Another example of our seemingly-timeless fascination with the Titanic disaster, which now almost seems more metaphor than real-life event, more than a century removed. This unique spin on the tale everyone knows features real characters - or at least caricatures of them - such as the Unsinkable Violet Jessop, who really did survive two major disasters aboard these ships (I reviewed her memoirs here on GR a while back), and the most well-known of the bourgeoisie, such as Benjamin Guggenheim and John and Madeline Astor, alongside the fictional ones, albeit not entirely seamlessly, for reasons I'll discuss below. The ghost story, well, sort of, BEFORE the sinking is something of a unique spin on the seemingly endless tales of romance and tragedy, and sometimes even time-traveling, which use the Titanic as a backdrop.
The story centers on a fictional character, Annie, who has spent four years in an asylum after the sinking, for reasons unclear, when she gets a message in 1916 from her old pal Violet, a former workmate aboard the Titanic, who is working aboard one of the Titanic's sister ships, the Britannic, which has become a hospital ship during WWI. Annie takes up a position as a nurse, when she encounters some living ghosts from her past, so to speak, in the form of Mark, one of the (fictional) passengers whom she believes to have died during the sinking. I won't give too many spoilers here, but it's a complex tale that's at least moderately engaging.
The story is capable, in general, with a few caveats. It's difficult to intertwine factual and fictional characters, especially those involving an event as notable as the Titanic sinking, but the author does a capable job, with some very notable exceptions. I gave this a (generous) three-star rating overall, as it's an engaging and creative story, though not as much of a "ghost story" as I was initially anticipating, but there's enough mystery and intrigue to keep it going. Perhaps "intrigue" is the most apt way to describe the novel in general, which also speaks to its stereotyping somewhat.
In actuality, the characters would be little more than "stock," except that they're not: several of the primary ones were real people, and should be treated accordingly. And some were also victims, having perished terribly that frigid night. Here's where I take issue with, concerning stories of this type: fair warning that this may get a bit ranty beyond this point. I get that historical fiction takes some liberty with the facts, but the material herein borders on slander, in my opinion. For example, Violet Jessop is portrayed as a giddy, witless, naive girl who is manipulated by two crooks into complicity with their thievery, which, by all actual accounts, couldn't have been a worse mis-characterization of this historical figure.
As a trained historian, my job is frequently to speak for those persons of the past who can no longer speak for themselves (although, in this case, Violet actually DID). As such, this kind of thing is far from just innocent fictionalizing. The people named herein, Violet Jessop most notably among them, as she is so maligned in this novel, WERE real people, with real families, friends, colleagues, acquaintances and loved ones - who have a REAL legacy. Almost all would doubtless be livid at such a portrayal: I would be, were this one of my relatives, particularly one who lived an entire life of selfless service at sea, by all accounts totally devoted to the people in her care. Making her a complicit pawn and accomplice to theft is out of line.
So: who was Violet Jessop, the real figure? I included some material from my review of her memoir here, and I hope that anyone who might read this review also reads about the real person, and, even more, reads her book, in her own words. That does actual justice to this remarkable, independent, caring and highly competent individual. Violet was involved in not one, but THREE major incidents: the sinking of both the Titanic and Britannic, and the collision of the Olympic, which could also have resulted in serious loss of life. Her adventures as a world traveler began in 1908, when she worked the southern route from Europe to South America. After spurning the advances of a sea captain, however, and with little recourse, as was the case for many women in her position at that time, Violet was dismissed from one company, but was able to procure employment with, in her estimation, a less desirable company, the White Star Line, which did the Europe-North America (New York) run.
Born to Irish parents, Violet was actually born in Argentina: her parents had immigrated shortly before her birth. First living in a small house with dirt floors, a succession of children followed, only about half of which survived their first few precarious years, mostly succumbing to a plethora of lethal diseases, including scarlet fever (of which Violet's beloved younger brother, whom she remembered well, died), diphtheria, meningitis, smallpox, and tuberculosis. Violet herself contracted several, barely surviving them. Her father did not: he died when she was still a teenager, leaving a wife and six children. The family made their way back to England, but were forced to separate, the four boys ending up in a Catholic children's home while their mother worked at sea, while Violet and her younger sister lived essentially on their own, until Violet came of age and decided that she likewise would follow her mother's example and go to sea. What followed was an extraordinary, 42-year career on-board ship, where she remained until her retirement in her early 60s.
