
Hi, there! Today we're speaking with historical novelist Barbara Passaris, author of Through Tempest Forged, a family saga set in Virginia during the American Revolution.
YR: What got you interested in the history behind your novel?
BP: Well, first of all, I am a native Virginian. That means that I was bred with history. And much of the history happened literally in my back yard. I actually grew up in the Kempsville section of Virginia Beach, which was called the Kemps Landing Township of Princess Anne County during colonial times. The location for Kemps’ Store is less than a mile from my parents’ home, and right near the Pleasant Hall Estate. This house is still there. It was the actual site of the celebration following the victory at Great Bridge. This lovely home was often used for important social events of the day.
And even though I was born in Baltimore, I moved to Virginia when I was seven years old. Virginia is and always will be “home” for me. Her people—both the ordinary ones of the Revolutionary Era, and the famous ones—have always fascinated me. There’s a certain amount of pride that I have for coming from this area, too. Virginia is the cradle of American Democracy. (Now, if you’re a Bostonian, you may challenge that point….)
YR: Is there a particular family that inspired you to create the Rogerses?
BP: I often laugh when people ask me this question, because I come from a large family with five children. In some ways, the Rogerses are very much like the family in which I grew up, in that they are closely knit, have many personalities amongst the lot of them, and are fiercely loyal to one another; they’re loving, yet not without their own family problems and struggles. I grew up in a family that had five children, with three girls and two boys. But the birth order of the children is completely different for the Rogerses than it was for the Passaris family.
I tried to look at the manners and mores of a well-to-do family from that time. By that, I mean the way in which the people interacted, the supremacy of the family patriarch, the loyalty of the matriarch, and the hierarchy within the family structure. This was an era when everyone knew his/her place within the family, when birth order was everything, especially for sons. And this is still the era of primogeniture—even amongst American “gentry.” The Rogerses are a big, loving, cohesive family that is bound by family honor, as well. But are they perfect? No. Is there such a thing? I don’t think so.
YR: One of the most interesting characters to me was John Peter, Paul and Elizabeth’s gay son (to use a modern term). What inspired you to tell his story?
BP: You know, I wanted so much to have a family that had some “quirkiness” to it. People don’t like to talk about it even now, but homosexuals have always been around, and always will be. I suppose that the point of this is that there was such misunderstanding with regard to homosexuality at that time. Here, we have the Rogers family, who are pillars of their society. And they have someone in their family with this great “disability.” Paul and Elizabeth feel that they have to cure him in some way—try to fix this, so that the family’s honor can be saved, so that John Peter can have a “normal” life. And for John Peter, he has struggled his entire life to “fit in.” For a person back then, being homosexual was beyond being deviant. It meant ostracism or even death in some venues.
John Peter is a very complex character. He thinks of himself as a weakling, and yet, I see him as one of the strongest characters in my book. He hides behind his money, liquor, gambling, and diversions; he’s trying to “normalize” himself.
But this is a book about love, sacrifice, honor, and duty. William’s battles are fought on battlefields, while John Peter’s are fought within. John Peter’s sense of duty to his father and to the home in which he grew up forces him to sacrifice himself in order to produce an heir to the family’s fortune. Interestingly, though, he will accomplish this on his own terms, as much as possible.
I suppose that I feel such compassion for him, because throughout the years, I have had many friends who are “gay” or lesbian. My husband’s sister, Karen, was a lesbian, (She died three years ago.) I loved her very much, and she was very close with my husband. We’d often talk about the plight and struggles that the homosexual community has. More than anything, Karen told me, homosexuals just want to be left to live their lives in peace. That was what John Peter wanted; even though he knew that it wasn’t possible. I wish that my sister-in-law had lived to see my book in print.
YR: Who’s your favorite character in your novel? Why?
BP: That’s a tough one. You know, I think that I’d have to say that it’s both Paul AND John Peter. To me, they are flip sides of the same coin. And Johnny is so much more like his father than he realizes.
Why do I love these two men? For me, Paul is the “perfect” husband—at least in this book. He’s generous, loving, intelligent, honorable, handsome, and hardworking. He’d die for his family, loves his wife with every beat of his heart. His sense of duty to his wife and children is deeply ingrained into the fabric of this household that he has built, and he will protect them at all costs. Paul has always struggled with his mixed blood, that being both noble and common. It is not until he makes a declaration for the Patriot cause that he will finally accept himself. He leaves the estranged family of his mother behind forever—or so he thinks. I would say that conversely, he reveres the memory of his mother and, of course, his father.
John Peter “dies” unto himself by marrying Susie—for the sake of his love for his father, and for his duty to Willow Bend. He accepts an “unfortunate” into his heart, hearth, and home. He sees someone who is unacceptable to most people, an illiterate bastard daughter of a whore. He takes her, enlightens and elevates her. In doing this, he embraces himself, even as he forever locks himself into half of an existence. But, in his characteristically serendipitous way, he’ll make the most of it, and come to terms with himself and his situation. He loves and admires his father more than he is able to express, and though Paul seldom admits it, he feels the same for this particular son.
