Sarah Monette's Blog, page 37
April 22, 2011
UBC: Sapphic Slashers
Duggan, Lisa. Sapphic Slashers: Sex, Violence, and American Modernity. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2000
This book is so much better than its atrocious title, it isn't even funny.
Duggan is talking about the cultural work that stories do. In particular, she's talking about the way that stories were mobilized in late nineteenth century America to protect the status quo, i.e., the power and privilege of white men. The story she focuses on is what she calls the "lesbian love murder" (a phrase which, I admit, only gets more awkward each time you read it). In particular, the murder of Freda Ward by Alice Mitchell in Memphis, January 1892. Duggan counterpoints the story of the murder and its aftermath with another important story in Memphis in 1892: the beginning of Ida B. Wells' anti-lynching campaign.
Duggan is candid and straightforward about her book's limitations. It's not a study of lynching in the South, nor a study of the anti-lynching movement. Nor is it really about sexual identity or gender performance. It's about why Alice Mitchell was judged insane and committed for life to the Western Hospital for the Insane in Bolivar, Tennessee, and how that trajectory shaped the way stories about women loving women would be told. It's about how stories get mobilized and why and how they persist despite their poisonous untruthfulness; she traces the effect of the "lesbian love murder" through both the medical literature (Krafft-Ebing, Havelock Ellis) and fiction (up to The Well of Loneliness).
Duggan is more interested in the cultural work of the story than in the historical people, but she doesn't give me the feeling, as Amy Gilman Srebnick did, that she finds the historical people inconvenient. It's clear Duggan has done her best to represent Alice Mitchell and Freda Ward accurately, and that she worked to uncover as much of their lives as she could. She respects them, and I respect her for that.
And I think she makes an important point in juxtaposing Alice Mitchell and Ida B. Wells, that nothing happens in a vacuum. The lynching story and the "lesbian love murder" story are not isolated from each other. They're part of the same cultural matrix, and they illuminate different aspects of the same fiercely, ruinously oppressive drive: the drive of white men to maintain their economic, political, social, and sexual power.
This book is so much better than its atrocious title, it isn't even funny.
Duggan is talking about the cultural work that stories do. In particular, she's talking about the way that stories were mobilized in late nineteenth century America to protect the status quo, i.e., the power and privilege of white men. The story she focuses on is what she calls the "lesbian love murder" (a phrase which, I admit, only gets more awkward each time you read it). In particular, the murder of Freda Ward by Alice Mitchell in Memphis, January 1892. Duggan counterpoints the story of the murder and its aftermath with another important story in Memphis in 1892: the beginning of Ida B. Wells' anti-lynching campaign.
Duggan is candid and straightforward about her book's limitations. It's not a study of lynching in the South, nor a study of the anti-lynching movement. Nor is it really about sexual identity or gender performance. It's about why Alice Mitchell was judged insane and committed for life to the Western Hospital for the Insane in Bolivar, Tennessee, and how that trajectory shaped the way stories about women loving women would be told. It's about how stories get mobilized and why and how they persist despite their poisonous untruthfulness; she traces the effect of the "lesbian love murder" through both the medical literature (Krafft-Ebing, Havelock Ellis) and fiction (up to The Well of Loneliness).
Duggan is more interested in the cultural work of the story than in the historical people, but she doesn't give me the feeling, as Amy Gilman Srebnick did, that she finds the historical people inconvenient. It's clear Duggan has done her best to represent Alice Mitchell and Freda Ward accurately, and that she worked to uncover as much of their lives as she could. She respects them, and I respect her for that.
And I think she makes an important point in juxtaposing Alice Mitchell and Ida B. Wells, that nothing happens in a vacuum. The lynching story and the "lesbian love murder" story are not isolated from each other. They're part of the same cultural matrix, and they illuminate different aspects of the same fiercely, ruinously oppressive drive: the drive of white men to maintain their economic, political, social, and sexual power.
April 21, 2011
UBC: Lizzie Borden
Brown, Arnold R. Lizzie Borden: The Legend, the Truth, the Final Chapter. Nashville, TN: Rutledge Hill Press, 1991. [library]
All things considered, this was probably not the best place to start reading about Lizzie Borden.
