coming from “the city” would fall into a creek – on Middleton Road?! – were just bizarre.
Bringing in the growth of Methodism was a good idea, but surely anyone, however little interest they may have in religion, knows that Methodists do not have fancy church buildings and address their ministers as “Father”?! Bringing in Hampden Clubs was also a good idea, but rather spoilt by the fact that our hero, one Henry, went off to spend all his money on prostitutes after the meeting, and convinced his family that he’d dropped the said money in a puddle … whereupon they all solemnly went off to search every puddle in Middleton for a pile of coins. What??
One of Henry’s kids then ran away to “the city” to get a job in a factory, and, eventually, the rest of the family moved there too. There then followed various strange scenes involving some kind of child catcher – I can only think that the author had got the Industrial Revolution mixed up with Chitty Chitty Bang Bang – who went around town trying to catch kids to work in factories, and chaining them up. Meanwhile, our pal Henry, by dint of stealing and gambling, managed to set up his own factory, and thus became an aristocrat (the word “aristocracy” was frequently used to describe millowners). The rags to riches storyline, again, was a good idea, but it was executed very poorly. It also involved a gentlemen (i.e. millowners!) versus players cricket match. That would have worked fine in a village setting, but not in the centre of a big industrial city!
However, things did not work out for Henry. Apparently this was supposed to remind the reader of The Grapes of Wrath. One of his kids was transported to Australia. He managed to arrange for him to be brought back, but was set upon by highwaymen on his way to Liverpool to meet him at the docks, and then it turned out that the kid wanted to stay in Australia. This was a bit far-fetched, but it made more sense than the child-catcher and the creeks. Then his wife, who couldn’t cope with having to socialise with all the “aristocrats”, was put in an asylum. Again, good points about the harshness of the criminal justice system and the treatment of mental health problems; but it all got rather ridiculous. The wife was eventually rescued from the asylum by one of the sons, who pretended that he wanted to hire one of the inmates as a prostitute and then hid his mum under his coat. As you do. And then a group of Luddites burned down the factory.
I can see how it could have worked really well. A lot of the important issues of the time were brought into the story. There was the idea of someone thinking they’d made it and then everything crumbling to bits. And the section about Peterloo, which was the reason I read the book in the first place, really did work fairly well. But so much of it was just utter twaddle. It was self-published because a load of publishers turned it down. The author claims that he can’t understand why it was turned down. Oh, to be that confident!
I don’t like being overly critical of someone else’s work, but I paid good money for this, and, to put it mildly, it really wasn’t worth it. Oh well. I suppose it gave me a few laughs! But give this one a miss.