Let me start by saying that I loved George and Rue. If the book was entirely fictitious, I still would have loved it. George and Rufus are both incredibly real characters whose motivations are totally believable. "Heart-wrenching" usually seems like hyperbole to me, but towards the end of the novel, that's how I felt. George really jumped off the page for me, seeming to be conflicted over whether to be loyal to his brother's interests or to live honestly for the sake of his family.

The real question seems to be whether or not the fact that the book is not entirely fictitious, but takes "relentless liberties" should nullify my appreciation to any degree. I have to say that it does not. Sure, George Elliot Clarke could have taken painstaking care to not say anything contrary to what actually happened, but despite that care he would make errors anyway. George and Rufus are gone. With them went any chance of precisely recounting or reconstructing their lives. But even beyond the impracticality of writing a completely truthful version of George and Rue, I do not believe that "truth" is the point of the book.

The book is about understanding what could drive the brothers, or any criminal, to do what they did, and the particulars of their actions-- what jobs they took, the names of their lovers and how many their were, are not important to that understanding. What is important is the universality of their circumstances for those in disadvantaged locales, economic brackets, and racial categories. Whatever differences from the real George and Rue the book has, it captures the inescapable truth of the gross inequalities that they faced, and the vicious want that they experienced.

Alexander the Great was ugly, but sculptures and paintings always portray him as handsome. We say Columbus discovered American,yet people, of all races, have migrated there for the previous 15,000 years by crossing the trans-siberian land-bridge. The prophets: Buddha, Mohamed, and Jesus may never have been real outside of story and we certainly don't know their true appearances, if any, yet we have so many depictions of them (well, not Mohamed). Do we criticize artists who immortalize their subjects through art without a primer of authenticity?

George and Rue is a historical fiction, written based upon true events but with "liberties taken" to fill in gaps or increase tension as Clark saw fit. "George and Rue" never makes any assertions that it is a True (caps), non-fiction, Historical (caps) account. As with any form of art, the viewer/audience/critic must work within the lens/grasp of the artist. The viewer always has to keep in mind that the art itself is a reflection of some sort of truth, to whatever degree, taken with said liberties by the artist.

An interesting phenomenon in the years just pre-dating photography was the idea of "Claude-glass" paintings. Claude-glass is essentially a mirror that reflects and refracts light in a certain way. Some painters, in the old days (English romantics and early Gothics era), would turn their backs to their subjects (usually vistas and horizons) and view them through this claude glass. The glass would change colors and create distortions that were "pretty" and artistic (very similar to the imperfections made when taking pictures with "Daisy" cameras). Of course, these distortions are not true, they were caused by imperfections in the glass. Even the fact that the painter had to TURN THEIR BACK to their subjects is worth noting, however, do we consider these works inaccurate or any less artistically brilliant than of the works of painters who actually faced their subjects? Another example, why do photographers take black-and-white shots? The world is wrapped in color, not grays. Yet, perhaps, the artist with shutter-in-hand can grasp a more true, yes, REAL, emotion with a black-and-white exposure than a colored one. In this case, which is more true-to-life?

History (caps) is a difficult beast to judge, it is, at times, written by the victors (what really happened in Nanjing in 1932?); at times, written in falsehoods (why do you think this country is called "America?"; and at times, not written at all (where is that damned Lindberg baby?). In some sense, we shouldn't criticize a work such as Clark's George and Rue because of its liberties, we should cherish it for telling a story that may otherwise have been lost to History.

For me, authenticity places a distant second to art. Art, to whatever degree of accuracy, breeds authenticity; however, authenticity does not necessarily breed art. Truth can be boring, truth can be elusive. Where truth may not be compelling or fleeting, fiction will always be more interesting and abundant. Having never read or even heard in passing, the story of George and Rue, I am thankful for the partially true/partially fictional account of these two men. The fictionalization of their story keys my interest, I want to know more about the two men, I want to know the truth. Without this introductory step into their world, they would never have existed in my mind.

This is a very interesting question and every person is entitled to their own opinion because there is no 'right' or 'wrong' answer. Here's my view...look at the question: Does an artist have a responsibility to stay as "true" to the past as he or she can, or is it in fact his or her responsibility to create a powerful work of art first that helps us to understand the past through a different lens?

