Lady Byron is a figure that it seems people (i.e. biographers) either deify or completely write off as a bitter Betty unappreciative of her very famous husband's genius. Miranda Seymour seems to take the former approach, defending Lady Byron to the point of willfully misinterpreting her subject. There is complexity to every human that is hard for a biographer to accurately capture, and Seymour seems to be more interested in defending Lady Byron from her naysayers than in really capturing the truth of who she was. She mentions Doris Langley Moore, a Byron biographer who fiercely debunks Lady Byron's angelic persona, and it seems as though her staunch defense of the deceased scorned woman is a direct response to Moore - something that I've seen in other biographies about other subjects by other authors as well - but something that makes the whole thing biased at best.
Where I took particular issue was in Seymour's framing of Lady Byron's written communications, which have often been used against her. Writing is a medium that undoubtedly allows for the most deliberate and calculated way of communicating, not easily tripped up by outside stressors as long as the writer engages in editing or basic self-censorship, and yet Seymour insists that Lady Byron's intent was always at odds with what she communicated through her writing. Honestly, that assertion defies belief.
Annabella Byron showed tremendous capacity for conveying exactly what she wanted through her written letters - her acute sensitivity to the way she was perceived made her an expert manipulator, capable of convincing just about anyone to do just about anything she wanted without even having to ask. Using the excuse that she was an oblivious little dum-dum who just couldn't figure out how to communicate what she meant through the written word as a way of excusing the times she was condescending or rude is ludicrous. She, like every human being, had her moments of being a total asshole, and making excuses for her doesn't undo that.
On that same note, Seymour makes assertions about other people's characters that are entirely unsupported by any evidence *I* have seen, and which she fails to provide anything to support. Specifically, I'm referring to her characterization of Augusta Leigh (Byron's sister and probable lover) as a calculating homewrecker who spent years convincing Byron he should stay estranged from Annabella, when in fact the opposite was true. Augusta Leigh frequently did her best to keep the more acidic sides of Byron and Annabella from each other in order to foster a reconciliation, because regardless of whether or not she was sleeping with her brother, she cared about both parties enough to want the best for them. Beyond that, Augusta Leigh was frankly a dumbass. She was described by her contemporaries as such. To imagine that she was pulling the strings to keep her brother, who even Seymour admits loved Annabella, away from his wife and daughter just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.
Additionally, Seymour supplies and then ignores evidence that Annabella was frankly a vindictive sort of woman who held a grudge and cut people off with only the slightest of provocation - something that could be applied by her detractors to her absconding from her husband without a word about why she was leaving. Seymour lists no less than three people from Annabella's life (Lord Lovelace, her daughter's husband, the aforementioned Augusta Leigh, and a friend of hers) that she viciously cut off without them even comprehending what they had done to piss her off so much, but despite all of that Seymour prefers to frame Annabella as a lovely, generous woman who was loved by many and derided by a few posthumously in an attempt to amplify Byron by discrediting his wife. All of those things are true, but ignoring the former and amplifying the latter only makes Seymour's book come across as incomplete and biased to someone with further knowledge of the topic.
With that said, there was a lot of very interesting information in this book and as it is my first introduction to Ada Lovelace as an adult, I found it to be quite informative. Seeing the ways in which the scandalous breakup of Annabella and Byron affected Ada's life and the life of her mother in later years was interesting. There were a lot of allegations against Byron in his life and after his death, but to me the most convincing piece of evidence that Annabella legitimately believed Byron to be in an incestuous relationship with Augusta was the insistence of Annabella and Ada that Ada's sons be kept away from her daughter.
All in all, I enjoyed delving into the lives of Annabella Milbanke and Ada Lovelace as individuals free from Byron's overshadowing presence. Personally, I find both women to be fascinating and will be seeking out more information on both of them. As for Seymour, I think that she had good intentions with this biography and am willing to give her work another chance. She was certainly thorough in her coverage of the two subjects, though her interpretation of the source material, in my opinion, was flawed.