Review: Georgiana: Duchess of Devonshire

Georgiana: Duchess of Devonshire by Amanda Foreman

My rating: 2 of 5 stars



This book was probably the hardest history book I have had to get through - not including some Canadian history textbooks - and I'm still unsure as to the absolutely exact reason why. I think it may have been the writing style; at the same time as it was very, VERY dry and very textbook (and you know something's dry when they're talking about sexual scandal in what feels like a monotone voice), there were also many, many typos and run-on sentences that really bothered me. I just felt there were better ways to construct sentences, and I don't know if it was meant to be a stylistic choice - as the writing at the time, such as the writing that Georgiana composed herself, wasn't in keeping with modern grammar rules - or if there were just a lot of unfinished thoughts. Foreman also seemed, to me, to be a contradictory writer. She seemed to go from judging Georgiana very harshly to lifting her up onto a pedestal. The end of the book had this happen very intensely, when Foreman talked about how we cannot apply modern heterosexual or homosexual ideas to these eighteenth century relationships - yet the main focus of your book WAS applying those ideas to those relationships. (At least that's what seemed to be happening for the majority of the book for me; that and talking about how women shouldn't have gone near politics, yet applauding Georgiana for standing out, and then judging her again for retreating after she was shamed for it repeatedly.) There seemed to be a lot of flipping back and forth, and Foreman didn't seem to make a real decision on how she viewed Georgiana.

There was one lucid observation that was interesting to me: "The propensity of women's historians to ignore high politics, and of political historians to ignore women, has resulted in a profound misunderstanding of one of the most sexually integrated periods of British history." I really loved this, because it is really true. I haven't delved as deeply into women's history as I would like - in university history courses, you tend to focus on more well known accounts, and I never did get to take a really good gender in history course - but I feel, from what I've read, that this is true. Despite women in politics being a real thing - just because they didn't sit in the House did not mean they weren't present and working harder than the men in Parliament - it's rarely discussed, and I thought that was a great point to include. I do just wish she had been as decisive about the rest of her views on the rest of Georgiana's relationships. I think there's more to Georgiana's life than I learned here - since the majority focused on her life as it related to men and really painted her as completely idiotic with money and then occasionally painted her as a heroine in politics, which was very confusing - and though I didn't entirely enjoy this, I think I'll be seeking more information elsewhere.



View all my reviews

Lizzie Borden

On August 4, 1892, the town of Fall River, Massachusetts, was shocked by a double murder that remains unsolved to this day...

Okay. I am not going to give you a history of the murders of Robert Borden and Abigail Borden, nee Gray. (I mean, if you want me to, please leave a comment to that because I have read extensively on the subject and love to discuss it.) (I also just found a listing for Abigail Borden on Facebook and MySpace and was very worried for a second, before I realised that both those names are pretty common.) While very interesting, I'm pretty sure you don't want to read it. You probably think you'll get a more accurate depiction on Wikipedia. (Which you won't. Because Wikipedia is largely a crock. But that's just my opinion. I'm sorry, if your site allows anyone off the street to edit any entry, I'm not going to use that site as a reference very seriously.)

You probably wonder why I've read at least three books on the grisly subject of these murders. Reason One: I get weirdly interested in murders and school shootings; they interest me as a student of history. Reason Two (and the one that's relevant to this post): When I was in grade ten, I appeared in a play called BLOOD RELATIONS, by Sharon Pollack, which we entered in the Sears Drama Festival that year. (We didn't do the whole play, just the first act, so we didn't actually do the murders onstage or anything, not that that happens in the play anyway.) Next year, the Queen's Drama Department is performing this same play. (That can be seen in my previous THEATRE TIMES post.)

I adore this play. Every time I read it, it fascinates me a little more. This is probably because every time I read it, it makes both a little more sense and a little less sense to me. It is a very intricate, complicated piece, with hundreds of different interpretations to it. Being a memory play (at least, that's what I always, always call it, because it's the easiest way to say it, even though it's definitely not what it is, since the various moments aren't true memories, but that is a really long thing to say), there are so many ways in which to think about who Miss Lizzie and the Actress are, and who's being portrayed, and how they're being portrayed. It seems very complicated at first - I'm pretty sure this explanation is not helping anyone - but Sharon Pollack is a genius at getting you to understand quickly on the surface so you're able to slide into the many worlds of the play. (I'm not kidding; there are about four very different worlds. World A - that's the one with the actors and the audience, where you're seeing/reading the play; World B - Lizzie and the Actress in present day Fall River; World C - The Actress playing Lizzie and Lizzie being in her own memories as Bridget; World D - this weird limbo the Actress and Lizzie are in. I consider World D separate from World B because they do seem to be in limbo to me. META.) This play is just brilliant to me, and I own a copy - although I need another copy, like in a book, just to keep track of more easily, not my script with notes everywhere - and I read it every year at least. (Wah, it's in storage now, along with all my other yearly re-read books.) But it is so interesting and great.

The story of Lizzie Borden attracted me from the first moment I read the play. (I think I did know who Lizzie Borden was before that, but grade 10 was the first time I really thought about it.) As I said, I have a weird penchant for murder stories, especially unsolved cases. This happened 120 years ago this year, almost 121 years ago, and no one has ever actually ascertained what happened that summer day. No one knows if Lizzie did it - of course, that is the most popular theory, and really makes the most sense if you read an account of the case - or if someone came in off the street, or if Abby's brother did it. There are many theories, but no solid evidence was ever found. (This was obviously well before the days of DNA testing.) Obviously I know a lot about the case, but I still can't tell you who did it, because I can't really decide.

Now before this turns into a history lesson...Back to the merits of the play!

The brilliant part of Sharon Pollack's play is that she doesn't tell you who did it either. You can take whatever you want; you can decide Lizzie did it, or you can decide Lizzie didn't do it, but she gives you the option, in a dramatic way. She doesn't say, "Lizzie did murder her parents." She gives you the motive Lizzie may have had, but she also hands you some motives for some other people. She doesn't give you all the facts. Obviously it's a dramatic interpretation, so some facts got changed or left out, but overall, she's accurate - accurate to the terms of the information we have. (Again, 1892 - not the best at records either.) And she leaves the choice up to you. Can I emphasize that enough?

I played Miss Lizzie in the play. (I did not play Bridget; it being high school, we split that character off to open more parts and I still can't decide what I would do in that situation.) It was a great experience, and though we didn't move up to the next round, we should have. (Yes. I'm still bitter.) I worked with great people and it went really well, and I just fell in love.

Now my alma mater is doing it, and while I'm a tiny bit annoyed (come on! I would have begged to work on that show!), I'm so excited they are finally doing it. I directed an excerpt from it in my fourth year, and it made me think about it even more. (I also did a full directors' workbook on it with a classmate in third year, and if you want to talk about that - well, it was huge and super, super fun because I am a huge nerd and I still have it.) I can't wait to see what they do with it - Greg Wanless is directing, and after seeing his interpretation of A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM, I am excited and uber curious to see what he does with it. It's definitely a show I'll be making a trip to Kingston to see, without a doubt. I'd love to direct it as well; it'd be interesting, and really, really difficult, since I would have to actually make up my mind about some things - most important of which being, "Did you do it, Lizzie? Lizzie, did you?"

And seriously, would YOU stay here if you knew exactly what happened that day? https://www.lizzie-borden.com/about-the-house/history - I'd be TERRIFIED. I want to tour it, but if I stayed there, I would certainly not sleep.