The keyword here is "artist". Had you said "historian", then I would have replied by saying yes, of course their job is to stay true to the factual aspects of the story. Yet, the whole picture changes when an artist enters the scene. Artists have the unique ability to alter reality and provide various perspectives on a myriad of things. Clarke obviously felt passionately about the murder that his family members committed and wanted to paint a picture of their existence. People often wonder what lies behind the eyes of a murderer. What could have possibly gone wrong in their lives to make them commit such a horrific crime? Clarke's novel answers these questions in an eloquent and poetic manner. Like John said in his post, the purpose of the book was to shed light on the inequalities and injustices that many minorities endure. Sometimes it is the experience of living as a subculture that triggers the behavior of a murderer.

Had Clarke adhered strictly to history, we would have read it, probably enjoyed it, but tossed it aside at the end with the idea that this was just one isolated example of what drives criminals. By using his artistic freedom, the novel became more universal and instead of understanding/sympathizing only with George and Rue, the reader is prompted to consider all murder cases and the history of the miscreant.

History, as we learned in "The Diviners", is an incredibly fascinating thing. Historians and artists play drastically different, yet equally important roles in the recollection and recording of times past. Clarke made it clear that parts of the tale were fictional, and we are ok with that. The fact that many of the chief events in the novel are true makes it extremely compelling, but the fictitious aspects allow for a more exciting read. I think it is safe to say that a completely true account of the story would not have been nearly as full, poetic or eloquent.

Clarke did an excellent job with finding the happy-medium between fact and fiction. Like Jarvis mentioned, the fictionalization of their history makes me want to read more about the real men and their case.

Who is to say that everything that is written down in text books, everything we've been taught in history class, and every non-fiction piece is expressing the whole truth of a situation? Often, "history" differs depending on who you talk to, and, often the story is composed of cold, hard facts that were recorded and passed on. In Clarke's novel, we are allowed a look at history from an emotional perspective. Maybe it is fictitious, but it offers one possible way of looking at the situation that might not be considered in the police reports. There are two sides to every story, and while Clarke's might be embellished, his writing opens the reader up to different possibilities and makes them question the past.
The story of George and Rue showed us that cold-blooded killers might have another side to them, that there may be societal forces pushing them towards ill deeds. I don't think Clarke was trying to justify their actions or make the two seem innocent. Rather, he was commenting on how culture and society shape people's actions and limit options to the point where people might be driven to take drastic measures. In this sense, the novel really does take a historical approach. The specific details of the brothers' lives may be skewed, but we get a larger sense of Canadian history and social structure.
Clarke admits to taking "liberties" but in doing so he created a really effective novel that introduces the world to the men behind the dangerous and vacant faces. If he had stayed true to the straight, historical facts, there would have been little connection to the character and a biased portrayal based on dates and court hearings.

I really love books like George and Rue because it does give me a different emotional impression on specific points in history. I feel that authors that Clarke, Morrison, and Hurston are not telling these stories because they want to tell them, but because they have to tell these stories and the stories must be heard. The authors want the readers to be able to emotionally connect with the characters; one of the only ways an author can do this is to fictionalize specific actions and characterizations. The author takes the responsibility of remaining true towards specific facts while they must create ways for the characters to connect to the readers. Clarke wants the reader to be emotionally attached to the boys, maybe even George more than Rue. Once the reader has emotional sympathy for the character, it is easier to understand how the characters surroundings and lifestyle shapes and oppresses them. When an author decides to tell a story which the audience should be emotionally moved, they must take the responsibility of fictionalizing. This responsibility is a literary necessity. If the author doesn’t take this responsibility, then the characters remain vague and un-captivating. Clarke wants the reader to see George, Rue, and all the other characters as real people. If he had just written the story as a newspaper article, we wouldn’t look twice because they would appear like every other criminal.

First of all, I don't think that George Elliot Clarke had any obligation whatsoever to write within certain parameters. When you are telling a story that has actually happened, of course we expect it to be the actual story, but Clarke told us from the beginning, and reminded us in the end, that this was NOT a recap of a true story. He made it quite clear that the characters George & Rue did exist and this was a crime that they committed, but that there was very little information about them and it would be practically impossible for Clarke to have told us their true story.

