The Alienist and Peak Television and a Historical Fiction Question

[chelseagirl]

So, I have loved Caleb Carr's book The Alienist since it was first published -- well, I think my budget in those days meant I waited for the paperback, and I thought enough of it to later replace it with a used hardcover. Many books from my overcrowded bookshelves have been donated (or once upon a time, Paperbackswapped), but never it. And it's one of the things that ignited my excitement to read up on NYC history, and to write an historical mystery (which I've finally gotten around to doing). But I hadn't reread it *cough* this century, and when the show aired, I knew the characters and the basic plot outline, but had forgotten most of the details.

Having reread the book, I'd have to say that Carr's sense of place is excellent (as a New Yorker myself, I FEEL his 1896 city), his plotting is sound, and the story he's told is compelling. However . . .

His sense of character isn't great. It kind of makes sense that he's a military historian. Kreizler is pretty well drawn, but Sara and the Isaacson brothers are basically sketches. We don't really get to know Stevie or Cyrus or Mary, either. And Moore is surprisingly one-note for a viewpoint character.

So, having finished the book, I decided to rewatch the series. One episode in, and already Sara, Moore, and Kreizler's household are more vivid to me than they are in the book. It does help to have book knowledge, and to know right away why Moore has the prostitute wearing his ex-fiancee's ring, without having to wait for the reveal, though I'd figured that much out even on first viewing. (There are no prostitute/ring scenes in the book.) Between the performances, and the way they've adapted the book, we're getting much better knowledge of who these people are. For once, I can't say the book is better.

I am so excited for the next series, and I love that they keep teasing us with more and more in the promos.
I think I'm going to reread Angel of Darkness ahead of time, so I can enjoy seeing what they've done with the adaptation, and also just sink into the recreation of late 19th century New York.

One thing, though -- Carr and thus the series have Paul Kelly already a major gang boss in 1896. In fact, Kelly was born in 1876, and would have been 20 years old and still rising through the ranks when The Alienist took place. [ETA, my library tells me he was a bank teller, not yet even a criminal, at that time.] In my WIP, the gangs play a subsidiary role. I confess my memory was fuzzy when I was developing my concepts, so Kelly's role in the book, plus popular histories like Luc Sante's Low Life and the original book Gangs of New York (pretty different from the movie) weren't exactly precise on some of those things. My imagination took hold before I had all the facts. I am setting my book in the late 1880s for a variety of reasons, and it all hangs together, except that Paul Kelly's Five Pointers and Monk Eastman's Eastmans are by far the most interesting of the gangs and leaders. But if I move my story forward a decade or two, I lose a lot else -- not least of which, my expertise in the late Victorian era from my PhD work, but also other Real Life characters and situations that I want to include. Plus not wanting Teddy Roosevelt to have taken over the NY Police Department quite yet -- too many people have used him, and I don't mind him coming in later if the series continues to run, but not right away. And not wanting to run up against some of the events of the first few decades of the 20th century (WWI, the 1918 Pandemic) -- at least not unless the series runs a long while.

So, do I fudge it and move Kelly and Eastman and their gangs back a couple of decades? Or do I fictionalize them so their imagined equivalents can exist earlier? Either way I 'fess up in my author's note, of course. (Unlike *cough* Caleb Carr.)

Comments

[stelleappese]

I don't know what you're writing about, but whatever option you decide to go for, I'm already preemptively excited about it lol
Paul Kelly (and Biff Ellison) were one of the main reasons I read/watched The Alienist!

[chelseagirl]

My elevator pitch is "The Age of Innocence meets Gangs of New York . . . and they solve murders." Two outsiders from out West who find themselves on different ends of the social spectrum in New York and wind up doing detective work together.

Do you have good sources on Kelly other than the ones I mentioned in my post? I've been doing some research but I'm sure there are things I've missed. It's rather a shame Monk Eastman gets a full-length biography and Kelly doesn't.

Oh, by the way, Joanna Shupe's forthcoming The Devil of Downtown has a hero who's fairly obviously (to me) a romanticized version of Kelly -- he turned up in the previous book, The Prince of Broadway. But that's m/f romance, which may not be your thing.

[stelleappese]

That sounds pretty cool! :D

Unfortunately, you're right; Kelly seems to always be mentioned in passing when the actual subject is Eastman. (I think he's mentioned in "Gangland New York: The Places and Faces of Mob History" by Anthony M. DeStefano, and "Tough Jews: Fathers, Sons, and Gangster Dreams" by Rich Cohen.) I did find some interesting reading material on on this site, though.

I'm gonna check out Joanna Shupe's books, thanks! :D

[chelseagirl]

Thank you! I talk about my progress on it here from time to time.

