From the Author's Note:
I've taken some liberties in order to shape this work of fiction. The passage of time and the order of some real events have become a little slithery in my hands, for example, and two governors have become one. This book isn't history.
Which is fine by me. A work of fiction is allowed to do what it likes in my view, I have no moral objections. I enjoy a good caper, and I can see that Ms Grenville has a laudable agenda: women are underestimated and underrepresented in history, indeed they are, and yes, we should question whether what little they gave of themselves in letters can be taken at face value, were they operating some secret codes between sistas? Sure, if I am writing to my best friend foreva then both of us know (don't we?) that the barely tolerated husband might get hold of one of these letters and read it before it gets sent off, so naturally yes, I have to say things like No two people on earth can be happier than we are and hope that my bestie Bridie will understand that hyperbole as excessive to the point of irony.
Yeah.
Sure.
No really, I get it. I get that Elizabeth MacArthur undoubtedly wasn't the person that you might assume she was merely from her letters and what few facts we know about her. And yes, I see that she married an extremely irascible man, and I totally get that he's the kind of guy you would have to, let us say, manage, umm, manipulate, umm outwit, yes.
No problem with it.
Really.
It's fine.
It's just...
I think I'm with Alan Bennett when he reveals in the introduction to his play People that he saw that the audio guide to the National Trust house at Hughenden, once lived in by Disraeli, is voiced by Jeffrey Archer, euphemistically described by the Trust as a 'provocative figure'. Alan Bennett claims. My objections to this level of marketing are not to do with morals but to do with taste. So not morally outraged, but it goes against your personal idea of what should and should not be done, basically.
Now I'm not saying that Ms Grenville's project here was vulgar, or in bad taste. All I'm saying is that it wasn't to MY taste. It went a little too far, in my opinion. I'm sure that women in the past had more depths to them than they were ever given credit for, that women in the past, or some of them anyway, because not everyone is the same, would have had sexual awakenings that they could hardly admit to in writing to anyone, I mean even in the present that probably hasn't changed much because it's intimate and who would you share intimacies with at all? In writing? Hardly anyone. Chatting to a close friend, yes, because that goes unrecorded, fine.
Anyway, I seem to be off course, rambling a little, though not as badly as some.
All I'm saying is that Ms Grenville's version of Elizabeth MacArthur was too modern for my taste. Too aware, too analytical, too perfectly unfazed by everything, too able to see the bigger picture every time, too perfectly able to read every hidden agenda, too offended by mansplaining, too much of a fictional product, and much too much like a professional writer. I mean who would possibly be able to sum up a person at first sight like Elizabeth's portrayal of the new Commander of the New South Wales Corps, Major Grose, fresh off the ship:
Major Grose was a big flaccid thin-lipped gentleman with a faraway look in his eyes. At first I assumed that look might be the wise caution of a person lately arrived in a new place, but I came to see that he was listening to the various aches and pains of his body, damaged in the American war and still not properly mended. He was an affable fellow, but my judgement of him was that under his splendid expanse of chest he was a small irresolute soul, easily persuaded by whoever spoke to him last. He seemed to me to be the perfect product of tje great chain of military rankings, obedient to those above, overbearing to those below, a man born for mediocrity and well suited to it.
I don't know, but Elizabeth MacArthur as imagined by Kate Grenville got on my nerves.