I think that Clarke did an admirable thing in writing this story. He tells us at the end that this was his family, and obviously something that they had been ashamed of for years (judging by the fact that he didn't even hear of it until he was grown). He brought to light a story that had been forgotten by most, and for many others never even heard. Not only that, but it brought to the surface so many controversial issues that we tend to dance over in today's society. For example, the case that Clarke describes to us of the two WHITE boys who commit a similar crime in a much more heinous way and are only sentenced to a few years jail time. Also, obviously, the side of poverty that is so desperate that mere survival can only be obtained by dishonest measures.

I truly enjoyed this story and I am so glad that Clarke decided to tell it to us. It does not affect my feelings towards the story in anyway that he took (necessary) creative liberties to tell it.

First of all, George and Rue was not only my favorite book of the semester but also one of my favorite books of all-time. For me, Clarke is in a literary league of his own because of his incredible ability to weave a compelling narrative through poetry. Through the use of vivid imagery and explosive detail to character development, I felt closer to George and Rue than almost any other characters I have read about in works before.

Personally, I have no problem whatsoever with the "relentless liberties" taken by Clarke throughout the novel, specifically because he makes note of it to the audience ahead of time. However, if an author creates a work of fiction and passes it off as fact- Like James Frey with A Million Little Pieces- I feel it is entirely problematic. Clarke's tale is so compelling because - even though these liberties exist - it is "based on a true story" that exists within Clarke's very own family heritage. George and Rue committed a violent crime and Clarke did not dismiss the fact, but instead added to the historical event by telling a brutal backstory which influenced the crime. Like the epic of Gilgamesh and John Berger epigraphs which preceeded In the Skin of a Lion, George and Rue's murder of Silver cannot be taken as the only interpretation of the historical event.

To me, the debate over whether Clarke's tale is lessened by the existence of these "relentless liberties" is entirely absurd and demeaning. Whether Clarke's tale is a work of fiction or non-fiction should have no influence on the way in which the reader interprets the characters. Even if George and Rue had never existed or committed the crime, it does not change the fact that episodes of this nature can occur everday. Criminals commit crimes for different reasons, and Clarke forces the reader to examine George and Rue as flawed human beings whose story must be heard.

As soon as I read the blog prompt I started thinking about James Frey's "A Million Little Pieces," which I then realized Josh had already mentioned. I agree with what Josh said about the way in which the author presents the novel to the reader, specifically in George and Rue, Clarke makes note of the fact that this book is mostly fiction. I also agree with what Jarvis and Julia said about wanting to know the actual story of George and Rue and the murder they committed.

This is not a historical book and if it was it probably would not be quite as intriguing to read, as a reader I would certainly would be more concerned with getting the facts right rather than enjoying the text for what it actually was.

As for the question about the responsibility of an artist to stay as "true" to fact as possible or portray history through a different lens I think it is entirely up to the artist.

An artist is entitled to express themselves in whatever way they see fit. The “relentless liberties” Clarke has taken is his own way of tailoring the idea of this horrific murder and turning it into a tale of how these two brothers might possibly have been led onto this path. Clarke is not trying in any way to pass this book of fiction off as an accurate story of George and Rue. However, we must also remember that although George and Rue committed and were hanged for this crime, we cannot truly “understand the past” of George and Rue from this story. It is indeed a different lens, but we cannot take for granted the fact that this book is completely fictionalized. We only understand the George and Rue that Clarke created. When someone takes “relentless liberties” to make sure a work is fiction, we cannot possibly look at the non-fiction act and be able to understand it on a true-to-life level. Clarke has no obligation to stay true to the past because it is a work wholly held together by fiction. As long as an artist is not trying to pass their work off as the truth, there are really no limits on what they can or cannot do to express their own self.

This was one of the best books we have read thus far in class, arguably the best. I do not think that a book needs to be entirely or even at all factual in order for it to grab and entertain the reader. What I do however believe when writing about an event like this the author needs to have events and people who are real and well possible. George and Rue may not have been exactly like the real men who this story was about but they were real characters and it was believable that a story like this did occur.

