I think one of my problems with this story is that I can't get into Hannah's head. She's not my character. Yet.
How could she run off and leave her kids to be burned at the stake?
"If Jack & Carrie were already dead" is a possibility. It's not historically accurate. But Jack is certainly asking for it with his resistance. What of Carrie?
Secondly, of course, maybe the only child Hannah had was the baby. I've arbitrarily given her Jack and Carrie as children, but if they weren't hers?
But why would she have no feelings for Polly and her kids? Is she so recently married? Or married elsewhere and just moved in? I have no historical basis for such an assumption. But even so, even if they were nearly strangers, it doesn't work for me. I don't see her able to desert them.
What if she had been separated from the other captives? It's easier to escape if you are isolated in a place and can't see or hear the others. If you get the chance, you may be out of there!
Is Polly a "make the best of it" person, while Hannah is not? Is Hannah a resister, like I've made Jack? Is Polly in such despair she can't respond? Is Hannah beyond the point of thinking straight--"crazy with grief"?
And then I got another thought: Did Hannah think the rescuers were close and that she could get help? This makes the most sense to me. She knows they nearly were rescued. She saw the men go by the hiding place. She wouldn't know they had turned back. And when she saw the firelight, she assumed it was their fire.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Fort Roosa
I keep nibbling at this story, and I learned a bit more the other day when I visited the Mamakating Museum in Summitville. Although Fort Roosa was in existence in 1757, it wasn't manned at that time. As the Indian threat lessened and settlement continued farther west, the fort had been abandoned. It wasn't until Joseph Brant's raid that appeals were made to Gov. Clinton to send soldiers to garrison Fort Roosa again.
Because of that, it was entirely possible for the Indians to take their captives right past the fort with no interference. That is also why the rescue effort was left up to the townspeople.
The fort was garrisoned again during the Revolution.
Because of that, it was entirely possible for the Indians to take their captives right past the fort with no interference. That is also why the rescue effort was left up to the townspeople.
The fort was garrisoned again during the Revolution.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
More confusion
I'm still excited to have pinned the date down, but now in addition to the questions of exactly where the Colemans' cabin was and whether it was a "double" log-house or a single one, etc., I've got the date mess.
Conditions in September change pretty fast, and the fourteen day difference between my original September 4 supposition and the real September 18 date is going to impact the descriptions, if not the story itself. For example, the corn might have been harvested, and the fall foliage is going to be much advanced. The weather will probably be colder for the captives, too, although neither of the narrators mentioned it, so I've assumed that was not a primary concern. But regardless, I've got the September 24th hurricane coming right along.
I had originally thought the cabin was on the west side of the Shawangunk Kill, but the tulipwood shed, called the "shack" by the Harris Family who recently owned the property, was on the east side until they moved it across the kill. Had the shed been previously moved the other way? Or was it always on the east side? Or was it the only building to avoid being burned because it was on the other side and away from the house?
Also, there is confusion in my mind between the terms "log-house" and log cabin. Although I realize they are different now, I assumed they were the same back in 1757. But now my research seems to indicate that even back then "log cabins" were associated with Delaware and with the Frontier, while log-houses were more substantial. So perhaps my view of the families and their social and financial status needs to be changed. I can't locate the drawing I saw that showed the Colemans' house and children playing among stumps in the front yard, and it may have been totally a figment of someone's 19th century imagination anyway. But recently I found a drawing of a contemporary double log-house in Pennsylvania, which shows a good sized house. If the Colemans lived in such a house, my initial descriptions must change and the scenes inside have to take that into account. A double log-house would probably have had two front doors and perhaps a huge double-faced interior fireplace.
I've been trying to find a motivation for the Indian attack and also for their capturing the family rather than just killing everyone outright, even for bothering to take Mrs. Coleman along, although she was obviously not in good condition to be traveling. And I think perhaps I've found that in the John Armstrong raid on the Indian village at Kittaning, now about a week before the Coleman raid. Were the Indians trying to "replace" lost members of their tribe? If so, then the accounts that indicate they just took the captives so they could kill them later make less sense than the rumors that they took them, or most of them, to Ohio. It also makes more sense as to why they let Peter Nell protect Mrs. Coleman.
I would like to be able to present the Indian side of this story or at least show some sensible motivation for their actions. Revenge is always a motive, of course, and maybe they did just want to kill torture and kill everyone. It's always easier to present the "villains" as all evil, but the fact that they let Mrs. Coleman ride a horse rather than just killing her outright has always made me wonder. Someone there had some compassion. Why?
A writer always has to ask of each character, especially the major ones, "What is the motivation?" And while my desire is to create a novel out of this barebones story, I want to be as faithful to the facts as I can be, and that includes the underlying truths as well as the more obvious ones like the date.
Conditions in September change pretty fast, and the fourteen day difference between my original September 4 supposition and the real September 18 date is going to impact the descriptions, if not the story itself. For example, the corn might have been harvested, and the fall foliage is going to be much advanced. The weather will probably be colder for the captives, too, although neither of the narrators mentioned it, so I've assumed that was not a primary concern. But regardless, I've got the September 24th hurricane coming right along.