Arnold Brown was neither an experienced historian nor an experienced criminologist--he was an engineer. This doesn't necessarily mean that he could not have written an excellent book about the Borden murders, but it does help to explain the book's faults.
1. Brown is a man with a New(!)Theory(!), based on a manuscript a friend let him read, written by the friend's father-in-law when he was dying in 1978, about the friend's father-in-law's childhood memories (pre-1901)--and about the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law's memories of the day the Bordens were murdered (told to the friend's father-in-law in the early 1920s). (N.b., Andrew and Abby Borden were murdered on August 4, 1892.) Both the father-in-law and the father-in-law's mother-in-law were dead by the time Brown started researching (and Brown cheats, trying to make the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law's memories seem more immediate by writing sections from her PoV, including her experiences the day of the murder). Also, Brown's theory (this part seeming to be Brown's contribution, not the work of the friend's father-in-law or the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law) is a conspiracy theory.
2. Brown claims that the lawyers for the defense, the lawyers for the prosecution, the judges, and the local and state governments were all complicit in Lizzie Borden being tried and acquitted rather than going after the "real" murderer, Lizzie's alleged half brother William S. Borden, but while he claims Lizzie agreed to this in order to have her father's will suppressed, he gives no reason why the men in power should bother: "Their actions were not for Lizzie or for the Bordens. They acted for themselves and for the monetary reward, and they would have done the same for any of 'their own'" (323). They conspired because they were conspirators. Q.E.D.
3. Ironically, for a book that claims to refute what "everybody knows" about the Borden murders (he goes through and critiques the doggerel Lizzie Borden took an axe line by line for its inaccuracies), he assumes that everybody knows--and agrees about!--Lizzie Borden's selfishness, laziness, cold-bloodedness, and greed.
4. Brown is highly self-congratulatory about having researched the Borden murders for two full years (emphasis his) before writing his book.
5. If one reads the acknowledgments carefully, they suggest that most of the time, other people did Brown's researching for him.
6. Brown insists his book is the "objective, definitive answer" to the mystery of the Borden murders (11), the "true, factual account of an historic event" (13). And then he says things like, "What I have written, of course, is not testimony, it is reconstructed fact based on common sense" (182) and "All logic dictates that Miss Lizzie was under the pear trees when the murderer left the house and the property. Proof? There are times when logic is its own proof!" (225). Throughout, he tends to assume that saying something is true is the same as proving something is true.
7. He doesn't know basic things about historical research, e.g., that the most likely reason for two daughters of the same family, born in 1848 and 1850, both to be named Eliza is that the Eliza born in 1848 died prior to her sister's birth in 1850. And he doesn't have any sense of how to contextualize his historical argument. He insists that Lizzie Borden's trial was marked by an unusual degree of legal malfeasance (which he says was caused by his hypothesized conspiracy), but while he shows that the legal malfeasance was pretty rank and rampant by modern standards, he doesn't give any evidence to show that it was unusual. I've read about other nineteenth century trials; I need convincing.
8. He puts his story together badly. Partly, this is because the Borden murders are incredibly confusing. Partly, it's because he's trying to save his best secrets for last, but keeps having to mention them to explain his argument.
9. He ascribes motives and emotions to people based on the transcripts of their testimony, when in fact the transcripts do not reveal anything of the sort. And, on the obverse side, he shows himself fairly deaf to subtext:
Brown, of course, interprets this as somebody having screwed with the files, but I can see a second interpretation, which is this poor "official" identifying Brown as a crank and taking necessary steps to disengage. (There's also a rather snippy bit in the acknowledgments: "Requests for information in city or state public records were met with mixed results. Those who were helpful are: [and then a list]" (8). This is the sort of thing that tells you more about the writer and his subject-position than it does about the people who failed to be "helpful.")
I don't know that Arnold Brown is wrong, but he fails utterly to persuade me that he is right. Mostly, he persuades me that he is a man with a hobby horse.
If Arnold Brown has represented himself correctly, then it is true that he had access to primary sources that were previously unavailable. Does anyone know of any trustworthy books on the Borden murders written after 1991? I'll also gladly take opinions of pre-1991 books and whether any of them are worth pursuing, but if Brown really did have new primary sources, I'd like to know what other scholars have made of them.
