Book 54: The Churchills

The Churchills: In Love and War by Mary S. Lovell

 

I used my trip to England as an excuse to buy this book, and it was one of the reasons I ended up visiting Blenheim Palace, birthplace of Winston Churchill and home of the Dukes of Marlborough (Winston was the son of a younger son, so no title for him).  The palace and the surrounding parklands were absolutely gorgeous.  It took me a few chapters to get into the book, and I was ready for it to be over about fifty to a hundred pages before it was over, but in the middle, it was a mostly engaging overview of the Churchill family.  However, I would say the title The Churchills is a bit misleading - the main character and focus is Winston.  After a chapter on the family member that won the battle of Blenheim, and became the first Duke of Marlborough, Lovell fastforwards to Winston's parents' generation.

 

While the main focus is Winston, Lovell includes more about the rest of his family than would probably be included in a straight Churchill bio, though I would assume that much of the information would still be included.  Lovell is very sympathetic towards her subjects, and defends some of the family members who have previously received a bad rap from other biographers.  Compared to the rest of his family, Winston was actually a bit of a puritan, marrying for love and staying with the same woman for the rest of his life.  Actually, his brother also didn't get divorced, but the rest of the family was constantly marrying for the wrong reasons (American heiresses for money, such as Consuelo Vanderbilt), and having lots of divorces and affairs,  It was actually a bit surprising.  Winston's mother was part of the Marlborough set (Edwards VII's social circle when he was the heir), and I was surprised by the amount of affairs taking place in Victorian England.  It sounded like a lot of fun, though.

 

While politics played into it, the book focused more on the private lives (if public figures get to have "private lives") of the men and women of the family.  There is an overview of Winston Churchill's political career, but while Lovell covers the basics, she didn't necessarily get into all the intricacies of it all.  In a way, I almost felt like Lovell wanted to write a biography of Winston Churchill, but didn't want to compete with all the other ones already out there, so instead she sold it as a family biography that just happened to talk a lot about Winston.  Overall, I would say it works well as an introduction (like most history books I seem to read anymore), and it definitely made me feel like I could tackle a pure Churchill bio.  Given that so much is already out there about Winston, I actually wouldn't have minded a bit more about some of his family members, since sometimes it seemed like Lovell would forget about them and then include them after a few chapters about Winston.  Also, she was very defensive of the family, and not critical of Winston at all.  I understand that after spending a certain amount of time with a topic, it is easy to become very biased towards the topic, but that is another reason I am interested in reading a separate Churchill biography.  Overall, Lovell had a very conversational and slightly gossipy approach to the topic which made it an engaging and easy read, but I wouldn't take it as the definitive book on the topic.

Book 53: Victoria's Daughters

Victoria's Daughters by Jerrold M. Packard

 

In preparation for my vacation to the UK, I decided to do things the proper way for once, and read a few books about the area before I went.  I figured it would be a nice change from normal, such as when I picked up a history on the Medicis after returning from Florence.  I had already read We Two a few months ago, but was a bit curious about a different perspective of Victoria.  I chose this because I thought it would cover a wider range of history, and after reading about Victoria and her husband, reading about her and her daugthers seemed like a natural follow-up.  I quite liked the book - I'm not an expert on Victoria or family by any means, so I can't say much one way or the other about some complaints on Amazon regarding the accuracy of the facts.  I noticed one mistake when the author referred to Kaiser Wilhelm and Bertie (or Edward VII) as cousins in a foot note when in fact they were nephew and uncle, but that's the only one I caught.  For someone with limited knowledge on the topic, this really seemed like the perfect book.