What was the real figure of Violet Jessop like? Perhaps the person who was largely behind the efforts to publish her memoirs can answer that. Violet wrote her own life story, back in 1934, when she apparently submitted it for a literary competition. Years later, her two nieces (Violet never had any children of her own, so she was anything but an opportunistic gold digger looking for a wealthy husband) approached a maritime publisher, in 1997, years after Violet's death, to see if they would be interested in publishing it, as they realized its significance.
Incredibly, an editor who actually had something of a personal connection to Violet, took on the project: apparently, his mother had been one of "her passengers," back in the 1920s, during a crossing on White Star's "Majestic," and had spent many hours listening to Violet's incredible tales of survival, first as an invalid child, and then as a disaster survivor. As his mother had spent much of the voyage ill, Violet had taken particularly good care of her, likely because of her own near-death experiences growing up as a frail and sickly child, having survived multiple brushes with death. The editor's mother had told him about her, and he actually visited Violet once, in 1970, at her lovely retirement cottage in Suffolk. He had been searching for Titanic survivors for his own book, and was immediately enamored with Violet, finding her a sharp and witty storyteller, even in old age.
That's who Violet really was, according to her own accounts, and those of her passengers, and even their children, on whom she had made such an impression.
I highly recommend reading her account, of her own remarkable life, in her own words. Perhaps because I had read her memoirs previously and been so impressed by them, is the reason why this novel's depiction of her is so distasteful, and, in short, highly disrespectful.
There's a similar issue with the gay tryst between the two fictional crook-boxer-con men Les and Dai, who manipulate (fictional) Shrinking Violet, because there seemingly has to be some type of gay twist to most of these modern novels... as though they're just incomplete without something along these lines, to make the account more "edgy" and relevant to a modern audience, as though that in and of itself enhances the story. It doesn't; it just makes the story unbelievable and pandering.
Doubtless, those types of relationships in the early 20th century weren't nonexistent, but the revelation of a homoerotic subplot well more than halfway through the novel just seemed out of place, and shamelessly sensationalist. It's not as though the characters were revealed to be gay at the outset, which could have worked, I suppose, and would have made a rather unique and creative contribution to the Titanic fiction canon ... Instead, Les and Dai, the "boxers," apparently suddenly realize their tragic and doomed love aboard the equally-doomed liner, in a hallway, no less, during an argument over the moral turpitude of their criminal activity. This section reads like bad fan fiction, honestly, and I just wanted to skip over this whole section. Portrayals of token, stereotypical gay (usually closeted) characters (like the waif-like youth/"bear" pair here) always irk me, because depictions of this type fetishize and exoticize rather than normalize the relationships of LGBTQ persons.
What's even more out of place and vexing, however, is the portrayal of yet another real person, with a real family and personal history, namely one Lady Duff Gordon, who apparently catches the two in the act in the hallway near the First-Class cabins (likewise, not a terribly believable scene, that the unwashed masses were allowed to wander the corridors of First Class unattended and unnoticed - that's what the locked gates, which caused the drowning of an untold number of steerage passengers - were for, after all), of being a closet lesbian in her own right.
What?!
"Lucy knew those things, as one who had spent most of her adult life making sure her own secrets were well hidden. There had been real fear in the boxer's eyes when he asked if she was going to turn them in. She couldn't, not two boys who shared the same secret as she...'You're playing a dangerous game,' she told him before taking her leave of them, though she failed to say exactly which game she meant [gay solidarity?]... She could feel it because it had been her own, too. She still remembered the first woman who had broken her heart. Still remembered the terrifying urgency of the way they had kissed, the secrecy of every touch, of every thought..."
Cue the eye-rolling... And, "historical fiction" or not, NOT OK. Lady Duff Gordon is not an actress, playing a character, even in the fiction of the future. I hope I don't need to explain further.