All things considered, this was probably not the best place to start reading about Lizzie Borden.
Arnold Brown was neither an experienced historian nor an experienced criminologist--he was an engineer. This doesn't necessarily mean that he could not have written an excellent book about the Borden murders, but it does help to explain the book's faults.
1. Brown is a man with a New(!)Theory(!), based on a manuscript a friend let him read, written by the friend's father-in-law when he was dying in 1978, about the friend's father-in-law's childhood memories (pre-1901)--and about the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law's memories of the day the Bordens were murdered (told to the friend's father-in-law in the early 1920s). (N.b., Andrew and Abby Borden were murdered on August 4, 1892.) Both the father-in-law and the father-in-law's mother-in-law were dead by the time Brown started researching (and Brown cheats, trying to make the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law's memories seem more immediate by writing sections from her PoV, including her experiences the day of the murder). Also, Brown's theory (this part seeming to be Brown's contribution, not the work of the friend's father-in-law or the friend's father-in-law's mother-in-law) is a conspiracy theory.
2. Brown claims that the lawyers for the defense, the lawyers for the prosecution, the judges, and the local and state governments were all complicit in Lizzie Borden being tried and acquitted rather than going after the "real" murderer, Lizzie's alleged half brother William S. Borden, but while he claims Lizzie agreed to this in order to have her father's will suppressed, he gives no reason why the men in power should bother: "Their actions were not for Lizzie or for the Bordens. They acted for themselves and for the monetary reward, and they would have done the same for any of 'their own'" (323). They conspired because they were conspirators. Q.E.D.
3. Ironically, for a book that claims to refute what "everybody knows" about the Borden murders (he goes through and critiques the doggerel Lizzie Borden took an axe line by line for its inaccuracies), he assumes that everybody knows--and agrees about!--Lizzie Borden's selfishness, laziness, cold-bloodedness, and greed.
4. Brown is highly self-congratulatory about having researched the Borden murders for two full years (emphasis his) before writing his book.
5. If one reads the acknowledgments carefully, they suggest that most of the time, other people did Brown's researching for him.
6. Brown insists his book is the "objective, definitive answer" to the mystery of the Borden murders (11), the "true, factual account of an historic event" (13). And then he says things like, "What I have written, of course, is not testimony, it is reconstructed fact based on common sense" (182) and "All logic dictates that Miss Lizzie was under the pear trees when the murderer left the house and the property. Proof? There are times when logic is its own proof!" (225). Throughout, he tends to assume that saying something is true is the same as proving something is true.
7. He doesn't know basic things about historical research, e.g., that the most likely reason for two daughters of the same family, born in 1848 and 1850, both to be named Eliza is that the Eliza born in 1848 died prior to her sister's birth in 1850. And he doesn't have any sense of how to contextualize his historical argument. He insists that Lizzie Borden's trial was marked by an unusual degree of legal malfeasance (which he says was caused by his hypothesized conspiracy), but while he shows that the legal malfeasance was pretty rank and rampant by modern standards, he doesn't give any evidence to show that it was unusual. I've read about other nineteenth century trials; I need convincing.
8. He puts his story together badly. Partly, this is because the Borden murders are incredibly confusing. Partly, it's because he's trying to save his best secrets for last, but keeps having to mention them to explain his argument.
9. He ascribes motives and emotions to people based on the transcripts of their testimony, when in fact the transcripts do not reveal anything of the sort. And, on the obverse side, he shows himself fairly deaf to subtext:
Three inquiries were made to the Taunton State Hospital. The first was an inquiry about William S. Borden with no indication as to why there was interest. On January 9, 1989, the following answer was received: "In reference to Borden, (William S.)(W.S.)(William I), we were unable to locate the only file which appeared to be a match." Additional information was received from the same official on February 13, 1989: "A further search of our archives has failed to turn up additional records. However I did learn that William S. Borden's card lists Amanda Taylor and Eliza Borden as sisters."
