The Great Chicago Fire of 1871
is one of the best-documented events in history. Chicago was a newspaper town,
and within 48 hours most of the major papers were back up and running. They had
plenty of eyewitness accounts to choose among, including those from their owners
and reporters. Other educated persons quickly published their own eyewitness
accounts. Then the Board of Police and Fire Commissioners held a public inquiry,
heard sworn testimony from fifty-one witnesses, and published its report—all before
the end of the year.
Even so, much of the evidence
is inconclusive. We know where the fire started, but we don’t know how. We don’t
even know exactly when. (The evidence puts it anywhere between 8:30 p.m. and
9:30 p.m.) We know that the early response to the fire was a comedy of errors
(combined with circumstances beyond anyone’s control), but we don’t always know
who was responsible for the errors or the reasons for them. And only God knows
whether the fire could have been controlled if everything had gone right.
In 1871, even the most
reputable newspapers had a taste for sensationalism. Besides that, eyewitness
testimony is only as reliable as the eyewitness is. Some people misinterpret
what they see, some exaggerate, and some simply make things up for effect. So
how much of the eyewitness accounts can I use in my middle-grade historical
novel on the Great Chicago Fire?
Take this story:
One little girl, in particular, I saw, whose golden hair was
loose down her back and caught afire. She ran screaming past me, and somebody
threw a glass of liquor upon her, which flared up and covered her with a blue
flame.
At first glance, the story
looks pretty improbable. Not because the girl’s hair caught fire—that was
common. But would somebody really be mean enough to throw alcohol on her? Still,
maybe it wasn’t meanness and the person was so intoxicated that he thought his
drink would put out the fire like water would. Besides, the eyewitness was
Alexander Frear, a visitor who was a member of the New York State Assembly and
a New York City commissioner. Surely we can believe someone like that.
Maybe yes, and maybe no. I can
hear you saying, “Never believe a politician.” But for me, the biggest problem
with Mr. Frear’s is that it is filled with similarly dramatic events. One or
two such instances might simply mean that Mr. Frear was observant and knew how
to use vivid language to describe what he saw, but the entire account seems over
the top.
So even if it’s true, I won’t
be using the story of the girl catching fire from a liquor bath. And that’s
okay, because I don’t need it. There are plenty of better documented yet still dramatic
incidents scattered among the many eyewitness accounts.
It’s all a matter of sifting
through the rubble.
2 comments:
I think the story could be true simply because dumb things happen in the heat of the moment. The person meant to do the right thing and had a glass of "liquid" in their hands. Liquid extinguishes fire, right? So in order to help, he flung in on her and in his horror realizes his mistake. Good luck with the research.
Yes, it could be true. Every event that Alexander Frear relates could be true, and maybe they all are. It's just a little suspect that he experienced so many unusual events that others didn't experience. And I do love the story, but I don't need it. It's also a little too disturbing for my audience.
Post a Comment