 

Given that Victoria had five daughters, and through them and her granddaughters was related to rulers like Czar Nicholas II and Emperor Wilhelm, reading about these six women is really an introduction to European history from the mid-19th to early 20th century.  Packard discusses Victoria's lack of interest in her children, and states that she really only had them to keep Albert happy and as her duty.  He argues that in some ways Victoria's interactions with her children caused them problems later in life, and it is certain that she could at times be hard and unforgiving.  However, I also think he may be being a bit hard on her, because I don't think most society women in the 19th century really spent that much time with their children, and left them to governesses, tutors and private schools, so Victoria was following a trend.  Since Victoria and Albert married for love, they also encouraged their children to marry for love within the proper circles, of course.  Also, Victoria was protective of her family, especially as she got older.  It was quite interesting reading about how she interacted with her grandchildren vs. her children but it seems like most people mellow and become more indulgent as they age.

 

While Packard spends a lot of time discussing Victoria to explain her relationship with her daughters, he also focuses on each of the daughters.  Her oldest, Victoria, was brilliant and her father's favorite, and was the mother of Kaiser Wilhelm.  After reading We Two which talked about "poor Vicky" and her relationship with her children, and especially her son, it was rather refreshing to read Packard who also addressed some of Vicky's flaws, and discussed how her early expectations may have been part of the reason her relationship with her son was so strained.  I've noticed this problem a lot while reading historical non-fiction lately: many foreign princesses have a hard time adapting to their new courts and don't understand them.  It didn't help that Victoria kept telling Vicky to act like an English princess rather than advising her to act in a manner her new family would approve of.

 

Packard did contradict himself a bit when discussing Alice, the second eldest daughter who had an interest in social improvement and nursing: at one point, he said her Englishness made it hard for her to adjust to her German surroundings and caused her problems with the people, but he also said she was well-beloved and greatly mourned at her death (she was the first of the daughters to die; one of her daughters married Czar Nicholas II).

 

Of Victoria's other three daughters, Louise was least conventional and had artistic ability.  She actually spent some time in Canada since her husband was appointed to an official job there, but they had some marital problems (he appears to have been gay).  The other two daughters stayed near to home, and Beatrice, the youngest, especially was seen as Victoria's helper and assistant.  At first, Victoria hadn't even wanted her to marry for this reason, but her husband agreed to be at the Queen's beck and call in order to marry her daughter.

 

Queen Victoria's family was full of personalities, and the fact that Victoria could be rather demanding certainly didn't make life easy.  However, Packard portrays a close and loving family, especially among the women of the family (the reader learns about the sons in passing and only when their actions affect their sisters, but it seems that Edward VII and his mother had an especially difficult relationship).  He doesn't fall into the trap of worshipping the royal family or trying to slander them, but instead presents portraits of a group of complex and flawed human beings.

Book 52: Juliet

Juliet by Anne Fortier

 

While I have never agreed with the idea that Romeo and Juliet are the greatest romantic couple of all time, I have always enjoyed the play. I actually tend to think of the characters as dumb teenagers, Romeo being inconsistent and changeable (after all, he begins the play by declaring his undying love for Rosalind, a character that is never seen and smart enough to doubt his loyalty), and Juliet simply wanting a way out of her parents' house. If she'd seen Paris first, she might very well have fallen for him or maybe it was the parental approval that proved to be the turn off in that case. The magic of the play is less in the plot or the characters but the language, and Shakespeare's way with words. As a result, I always thought Romeo and Juliet would be a great candidate for a retelling, which seems to be a rather popular subgenre nowadays (see March, written from the perspective of the father of Little Women, or Ahab's Wife narrated by a briefly mentioned wife of the captain in Moby Dick- not that I could actually get through that last one). What if Juliet didn't kill herself, and went to a nunnery like Friar Lawrence offered?