This response would confirm that William Borden had been committed at some time to the Taunton Insane Hospital. However, on April 6, 1989, the last of three communications was received--all from the same official--which was most peculiar, short, terse, to the point, and reproduced here in its entirety: "We do not have a record of admission to this facility, at all, ever. If he had been here, we would know."
(303-304)
Brown, of course, interprets this as somebody having screwed with the files, but I can see a second interpretation, which is this poor "official" identifying Brown as a crank and taking necessary steps to disengage. (There's also a rather snippy bit in the acknowledgments: "Requests for information in city or state public records were met with mixed results. Those who were helpful are: [and then a list]" (8). This is the sort of thing that tells you more about the writer and his subject-position than it does about the people who failed to be "helpful.")
I don't know that Arnold Brown is wrong, but he fails utterly to persuade me that he is right. Mostly, he persuades me that he is a man with a hobby horse.
If Arnold Brown has represented himself correctly, then it is true that he had access to primary sources that were previously unavailable. Does anyone know of any trustworthy books on the Borden murders written after 1991? I'll also gladly take opinions of pre-1991 books and whether any of them are worth pursuing, but if Brown really did have new primary sources, I'd like to know what other scholars have made of them.
Jack the Ripper reading list question
If a person has read Donald Rumbelow's book on Jack the Ripper (variously published as The Complete Jack the Ripper and Jack the Ripper: The Complete Casebook), are there any other nonfiction Jack the Ripper books that one ought to read? I.e., has anything substantially new been said since Rumbelow? (And should I bother with anything pre-Rumbelow?)
Please note, I'm not asking what books about Jack the Ripper have been published since 1975; I can find that out for myself. I'm asking for recommendations about which, if any of them, to read.
Please note, I'm not asking what books about Jack the Ripper have been published since 1975; I can find that out for myself. I'm asking for recommendations about which, if any of them, to read.
April 19, 2011
podcast: boojum
I have an acupuncture appointment today (finally! an acupuncturist in the Madison area who returns phone calls!). So while I'm off voluntarily having needles stuck into my flesh,* here's the second half of "Boojum" (by
![[info]](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1380451598i/2033940.gif)
matociquala
and me) at Drabblecast: Drabblecast 203: Boojum, Part II.
And if you need it, the link to Part I: Drabblecast 202.
---
*Man, I need to earn enough money to get that dragon tattoo.
matociquala
and me) at Drabblecast: Drabblecast 203: Boojum, Part II.And if you need it, the link to Part I: Drabblecast 202.
---
*Man, I need to earn enough money to get that dragon tattoo.
April 18, 2011
in lieu of content...
I would like to write a really long post about Midwest Horse Fair, but my wrists say I'd better not. So instead, via
matociquala
, have this large, goofy, and lovely collection of horse noses.
matociquala
, have this large, goofy, and lovely collection of horse noses.
April 14, 2011
Things accomplished today
ME
1. washed (1) gray and (2) white bras.
2. outlined plot for the rest of Thirdhop Scarp.
3. got a page further in The Goblin Emperor revisions (I know, doesn't look like much, but trust me: it's huge).
4. picked up Emma's ashes ( NOT "cremains") from the vet. She would be offended by the paw-print patterned tin; I will obviously have to find something more suitable.
5. bought a BRIGHT YELLOW Lamy fountain pen to replace the one that vanished over the weekend.
5.5 signed stock at the University Book Store
6. discovered that Shakespeare's Books has been reborn as Browzers Books. Feel that this is a sad come-down, namewise, but glad to see the bibliophoenix rise from the ashes.
7. bought The Horrors of the Half-Known Life: Male Attitudes toward Women and Sexuality in Nineteenth-Century America by G. J. Barker-Benfield (research); Women, Family, and Utopia: Communal Experiments of the Shakers, the Oneida Community, and the Mormons by Lawrence Foster (research); and Jack the Ripper: The Complete Casebook by Donald Rumbelow (research). I love my job.
8. wondered where the cut-off is between a respectable interest in historical criminology and a ghoulishly trashy taste for true crime.* One's own birth-date? Hardback vs. paperback? Use of the word "true" in the subtitle? Serial killer vs. non-serial killer?
9. picked up more cat food, more cat litter, more cat treats . . . and a three-day pass for the Midwest Horse Fair.
