[Catlady]

Originally Posted by issybird

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.

But it is a fictional work; it's not being presented as a true crime account. It's all fabrication, and I don't know how it can be jarring as a departure from fact unless one is familiar with the actual case and/or has opinions about it and the players. I am not getting this objection at all.

Originally Posted by issybird

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?

Love. Mary was in love and had been promised marriage.

...the man had promised to marry her, and had given her a ring, and for once in a way she’d believed him, as she’d thought he was not like other men; but he’d gone back on his promise, and now would not speak with her; and she was in despair and did not know what to do.

And after she asked him for help and he pawned her off with five bucks:

She said she had once truly loved him, but did so no longer.

Originally Posted by issybird

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.

Was Nancy's earlier illegitimate child mentioned in the story, or only in the author's note? I can't remember and can't find it.

I do think that if she killed Nancy, Grace could have seen herself as avenging Mary.

What would he do when he found out, I wondered. Boot her into the ditch. Marry her. I had no idea, and could not rest easy with either of these futures. I wished Nancy no harm, and did not want her cast out, a waif on the common highway and a prey to wandering scoundrels; but all the same it would not be fair and just that she should end up a respectable married lady with a ring on her finger, and rich into the bargain. It would not be right at all. Mary Whitney had done the same as her, and had gone to her death. Why should the one be rewarded and the other punished, for the same sin?