This book isn't just about the shipwreck of the East Indiaman Grosvenor in south-east Africa and the travails of its survivors, which is covered in only a few chapters in the middle of the book, it's also a social and political history of the burgeoning British empire and, surprisingly, about the integration of some of the survivors in the African tribes' society. I was surprised about that last bit. I thought this was just going to be a dark tale about conflict and treachery such as in
The Raft.
Firstly, I thought it was difficult to get the most out of this book because there are so many people in it! This might sound a bit trite -- of course there are many people on a ship! -- but after being introduced with their own little potted biography I soon forgot who each person was so the nuances of their own suffering was lost. It would have been nice to have had a dramatis personae to refer back to or, failing that, the author could have jogged the reader's memory at intervals.
I call this a "poignant" tale and not a dark one because there isn't really any conflict or treachery in it. All the survivors behaved remarkably well, or so the accounts of it say. They looked after the ill and injured as best they could and the worst thing anybody did to anybody else was to split up into factions to make their own way. Which they can hardly be blamed for. There were no fights, no robbery, no lust, no cannibalism (though one party did eat their shoes), no murder, no mutiny, few, and only half-hearted, attacks by "savages", no attacks by wild animals, plentiful drinking water for the most part (though urine was drunk at one point), and a general lack of anything very, well, dramatic. I was secretly a little disappointed about that.
One random point of interest I noted: on the frontispiece, "Loss of the Grosvenor, Indiaman" by Thomas Tegg dated 1808, which is a dramatic scene of the wreck, the ship is quite clearly called the "Grovesnor". What an elementary mistake.
I loved the language of William Habberley, young midshipman (I think), whose memoir is the most comprehensive and widely quoted source that Taylor draws upon. It's so quaint and punctilious. How he remembered all the details of such an ordeal can only be wondered at. The author does use many other sources, though, to complement Habberley's and he weaves them seamlessly into his excellent narrative. His language is plain and unadorned, just as it should be: he lets the story tell itself.
Another couple of books that I would recommend to readers interested in this one are:
Captives: Britain, Empire and the World 1600-1850 (which Taylor alludes to) and
The Bounty: The True Story of the Mutiny on the Bounty (which is more swashbuckling and sensational).