I think that John makes a good point in saying that George and Rue have died and it is impossible to have a completely accurate description of what happened in their short lives. So this makes it necessary for the author Clarke to take “relentless liberties.” I feel like too much emphasis is on truth in this novel. To me it is more about showing that Canada as well had its part in slavery and discriminations against blacks. In this novel we learn the process by which these two young men were driver to commit murder. Since we saw them at a young age and how they were abused horribly by their father and how little they had I almost justified their behavior and even the murder. It was almost as if society created them and than punished them for being what they were forced to be. If that makes any sense.

To answer the question I do not think that it is necessary for Clarke to remain loyal to the facts. Julia said that he is not a historian, he is an artist, a fictional writer. When people read (at least me) stories that are based on true events or movies I know that everything is not as it seems. By telling the story through a different lens we are able to see other views of the events. You call him an artist in the question and art does not need to be true to be great.

I think George and Rue offers a beautiful and ugly picture of what these two young men expereinced and how their world shaped them. From the opening paragraph describing the crime there is an overwhelming feeling of the eneviablity of fate and anything that these characters due will end in their demise. There are certain points where both men seek alternatives to the paths that have been laid for them; George through his farming and Rue through his artistic endeavors, but these shattered dreams only magnify the impending doom. George Elliot offers a story that may not be true to historical fact, but what is important is that it offers a feeling an emotion of fear, anxiety and total hopelessness.

As an artist Elliot has every right to examine the lives of these individuals and the cimes they commited. By doing so he is not offering an excuse in any way, instead he is offering explainations and insights. He seems to constantly suggest that George is a vicitm of Rue's heartlessness and in the end George who fumbles about in his honesty implicates the both of them, although it is highly likely they would have recieved convictions anyway.

I would like to first say that George and Rue is my favorite book so far. It is truly a work of art and I found it interesting that Clarke claimed to be as unpoetic as he could in the writing of George and Rue. I feel that "relentless liberties" are a big part of any kind of art from film to novels.

Anything that adds to the story's impact and does not take away from the message and true pieces of the story is ok by me. Just look at any movie that is based on real events. Things are always imbelished to make the movies more interesting. From adding relationships, to over dramatizing events; I like it all. I feel that George and Rue is based on the lives of men who are a lost part of history. I had no knowledge of the existence of the people of three mile plain and I am sure that it is hard to find history on the lives of these people. I am sure that Clarke had to invent many of the events and scenarios that made up the lives of these men. I feel that he did an amazing job of creating a believable life for these real men. The impact on the reader when hearing of the attrocities of these men's early childhood and addolescense is extreme and it is hard to not feel emotion when reading this novel.

Clarke's work of art is extremely believable and his "relentless liberties" added a lot to a story that would have gone untold if not for Clarke's telling. I am glad that he took these liberties for they add to the story in a way that makes for a true work of art. His liberties make for a n enjoyable read and a feeling of fulfillment upon finishing the story.

George & Rue, being a work of fiction based on real events, inevitably calls into question issues of the writer’s responsibility of conveying those events truthfully. However, this is a book, not a newspaper article, and thus it would be unwarranted to saddle the author of a fictional work with this burden of accuracy and objectivity. Moreover, the notion of there being any singular “true” depiction of any event seems too narrow to apply to the framework of dramatic fiction. Fiction, by definition, is afforded license to depict a multitude of angles, concepts, and events in order to create a cohesive story. Though reality-based fiction can create the temptation, to apply empirical standards to assess the accuracy or truth in its depiction would be missing the point. The events are only a template and it is the imagination of the artist that brings the events to life and gives the characters depth.

Consider the dynamic between George and Rufus and the idea that Rufus takes advantage of George’s simple nature and naïveté and drags him into his plot. Their relationship would be very difficult to objectively quantify without the liberty that fiction affords to color in these details. Also, how can multiple characters’ thought processes, motives, and experiences that combine to form their mentalities be assessed without artistic license?

Ironically, this artistic license contributes to the sense of authenticity in George & Rue, and allows what a more riveting yet plausible rendition of the events. In a way, the label of fiction serves as a disclaimer that this isn’t supposed to be documentation yet allows aspects of the story to come to life that may have more truthful significance than we might assume.

