Twenty years later, Charles earned the nickname "the Red Devil." What did you make of this? Can you think of others who survived something terrible only to become someone who did horrific harm to others?

Much of this novel is about the kind of person someone becomes after a tragedy. We learn early on that Charles Longstreet (inspired by Charles Lamar, a real person) survived the explosion and the five days and five nights at sea. Twenty years later, he earned the nickname "the Red Devil." What did you make of this? Can you think of others who survived something terrible only to become someone who did horrific harm to others? Why, or how, do you think that might happen?

This interests me - even sounds like another possible book. It makes me curious to find out more about Charles Lamar, the real person who survived. I know stories of people who survive something terrible and then reach out more than ever before, to help others. I am not sure why it would happen that someone would survive and then turn to harming others, but it has me thinking about it. Maybe they harden their feelings in order to cope with their own losses.

I think the question of "why Charles changed" deserves some attention. Others may disagree, but I don't think surviving changed Charles, but rather other factors. In fact, you could get into the nature vs nurture discussion when looking at Charles. Was his behavior part of his nature, and would have happened even without the shipwreck; or was his behavior due to his reaction to the change of his life circumstances due to the shipwreck? Due to the shipwreck, he may have survived, but he lost his mother and siblings, and he lost his status as a member of one of the prominent families of Savannah. Perhaps the enormity of his losses was greater than the good that came from survival. Or was it survivors guilt?

I agree with mtnluvr that there were a lot of factors that could have caused Charles to change. Not only would the things mentioned in his/her comment contribute, but so would his father's guilt. I may be misremembering, but I think Charles was sent away to boarding school after the accident, too. I'd think any child would feel unloved under those circumstances, with the only remaining adult in their life not offering any kind of support. In fact, he was downright helpful and selfless while they were drifting, awaiting rescue.

I agree with the other comments. I strongly feel that his father sending him away after the accident hardened him into feeling unloved and unwanted. These feelings grew stronger as he became older and he truly lost his way as an adult.

The real Charles Lamar did become a heinous figure in history. Everyone deals with loss differently. Some feel guilt, others anger & blame. Charles did not have a strong support network and certainly no counseling. But, everybody has a choice. Tragedy did not excuse his becoming a notorious slave trader. And, his devotion to the Confederacy is not necessarily related to his tragedy. There have been numerous cruel people throughout history that were just evil. And maybe from his perspective, he was just doing business.

This is fascinating to me too and perhaps a future book! I'm sure his experience was traumatic and then being sent away to school didn't really help his healing. But I can't excuse his actions. I wonder if he would have acted like this without the tragedy?