I have been reading regularly. For me, this is a sign of good (relative, of course) mental health. (It's hard to explain.) In the above picture are (most of? all of?) the books I have read so far this year. Some of them I read over the holidays, so technically it was last year. But whatever. Also, I don't often read books that make obvious good recommendations. So whatever. Also, these are just some notes and thoughts, nothing really very coherent. Not reports or reviews or recommendations Just whatever...
Good Wives: Image and Reality in the Lives of Women in Northern New England, 1650-1750 by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Why did it take me so long to get to this book? I loved it. First of all, it's a beautiful example of good, solid scholarly writing: You say what you're going to say, you say it, and then you say what you said. Her complex but clear sentences and paragraphs made me swoon. Her word choice is perfect. You have to work as a reader, but not too hard, because Ulrich is taking care of you, leading you through the development and organization of her findings and ideas. I was reminded of why I sometimes prefer the academic writing of a scholar to the pop nonfiction of a journalist.
This book is not as perfectly tight and and tidy as Ulrich's A Midwife's Tale (one of the very favorite books), but that's okay. As Ulrich herself points out, it's "an extended description constructed from a series of vignettes," and the appeal of the book, she hopes, "lies in the aggregate texture of the associated parts." She paints a vivid picture with the fragments of history (seemingly unimportant primary sources) she dug up and analyzed. With a map here, a household inventory there, a gravestone, a poem, a scribbled letter, a court case, and so on, she is able to bring to life the women of pre-Revolution New England.
As the title indicates, this book is about the lives of women in Northern New England from 1650-1750. Ignore the "Good wives" and "Image and reality" bit in the title. This is a book about women's lives, that gets as close as possible to "what it was really like." I was struck by how much I related to these women. Or, more specifically, how alike, for better and worse, my peer group (Mormon moms busy raising children) is to these women. I love the details Ulrich gleans from the scant historical record. For instance,
- A mother was trying to keep a baby shushed and occupied during a church service, so she handed the baby the first thing she could dig out of her pocket, a bodkin. At some point the baby dropped the bopkin, and it was lost beneath the pews, to be picked up by another woman. (Controversy arose as to whether the finder picked up the bodkin in order to return it or keep it.) Mothers 400 years ago struggled to keep their kids quiet in church!
- Women took up spinning when they had small children because it's an ongoing project that can be continuously interrupted. It's something productive that can be put down and picked up again at a moment's notice--like if a baby is crying or a toddler is wandering. In later years, after the stage of demanding small ones, women abandoned spinning for endeavors like cheese-making, which requires long periods of uninterrupted attention (which is not possible with a lot of little ones).
- It was important to women to have a church within a reasonable walking distance. This is in part because it was simply too exhausting for a nursing mother to walk for hours to church, attend church, and then walk hours and hours home. Going to church should not be in opposition to breastfeeding.
- Life was a cycle of pregnancy, birth, and lactation. From the historical record, it is clear that women were out and about and traveling during their second trimesters. And again when the baby was small and portable. But once a baby was six to eight months, it was easier to stay home. Women also clearly laid low during the first trimester of pregnancy. And during the last couple of months too.
- When a baby reached the age of somewhere around a year or a year and a half, a mother would simply leave for a few days and go stay with a friend or relative. Without the baby. Why? To leave dad at home to comfort the abruptly weaned baby.
Isn't that stuff so interesting? There is so much more in Good Wives. Like choosing a spouse. The balance of power in marriage. Neighborliness. Childbearing customs. Indian raids. Needlework. Church.
More than ever before did I feel like women generations before me were real, living human beings. Maybe it's because I come from New England stock, but I felt a connection to these women. Despite the fact they are almost invisible to history. Thank you, Laurel.
By the way, if A Midwife's Tale and Good Wives are a little slow for you (because slow they are!), Laurel Thatcher Ulrich's Well-Behaved Women Seldom Make History (a phrase she coined) is much breezier. (And it includes a chapter on the very awesome Christine de Pizan.)
Because I was so fascinated with the domestic details of life in the home, I thought At Home: A Short History of Private Life by Bill Bryson would be the perfect book to read next. It wasn't.
Don't get me wrong. It was a great book! Lively and well-written and fascinating and accurate in that meandering, slyly humorous Bryson way. Just two pages of this book give you enough interesting anecdotes to last for five years' worth of dinner party conversations.
But it was all about men. Men! How could a book called At Home barely mention any women at all? Not to sound all super traditional, but isn't "the home" kind of considered "the woman's sphere?" So why is this a book about the accomplishments of men in the public sphere? What the heck?
It is Bill Bryson at or near his best, and I actually recommend this book. But, to me, reading is about timing. Reading the right book at the right time. This was not the right book to follow up Good Wives. Too bad. Because it was a good book.
Death Comes to Pemberley by P.D. James
I got this book for Christmas. Which is a good thing because I was curious to read it--but I wouldn't buy it for myself or bother to check it out from the library. So, thank you, Dad!
I had never read a spin-off Jane Austen book before. I guess maybe I'm kind of a snob like that? But there is certain coolness factor to a meeting of Pride and Prejudice (six years later) and P.D. James.
It was about what I expected. (Except that the mystery part was surprisingly lame.) I was hoping to be wowed. But that's okay. (To be honest, it was more boring than the truly boring books I read.) But onto my shelf it goes--books that I consider a waste of time do not make it to the bookcase--because somehow the coolness of it more than makes up for the mediocrity. (People, P.D. James is 91!)
I do have to say that I like the little (not too much) dose of reality that she gives the characters. Like that Elizabeth admits that were it not for Pemberley, she wouldn't have married Darcy. (Really, how could it not be about the money?) Or gently underscoring that, while among the gentry the Bennets may not have been wealthy, they certainly were still quite comfortable in their living compared to society at large.
Also, I love the brief appearance of Lady Catherine de Bourgh, who states: "I have never approved of protracted dying. It is an affectation in the aristocrary; in the lower classes it is merely an excuse for avoiding work. . . . The de Bourghs have never gone in for prolonged dying. People should make up their minds whether to live or die and do one or the other with the least inconvenience to others." Classic.
Even more boring books coming up tomorrow!