 

Fortier doesn't quite go that route - Romeo and Juliet are still great lovers, but she grounds the story in a historical setting in Siena, where there are in fact two dueling families. I actually liked the liberties she took with the story and the ways she imagined it may have actually started before being distorted across the centuries. I was less happy with the part of the story that took place in the modern day. The premise of the novel is that when her great-aunt and guardian dies, Julie finds out that she is actually descended from the family of the real Juliet, and that there is a treasure waiting for her in Siena. Unfortunately, Julie is a bit dull and immature - at least in my opinion. When she first opens up her deceased mother's savings deposit box, she is disappointed because there are only old papers in there, not a bunch of money since being a dumbass 25 year old, Julie had never finished college or gotten a real job, and instead run up her credit card debt because she figured she'd inherit from her great-aunt. I'm not saying the heroine needs to have life squared away, but it would help if she wasn't a pushover, who didn't want to be a success because her twin sister was. I also understand that college isn't for everyone, it's hard to get a job nowadays, but there's a difference between going into debt because you have no choice and going into debt because you figure there might be money eventually.

 

Also, a 25 year old virgin? Really? Should I blame this one on Twilight? Why is there this idea that in order for it to be romantic and true love the woman needs to be a virgin? Was anyone's first time that great? How much fun can it possibly be to have sex with someone that has no clue what they're doing? I may look back and wonder at my taste in men on occasion, but I don't regret the fact that I had sex. You know for sure her "Romeo" isn't waiting for Juliet, and is hooking up with as many willing women as he can find. I guess there was a bit of a reason given one plot twist, but even that was a bit much (SPOILER this ancient order of monks checked the sheets for blood, but how many women even bleed their first time given gymnastics, athletics, tampons, etc. END SPOILER).

 

While in Siena, Julie quickly meets the descendents of the former dueling families as well as her own relatives. In some ways she is too trusting, telling everyone who she is and what she's doing after being warned to be careful, but naturally she doubts her ability to trust others (while there is no treasure in the box, there are clues that may lead to one). Speaking of which, could someone please write a thriller where the woman actually just trusts the guy she's attracted to and it all turns out alright? I'm getting kind of tired of the cliche where the heroine doesn't trust the guy she likes and wants to sleep with, and in the process of avoiding him gets caught by the actual bad guys. Just have her trust him, and have him be trustworthy. Or shit, let's really go for a twist, and have the main character be right to mistrust the guy.

 

I actually enjoyed the book while I was reading it, mostly because it alternated between past and present day setting, and I was really curious to see what Fortier imagined a real life version of Romeo and Juliet may have looked like. And Julie wasn't always that annoying, especially when she was trying to figure out the clues. Unfortunately this novel also contained a few cliches I've seen in other books, and I think I've just gotten sick of them, so I'm currently venting here, even though Fortier is not the only author guilty of them. Oh, and one other thing I could have done without - whenever Julie is with her Romeo, she makes comments like "Shakespeare wouldn't like that." Could you be anymore cheesy? Also, stop being so full of yourself: Shakespeare wouldn't care!

I guess this is a bit overdue

At one point before I went on my vacation, I thought I would try and do a travel blog for a month.  Obviously that didn't happen.  With three weeks of travel already complete, I now feel like talking about my first impressions of Ireland.  Now, take this all with a grain of salt because I am tired and grumpy which tends to make me even more of a misanthrope than I usually am.  However, I think that's also why I feel like blogging (as irritated was I was with Bryson's take on Europe, it really is much easier to be grumpy, and to feel inspired by dissatisfaction than to simply talk about how nice things are, so I do understand it a bit more).

 

