In Historical Fiction, the Rebels of a Scots Saga

Photo courtesy of Melville House
In his new novel “Jamie MacGillivray: The Renegade’s Journey,” Academy Award-nominated screenwriter John Sayles (“Passion Fish,” “Lone Star”) takes fans of historical fiction on a bloody, decade-spanning romantic odyssey from the blockbuster-style Jacobite battle scenes of the Scottish Highlands to the 18th century colonies of The New World. Sayles spoke with me on the phone from California ahead of a talk he’ll give with WAMC’s Joe Donahue at The White Hart Inn in Salisbury, Conn., on Wednesday, March 15.
Alexander Wilburn: As someone who has written across all mediums, books, film, and television, what brings you back to the novel?
John Sayles: You don’t have to raise money to write a book. Certainly, as a filmmaker, I probably have 10 movies I’ve written that I’ve never been able to raise money for. As a matter of fact, “Jamie MacGillivray” started a screenplay over 20 years ago, at the suggestion of Robert Carlyle, a Scottish actor. I just felt like it was such a good story, I took it up and started thinking about it as a novel. Of course, things always grow when you turn something into a novel. Secondary characters get much bigger and you can do deeper research. When you’re writing for a movie you have to be so aware of time — are we 10 minutes or half an hour into the movie? Very few people sit down and read a novel straight through, so it has a very different rhythm.
AW: How much of the scope of the story changed then compared to the original script?
JS: It always began at The Battle of Culloden and ended with The Battle of Quebec, so it was an ambitious feature. But for instance, Jenny was a pretty minor character who showed up a few times in the screenplay, but when I was doing the research for the story as a book I came across ship logs that did take Jacobite prisoners over to various slave jobs. One of the ships that carried women was taken over by a French privateer before it was able to reach Jamaica, so the prisoners were liberated on the island of Martinique. I thought, first of all, that’s a great way to get Jenny overseas and I eventually wanted to get her to Canada. So if she’s on a French island she can hook up with a French officer and he can get transferred to Canada. As it turns out the research helped me make all of those moves. It’s a little bit like a board game.
AW: This novel is an epic, romantic, often violent saga. I’m always really curious about the prep work that goes into crafting a big novel like this. As an American writer what kind of research did you do to write a convincing narrative about characters from the Scottish Highlands?
JS: The good thing is that the time period is not so old that there’s nothing written about it. In fact, in the first part of the novel, some scenes are verbatim. The minutes of the trial of Lord Lovat were published. Everything that the various barristers said in front of the judge is recreated in the novel. There were records kept by the military of who was killed at Culloden and what clans they were from. There are shipping records of the prisoners who were sent to the New World, and those involved in slave trafficking, so you can look up a certain ship and see how long the voyage took, how much cargo was on it, and how much money they made. In the New World, the colonists were keeping documents — they weren’t necessarily living up to the letter when it came to Native tribes, but a lot of that is documented as well. I can read in French so for a lot of the stuff that happens in Martinique I was able to find books written at the time. I also did a certain amount of reading of the novelists of the time, Dickens and Henry Fielding who wrote “Tom Jones,” and artists like Hogarth who did these series like “The Rake's Progress,” which are full of details. My one rule when I’m working on a book is that I can do research for a week, but then I have to sit and write fiction for a week. Because you can get sucked down the rabbit hole.
AW: Is the pressure to be constantly period accurate to the 18th century something you strive for or do you take creative license for the sake of storytelling?
JS: I find I get much better ideas if I follow what actually happened. So I have a calendar of when things happened and I fit my characters into that calendar. I also get ideas from the technical research — what weapons were they using? How did they operate them? What was the penal code at the time? How did law work? There’s a chapter where there’s a guy who’s afraid of heights, and he gets the job of putting two beheaded prisoner’s heads up on the spikes on the gate and they’re going to sit there for years and years and years — somebody had to do that. So that kind of detail from research gives me ideas. It’s great to not have to make up a plot, the history is pretty rich in itself.
AW: I want to circle back to William Hogarth who appears in the novel. He’s one of the great painters who captured the frenzy and life and emotion of the 18th century. Were his works a source of visual inspiration?
JS: One of the things that he does in his series like “The Rake’s Progress” or “The Harlot’s Progress,” they’re like stories. Every detail, every background person — even if you look at the paintings on the wall they’re commenting on what’s going on. So they’re really rich and novel-like just looking at his pictures. Then there’s the fact that he met Lord Lovat, who had just been captured, to be tried. Eventually Lord Lovat was the last lord ever beheaded by the British, and Hogarth did this beautiful picture of him — he’s as wide as he is tall, and his head looks like a wicked Jack-o'-lantern. He was a notorious character in his day. That was important for my research, knowing there was satiric humor at the time.
AW: You’ll be having a live stream conversation with “Outlander” author Diana Gabaldon, who has become the modern archetypal author of Scottish fiction. This is sort of a “Tale of Jamie's.”
