[issybird]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Would it have changed the book significantly if Atwood had called her characters by different names? I think Atwood would still have declined to pronounce a judgment on her protagonist's guilt or innocence, because that wasn't the story she wanted to tell.

I think the major difference if Atwood had called her characters by different names is that the total fabrications wouldn't have been as jarring. Simon and Jamie in a fictional work would have been acceptable constructs. Simon is problematic as the conduit both for Grace's memories and for Atwood's interpretation of the facts as known, given that this is supposedly a true story except when it isn't. Similarly, Jamie and Jeremiah as dei ex machinis occasion an eyeroll if this is factual, and if it isn't, why give that gloss to the story?

I dunno. Historical faction is popular and harmless and look at the Tudor industry! I suppose it boils down to both how recent the events were and how much is known about it and Grace Marks is in a nebulous territory in that regard for me.

Originally Posted by gmw

As a story I found it uninspired, uninspiring and unsatisfying. As a presentation of facts I thought it was ineffective. I've not studied literature formally so the concept of a "Victorian novel" is a bit loose with me. In my mind these tend to be large in scope with many characters, and so mostly unlike this narrowly focused book with its small cast. It would not have occurred to me to think of this as a Victorian novel.

Well, there are Victorian novels and Victorian novels. Obviously this isn't Dickensian with a huge and rollicking cast of characters, but I find it quite Brontëan. It has the limited scope of a Jane Eye or Villette and focus on particularly women's emotions and their economic and social standing mid-century and it has something of the narrative structure of a Wuthering Heights, with its narration within a narration and similar issues of distance and reliability. And certainly the prison locale is quite Dickensian at that.

Originally Posted by Catlady

Wow, what a life to look forward to. Be a servant in this house, or be a servant in that house. I mentioned Mary and Nancy earlier. Mary was a servant in a good house, was seduced and used by the son of the house, got pregnant, and ended up dead. Nancy was a servant who had a cozy little relationship, except she had no security whatsoever, got pregnant, and worried that she could be discarded for the next pretty maid.

This is what I mean by saying we've focused on the facts to the exclusion of the story. What is Atwood saying with the characters of Mary and Nancy? Assuming we both believe Grace and that Mary was real, Mary was someone who knew better and yet "fell" anyway. Why? Lust, coercion, physical force, stupidity?

And Nancy'd already had an illegitimate child; she seemed someone to me who managed outside the mores. The nineteenth century is replete with notorious women who thrived despite flagrant immorality, which is not to say that most weren't crushed when they erred. I could see Nancy as always landing on her feet somehow. I think this is one reason why Grace resented her; in Grace's mind she was no better than Mary, probably worse, but Mary had ended up dead and Nancy so far was thriving. In addition to Grace's own issues with Nancy, did she see herself as a force of vengeance? Because Grace seemed entirely in step with Victorian morality.