I felt that George and Rue was an extremely powerful and real description of a terribly violent crime and the events surrounding it. History is a rather odd thing. It generally captures facts that the author has gathered and demonstrates them in a clear and concise manner. However, there are pleanty of important facts that are left out of history books. Sides to stories that are never told or heard. History always focuses on what people have done. Very seldom does it explain why they did something, and it is even more rare to read the "whole" story surrounding the events that took place.
Although fictional, Clarke's novel about the entire story surrounding the murder of an innocent taxi driver gives a different perspective then you would get from reading a newspaper. In the newspaper, a murderer is a monster, clear cut, plain and simple. Never will you see a newspaper sympathesize with a murderer and rightfully so. Their acts are haneous and evil. However, after reading George and Rue, my perspective on the newspaper and its headlines has changed.
My entire life I have looked at people who committ awful crimes as animals without an iota of human in them. It is difficult to change feelings that have been engrained for twenty years, but George and Rue opened my eyes to the fact that the people who committ these horrible acts are people, just like me, my friends, and my family. They are loved by someone, someone cares about them, they have feelings (maybe not), and they have dreams. George and Rue deviates from simple facts and builds a life around the characters who committed a horrible crime. Although the story may be fictional, I think that Clarke turned these men from savage monsters in the eye of the public, to men who made a series of bad decisions. They are human. Fictional or not, Clarke showed me that these men had a life outside of their violent acts, something that I never really thought about before. I think it is imporant for an author to show history through a different lense. I think it is important that we see things from differnt angles and not just the bias opinion of some dink who gets paid to write an intriguing story. I think that when it comes to things such as politics, law, or even geography that historical factuality is important. In other cases I think some of the voids in the story need to be filled in, in order for the story to be complete and "real".

In growing up in Thailand, I visited Vietnam where what we knew as the Vietnam War, they knew as the American War. Most everyone in this country think they know and are right to believe certain things...you go overseas (or Canada) for any length of time and you'll soon see that they are only partial truths.

The history that survived from Nova Scotia in George and Rue's time is one that is biased. All the news sources and institutions that would've recorded such an event as their crime (courts, police) would've been extremely biased in their judgment and perception of what happened. What those biases would result in would be the simplifying of George and Rue's actions. It had nothing to do with them struggling to establish a foothold in life, to provide for their families, the struggles associated with both of those. Even if those were brought up, they would greatly overshadowed by the simple fact that they were black. In that time period that was sufficient enough for the ruling, or white, class but it obviously shows that the overshadowing effect of bias will put much of their life onto the back burner.
Oddly enough, to give the true story of George and Rue, certain parts necessitated being made up. Those imaginary add ons give George and Rue substance and a much closer representation of them than what RECORDED history would have us believe.

I totally agree with what Chris is saying about how where we live, how we grew up, and who our family is and so on, basiaclly what creates our reality, effect our prespective of any type of events. The resources that Clarke had available to him most likely didn't say next to anything about the two men and their lives, centering instead on the violent crime they so obviously admited. An artist shouldn't make up outrageuos things that don't make sense, but if their additions to the truth are in the pursuit of telling a story about a certain time and place in history and to flesh out the narrative, then by all means they should be added. His "liberties" makes the story far richer and try and let you into the minds of two people whose realities are almost certainly completely foreign to our own.

This is a very interesting concept to me, and one that I have thought about in great detail as a result of George Elliott Clarke’s “George and Rue”. The last class discussion we had on this book was extremely interactive and heated, and it seems that everyone has a different opinion as to how much artistic license an author has when telling a true story. The idea of History (with a capital h) versus story telling is a never-ending battle and one that will seemingly never be solved. It is important to note that memory is a reconstruction of events; a person’s memory is not a perfect linear film. On that note, I am not one to criticize a person for exaggerating a little bit to make a point.
Personally, I think an artist has the liberty to do whatever he or she pleases, as long as their intentions are understood by the viewers and readers. For example, if Clarke told us that his book was a true story, then I would not be satisfied. The fact that Clarke lets his audience know that his novel is only based on a true story, and that he has elaborated the characters fictitiously to fill in the gaps, is essential. I don’t feel like there is anything negative to be said about his novel. I am sure that most people did not know anything about this gruesome murder and the impact it had on that town during that time period, so I would say that Clarke is directly educating people. He makes the story intriguing to read by bringing these characters to life. Before I even opened the book I was aware that it was fiction, so I did not have any apprehension towards the validity of it.
Some may argue that Clarke is exploiting this story to make money off of it. I, however, could not disagree with this more. I think that Clarke is genuinely interested in the story and has created a poetic masterpiece of a novel. If someone is interested in learning the exact facts of this murder and the true story of George and Rue, than they can find it elsewhere; they could look at the town archives, newspaper clippings, etc. Clarke warns us that he has taken “relentless liberties” in retelling this story, so if someone is against this it is their problem; they are not being forced to read it.
Ultimately, I think it is the artists’ decision as to whether or not they want to stay true to the past. If an artist going to reconstruct a past event with every true detail, then I think that’s great. But if an artist decides they want some leniency and so they change things around, I think that is equally as great- as long as they are expressing this to their viewers and readers. I only have a problem with these “relentless liberties” if an artist is dishonest about them, telling people that their work of art is an exact prototype when it is not.