10. put more gasoline in the truck.
CATZILLA
1. hampered
2. purred
3. napped
4. talked to robins
5. purred
THE TERMINATOR (a.k.a. THE LITTLEST NINJA)
1. hampered
2. purred
3. napped
4. was mortified by Catzilla
5. purred
6. vanished into thin air and mysteriously reappeared
7. purred
---
*Having just marathoned the first season of The First 48 , I'm not casting aspidistras at anyone. Just saying: there's clearly a cut-off somewhere, and I don't know where it is.
1. washed (1) gray and (2) white bras.
2. outlined plot for the rest of Thirdhop Scarp.
3. got a page further in The Goblin Emperor revisions (I know, doesn't look like much, but trust me: it's huge).
4. picked up Emma's ashes ( NOT "cremains") from the vet. She would be offended by the paw-print patterned tin; I will obviously have to find something more suitable.
5. bought a BRIGHT YELLOW Lamy fountain pen to replace the one that vanished over the weekend.
5.5 signed stock at the University Book Store
6. discovered that Shakespeare's Books has been reborn as Browzers Books. Feel that this is a sad come-down, namewise, but glad to see the bibliophoenix rise from the ashes.
7. bought The Horrors of the Half-Known Life: Male Attitudes toward Women and Sexuality in Nineteenth-Century America by G. J. Barker-Benfield (research); Women, Family, and Utopia: Communal Experiments of the Shakers, the Oneida Community, and the Mormons by Lawrence Foster (research); and Jack the Ripper: The Complete Casebook by Donald Rumbelow (research). I love my job.
8. wondered where the cut-off is between a respectable interest in historical criminology and a ghoulishly trashy taste for true crime.* One's own birth-date? Hardback vs. paperback? Use of the word "true" in the subtitle? Serial killer vs. non-serial killer?
9. picked up more cat food, more cat litter, more cat treats . . . and a three-day pass for the Midwest Horse Fair.
10. put more gasoline in the truck.
CATZILLA
1. hampered
2. purred
3. napped
4. talked to robins
5. purred
THE TERMINATOR (a.k.a. THE LITTLEST NINJA)
1. hampered
2. purred
3. napped
4. was mortified by Catzilla
5. purred
6. vanished into thin air and mysteriously reappeared
7. purred
---
*Having just marathoned the first season of The First 48 , I'm not casting aspidistras at anyone. Just saying: there's clearly a cut-off somewhere, and I don't know where it is.
April 12, 2011
5 wonderful things
1. I should mention that OddCon was awesome. I'm no good at con reports (fellow GoH
![[info]](https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1380449247i/1833871.gif)
robin_d_laws
is blogging his con experience, though), but I had a wonderful time. Thank you, Odyssey Con!
2. My friend Marissa Lingen (
mrissa
) has just made her eightieth short fiction sale. (Yes, that's eightieth--80--not eighth.)
3. Today is Carol Emshwiller's ninetieth birthday. Happy birthday, Carol!
4. Drabblecast is doing
matociquala
and my story "Boojum," which--for those of you playing along at home--is set in the same universe as "Mongoose." Drabblecast 202 is Part I.
5. Taronga Zoo in Sydney has a baby red panda.
robin_d_laws
is blogging his con experience, though), but I had a wonderful time. Thank you, Odyssey Con!2. My friend Marissa Lingen (
mrissa
) has just made her eightieth short fiction sale. (Yes, that's eightieth--80--not eighth.)3. Today is Carol Emshwiller's ninetieth birthday. Happy birthday, Carol!
4. Drabblecast is doing
matociquala
and my story "Boojum," which--for those of you playing along at home--is set in the same universe as "Mongoose." Drabblecast 202 is Part I.5. Taronga Zoo in Sydney has a baby red panda.
April 10, 2011
In memoriam: Emma
Emma
?? 2004 - April 9, 2011
Yesterday afternoon, we had to put Emma--a.k.a. The First Ninja--to sleep. She was diagnosed with hydronephrosis in January, so we had known it would only be a matter of time, but that didn't actually make it any easier. It was obvious, though, that she was doing worse and worse, and she was in pain, and there was no justification for making her suffer any longer.
