![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rebnessI have been reading Georgiana: Duchess of Devonshire this week. And it’s not good for my blood pressure. Let me tell you, internets, about Amanda Foreman’s sickening, fawning, absolutely useless biography of a sickening, fawning, absolutely useless woman.
Firstly, the part that offends the historian in me: I cannot believe that Foreman is a historical researcher at Oxford. Her primary sources are, for the most part, absolutely irrelevant. Each chapter is prefaced by some random newspaper report about a new fashion – it really gives one the feeling that Foreman just grabbed whatever sources she could and stuck them all in there, with no attempt to interpret the text. The most infuriating part is that Foreman counts Georgiana as the primary source for one of the few interesting parts of the book – the madness of King George – and then promptly glosses over that to tell us about yet another intensely boring gambling problem and a parliamentary debate! Apparently, this book came about after the author researched Georgiana for her PhD - and by God, it shows. It's such a plodding, meandering collection of sources with little interpretation.
Here's an example of the titillating, completely relevant details we learn about Georgiana: the spoilt cow and her cohorts make up their own accent and dialect in order to prove how very special they are. They send each other sickening letters like ‘How do oo do?’ (Apparently, it was far too common to pronounce ‘you’ correctly.) Wait, why was I reading such claptrap, again? Even James Hare remarks on the self-indulgent notes she sends to her friend Bess whilst they're in the same house: ‘…The usual answer is, “As oo do, so does poor little I, by itself.”’
Aren’t these fully-grown women just adorable?
The best thing is that Bess is her husband’s mistress. Who lives with them. Not that Georgiana displays any fighting spirit or intelligence, but cries and weeps when people point out that Bess is probably not the best person to have around. And then Bess gets pregnant with the Duke’s baby, Georgiana (‘Jaw-Jayna’ in the stupid Devonshire house patois) with some random politician’s child and…and… no, it’s too annoying to relate. Needless to say, there are few repercussions and the two silly women have a troupe of children who probably send more literate notes to each other.
I also find it unforgivable that Foreman tries to move us to tears with how very, very terrible things are for Georgiana. (She gambles away to the tune of ₤6 million in modern terms and has to escape her creditors by – oh, dear God, how could she bear it? - fleeing to the Continent to ‘take the waters’ for her delicate, fragile health.) Georgiana, she asserts, is incredibly brave in going near France, poor lamb, for she ‘feared her creditors more than the depredations of semi-literate revolutionaries.’
Wait. Let me get this straight, Foreman:
You mention in passing that people in France are rioting, killing because they are literally starving to death. Everyone from Marie-Antoinette to the people gathering in angry crowds at the Palais Royal has spent the last few years in a whirl of pamphlets, outraged speeches and literature, citing the very literate Rousseau and his famous Man is in chains quote – and you sneer at them for being semi-literate? How very dare they riot about starving to death when poor, brilliant Georgiana has gambling debts that make her pretend to be sick every time anyone mentions it?
You know, I’m not one of those who wept when Diana died. I don’t consider the woman a Saint. But I do feel some sympathy for her. She did some excellent humanitarian works – raising awareness on landmines, HIV… this spoilt, stupid, stupid ancestor of hers whom Foreman paints as an 18th century Diana did nothing of the sort! The much-maligned Marie-Antoinette was more concerned with the poor and the unfortunate. Antonia Fraser managed to write a brilliant biography which completely rehabilitated her and revealed the tormented, gentle queen beneath centuries of negative propaganda. Foreman, in contrast, does a splendid job of introducing the reader to a woman and making her intensely dislikeable with every dubious claim about how fantastic and revolutionary she is. Georgiana goes out, dressed like a moron in fox tails to canvas for Fox (who asked her to sponsor him for Parliament as a favour), is duly called a moron by the public and press, and suddenly she’s this amazing, spirited predecessor who made the world a better place? What bravery! What an amazing person, completely deserving of a 400-page biography.
Perhaps the most infuriating thing about this dull, stupid book is that Georgiana’s younger sister, Harriet, seems to have led the more sympathetic life. She was overlooked by her mother in favour of her annoying sister. She married a man who was a strange mixture of devotion and absolute cruelty, who beat her mercilessly, although she fought back against him as bravely as she could. Her daughter was the infamous Caroline Lamb whom fascinated Byron. She was determined, fiercely loyal and never gave up. I wish there had been more on her and not the spoilt, stupid woman who couldn’t even pronounce her own name.
