Max

by Katherine Cecil Thurston

ILLUSTRATED BY FRANK CRAIG.

Genres: Fiction

276 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1910

About the author

Katherine Cecil Thurston (18 April 1875 - 5 September 1911) was an Irish novelist. Born Katherine Cecil Madden in Cork, Ireland, the only daughter of banker Paul J. Madden (who was Mayor of Cork 1885-1886, and a friend of Charles Stuart Parnell) and Catherine Madden (born Barry), she was privately educated. By the end of the 19th century she was contributing short stories to various British and American publications, such as Pall Mall Magazine, Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, Harper's Magazine, Windsor Magazine and others. In 1901, she married the writer Ernest Temple Thurston (1879-1933). They separated in 1907 and were divorced in 1910.

Reviews

[Steve Middendorf · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been reading a fair bit of 19th century literature lately and find myself drawn to it. Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks, the minor roles constructed for his women characters (Tony) and his dissection of aesthetics led to me exploring more turn-of-the-century literature. There I came across the term Fin-de-Siecle describing that period of decadence, and aesthetics characterised by Oscar Wilde (also bereft, in the general telling, of female protagonists!

An aside: the energy that I find--that I'm attracted to, is in an expanded period, say 1850 to 1918 led by the advances in science, industrialisation, and humanities and resulting demands for social reform, suffrage and women's rights.

Staying with Fin-de-Siecle, and thinking particularly of Tony in Buddenbrooks, but also Lizzy in Our Mutual Friend, my question was, "How were women writers of that period expressing their reactions to the time through their characters?" The answer came by way of the recommendation engine (which I find quite good) at academia.edu: This article: Decadence, Degeneration and Revolting Aesthetics: The Fiction of Emily Lawless and Katherine Cecil Thurston by Gerardine Meaney. I didn't delve too deeply into the scholarly article save to get a reading recommendation. That's how I came to read Max, the third of the collected works in this book https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/5...

The story line is of a Russian princess who flees from Russia to Paris on eve of her wedding to become an artist. She fears for her intellectual and artistic self being drowned in a traditional marriage. Disguised as a young boy, she meets three men on the train to Paris, one of whom she befriends, and later falls in love with. The rest of the story is at times, a comedy, a romantic thriller, and an intellectual "working through" of feminist issues in the decision to reveal her true gender. There are many interesting dialogues in this which express the author's reactions to her time in this plot. Here are several:

"Listen! I know myself for an individual—for a definite entity; I know that here—here, within me"—she struck her breast—"I have power—power to think—power to achieve. And how do you think that power is to be developed?" She paused, looking at him with burning eyes. "Not by the giving of my soul into bondage—not by the submerging of myself in another being."

"Can't you understand? I left Russia to make a new life; I made myself a man, not for a whim, but as a symbol. Sex is only an accident, but the world has made man the independent creature—and I desired independence. Sex is only an accident. Mentally, I am as good a man as you are."

"Yes, and I refuse to be entrapped! I know love—I know all the specious things that love can say; the talk of independence, the talk of equality! But I know the reality, too. The reality is the absolute annihilation of the woman—the absolute merging of her identity."

This book was satisfying on several levels: first of all as a travelogue, I absolutely fell in love with the descriptions of Paris. Secondly as a romance, the scenes describing places, settings, art, music and feelings are exquisite. Finally as an answer to my question: "How were women writers of that period expressing their reactions to the time through their characters?" Mission accomplished.

[Mikayla · Rating 4 out of 5]

My copy was lacking page numbers and the first portion of the first sentence of each chapter but the words were, regardless, beautiful. I underlined so many lines in this novel, and the descriptions of Paris and its beauty made me actually want to go there (I know, right?) I think the question Thurston poses of what makes gender, how do we define it in the city, and what women must do to become free is important, and also why I feel so cheated by the ending. Max gives up any possibility of freedom in Paris and also his/their inner self though they seem to connect to their masculine self significantly more, JUST to be with a man (after literally leaving Russia to come to Paris as a man to experience freedom and become an artist, something he couldn't do as a woman). To be with Blake, who will not accept Max as he is and prefers to be because of Blake's heteronormativity, and thus forces Max to lose out on freedom for love of Blake. All of this is done so quickly at the end; Max turns into a different person in just a few chapters. I am unsure what Thurston was implying, but I still appreciate her dive into gender politics and identity as far as she could in 1911, though I still maintain that Max is non-binary/fluid and only chooses to be a woman to satisfy a man.

