Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
I agree with Bookpossum. We can't ever know all there is to know about any actual events; fictionalizing them is a way to provide a possible interpretation, and it's one reason that I often tend to prefer a fictionalized account--I want a plausible explanation and I want to understand how things might have happened. No one's ever going to know for sure if Grace was a murderer; why should there be certainty about Atwood's fictional creation? I didn't really want some last-minute confession from Grace if she was guilty, and if she was innocent, well, that's what she'd been saying all along.
I've read a few novels based on actual murders, and whether names are changed or not, the more I know about the actual case, the less tolerant I am of an author's interpretation that disregards the apparent facts--and my own existing prejudices (e.g., Little Deaths, based on the Alice Crimmins case). Of course, the most famous did-she-or-didn't-she is probably Lizzie Borden. No matter how many novels I read about her (e.g., See What I Have Done), and no matter if the author comes down on the side of guilt or innocence, who knows?
|
I don't think we have to keep an entirely open mind. With Lizzie Borden, for example, while she was acquitted, I think the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence says she did it. I think as readers we can apply the same standard of "reasonable doubt" that applies in a courtroom. In the end, people tend to get the justice they can afford (see O.J. Simpson, as another example), but I don't feel compelled to say either that Borden and Simpson were judged innocent therefore they were or that we can't know.
In regard to fictionalization I'm willing to go along with a speculative and/or expanded narrative so long as the known facts aren't altered. In a case like this, of course, it's wide open. But there also seems to be some reaction that Atwood went too far, e.g., Simon's entire involvement and interior monologue and also Jeremiah and Jamie as key elements in the resolution. This goes far beyond the specific whys for Grace. I have no issue with using a known case as a jumping off point, but I think this was too far along the fiction spectrum to justify using real personages.
O/T Can't resist commenting on Alice Crimmins; was her pushing for a second trial a sign of innocence or hubris?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookpossum
I agree Catlady - it’s the why that is really interesting. So if Grace wasn’t a scheming murderess, why didn’t she escape with Jeremiah, why didn’t she seek help and protection from neighbours or the butcher, why not get away from McDermott on the boat or in the place they went to on the other side of the lake.
In asking those questions, it makes me think of the way people say of a woman in an abusive relationship “Why didn’t she just leave?” And of course it’s never as simple as that. So it is plausible that Grace stayed with McDermott because of fear, rather than because of shared guilt.
|
Passivity and/or dearth of alternatives can also be compelling reasons, both in this case or any abusive relationship.