JS: It will be very interesting because I assume we’ve held a lot of the same research in our hands. She started as a researcher before becoming a novelist, so she’s very deft at that. I’m always interested when you start with the same core material what sends you off in these little directions, what strikes you. Years ago I adapted the first novel of “The Clan of The Cave Bear” by Jean M. Auel and I know a little about the research that she did. This was before people knew the Neanderthals and the Cro-Magnons had interbred. She was right about five or six things that hadn’t been proven yet. She said things came to her in a dream. That’s another way of getting your material.
Photo courtesy of Melville House
Detail of Simon Fraser, 11th Lord Lovat by William Hogarth, 1746 Courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Gift of Sarah Lazarus, 1891
Ruth Franklin and Ileene Smith in conversation at Congregation Beth David in Amenia.
Congregation Beth David in Amenia hosted a conversation on the enduring legacy of Anne Frank, one of the 20th century’s most iconic figures. Ruth Franklin, award-winning biographer and critic, shared insights from her highly acclaimed book “The Many Lives of Anne Frank” with thought-provoking questions from Ileene Smith, Editorial Director of the Jewish Lives series. This event, held on July 23 — the date Anne Frank would have turned 96 — invited the large audience to reconsider Anne Frank not just as the young writer of a world-famous diary, but as a cultural symbol shaped by decades of representation and misrepresentation.
Franklin and Smith dove right in; Franklin reading a passage from the book that exemplified her approach to Anne’s life. She described her work as both a biography of Anne Frank and a cultural history of the diary itself, a document that has resonated across the world.
“The diary,”Franklin explained, “has been appropriated in ways that sometimes obscure the reality of who she was and the historical context of her life.” By weaving together different perspectives, including testimonies from those who knew Anne or whose lives were shaped by her, Franklin sought to rehumanize a figure who has, for better and worse, been turned into a symbol.
Franklin’s book examines the many faces of Anne Frank that have appeared in the public consciousness: the girl whose diary became a universal symbol of the Holocaust, the teenage diarist whose words offer an optimistic glimpse of humanity, and the historical figure whose Jewish identity has at times been obscured in favor of a broader, universal message. Franklin highlighted how Anne’s legacy was shaped by her father, Otto Frank. Many of Otto’s decisions have been viewed as controversial such as removing passages that could have alienated potential readers. While often criticized, Franklin suggested that his editorial work was driven by the desire to reach the broadest possible audience.
“I think we have to be so generous in thinking about Otto Frank and the choices that he made,” said Franklin. “He made the decision that he wanted the diary to be read by the greatest number of people possible. He wanted Anne’s message to go out into the world and work, as he said, against prejudice, understood in the widest possible sense. The Anne Frank House today in Amsterdam is carrying on his mission in making Anne’s story relatable and accessible and comparing it to many other different kinds of prejudice around the world. Not everybody agrees with this approach, but that’s what he decided to do.”
The conversation turned to a quote from author Cynthia Ozick, who argued that Anne’s story has been “vulgarized, distorted, and infantilized” in adaptations of the diary, particularly those created for mass consumption. While acknowledging the validity of Ozick’s concerns, Franklin pushed back. The desire to make Anne’s story accessible to a global audience, Franklin suggested, began with Anne herself, who rewrote her diary with an eye toward future readers who might not understand her specific historical context.
The conversation also delved into the profound grief and ambivalence Otto Frank must have felt as he worked to preserve his daughter’s legacy. Franklin’s expressed deep empathy for him, burdened with making Anne’s diary into something more than a personal testament. “He was working with a tragic loss, with an immense responsibility,” Franklin noted.
The evening’s discussion expanded to include the contentious debate over the graphic version of Anne Frank’s diary, which has been banned in several U.S. states. Critics of the graphic adaptation have condemned it for including depictions of Anne’s developing sexuality, citing them as “pornographic.” Franklin pointed out that this outrage stems from “the intersection of homophobia and anti-Semitism” in today’s political climate, highlighting how Anne’s legacy continues to be embroiled in ongoing cultural and political struggles. “The books that are most frequently banned in the country right now are those that have to do with LGBTQ content.This is a serious issue of the Republican Party persecuting gay people and trans people more generally,” said Franklin.
Smith pointedly asked Franklin about what is widely considered the most famous quote from the diary: “In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart.” Franklin responded, “In many ways, Anne Frank was an optimistic person and that quote is an accurate reflection of who she was. At the same time, that quote is incomplete. It actually comes in the middle of a much longer passage in which she describes feeling hopeless about the future of the world.” Franklin continued, “That quote is often dismissed by Holocaust scholars or other people who have said with a lot of confidence that if Anne Frank had survived the camps to write about it, she would no longer have believed that people are truly good at heart. My own position, which is the perspective I adopt in this book, is that none of us can know what a surviving Anne Frank would have thought about anything at all, and it is irresponsible to speculate about it.We simply can’t go there. “
As the conversation concluded, the room was filled with a sense of reflection and appreciation. The crowd was invited to continue the conversation in the Community Room, where Franklin signed copies of her book, which were available through Oblong Books. Her visit left attendees with much to ponder about how we interpret history, memory, and the cultural artifacts that endure.