She was an imperious cat, a shy and suspicious cat, a beautiful cat, and in her own idiosyncratic way, a very loving cat. It took some doing to get her to purr, but when she did, you felt like you could conquer the universe.
mirrorthaw
and I both hate that we got so little time with her, but we're also grateful that we were able to have her in our lives.
Good-bye, tsarina. I love you and I miss you.
?? 2004 - April 9, 2011
Yesterday afternoon, we had to put Emma--a.k.a. The First Ninja--to sleep. She was diagnosed with hydronephrosis in January, so we had known it would only be a matter of time, but that didn't actually make it any easier. It was obvious, though, that she was doing worse and worse, and she was in pain, and there was no justification for making her suffer any longer.
She was an imperious cat, a shy and suspicious cat, a beautiful cat, and in her own idiosyncratic way, a very loving cat. It took some doing to get her to purr, but when she did, you felt like you could conquer the universe.
mirrorthaw
and I both hate that we got so little time with her, but we're also grateful that we were able to have her in our lives.Good-bye, tsarina. I love you and I miss you.
April 7, 2011
Reminder, if you need it.
I will be a Guest of Honor at Odyssey Con 11 this weekend.
The Usual Caveat: I am very shy and very near-sighted, but--unless I am rushing off to a panel or otherwise obviously busy--I am delighted to meet people and sign things and whatnot.
It looks like it's going to be a fun weekend, so if you've a mind to, come out and join us!
The Usual Caveat: I am very shy and very near-sighted, but--unless I am rushing off to a panel or otherwise obviously busy--I am delighted to meet people and sign things and whatnot.
It looks like it's going to be a fun weekend, so if you've a mind to, come out and join us!
April 6, 2011
(Not Too) Close encounters of the Procyonic kind
So last night I went out on the porch to bring in the food and water bowls I put out for the feralistas. And there was a raccoon.
I learned something instantaneously, which is that I had not known how big raccoons are. I mean, I thought I knew, but there's a difference between that and being less than ten feet from one, at which point it upgrades immediately to BIG MOTHERFUCKING RACCOON ON MY PORCH.
Happily, the raccoon had no interest in tangling with me. It did what the feralistas do, which is to retreat to the other side of the porch railings and pretend to be invisible. And since I had no interest in tangling with the raccoon, I about-faced and went back inside.
Later,
mirrorthaw
told me that when he checked again, the raccoon was happily making use of the water bowl in exactly the way stereotypes about raccoons would lead you to expect. (Dude, free water! Most excellent!) And this morning, the water bowl has been moved about a foot--and has significantly less water in it than is usually the case--and someone's busy little paws have peeled half the protective rubber strip off the rim of the food bowl.
I'm going to be more conscientious about bringing the bowls in before sunset and hope the feralistas can keep from tangling with the raccoon. I'm sure it's not new to the neighborhood--possibly it's not new to our porch. But although I have nothing against raccoons, I would really prefer it not become a regular visitor.
(BIG. MOTHERFUCKING. RACCOON.)
I learned something instantaneously, which is that I had not known how big raccoons are. I mean, I thought I knew, but there's a difference between that and being less than ten feet from one, at which point it upgrades immediately to BIG MOTHERFUCKING RACCOON ON MY PORCH.
Happily, the raccoon had no interest in tangling with me. It did what the feralistas do, which is to retreat to the other side of the porch railings and pretend to be invisible. And since I had no interest in tangling with the raccoon, I about-faced and went back inside.
Later,
mirrorthaw
told me that when he checked again, the raccoon was happily making use of the water bowl in exactly the way stereotypes about raccoons would lead you to expect. (Dude, free water! Most excellent!) And this morning, the water bowl has been moved about a foot--and has significantly less water in it than is usually the case--and someone's busy little paws have peeled half the protective rubber strip off the rim of the food bowl.I'm going to be more conscientious about bringing the bowls in before sunset and hope the feralistas can keep from tangling with the raccoon. I'm sure it's not new to the neighborhood--possibly it's not new to our porch. But although I have nothing against raccoons, I would really prefer it not become a regular visitor.
(BIG. MOTHERFUCKING. RACCOON.)