So far Dublin itself seems like a perfectly lovely city; however, it also seems to have way too many people in it for its size!  I think many of them are tourists, and while I realize it's the tourist season, London and Edinburgh didn't seem quite as overrun with them.  I knew that Dublin and Ireland were huge vacation spots, but I guess I didn't realize that the city wasn't big enough for all of them, or just how much of a cliche a visit to Ireland is nowadays.  I guess it's a bit like Paris in that way which was another city that I felt was overwhelmed with tourists (Paris was the first place I went after last deployment, so I also just wasn't used to crowds of people in general anymore; I've hit Dublin after three weeks of traveling having only had three hours of sleep the night before so I may also just starting to feel a bit of fatigue).  It also doesn't help the crowds that there was a zombie convention today (seriously).  So while I've enjoyed the city, I've also been a bit irritated with all the people.  I may have also just been timing things badly, but it seemed almost impossible to get pictures without random people in them, even inside the cathedrals.  And then crowds of teenagers are really just rude.  If it's a small sidewalk, please consider walking in single file lines or pairs rather than four or five next to each other, and don't give me a dirty look for not moving off the sidewalk into traffic so the five of you can walk next to each other.  Also, I've noticed people quite often ask me to take pictures for them.  I figure it's probably easier to approach a single person (especially if they have a camera and are also a tourist) rather than someone that is a part of a group, so I don't have a problem (unless you just happen to be the fifth person that day to ask; I'll do it, but I'll probably be a bit irritated at that point).  However, one girl came up to me today, and really just pissed me off.  I'm standing in front of a statue with the camera raised to take a shot, and then she comes, interrupts me and asks me to take her and her friends' picture before I'd even taken my picture - and it was rather obvious that I was in the middle of something given how I was holding the camera.  I would have been perfectly happy to do it if she had waited until I actually lowered my own camera but that was just fucking rude.  I still took it but I think she noticed that I was irritated (also, the few times I have asked people to take my picture for me, I usually ask if they would like me to do the reverse for them . . . just seems like the polite thing to do).

 

Today, I visited the Dublin Castle (unfortunately, it had the disadvantage of being seen after Hampton Court Palace, Windsor Palace, Blenheim Palace, Castle Howard, Warwick Castle, Leeds Castle and Sterling Castle, so with the exception of one room, it wasn't very impressive).  They only let people into the building as part of a guided tour, and while in the drawing room, the guide pointed out pictures of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert, and then showed us George IV's throne in the next room.  I understand that Ireland was under British rule for much of its history, so that is part of its history, but considering how much they wanted to be independent, I would have thought that portraits of old British monarchs would have been one of the first things to come off the wall after becoming their own rulers.  Guess that shows what I know.  I visited both the Christchurch and the St. Patrick Cathedrals today as well - the entry fee was about the same for both, and both churches combined were still cheaper than some of the cathedrals in England, but I would say that while Christchurch had the more picturesque outside, St. Patrick's had the more beautiful inside (although Christchurch had a mummified cat and mouse, so . . . win?)

 

I also hit up the Dublin Writers Museum but while I recognize some of the big names, and have even read a few, I'm generally don't read many plays, short stories or poems, so I wasn't exactly that excited about most of the authors.  Naturally Joyce was a big part of the museum, but I've never read anything of his, and don't have much interest in Ulysses, either.  I think they were glad to see me go, though - in the gift shop, I asked about what age a book of Irish fairy tales the book would be appropriate for, and the guy had no clue.  I also asked if there were any good pubs that had any associations with writers (big blank stare), and if they'd been on the Literary Pub Crawl and if they'd recommend it.  Count on me to ask all the dumb questions.

 

I'm actually doing two day trips in the next two days, so I won't have too much time to explore Dublin again until Tuesday, but I'm looking forward to the art galleries and the Book of Kells.  I figure I should go to the Guinness area as well since it is Ireland.  I'm just trying to figure out how to fit everything in and possibly do a walking tour.  I'm considering a haunted one and the literary pub tour which would be in the evening and not interfere, but I guess part of me would also like to do one that just discusses the history of Dublin.  Hopefully the crowds won't be as bad once the zombies are gone and the weekends over.

Book 51: The Paris Wife

The Paris Wife by Paula Mclain

While the topic interested me, the deciding factor was that I read a few different positive reviews of this novel from a variety of sources. Unfortunately, I didn't quite agree with them. The novel is told from the perspective of Hadley Richardson, Hemingway's first wife or "the Paris wife." They met in Chicago after the Great War, and married after a swift courtship. Hadley, about eight or nine years older than her groom, lived a rather sheltered life and was a bit innocent and old-fashioned compared to her husband in some ways. The couple eventually decide to move to Paris for Ernest's writing career.