I gave this book a three-star rating, but could have easily dropped one because of the issues above, as I don't like to reward this type of writing. I did finish the book, as I've committed to finishing every book I start, but I'm about done, here, because these tactics really get under my skin and remove any enjoyment I would have otherwise had in reading it. Taking liberties with some of the facts, and interweaving fictional and factual characters isn't necessarily problematic, but the material should be true to both the individuals who actually lived, and, in this case, tragically died, as well as the time period in which the account is set.
The story centers on a fictional character, Annie, who has spent four years in an asylum after the sinking, for reasons unclear, when she gets a message in 1916 from her old pal Violet, a former workmate aboard the Titanic, who is working aboard one of the Titanic's sister ships, the Britannic, which has become a hospital ship during WWI. Annie takes up a position as a nurse, when she encounters some living ghosts from her past, so to speak, in the form of Mark, one of the (fictional) passengers whom she believes to have died during the sinking. I won't give too many spoilers here, but it's a complex tale that's at least moderately engaging.
The story is capable, in general, with a few caveats. It's difficult to intertwine factual and fictional characters, especially those involving an event as notable as the Titanic sinking, but the author does a capable job, with some very notable exceptions. I gave this a (generous) three-star rating overall, as it's an engaging and creative story, though not as much of a "ghost story" as I was initially anticipating, but there's enough mystery and intrigue to keep it going. Perhaps "intrigue" is the most apt way to describe the novel in general, which also speaks to its stereotyping somewhat.
In actuality, the characters would be little more than "stock," except that they're not: several of the primary ones were real people, and should be treated accordingly. And some were also victims, having perished terribly that frigid night. Here's where I take issue with, concerning stories of this type: fair warning that this may get a bit ranty beyond this point. I get that historical fiction takes some liberty with the facts, but the material herein borders on slander, in my opinion. For example, Violet Jessop is portrayed as a giddy, witless, naive girl who is manipulated by two crooks into complicity with their thievery, which, by all actual accounts, couldn't have been a worse mis-characterization of this historical figure.
As a trained historian, my job is frequently to speak for those persons of the past who can no longer speak for themselves (although, in this case, Violet actually DID). As such, this kind of thing is far from just innocent fictionalizing. The people named herein, Violet Jessop most notably among them, as she is so maligned in this novel, WERE real people, with real families, friends, colleagues, acquaintances and loved ones - who have a REAL legacy. Almost all would doubtless be livid at such a portrayal: I would be, were this one of my relatives, particularly one who lived an entire life of selfless service at sea, by all accounts totally devoted to the people in her care. Making her a complicit pawn and accomplice to theft is out of line.
So: who was Violet Jessop, the real figure? I included some material from my review of her memoir here, and I hope that anyone who might read this review also reads about the real person, and, even more, reads her book, in her own words. That does actual justice to this remarkable, independent, caring and highly competent individual. Violet was involved in not one, but THREE major incidents: the sinking of both the Titanic and Britannic, and the collision of the Olympic, which could also have resulted in serious loss of life. Her adventures as a world traveler began in 1908, when she worked the southern route from Europe to South America. After spurning the advances of a sea captain, however, and with little recourse, as was the case for many women in her position at that time, Violet was dismissed from one company, but was able to procure employment with, in her estimation, a less desirable company, the White Star Line, which did the Europe-North America (New York) run.
Born to Irish parents, Violet was actually born in Argentina: her parents had immigrated shortly before her birth. First living in a small house with dirt floors, a succession of children followed, only about half of which survived their first few precarious years, mostly succumbing to a plethora of lethal diseases, including scarlet fever (of which Violet's beloved younger brother, whom she remembered well, died), diphtheria, meningitis, smallpox, and tuberculosis. Violet herself contracted several, barely surviving them. Her father did not: he died when she was still a teenager, leaving a wife and six children. The family made their way back to England, but were forced to separate, the four boys ending up in a Catholic children's home while their mother worked at sea, while Violet and her younger sister lived essentially on their own, until Violet came of age and decided that she likewise would follow her mother's example and go to sea. What followed was an extraordinary, 42-year career on-board ship, where she remained until her retirement in her early 60s.
What was the real figure of Violet Jessop like? Perhaps the person who was largely behind the efforts to publish her memoirs can answer that. Violet wrote her own life story, back in 1934, when she apparently submitted it for a literary competition. Years later, her two nieces (Violet never had any children of her own, so she was anything but an opportunistic gold digger looking for a wealthy husband) approached a maritime publisher, in 1997, years after Violet's death, to see if they would be interested in publishing it, as they realized its significance.