I want to start by saying that I thouroughly enjoyed the book "George and Rue". I think that it is a well written book that combines both fiction with non-fiction for a read that is both historical and imaginative in its content. It is the fact that Clark chose to take a historical event and turn it into a work of "fiction" with its places and characters, that has spurred much controversy in class as well as in the public.

Is it wrong that Clark took a historical event and turned it into a work of fiction? In my opinion the answer is a firm NO. Clark admits to taking an event that occured years ago that no one today knows for certain about (the lives of George and Rue can only be guessed at because no records were kept)and "making up" the lives of George and Rue and what went on in their lives that might have "pushed" them to commit such a devastating crime. In my opinion, if an author states clearly and early on that the book you are reading is a work of fiction that is created out of rough facts, than that is up to the author to write about it and create the story and the reader to decide if they want to read this book. In no way is this book not a work of art. It is simply a recreation of an event that, if not for Clark's book, the public may never have known about.

I think that it is clear then that this book is a valued piece of literature and should be read not as non-fiction, but as an artists recreation of a past that thankfully has come to light for millions to enjoy reading about.

I agree with everyone else in the class that it is not wrong to write historical fiction. In the case of In the Skin of a Lion, Ondaatje created characters (whom I know that one actually existed) and created a mix of stories in order to convey the history of that time period and place. While I loved In the Skin of a Lion and was intrigued by the stories, at first for some reason I had a problem with the fact that Clarke was fictionalizing these two men's story. This murder did actually take place and he fictionalized what happened and what took place up until the crime. Then I thought about why I was bothered. It was because Clarke told the story of two men in a specific inncedent and Ondaatje is writing on behalf of the poor, mistreated immigrants of Toronto in the first part of the 20th century. But Clarke is doing the same thing. He writing on behalf of black men and women during the 1940's and the oppresion they endured while living in Canada.
Since we learn about the murder within the first few pages of the novel, I was bitter towards the characters at first. By the end of the book I was sympathizing for the men, not for the murder or the punishment they receive, but for the environment that was forced upon them. I believe Clarke was writing a novel while conveying people his knowledge of how Africadians were treated during those times. Through this novel I was able to have a better understanding than if I was just to read the information through a textbook. You become attached to the characters and see how their world was in a way that nothing else can compare to as through a novel. If I wrote this blog a week ago I would have said yes it was wrong on Clarke's behalf, now after finishing the novel and regrouping my thoughts I say no. I enjoyed this book, even though I had some trouble with the writing style it taught me information and feeling that only In the Skin of a Lion and The Tin Flute were both able to do.

I believe that a writer or any other artist has the responsibility to create a powerful work of art while remaining, at least partially, true to fact. In looking at any work based on a true story there must be some basis of the truth or the meaning of the story is entirely lost. It is possible to create a powerful work of art while still maintaining part of the true story. I am not saying that an author is required to include all of the facts, but they are required to include some of them to make their story complete. I enjoy reading novels that are based on true stories, but have had some of the story changed. It makes the story more relateable and easier to follow than if it had been a newspaper story on the same event. I really enjoyed George and Rue for this very reason. After the first few chapters I found it much easier to read and actually connected with the story. I felt like I had really gotten to know the characters by the end of the novel. I think Clark found the perfect balance between what we needed to know for facts and what he could take liberties with.