While there, the newlyweds make the acquaintance of several Americans and artists that are already big names (at least within the arts community if not the general public just yet), including Gertrude Stein and later the Fitzgeralds. Ernest writes and works while Hadley plays the supportive wife for these first few years. They also drink a lot, and Hadley realizes just how much her life revolves around her husband when he leaves for journalism assignments to supplement their income.

I realize that since this is historical fiction, there is a limit on what the characters can do, but it is still fiction, meaning the author can take certain liberties to add drama to the story (otherwise, I would just read nonfiction) - there is a certain amount of leniency that historical fiction novelists are given as long as they don't go too crazy or become too inaccurate. While it was definitely interesting to read about these years in Hemingway's life as well as his relationship with women given how very macho his writing is, the novel was a bit slow or dull for me. It wasn't badly-written, and the novel certainly explored some of Hemingway's flaws, such as taking some things to seriously, his need to proof his manliness, and his falling out with friends due to stubbornness and pride, I wasn't hooked. It took me a few days to get through this, because I just wasn't in a hurry to read the rest. Hadley always reassures Hemingway about his writing, and they go off on various vacations, and then he finally gets some short stories published. In ways, their struggle didn't quite hit home because I knew that soon enough Hemingway would be the world famous author Hemingway, and since they were constantly going on trips, they couldn't have been struggling that much anyway, right? And yet, it took longer for Hemingway to become successful than I expected or realized.

I enjoyed the last third of the novel the most, which follows Hemingway's trip to Pamplona, and basically recreates the scene that inspired The Sun Also Rises (which I want to revisit now), and then also documents a disintegrating marriage. Had there been warning signs before? As a reader and someone who knows that Hadley wasn't Hemingway's last wife, it is easy to judge some of the marriage scenes in the early years and see signs even if they aren't there. From a modern sensibility, Hadley is too wrapped up around Hemingway, but even she points out that in '20s Paris, her lifestyle was considered old-fashioned. The main issue with the portrayal of Hadley as the happy supportive housewife is that it doesn't make for a very exciting protagonist. She seemed too bland or too much like a blank slate for much of the novel rather than a distinct character - in fact, she could have been pulled out of any generic historical fiction piece.

The novel does an alright job of telling the story and setting the scene, but maybe this marriage wasn't that exciting, or something more was needed in the first half of the book to make it more engaging. The author says she was inspired to write this after reading Hemingway's portrayal of his first marriage in A Moveable Feast, so readers may get more satisfaction from that particular book - I think I read the first chapter of it many years ago, and put it down because Hemingway ordered a lot of drinks, and that was all that happened, so I was easily distracted by other novels. The novel has made me curious about Hemingway again, and the reality of this, so it does succeed in at least making the reader want more. It would have been nice if some of that more had come from the novel itself, though.

Book 50: Bad Blood

Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment by James Jones

I had heard of the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment at some point in school, but only knew very broadly what had happened: white doctors experimented on black men and let them die of syphilis in the '30s. What I didn't know is that the experiment continued into the '70s, or how it even came to be.

Jones does a very good job of telling the story behind the experiment, and what led to it. He doesn't even necessarily judge the doctors himself, letting their actions speak for themselves and also demonstrates how they rationalized the experiment to themselves. Jones begins with the history of racism in medicine, and goes back to the times of slavery. At that point, many believed that diseases affected blacks and whites differently but despite this the doctors used the same treatments for slaves as for their masters. After the Civil War, many whites thought that blacks would die out due to their death rates which could be directly traced to their living conditions. Some used this to show that blacks were inferiors to whites, while others realized that anyone in these conditions would face similar challenges. As a result, public health officials focused on education within poor and black communities. In the early 1930s, public health officials were in Macon County, Alabama to test for syphilis and were surprised by the rather significant rates of syphilis among the population. It was around this time that their funding for treatment (which still involved mercury and a year long succession of shots) was cut due to the Depression. One of the doctors determined that since the population couldn't be treated and wouldn't look for treatment on their own anyway, it was the perfect setting to examine the affects of syphilis, intending to observe a group of men for a period of six months or so. It is easy to see the justification here: the money wasn't there, the patients wouldn't have been able to afford treatment on their own, and it would only be short term. However, the doctors didn't straight up tell the patients what was being done to them/what they were being used for. Many believed they were receiving treatment. The doctors may argue that they had told the patients they were being examined because they had bad blood, believing it to be local slang for syphilis, but that wasn't quite accurate. Bad blood could be used to refer to a number of conditions, basically boiling down to ill health.