OMG, that walking tour is so helpful! I'm going to take it as soon as I feel comfortable strolling around staring at my phone. (Which should be soon, considering we're entering into Phase 2 soon.)

http://www.joannashupe.com/ His name is Jack Mulligan; he's not exactly Kelly, of course, but I noticed a number of similarities when he appeared in The Prince of Broadway. You'll have to let me know what you think -- I said something on Twitter when she first teased the book but she neither admitted nor denied.

[lunabee34]

I think you just say that you're basing what you're writing on Carr's faulty chronology and pretend like the gangs were in power at that time.

Eta: oh wait, I misunderstood. I thought you were writing fic for the show. Not sure what you should do for your book.

[chelseagirl]

Oh yeah, if it was fic, that's totally what I would do.

But *sigh* as an academic, I feel more obliged to align with truth in anything that's not already filtered through another media property.

[lunabee34]

Yeah, I gotta admit that if it was for my book, I'd go with the historically accurate timeline if only to prevent people from accusing me of being historically inaccurate, not understanding, etc.

I do wonder at executrix's comment, though. Do you know for sure that the gang leader couldn't have been in power at 20? I also find it plausible that he could have been.

[chelseagirl]

A 20 year old criminal kingpin would totally not work with the story I want to tell, and in any case, he was a bank clerk at age 20. A late bloomer among criminals, I guess. Anyway, Carr's already-inaccurate 1896 is still later than my book takes place -- the gangs are only one element, and every other thing I want to do aligns just fine with late 1880s.

[executrix]

"What's robbing a bank, compared with owning a bank?" (The Threepenny Opera)

[lunabee34]

*nods nods*

I gotcha.

[chelseagirl]

Sorry. It just felt like a pile-on, having to explain to three of you why no, that doesn't work. But I very much appreciate the interest and engagement.

[lunabee34]

<3

[executrix]

I would fictionalize them anyway, to have more scope for things like extended disquisitions about the emotions of a person whose whereabouts at a given time you know from historical records. I always throw books across the room when they start "In March of 1598, Shakespeare must have been feeling..."

Anyway, gang members, like Slayers, tend to peak early. In recent years the social roles of childhood and adolescence have been greatly prolonged. I don't find anything implausible about a 20-year-old leading a large gang operation. He might have eight years' experience and be very good at his job. I've never forgotten reading about an early c19 wagon train led by "a man of 14." They weren't just whistlin' Dixie.

[chelseagirl]

I would hope my fiction would not say "must have been feeling" as that would be terrible prose. ;-)

I've done enough research to know that's not plausible in his case. In 1896, he was a bank clerk, not yet a criminal. Someone that age or even younger might run a more neighborhood-centered gang, without question. But the scale of his power and influence at its height? Even if I hadn't read enough to know it's not the case -- those relationships take a bit more time to cultivate.

Anyway, he'd have been more like 12 when my story takes place. That would be serious Bugsy Malone territory. So fictionalized it is.

[amaka]

If real historical figures do not sufficiently serve the story, I'm all for replacing them with dopplegangers with different names and noting that the characters were inspired by the real figures (in case the reader would like to learn more). Merging multiple real historical figures into a single fictional character is very customary; this would seem to gather under that same banner...?

I mention the "with different names" as my own personal preference for when fictionalizations begin becoming very significant figures in a story, or begin diverging in ways that matter historically, beyond trivia and identifiable interpolations like whether the real historical figure flirted with the protagonist...

Separately, though, I think Executirix is on to something worth checking, if you haven't already confirmed it, just in case? I also seem to recall reading about very young people running certain enterprises at various points in history...?

Amendment: I realize that it's exceedingly unlikely that someone born in 1876 would be a crime lord in the 1880s, when your story is set! I meant only that it may possibly be part of the real history that the individual rose to power very early, and perhaps he was just as interesting as a very young figure. I do not know this corner of history.

[chelseagirl]

I think the doppelgangers are the way to go. It'll be a shame if the series runs long enough to run into their historical equivalents, but I really should get the first one published before I worry about the 12th. ;-)

The way Carr presented him, I would expect he was in his thirties. Anyway, Carr's dates don't match the biographical facts I do know. I just wish some of the popular histories hadn't been vague enough to get me overly excited!

[oracne]

I vote for fictionalizing them. You have much, much more freedom that way. And people can nitpick less.

[chelseagirl]

You're right. And Caleb Carr fans won't think I stole him.

Joanna Shupe has her hero based loosely on him in her The Devil of Downtown which comes out next week. I'm sure it'll be extremely loose, but I identified him pretty readily in the previous book in the series.