If every author stuck strictly to the facts than we would just get a bulleted list of events in history. An author must be willing and able to create something, sometimes using fact and other times purely fiction. However, if a book is billed as fact or historically accurate then it must be, it must be accurately represented, which I believe George and Rue is. Clarke never tries to portray his story as fact, he does however use relevant historical truth to tell his own story based upon those truths. Clarke's goal with this story is to get information out there and to tell the story of a previously silent population. He is bringing awareness to something that happened in history and in order to reach more people, he spices it up and keep it interesting. He definitely accomplishes what he set out to do, creating a story that is historically accurate to the extend that it needs to be in order to still convey truth and with enough fluff to keep the reader involved. He humanizes the characters by revealing their faults as well as their inner qualities. With out artistic freedom this would just be another chapter in some bulky text book and who really wants to read another one of those?

I think that by using the term "artist" allows authors any "relentless liberties" they chose to include. Art is an expression of the artist, and what the artist feels it is important to portray. For me, this is the reason that art can be so controversial. If George Elliot Clarke thought it was important for his readers to know the exact history of this story then he would have included it. However, since he tells us that he did not, I think that he must have had a different intent and message for writing this book.

I do not think that it is the artists responsibility to create their work for us to understand it through a different lens than it is written down in history. I think that it is the artist's job to convey his or her feelings to the people interpreting the art.

I completely agree with what a lot of other people have said about an author being an artist who should take 'liberties' if necessary to create a better story. For Clarke, I don't think his aim was soley to write a more exciting book, rather I think that he wanted to share with the readers what he believed to be the 'true' 'story. This idea of fact vs history was a theme that came up a lot in the Diviners. If Morag was not memories changed as time passed, you can imagine how much the story of George and Rue has been altered over time. Even if Clarke was able to find ample historical documentation about the lives of George and Rue and their crime, this information would probably be rife with bias. At this time period in Nova Scotia, and even today, the black community suffers from persistent racism. On the other hand, if Clarke had taken verbatim the story of the crime that his relatives told him, this version would probably also be biased. As was shown in the Diviners, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I think Clarke's 'version' of George and Rue's experiences is compelling and fair, if not completely accurate. Even if he hadn't included the fact the he had taken some 'liberties' in writing the novel, I think some people would still have questioned its accuracy. It was admirable of Clarke to announce this fact openly to the reader, and then let them make their own judgement about what really happened to George and Rue.
On a side note in connection to this, I think it was really a shame what happened during the controversy of James Frey's 'A Million Little Pieces.' Though I think it would have been wise of Frey to say that he too had taken certain 'liberties' when writing his story, the whole Oprah controversy pulled the focus onto Frey's credibility, and not the incredible story he told. Even if the entire book was made up, it was still an amazing story that was inspiring to many people. Many people got so caught up in judging Frey character, they forgot that the story wasn't just about him.

I agree with, well, the whole class in that artists have no real responsibility to stay true to the facts. In fact, I'm of the opinion that an artist has a responsibility to take these liberties. Otherwise, what separates him from a newsman, or a court stenographer? I liked Josh's comment and Chris's reiteration about our own perspectives being based on experience. I also think Ashley makes a good point-- in this case, Clarke did have a responsibility to maintain an even keel, and I agree that he succeeded in doing so. Frankly, though I could have enjoyed this novel if it was pure fiction-- to me, the facts are really just one part of the "paratext," and in this case they aid Clarke in making his point about the cyclical nature of violence, and (to that end) how we can, or better yet, how we MUST stop it. A final point about artistic liberties: when dealing with a sensitive subject, I think everyone naturally becomes ultra-critical, and that's fine. As far as I'm concerned, as long as it's done in good taste, it's ok (but really, that's as subjective as our individual perspectives). Still, after learning a bit more about Clarke himself, (and I intend to read "The Execution Poems, too) I wish he'd take more! The world needs more brilliant and slightly eccentric writers like him.

George & Rue is a novel that you can both not entirely enjoy, yet appreciate at the same time. While it remained gruesome and tragic throughout, the writing and storytelling of Clarke is so well done, that it is hard to not enjoy at least that aspect. The language constantly fit the situation, and it felt almost as if Clarke was writing in the exact place he was writing about.

