Remarkable
Creatures – Tracy Chevalier
BBBC
Meeting: Thursday, 4th October
2018, Flower and Forrester, Combe Down
Present: Richard (his book choice),
Andrew, ChrisB, John, MarkT, MarkW, Steve, Willm.
Apols and score received (but no notes
yet): ChrisW,
Overall, most enjoyed this book quite a lot
(there were 2 dissenting voices) but most of those who enjoyed lots of specific
elements about the book also felt that the ‘whole was less than the sum of its
parts’: “not the greatest book in the
world, but I enjoyed it”.
More Detail
It was suggested that this was a very
enjoyable book (“I enjoyed it – it
grabbed me from the first page”), about a tremendously interesting period
of UK and world history, focused on two interesting women of their time and
class (or as ChrisB much more eruditely put it: “Good evocation of an era by the contrast of two women who take on roles
of great agency despite the hegemony of men”). And
the title relates both to the fossils they find, and to the two women.
Most
agreed that the book captures the excitement and Intellectual challenge of
finding fossils, and trying to understand what they are, and how they fit into
a God-given world. And that the book also touched quite strongly on a debate (still
ongoing) about experiential knowledge versus academic book-learnt knowledge,
with Mary Anning knowing from her experiential knowledge far more than most of
the much more highly educated ‘experts’.
Although not acknowledged at the time, attempts have now been made to
put this right, and in fact in 2010, one hundred
and sixty-three years after her death, the Royal Society included
Mary Anning in a list of the Ten British women who have most influenced the history
of science across the world.
There were a couple of dissenting voices, with especially
Willm not enjoying the book: “Struggled
with it; not grabbed by it at all; no desire to go back and continue reading it;
plodded; not well-written: I expected more from the book!”. Willm felt that a book is meant to ‘Inform,
Educate and Entertain’ and whilst for him it did the first two, it certainly
did not entertain. Although there was lots that Steve liked, it “left me feeling slightly empty at the end –
a great story (with many fascinating and key issues raised) but just felt
strangely anodyne … it lacked teeth … clichéd responses, awkward sentences: it
promised much, delivered some, disappointed in various details”. And ChrisB summarised: “An enjoyable and interesting to read. But
not as emotional or engaging as I had hoped.”
Most
did not completely agree with them though, and felt that many elements of the
book were well handled:
Plot: Most agreed that this is an
interesting story which led to an interesting and enjoyable plot. It motivated a
number of the group to find more out about Mary Anning and has made a number of
us want to (re-)visit Lyme Regis. Steve and others liked the idea of ‘the eye’
– the fact that some people had great skill in pattern recognition and were
hence able to look at the same areas that others looked at, but to see things
very differently. The juxtaposition
throughout between finding fossils as a major scientific endeavour and using
them to make enough money to make a living was a fascinating tension throughout
the book, overlapping with the major themes of class and differential
opportunity for women versus men.
Setting: Most found the setting clear and
believable – both London and Lyme Regis at that time (and the difficulties of travel
between them) were brought to life well.
And in terms of travel, Elizabeth Philpot’s descriptions of the journey
to London were excellent, especially her changed understanding of the sea
(p286), moving from seeing it as a boundary to an opening: “keeping me in my place on land. Now, though,
it became an opening. … On board … I had no choice but to see the greater
world, and my place in it.”
Chevalier has the ability to evoke place and period. One example was when she ‘escaped’ her
brother’s house and want alone in London: “I
was free. Or so I thought. As I started along Great Russel Street past
the British Museum, I became aware of other women walking in clumps, in couples
or groups, with maids or husbands or fathers or friends. Except for the
occasional servant, only men walked on their own.” And how she became
increasingly uncomfortable and how she was approached by men thinking she must
be a loose woman. (pp 230-1)
And her descriptive writing about how women were treated and
expected to behave was excellent – “I was
small and bony and plain, and I could not flirt, but would try to talk about
serious things, and that drove the men away too.” “The summer of James Foot had been the height of Margaret’s potential.
The following season she was treated as a fine gown that has dated in storage,
the neckline now too high or too low, the cloth a touch faded, the cut no
longer so flattering.” Andrew liked
the how Chevalier showed how the lives of the four sisters (and the other
characters) were laid down by their social status; and that in this book there
were heroines but no heroes; that these heroines were brave – battling tides,
poverty, land-slips, and men!, and that the heroines were flawed enough to make
them interesting. “I liked walking along the beach with them”.
Characters
and characterisations. Writing a fictionalised biography is
potentially difficult (see the Glass Room last time, and how upset the real family
were). Easier here as no family left to take umbrage – but still, from looking
after wards at these two women and what is known, it is very true to their actual
lives, yet it was not a dry biography – it breathes life into them. There are lots of minor characters but the
two main ones, Mary and Elizabeth, are brought well to life – they are
developed sympathetically and are believable: “the flow between them was very well done”.
The dynamic between working class Mary
and middle class Elizabeth was deftly and convincingly handled, as was the
invented love affair and subsequent jealousy.
ChrisB
remarked that the strong contrast between the two principal characters was well
done: background, education, approach and age; yet they had a close
relationship, even when they are competing for the affections of same man. Many of us enjoyed the tension between these two
women, and the tension that they brought to others, disturbing the status quo. MarkW remarked how the two interesting central
characters were women whereas all of the male characters were villainous or nasty
or somewhat buffoon-like.
On the other hand, all of the characters, even though well
drawn, were all somewhat one-dimensional – there was no-one who was conflicted,
no character who presented an alternative viewpoint – there were those who
believed in a biblical account, or scientists who were moving forwards.
Style. Most very much enjoyed the style,
moving from one voice to the next, and feeling that she retained these two
distinct styles very well. And most enjoyed the descriptions of the places, houses, dress
and manners of Jane Austen's time.
Research. Clearly Chevailer had done a very
great deal, but most felt that she wore it lightly, and the story was not
subsumed by her need to show us how much she knew and had learnt about the
period and the subject.
Topicality: Interestingly for a book set 200
years ago, there was much that was still very topical – the position of women
of course, both in the UK and internationally (and the growth of the #MeToo
movement), and the current conflicts especially in the USA over evolution,
Darwin and ‘Creationism’.
Overall then, most thought it was a good and
enjoyable book (ticking for most of us all three of Inform, Educate, Entertain),
but not an amazing one (hence scores ranging from 7.7 to 6.5) although two of
us (Willm and Steve) were less enamoured (scores of 4 and 6).
Richard Velleman, October 2018