Firstly, the part that offends the historian in me: I cannot believe that Foreman is a historical researcher at Oxford. Her primary sources are, for the most part, absolutely irrelevant. Each chapter is prefaced by some random newspaper report about a new fashion – it really gives one the feeling that Foreman just grabbed whatever sources she could and stuck them all in there, with no attempt to interpret the text. The most infuriating part is that Foreman counts Georgiana as the primary source for one of the few interesting parts of the book – the madness of King George – and then promptly glosses over that to tell us about yet another intensely boring gambling problem and a parliamentary debate! Apparently, this book came about after the author researched Georgiana for her PhD - and by God, it shows. It's such a plodding, meandering collection of sources with little interpretation.
Here's an example of the titillating, completely relevant details we learn about Georgiana: the spoilt cow and her cohorts make up their own accent and dialect in order to prove how very special they are. They send each other sickening letters like ‘How do oo do?’ (Apparently, it was far too common to pronounce ‘you’ correctly.) Wait, why was I reading such claptrap, again? Even James Hare remarks on the self-indulgent notes she sends to her friend Bess whilst they're in the same house: ‘…The usual answer is, “As oo do, so does poor little I, by itself.”’
Aren’t these fully-grown women just adorable?
The best thing is that Bess is her husband’s mistress. Who lives with them. Not that Georgiana displays any fighting spirit or intelligence, but cries and weeps when people point out that Bess is probably not the best person to have around. And then Bess gets pregnant with the Duke’s baby, Georgiana (‘Jaw-Jayna’ in the stupid Devonshire house patois) with some random politician’s child and…and… no, it’s too annoying to relate. Needless to say, there are few repercussions and the two silly women have a troupe of children who probably send more literate notes to each other.
I also find it unforgivable that Foreman tries to move us to tears with how very, very terrible things are for Georgiana. (She gambles away to the tune of ₤6 million in modern terms and has to escape her creditors by – oh, dear God, how could she bear it? - fleeing to the Continent to ‘take the waters’ for her delicate, fragile health.) Georgiana, she asserts, is incredibly brave in going near France, poor lamb, for she ‘feared her creditors more than the depredations of semi-literate revolutionaries.’
Wait. Let me get this straight, Foreman:
You mention in passing that people in France are rioting, killing because they are literally starving to death. Everyone from Marie-Antoinette to the people gathering in angry crowds at the Palais Royal has spent the last few years in a whirl of pamphlets, outraged speeches and literature, citing the very literate Rousseau and his famous Man is in chains quote – and you sneer at them for being semi-literate? How very dare they riot about starving to death when poor, brilliant Georgiana has gambling debts that make her pretend to be sick every time anyone mentions it?
You know, I’m not one of those who wept when Diana died. I don’t consider the woman a Saint. But I do feel some sympathy for her. She did some excellent humanitarian works – raising awareness on landmines, HIV… this spoilt, stupid, stupid ancestor of hers whom Foreman paints as an 18th century Diana did nothing of the sort! The much-maligned Marie-Antoinette was more concerned with the poor and the unfortunate. Antonia Fraser managed to write a brilliant biography which completely rehabilitated her and revealed the tormented, gentle queen beneath centuries of negative propaganda. Foreman, in contrast, does a splendid job of introducing the reader to a woman and making her intensely dislikeable with every dubious claim about how fantastic and revolutionary she is. Georgiana goes out, dressed like a moron in fox tails to canvas for Fox (who asked her to sponsor him for Parliament as a favour), is duly called a moron by the public and press, and suddenly she’s this amazing, spirited predecessor who made the world a better place? What bravery! What an amazing person, completely deserving of a 400-page biography.