Additionally, after the six months were up, other doctors wanted to continue the experiment, believing it to be a one time opportunity to view the affects of syphilis on blacks (they still believed it affected blacks and whites differently). In order to do this, they involved medical professionals throughout the community, and made them promise not to treat the men in the group. In fact in later years, others would come down to treat syphilis in the area (during WWII, for example), but these men were not given treatment. Even when penicillin, a more effective treatment was developed, the scientist continued to deny the men help or tell them what was really wrong with them. Additionally, the whole experiment was flawed to begin with: one of the organizations that agreed to sponsor the original six month experiment said that all the men must be treated. The doctors gave all the men at least a few shots of the mercury, not enough to actually cure the disease, but enough to make the argument that this was a study of completely untreated syphilis invalid.

When the story finally broke, it invited comparisons to the Nazis, and with a few other cases that were making news, really made people wonder about patient rights and consent. I had actually heard of this book in particular from the bibliography of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, and both of these books refer to a scientific experiment that involved people being injected with cancer cells (without their knowledge) to see what would happen. This is a later edition of the book, so it also includes a chapter about AIDS and the publics' reaction to HIV and AIDS. The book was educational, and very well researched. My one complaint is that the series of doctors really aren't that distinguished from each other, so there were basically a lot of names thrown out but I really couldn't say which one was involved in the experiment in which way at this point. Then again, that helps to show just how much bureaucracy there was in this whole process, and how a series of men who didn't see conflict between this experiment and their oaths as doctors.

Book 49: King Rat

King Rat by China Mieville

I actually became interested in this author because I thought his novel Kraken sounded interesting. Or maybe I just liked the title. Either way, since it was out in hardcover at the time, I didn't get it because I didn't want to spend that much money on a new author. However, I eventually found this novel by Mieville and decided it sounded intriguing and like a good place to start. I admit my interest in this novel may have been for the wrong reasons: the thing that most caught my attention on the backcover was the idea of another London, a secret London hidden behind the ordinary world. I like London, I loved Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere which also had a secret London (and is totally the reason I have a shot glass that says "Mind the Gap"), and it probably really isn't a good idea to pick up one author's novel because of another author's work.

After Saul spends the weekend out, he returns home and goes straight to bed, only to be awakened by the police a bit later and questioned about his father's death or murder. While in lock up, King Rat visits Saul and helps him escape and it is at this point that Saul learns there is more to his heritage than he ever knew: he is part rat. While King Rat is less than open with information, his father's death had something to do with Saul and who he is, and the novel soon introduces the rats' old enemy: the Pied Piper. Saul may be the only one able to defeat him due to his unique heritage, but the Piper soon has Saul's friends under his spell.

I really liked the ideas in this novel. I thought the modernization of the Pied Piper was a great idea, and the story was a good one. Unfortunately, it all felt very impersonal. I didn't really care about Saul, I especially didn't care about his friends, and it was just hard for me to feel any real danger throughout the novel. If it had been written differently, this would have been a great novel, but unfortunately, I just found myself wanting it to be over already. With the characters that Mieville created, this may have been better as a short story. I may still try one of the author's other novels because he is obviously a creative and intelligent thinker, but this isn't the book to start with, especially if the reader is looking for something similar to Gaiman's style (and I wasn't intentionally looking for that except for the previously mentioned Neverwhere comparison).