Kenneth L. Roberts – The Unofficial Site

This post originally appeared 8/11/2016.

In an article from June 1941 in The English Journal 30.6, John T. Frederick analyzes Roberts role as a historian in his various historical novels. By the time Frederick published his article, Roberts was already established as one of America’s foremost novelist, having published Arundel, Rabble in Arms, Northwest Passage, and Oliver Wiswell. Frederick praises Roberts as a historian, noting his unique ability to “give us pictures of the American past which are honest, rich, and intellectually stimulating,” making Roberts “one of the major American writers” of their day (p. 435). For Frederick, a key factor in Roberts’ success as a novelist was his attention to historical detail.

Frederick highlights typical elements shared by works of historical fiction: they contain “exciting action on every page; a beautiful and vivacious – but not necessarily, in modern fiction, virtuous – heroine; period costumes and stage settings” (p. 435). By Frederick’s standards, Roberts’ novels fit the bill of historical fiction; however, as Frederick notes, Roberts would probably be “reluctant” to classify his works as historical fiction. For,

beneath these aspects of superficial relationship  to the conventional work of historical romance there lies bedrock historical fact and purpose which makes the work of Kenneth Roberts essentially and significantly different from the historical fiction that is written merely to entertain (p. 436).

Roberts did not write to merely entertain readers; rather, he wrote to teach history and to correct misconceptions of historical fact (I Wanted to Write, 168). Frederick observes:

He has written his historical novels as a matter of the considered choice of a mature and successful man; not primarily for money or for fame but because he wanted to write them, because he had something to say in them which he wanted profoundly to say, believed profoundly to be worth saying (p. 436).

Frederick bases his observation upon the “extraordinary thoroughness of Kenneth Roberts’ historical research” (p. 437). Roberts’ writing of each novel was preceded by “prolonged and patient digging after facts” such that Roberts’ research nearly equaled that “of the best professional historians” (p. 437).

For example, prior to writing Arundel, Roberts traveled the path Benedict Arnold took in 1775 when leading his expedition to Quebec. Roberts sought out all possible source material, including the journals and letters of those involved in the expedition. Such was the depth of Roberts’ research that he was able to publish his original research in March to Quebec (1938) – “itself a major contribution to the history of the American Revolution” (p. 437).

For Frederick, the strongest evidence that solidifies Roberts as a historian is found in Roberts’ research for Northwest Passage. Though Langdon Towne is the main character of Northwest Passage, the most dominant and dynamic character is Major Robert Rogers – the leader of Roberts’ Rangers. In what is perhaps Roberts’ most famous novel, Kenneth Roberts “rescued from the comparative oblivion of specialized scholarship one of the most interesting figures of all American colonial history” in Robert Rogers (p. 438). More significantly, Roberts’ penchant for extensive and thorough research led him to locate the record of Roberts’ court-martial, something which “historians had agreed was lost” (p. 437). As with Arundel, Roberts published his research for Northwest Passage in a volume that accompanied the limited first edition.

Despite Frederick’s case for Roberts as a historian, there were – and are – many who fail to consider Roberts as a historian because: 1) he wrote novels, and 2) he was a controversialist. It was well-known in Roberts’ day – and today among Roberts fans – that Kenneth Roberts was very opinionated and did not hold back on letting others know what he thought. His opinionated nature is readily evident throughout all of his novels, for he sought to shatter common notions about events and historical figures (note his favorable depiction of Benedict Arnold in Arundel and, especially, Rabble in Arms; and his depiction of the Revolution from the eyes of a Tory in Oliver Wiswell). It’s as if Roberts’ novels were a vehicle for his opinions and views to which he doggedly held and argued. For example, Mark York, in his book Patriot on the Kennebec, makes a strong case that Kenneth Roberts – despite his knack for historical detail – was prone to allow his personal convictions influence how he interpreted certain facts.¹ 

While Roberts’ opinions may shine forth in his novels, we are able to distinguish between historical fact and his opinion. The point here is a philosophical one – that we all encounter fact (in this case, historical fact), and we all interpret that fact. Fact is something that does not change (e.g. Robert Rogers was court-martialed; Benedict Arnold led the expedition to Quebec in 1775, etc.). What we seek to do is to make sense of the facts – what do they mean? How do they fit in with other known facts? Etc.

It is worth noting that some facts are excluded or glossed over. On one hand, any writer has to make choice regarding what they include and what they leave out – they are limited by time and space. On the other hand, though, we are justified in asking: why did the author include these facts and not others? We can even ask: Is the way in which the facts depicted accurate? Etc. There may be other reasons why an author chooses some facts and not others. The point here is that interpretation and personal biases necessarily accompany fact – we cannot avoid it. Nevertheless, critics of Roberts have a valid point of criticism of his novels – if an author claims to present history as it is, then their personal biases should take the back seat to historical fact.

Despite Kenneth Roberts’ tendency of contrarianism and his interpretation of historical fact, Frederick makes the case for Roberts as a historian. Nevertheless, Roberts’ choice of genre has limited public perception of him to that of just a mere novelist. To do so, however, is to misunderstand Roberts’ approach to writing and the purpose that drove him. What made Roberts a more than a mere novelist was his skill as a historian.

– Danny McDonald, 3/23/24

---

1. York says of his book, “My ancestor Reuben Colburn’s crucial role often played a minor part in other works on the subject and I felt he deserved more. He has it now” (Amazon.com). Roberts downplays the role Colburn, blaming him for the performance of the bateaux constructed for the march to Quebec. ↩︎