The truth and tragedy of this book as a whole makes it kind of difficult to get excited about reading it at times, but its truth and detail make it useful, as well as worthwhile experience. It is not an easy task to take a character guilty of murder, and have the reader sympathize with them. Clarke succeeds in not making the reader like Rue, who commits the murder, but sympathize with all the characters in their struggle of misfortune from their day of birth. Chilling and interesting in its display of tragedy, it was definately an interesting novel to read.

Clarke fictionalized the account of George and Rufus Hamilton's lives because all that remains of them is their crime and their punishment. Their lives and the hard luck that followed them throughout their lives have been intentionally suppressed. Compared with Clarke's other descendants, George and Clarke are humiliating examples of brutality and injustice. However, I think Clarke felt obligated to speak on behalf of his matrilineal cousins, inspired by their violent escape from a violent reality to bring them to life from the yellowed newsprint with the fantasy of fiction.

The cycle of violence, initiated through slavery and perpetuated by poverty and racism, transforms George and Rufus from victims of their father's whip into monsters wielding a hammer. The cycle comes back to finish them off, turning the violence back onto George and Rufus with legalized lynching. Without the pain of their lives expressed on paper, we are deprived of the reality of the cycle and the motivation for their crime. Clarke, deprived of the actual information, save bits and pieces with debatable authenticity, expresses his interpretation of the truth. George and Rue were corrupted by their violent past, and they turned the abuse they received from family and society back onto society with their crime.

Clarke explains in the Verdict section, "...George Hamilton and I were named for the same gentleman, his grandfather and my great-grandfather, George Johnson" (pg. 219 in my U.S. edition). There is an obvious sympathy for George, who establishes his innocence when he drops the hammer, and establishes his guilt when he abandons the body. Rufus is hardened against the society that is hardened against him, and George is a sucker to think he can better himself without opportunity available to him. However, George finds a slice of happiness immediately before the murder, in the creation of a family, and stands to lose considerably more than Rufus, merely for a handful of cash. I don't know whether Clarke was conscious of his throwing a more favorable light to George's character than Rufus, but sharing the name of George probably influenced Clarke's impression of him.

When actually reading the book, it’s hard to keep in mind that what you are reading at that moment may be entirely imaginary. We know before we read the book that it is based on a true event, which already shifts us into that new discourse before we start reading. For me at least, when a book or a movie states in the beginning that it is “based” on a true story, I find it hard to view it as fiction. That phrase “based on” is a powerful little language tool for artists, because they could use the smallest bit of factual information and no one would be the wiser without investigating further.
I wouldn’t say an artist has a very clear responsibility to stay as “true” to the past as possible. And then again, what is the “truth” about the past? Our lives are temporary, and once moments and events have happened, their very existence depends on our memories, which are entirely fallible. I think there is a certain anxiety when attempting to recall the past, because of our need to rely on an unreliable tool. Of course we have computers and files to document the actual trial and events surrounding George and Rue’s crime, much like we can keep a record of just about anything to a certain objective extent. Beyond the cold facts of the case, though, how else could we deepen our memory of this event than through works of literature like Clarke’s? If he stayed as “true” to the past as he could, he wouldn’t get very far beyond the newspaper articles and dispassionate accounts that already exist. He provides one possible window into this particular past, based on what he had to work with. What more could you really ask of an artist?

The liberties that Clarke has taken with his novel don't cause the facts to be missed. Though he has changed and, in some cases, created entire portions of his story the fact that he acknowlegdes that the basis of the story is the murder itself makes these changes and fabrications forgivable. The point of the novel was to tell this story that was lost to history because of the race of the two men. In creating the events that lead up to the murder, and eventually the verdict, Clarke tells his story in the most powerful way possible. It would hardly be an exciting read if he had kept to the facts. If that were the case we would basically be reading a newspaper article or a case report from the investigation (which again, based on race, was probably very limited). I believe in this situation Clarke did what he should have done, especially considering that this is part of his family history. He created a compelling tale that not only filled in the gaps from the lack of coverage in history, but he also wrote a story in which George and Rue were not demonized because of their crime. This offers us a fresh perspective on an event that we couldn't read that much about.