Incredibly, an editor who actually had something of a personal connection to Violet, took on the project: apparently, his mother had been one of "her passengers," back in the 1920s, during a crossing on White Star's "Majestic," and had spent many hours listening to Violet's incredible tales of survival, first as an invalid child, and then as a disaster survivor. As his mother had spent much of the voyage ill, Violet had taken particularly good care of her, likely because of her own near-death experiences growing up as a frail and sickly child, having survived multiple brushes with death. The editor's mother had told him about her, and he actually visited Violet once, in 1970, at her lovely retirement cottage in Suffolk. He had been searching for Titanic survivors for his own book, and was immediately enamored with Violet, finding her a sharp and witty storyteller, even in old age.
That's who Violet really was, according to her own accounts, and those of her passengers, and even their children, on whom she had made such an impression.
I highly recommend reading her account, of her own remarkable life, in her own words. Perhaps because I had read her memoirs previously and been so impressed by them, is the reason why this novel's depiction of her is so distasteful, and, in short, highly disrespectful.
There's a similar issue with the gay tryst between the two fictional crook-boxer-con men Les and Dai, who manipulate (fictional) Shrinking Violet, because there seemingly has to be some type of gay twist to most of these modern novels... as though they're just incomplete without something along these lines, to make the account more "edgy" and relevant to a modern audience, as though that in and of itself enhances the story. It doesn't; it just makes the story unbelievable and pandering.
Doubtless, those types of relationships in the early 20th century weren't nonexistent, but the revelation of a homoerotic subplot well more than halfway through the novel just seemed out of place, and shamelessly sensationalist. It's not as though the characters were revealed to be gay at the outset, which could have worked, I suppose, and would have made a rather unique and creative contribution to the Titanic fiction canon ... Instead, Les and Dai, the "boxers," apparently suddenly realize their tragic and doomed love aboard the equally-doomed liner, in a hallway, no less, during an argument over the moral turpitude of their criminal activity. This section reads like bad fan fiction, honestly, and I just wanted to skip over this whole section. Portrayals of token, stereotypical gay (usually closeted) characters (like the waif-like youth/"bear" pair here) always irk me, because depictions of this type fetishize and exoticize rather than normalize the relationships of LGBTQ persons.
What's even more out of place and vexing, however, is the portrayal of yet another real person, with a real family and personal history, namely one Lady Duff Gordon, who apparently catches the two in the act in the hallway near the First-Class cabins (likewise, not a terribly believable scene, that the unwashed masses were allowed to wander the corridors of First Class unattended and unnoticed - that's what the locked gates, which caused the drowning of an untold number of steerage passengers - were for, after all), of being a closet lesbian in her own right.
What?!
"Lucy knew those things, as one who had spent most of her adult life making sure her own secrets were well hidden. There had been real fear in the boxer's eyes when he asked if she was going to turn them in. She couldn't, not two boys who shared the same secret as she...'You're playing a dangerous game,' she told him before taking her leave of them, though she failed to say exactly which game she meant [gay solidarity?]... She could feel it because it had been her own, too. She still remembered the first woman who had broken her heart. Still remembered the terrifying urgency of the way they had kissed, the secrecy of every touch, of every thought..."
Cue the eye-rolling... And, "historical fiction" or not, NOT OK. Lady Duff Gordon is not an actress, playing a character, even in the fiction of the future. I hope I don't need to explain further.
I gave this book a three-star rating, but could have easily dropped one because of the issues above, as I don't like to reward this type of writing. I did finish the book, as I've committed to finishing every book I start, but I'm about done, here, because these tactics really get under my skin and remove any enjoyment I would have otherwise had in reading it. Taking liberties with some of the facts, and interweaving fictional and factual characters isn't necessarily problematic, but the material should be true to both the individuals who actually lived, and, in this case, tragically died, as well as the time period in which the account is set.
Back to all reviews by this member
Back to all reviews of this book
Back to Book Reviews
Back to Book Details
Back to all reviews of this book
Back to Book Reviews
Back to Book Details