[Diara · Rating 3 out of 5]

I enjoy Katherine Cecil Thurstons novels. But I don't love the male protagonist here. I think she managed to write men more sympathetic in The Masquerader

[Jack Atherton · Rating 5 out of 5]

More a poem than a novel, this paen to platonic love is set among Bohemians in 19th century Paris, evoked in sights, sounds and fragrances. Max is a woman who wants to be loved for her soul, as a person. As someone who’s been married almost half a century I can tell you this is possible for two people if the marriage is based on mutual respect and shared experiences, a “marriage of true minds”. But this is not often depicted in romance novels, which focus on meetings and the overcoming of initial doubt. Jane brought Elizabeth and Darcy together by having them share a disaster. Thurston brings her lovers together by having Max disguise his sexual identity, by trying to transcend it, like Orlando. Thurston does not have Woolf’s sense of fun, but she dies have a sense of wonder. Women may see the ending as a sell-out. As an old man, I don’t.

[Andy · Rating 3 out of 5]

Before reading this book, I had never read anything from this author. The best part of this story is how the author writes the setting. You feel like you are in 1910 Paris, in fact, Paris is so well described it almost feels like the main character. The author also has a lovely turn of phrase that beautifully uplifts the story. Max and Ned are okay characters, but I didn't have robust feelings about either one. Also, the beginning of the story was much stronger than the end. Another negative was a couple of really awful and blatantly racist comments.

[Angie · Rating 3 out of 5]

I liked it - didn't love it. I wouldn't recommend it though because there are so many other great, great books.

This book was beautifully written. Katherine Cecil Thurston wrote great descriptions of Paris. The setting was so great. Who doesn't love Paris? And a Bohemian Paris at that!

The premise was a bit awkward. Max is an escaped princess who disguises herself as a boy and plans on being a painter in Paris. The hero, Ned, is an Irishman who lives in Paris six months of the year. Ned makes friends with Max all the while thinking she is a boy.

What's awkward is that Max is a boy most of the book. Ned's affection for him at some points border on being almost a sexual attraction. The author excuses this later on in the book - Ned, at some subconscious level, must have realized Max was a woman. It was hard to deconstruct their level of intimacy knowing that Max is really a woman but Ned doesn't know that.

I had a hard time liking Max. You don't find out why she is so damaged until almost the very end of the book. By then your sympathy for her has waned enough that her past is less shocking than it should be. I felt like the author was trying to imply more but the implication itself was weak. Instead of reinforcing my sympathy I was still left wondering why Max was being so difficult. Max waffled a bit too long about falling in love. She had no qualms bending gender roles to suit her pursuit of Ned but when it finally came down to committing one way or another, she took pages and pages to make up her mind.

The descriptions of Paris and the lifestyles of the other Parisians in the novel is what saved it for me. Paris is described so wonderfully. I could smell, see, and taste everything. Max has a delightful neighbor named Jacqueline who is so coquettish and romantic she rescues all of Max's awful, awkward moments. She also gives the reader a break because she knew Max was a girl all along. (I wonder why Ned never figures that out!) I will admit that the gender role exploration, while painful, was interesting. I could see how the author, 100 years ago, was trying to eek out what makes a man a man and what makes a woman a woman; and what makes us fall in love with each other.

[L. · Rating 2 out of 5]

More of a love story with the city of Paris than love between "Max" and, ummm , whatever the guy's name was.

[Chelsey · Rating 1 out of 5]

Perhaps I would've disliked this less had I realized that it was a romance, not an adventure story. This confusion led to much disappointment.