Yuja Wang performs with the TMCO and Andris Nelsons.
Sunday, July 20 was sunny and warm. Nic Mayorga, son of American concert pianist, the late Lincoln Mayorga, joined me at Tanglewood to hear Yuja Wang play Prokofiev’s Piano Concerto No. 2 in G minor, Op. 16. I first saw Wang on July 8, 2022, when she filled in for Jean-Yves Thibaudet on the opening night of Tanglewood’s summer season. She virtually blew the shed down with her powerful and dynamic playing of Liszt’s Piano Concerto No. 1.
Nic was my guest last season on July 13, when Wang wowed us with her delicate interpretation of Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No. 4. We made plans on the spot to return for her next date in Lenox.
As we found our seats there was a buzz in the Shed. A huge crowd had gathered. Nic went for tall cans of cold mineral water — essential. The Tanglewood Music Center Orchestra was on stage. The door opened, and out stepped Wang in a brilliant shear and sparkling silvery light dress befitting the warm day. Conductor Andris Nelsons followed. They greeted concertmaster Nathan Cole, and settled in.
The first movement, an Andandtino -Allegretto - Andandtino, is one where a 22-year-old Prokofiev distinguishes himself as an entirely new breed of concerto composers. It is far from typical. There is no conventional drama between opposing forces of piano and orchestra — just a light, gentle phrase with intentionally muted strings (pizzicato) and clarinets, giving way to Chopin-like left-hand figures from the piano, and a lengthy, divine melody in the right. There is beauty in this.Wang is in charge.
She transitioned to a faster march section that evolved into an extended solo played with great precision and attention to detail. The soloist had the floor until a raucous return of the full orchestra, followed by a pianissimo recollection of the opening. The two great forces now united, everyone was on the edge of their seat.
The second movement is a Scherzo: Vivace. Here, Wang showed her mastery over one of the most challenging sections — a relentlessly demanding moto perpetuo where the soloist must play unbroken sixteenths, both hands, in octave unison. Nic agreed that one must see this type of playing live to fully appreciate the artist. The orchestra added wonderful, subtle color and counter moods to this virtuoso spotlight. Wang’s command of the minutest shifts in tempo was astounding. The piano, here, produces melodies but also becomes a percussion instrument of the highest order.
In the third movement, an Intermezzo: Allegro moderato, the soloist gets a breather from the speedy tempos — but not quite, as she must alternate between delicacy and great force in figures while the orchestra layers a backdrop of a heavy march. Wang displayed her versatility here, commanding the tone, volume and moods as dictated by Prokofiev’s adventuring. Tempos changed. Everything changed. Yet throughout, each mini stanza and bar stood out — authentic, independent, real. Likely exactly what Prokofiev had in mind, but likely to elude all but the finest musicians.
In the Finale: Allegro tempestoso, Prokofiev reverts to the more conventional opposition-of-forces theme — the piano trying to overwhelm the orchestra in a barrage of flittering bright passages offset by heavy-handed chords. Wang chose a more collegial approach here. She was firm but polite; it never felt like a struggle. This made the transition to the next idea — where clarinets and violas offer a contrasting tranquility — smooth as silk. The solo piano continued with elements of Russian folk music, joined by the orchestra, building intensity before another solo piano display, and then a traditional buildup to a sweeping conclusion.
I glanced over at Nic’s joy and bewilderment. A standing ovation was followed, with encore performances of selections from Sebelius’s 13 Pieces for Piano, Op. 76, No. 2: Etude; Schubert’s “Gretchen am Spinnrade,” D. 118, arranged by Liszt; and Horowitz’s Variations on a Theme from Carmen.
Prokofiev’s debut of this concerto in 1913 did not go over quite as well. Some in the audience expressed displeasure at his ideas, hissed and rushed out. But Prokofiev expressed his displeasure at their poor taste, played an encore nonetheless, and fanned the flames. Sometimes a genius from one generation is misunderstood in his time but vindicated generations later by audiences and musicians of a different era. Such is the case with Prokofiez, who had the last laugh. Yuja Wang has her place in this saga. That she performs with the young musicians of the Tanglewood Music Center Orchestra shows her generous nature and kind heart — she cares about the future of classical music.
If you are curious and like to travel, Wang will play Prokofiev’s Piano Concerto No. 2 again several times this season: Nov. 13 at The Philharmonie de Paris; Dec. 4 and 5 at The Konzerthaus, Vienna; and Dec. 12 at The Concertgebouw in Amsterdam. I highly recommend it.