I had originally thought the cabin was on the west side of the Shawangunk Kill, but the tulipwood shed, called the "shack" by the Harris Family who recently owned the property, was on the east side until they moved it across the kill. Had the shed been previously moved the other way? Or was it always on the east side? Or was it the only building to avoid being burned because it was on the other side and away from the house?
Also, there is confusion in my mind between the terms "log-house" and log cabin. Although I realize they are different now, I assumed they were the same back in 1757. But now my research seems to indicate that even back then "log cabins" were associated with Delaware and with the Frontier, while log-houses were more substantial. So perhaps my view of the families and their social and financial status needs to be changed. I can't locate the drawing I saw that showed the Colemans' house and children playing among stumps in the front yard, and it may have been totally a figment of someone's 19th century imagination anyway. But recently I found a drawing of a contemporary double log-house in Pennsylvania, which shows a good sized house. If the Colemans lived in such a house, my initial descriptions must change and the scenes inside have to take that into account. A double log-house would probably have had two front doors and perhaps a huge double-faced interior fireplace.
I've been trying to find a motivation for the Indian attack and also for their capturing the family rather than just killing everyone outright, even for bothering to take Mrs. Coleman along, although she was obviously not in good condition to be traveling. And I think perhaps I've found that in the John Armstrong raid on the Indian village at Kittaning, now about a week before the Coleman raid. Were the Indians trying to "replace" lost members of their tribe? If so, then the accounts that indicate they just took the captives so they could kill them later make less sense than the rumors that they took them, or most of them, to Ohio. It also makes more sense as to why they let Peter Nell protect Mrs. Coleman.
I would like to be able to present the Indian side of this story or at least show some sensible motivation for their actions. Revenge is always a motive, of course, and maybe they did just want to kill torture and kill everyone. It's always easier to present the "villains" as all evil, but the fact that they let Mrs. Coleman ride a horse rather than just killing her outright has always made me wonder. Someone there had some compassion. Why?
A writer always has to ask of each character, especially the major ones, "What is the motivation?" And while my desire is to create a novel out of this barebones story, I want to be as faithful to the facts as I can be, and that includes the underlying truths as well as the more obvious ones like the date.
Friday, January 30, 2009
The date
I was going over my notes and sources again today, when it suddenly hit me that if they rested from dusk to moonrise that first night before going on, I should be able to figure out the exact date. My 200-year calendar doesn't go back far enough, so I searched online and pulled up a calendar for 1757. There were four Sundays: 4, 11, 18, and 25. When I checked the moon's phases, it was obvious that the only possible date was the 18th--September 18, 1757.
Friday, January 23, 2009
My novel entitled The Coleman Massacre is based on an actual Indian raid that occurred in September 1757 in Burlingham, New York.
The story is based on the accounts of two narrators: a woman who survived the raid and the man who led the rescue party. I am trying to fictionalize the account while still remaining faithful to the details they provided. And, of course, I have run into a lot of problems, as anyone who has written historical fiction knows.
Even the exact location of the Coleman brothers' house is uncertain after 250 years, as is the exact date. Nor do I know the first names of the brothers or their wives or of any of their seven children. I don't even know the ages or sexes of the children or, with the exception of the baby, which children belonged to which family. Indeed, the eventual fates of most of the victims of the raid are unknown.
Still, the raid itself and especially the fact that the woman who narrated the story survived solely because of the courage and kindness of an Indian woman fascinates me.
So, in spite of the difficulties of research, the simple lack of information, and the conflicts in some of what I have found, I feel driven to write this story.
It took place, after all, right here in my own village--Burlingham, in upstate New York--in a time when we were still Englishmen and the French were our enemies, when the terrorists were the Indians who raided our frontier and homeland security meant a loaded flintlock rifle and faith in God.
The story is based on the accounts of two narrators: a woman who survived the raid and the man who led the rescue party. I am trying to fictionalize the account while still remaining faithful to the details they provided. And, of course, I have run into a lot of problems, as anyone who has written historical fiction knows.
Even the exact location of the Coleman brothers' house is uncertain after 250 years, as is the exact date. Nor do I know the first names of the brothers or their wives or of any of their seven children. I don't even know the ages or sexes of the children or, with the exception of the baby, which children belonged to which family. Indeed, the eventual fates of most of the victims of the raid are unknown.
Still, the raid itself and especially the fact that the woman who narrated the story survived solely because of the courage and kindness of an Indian woman fascinates me.
So, in spite of the difficulties of research, the simple lack of information, and the conflicts in some of what I have found, I feel driven to write this story.
It took place, after all, right here in my own village--Burlingham, in upstate New York--in a time when we were still Englishmen and the French were our enemies, when the terrorists were the Indians who raided our frontier and homeland security meant a loaded flintlock rifle and faith in God.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)