YR: Sexuality is a very important feature in your married characters’ relationships, female as well as male. In general—I know this is a very broad question—what was the attitude toward women’s sexuality in colonial times?
Sexuality has always been important in the lives of married people! I don’t believe that that has changed.
In colonial times, a woman was expected to remain a virgin until she married. There were no ifs, ands, or buts about it. It was something that was not talked about, either. And a young man often visited a “pleasure house” when he was teenager. That is the great oxymoron of it: There were young women who “worked” these places. But these women lived on the fringe of society, and for many reasons, too. Chiefly, I believe that poverty forced them into prostitution, as it does now.
Let us discuss a woman’s rights in that time. In a nutshell, she had very few. In colonial times, a woman could not vote. She couldn’t own property unless she was a widow, or in rare case, divorced for some reason. A married woman had no say-so whatever in much more than the day’s menus and fabric choices for gowns and curtains. She was the property of her father before she married, and the property of her husband after the marriage took place. Sexuality within a marriage was viewed in much the same way. It was considered a wife’s “duty” to have relations with her husband—not a choice. But an honorable man knew he had to be gentle and kind—to have her permission. A wife didn’t usually deny her husband, and he thought nothing of asking for her whenever he wanted her; it was his right as a husband.
Does that mean that a woman did not enjoy the act? Well, I think that may have been true for many women, because they didn’t know how their bodies worked, and I think that most men probably didn’t know how women’s bodies worked, either. But I think that there were those who loved their spouses, and loved being with them—plain and simple. My women love their men, and they love that aspect of their married life. And my men are good and kind husbands, for the most part.
But let’s look at little Sarah, who was raped. How difficult was it for her to find a way to live “normally” with her Henry? It was excruciating for both of them.
And what of Janie Kemp, the town “tart”? She was hardly marriageable, with her sullied reputation. But because of the rape, she would most likely never be married, unless she married far beneath her social status.
While I’m talking about that, I’ll address the issue of rape. It was tragic for more than one reason when this happened to a young woman. First of all, she was no longer considered to be pure, or “marriageable.” Unless a woman was a widow, most men expected a virgin for a bride. And a woman was often blamed for this horrific act. If a girl had a tarnished reputation, as was the case with Janie Kemp, it was difficult to prove that she hadn’t “asked” for it.
Having an “old maid” was considered to be a scourge on a family. Thus, a rape could have tragic consequences for an entire family, not just the victim.
Then there’s Susie, John Peter’s wife. She lives with him, though I doubt that they have much there in the way of sexual relations, other than a sense of duty to one another and to their home. They have a job to do: make a couple of babies for Willow Bend, and her patriarch, Paulus Augustus Rogers.
In polite circles, a woman’s sexuality was cherished and guarded by her father and brothers (or closest male relative), then owned by her husband—period. This was not a matter of choice for a woman. Even a woman who was a queen in her own right would have to marry and be subject in all aspects of her life to her husband.
YR: Which historical figures from the revolutionary era interest you in particular?
BP: I love the Virginia Presidents: Washington, Jefferson, Monroe, and Madison. I also love the architects of this country, the Ben Franklins and Adams of the time. I find it fascinating that there could be such collective brain power in one place, in one time—and that that brain power (and monetary strength) could have been so audacious as to stand up against a Goliath of a nation, say “no” to the powers of the time, and make a future for all of us on this side of the pond. And I think that we owe them all so much. But we owe all of the men and women of that time. By that I mean the common infantryman who gave his life, and sewed the seeds of democracy with his own blood. There are the Molly Pitchers, too, who bravely took their fallen husbands’ places in battle, for the sake of their posterity.
YR: Are there particular resources you found helpful in researching your novel?
BP: Oh my, yes….so many. I’ll list some of them.
Atlas of American Military History by Stuart Murray, Checkmark Books
Revolutionary War Roster of Gloucester County, Virginia compiled by Elizabeth Dutton Lewis
“Common Sense” by Thomas Paine.
The Collective Writings of Thomas Paine, Library of America Press.
The American Revolution, Library of America Press.
What Every American Should Know About American History, Second Edition, Axelrod, Ph.D, and Charles Phillips, Adams Media, Avon, Massachusetts.
Revolutionary Mothers: Women in the Struggle for America’s Independence by Carol Berkin, Knopf Press.
The Colonial Williamsburg Tavern Cookbook, The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation with recipes by John R. Gonzales, edited by Charles Pierce, Clarkson/Potter Publishers, New York.
And I admit that I did some internet research, as well, especially for the Battle of Great Bridge.
There’s a wonderful teaching poster that I obtained from the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation that has a chronology of major events in the Revolution, as well as some key players.
There were many more resources, but those are the ones that I used the most.
I also used a particular book that details clothing of the era, though to be honest, I can’t locate it. We’ve been painting the interior of our house, and it’s in some crate in the upper rafters of our storage areas, and I’m having trouble locating it.
YR: It’s apparent from the ending that a sequel is in store. When can we expect it?
BP: I am almost finished with the sequel. It is my hope that it will be out for Christmas 2008, or in early 2009.
Thanks for stopping by, Barbara! More information about Barbara and her book can be found at http://www.barbarapassaris.com