Say you got to research your life, say you were pretty much able to debunk every single theory about you, and say you had no way to make that public? That's what Amelia faces when she heads to the library to see what's been written. Luckily for her it's only 1980 so certain books are still waiting to see the light of day. One that I find particularly irritating is The Sound of Wings. This writer's conceit is that Amelia's life is as fascinating as that of her husband, G.P. Putnam, thus we move from a chapter about her, to a chapter about her husband. I can imagine the pitch the agent gave on this one. . . a new and unique take on an iconic figure.
And then there are the various elaborate theories about how it all ended, that she never died, that she was Tokyo Rose and returned home to spend the rest of her life alive and well and living in New Jersey. Or even worse, that the round the world flight was an elaborate deception, she used it to leave her husband because she, poor frail thing, couldn't have done that all on her own. Back then, she used her fame to make sure she could live a relatively private life. Now everything is scrutinized in obsessive detail. I think she'll find all of this remarkably intrusive, and also infuriating.Frankly, I don't blame her.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I share your sense of the intrusiveness of so much that's written about AE. It makes for a dilemma as a historian: from time to time I've thought of writing about her, but to answer some of what I consider to be misconceptions about her, I'd have to be just as detailed in my scrutiny as the other nosy judgemental writers. Any thoughts about how one solves that dilemma?
ReplyDeleteWell you know you can always write fiction. That seems to be what I'm doing . . . did you find that book as irritating as I did? I just don't get the need to go on and on about G.P. Putnam as if his life was on a par with hers. And there's so much misinformation because each biographer depends on whoever their source is, it makes you realize that so much of history is personal interpretation and really sometimes I think it might as well all be fiction. What is the difference? Yet it can't stop you. I suppose you have to write honestly and clinically and dispassionately. I don't think there's anything wrong with scrutinizing a person's life, especially one as public as hers, what I'm kind of amazed by is how well she managed to hide her private life from view, I think that and of course the way she died, leads to endless speculation. It might take David McCullough, then again it could be you, who would have thought John Adams would end up being such a page turner?
ReplyDeleteI too found Lovell's bio annoying. It places too much emphasis on GP's role as PR manager, as though he could single-handedly create an outsized media image and get all the newspapers in the U.S. to focus on her. And the book should have been billed as a dual biography. I suppose Lovell researched GP because she found him interesting and attractive; in fact I think I remember her referring to him as a handsome hunk of a man in the introduction.
ReplyDeleteShe does seem very interested in his appeal. She might be the only one who found him attractive . . . except I suppose Amelia. At least at first, though I think of him as a means to an end. I think of her as pretty much in control. She seems like that to me, one tough woman.
ReplyDelete