Perhaps the most infuriating thing about this dull, stupid book is that Georgiana’s younger sister, Harriet, seems to have led the more sympathetic life. She was overlooked by her mother in favour of her annoying sister. She married a man who was a strange mixture of devotion and absolute cruelty, who beat her mercilessly, although she fought back against him as bravely as she could. Her daughter was the infamous Caroline Lamb whom fascinated Byron. She was determined, fiercely loyal and never gave up. I wish there had been more on her and not the spoilt, stupid woman who couldn’t even pronounce her own name.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-06-23 06:33 pm (UTC)Otherwise the book sounds shit, you're right.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-23 06:37 pm (UTC)The book will sap the life out of you if go anywhere near it. It's like kryponite for your intellect.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-23 09:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-24 09:58 am (UTC)If you do have any reading recommendations - particularly around this era - do let me know.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-24 11:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-24 12:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-24 12:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-23 06:36 pm (UTC)So, how are oo?
no subject
Date: 2009-06-23 06:38 pm (UTC)Oo are croosin foo a brusin, poor little me...
no subject
Date: 2009-06-23 10:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-24 09:57 am (UTC)Than that mothertoucher Kelly.
A+
no subject
Date: 2009-06-23 09:06 pm (UTC)dont think i'll bother or speed read it.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-24 09:56 am (UTC)Or possibly I'm hoping you'll read it so I can see your rant. >:)
no subject
Date: 2009-06-23 09:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-24 09:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-24 01:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-24 09:54 am (UTC)I think you're right about Foreman's presumptions of her readers; she presumes too much knowledge on intricate politics, but glosses over things which could pull the reader in.
Her interpretation of events is dubious, at best. All right, so I switched my degree to Literature instead of History, but I still pursue history as an interest and have done a fair bit of reading around Britain and France in this era. I'm genuinely shocked at how often she misreads things in this text, or does not seem to be aware of basic facts. When she does make a claim (for example, that of the semi-literates), she doesn't back it up.
She does, however, have several footnotes for Georgiana's marvellous poems, which Foreman proclaims wonderfully inciteful, witty and a success:
'...For Sorry and Folly delighted to mix
With seventeen hundred and eighty-six
Abounding alone in unpromising trix
Was seventeen hundred and eighty-six
And none was ev'r worse I can swear by the Styx
Than seventeen hundred and eighty-six'
I LOL'd forever.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-24 12:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-24 12:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-24 08:47 am (UTC)I did enjoy the film of The Duchess very much - Ralph Fiennes plays a very effective Cavendish, and although I loathe Keira Knightley and have no sympathy for the character she plays, it is an interesting costume drama. Although Cavendish had his major faults (Bess Foster being part of that), he was incredibly (stupid) and forebearing for the many times that Georgiana suckered him about her debts (actually to the tune of £30 million overall). This layer of the aristocracy was corrupt in every way and the immorality endemic - selling sexual favours to pay debts, multiple affairs, drug abuse, alcohol misuse, violence, non-stop gambling and wild entertainment. It's a wonder the country functioned on any meaningful level at all, and it's utterly not a wonder that Georgiana found it so hard to conceive and carry a child to term, however distressing that situation might be.
The only slight disagreement is with the pronunciation of Georgiana's name: I have long understood 'Jaw-jayna' to be the proper and commonly used pronunciation for that period of time, not just an affection of the Devonshire 'ton's slang.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-24 09:35 am (UTC)I completely agree on the author's bias. It's dangerous - everyone, it seems, is malicious and jealous of Georgiana. Nobody understands the feckless little princess! The Duke is painted as this cold, terrible man... but I think he put up with a lot from this woman and, if she took to his mistress, why would he feel morally obliged to her? But he did; he saved her from her selfish debts time and time again.
Also, historical figures like Count Fersen (okay, something of a womaniser, but an interesting and ultimately loyal person) are dismissed as terrible people by Foreman - because Georgiana didn't like them. Nice critical reading, there.
Your point about Charles Grey reminds me - he's mentioned in a couple of paragraphs as someone that was handsome and possibly fascinated Georgiana. In the next chapter, the line is dropped: 'She was pregnant with Grey's child.'
Wait. Waitwaitwait. I had to go back and check to see if I had missed something there. There simply is no narrative flow or cohesion to this book.
I'll take a look at the film - negative reviewers of the book have said the film is better - and the thing is, I am deeply interested in the morality and politics of this time. Why on earth Foreman feels that, against the backdrop of the American and French revolutions, rioting, famine, the madness of the king, the huge social change -- we want to know about gambling losses and dinner parties, is completely beyond me.