![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sunnyskywalkerI believe I mentioned that I really liked Claudia Gray's The Murder of Mr. Wickham? And that she managed to deliver fanservice in an impressively disciplined way where it all supported the contained story of the novel rather than cramming in everything and the kitchen sink? Here's an example, for anyone else who reads or writes fanfic.
As I mentioned in the squee/review, one subplot involves Fanny learning a secret about her brother in the navy: specifically, William confesses to his beloved sister that he and his friend Harris are in love. Fanny is sure that clergyman Edmund would disapprove. She herself is torn between what she's always learned is correct and her own certainty that her brother is a good person whom she loves--and, of course there's her duty to obey her husband. But what if she thinks her husband is wrong? What is she supposed to do when her love and loyalty for her brother and husband conflict?
For anyone who hasn't read Mansfield Park recently or ever, in that book, William gives Fanny an amber cross, and Edmund gives her a gold chain to wear it on. Henry Crawford also gives Fanny a chain via his sister Mary, but the cross doesn't fit it. There are several layers of symbolism: Edmund "fitting" Fanny better than Henry; Fanny keeping her love for Edmund and her brother both close to her heart; her love being founded on her own goodness and piety and its objects being good themselves; the Church of England being complicit in the slave trade; and probably a number of other possibilities.
In this book, there's a one-line aside about Fanny wearing the cross from William on the chain from Edmund at one particular point. Of course readers can go, "Ooh, I recognize that from the original book!" And it doesn't take any deep analysis for readers to go, "Ah, she's feeling torn between her brother and husband right now, but wearing something from each of them united, which probably means something about her hopes for how this subplot will resolve." If anyone does want to think about it for a few more minutes, they might go, "Hm, and the cross is associated with William while the chain is associated with Edmund. Does this mean that ultimately God is on William's side and Edmund's adherence to written doctrine is a chain weighing him down, or maybe a chain he wants to use to bind Fanny's good and loving instincts?" Again, you can probably find additional layers.
This sort of canon callback plus re-contextualizing is hard to do well! It's all too easy to throw in a detail like the necklace "just because," even if it connects to nothing else in the story and sits there like an oddly obtrusive lump for anyone who doesn't know or remember its origins in canon. It's equally easy to use it in a heavy-handed fashion and go on for paragraphs explaining the symbolism in case readers don't get it. And it's easy to bungle the set-up so that the symbolism too schematic rather than arising believably and naturally, or is contradictory or fights the story rather than having layers of meaning that all work. Gray slips it in unobtrusively, so that even if you don't recognize the necklace or don't care whether it means anything, it doesn't annoy you by interrupting the narrative. She doesn't over-explain it. It makes sense as a character detail and so doesn't look like it was artificially inserted for the symbolism. And while it can have multiple meanings, I don't think any of them are fighting each other or undermining the overt points of the subplot.
It's very nicely done. As are so many parts of the book! Really, if you like Jane Austen or country house murder mysteries, look this one up.
Notes for anyone trying to judge whether the book might be too unpleasant a reminder of issues they face daily or whether it might still work as a relaxing read: characters explain William and Harris's relationship with concepts and terms that might have been available to them in 1820, like "as if they were married" and "sodomy." It is acknowledged that William being outed would mean transportation as a criminal or even execution, and that fear drives some of Fanny's actions. Several characters learn William's secret, and their reactions include "I don't get it but I love him," "how do they even...? no, don't want to know," "hm, none of my business," and "oh noes sin!" (Plus Wickham's blackmail attempt.) At least one character condemns the idea, but there isn't a lot of page time spent on their specific comments. The Fanny/Edmund subplot is one of several, and while William's secret is the core from which the subplot grows, whether his feelings are wrong or not don't take up the majority of the subplot's words. There are also things like what Fanny thinks of that bold Mrs. Darcy, Fanny's feelings about nature, and how a fundamental disagreement would affect Fanny and Edmund's marriage. Overall the book comes down on the side of "William and Harris's love is fine, and decent people should eventually realize that even if they're initially shocked and confused because of the ideas they were raised with." Whether any particular characters do in fact realize this is something I won't spoil unless specifically asked.
As I mentioned in the squee/review, one subplot involves Fanny learning a secret about her brother in the navy: specifically, William confesses to his beloved sister that he and his friend Harris are in love. Fanny is sure that clergyman Edmund would disapprove. She herself is torn between what she's always learned is correct and her own certainty that her brother is a good person whom she loves--and, of course there's her duty to obey her husband. But what if she thinks her husband is wrong? What is she supposed to do when her love and loyalty for her brother and husband conflict?
For anyone who hasn't read Mansfield Park recently or ever, in that book, William gives Fanny an amber cross, and Edmund gives her a gold chain to wear it on. Henry Crawford also gives Fanny a chain via his sister Mary, but the cross doesn't fit it. There are several layers of symbolism: Edmund "fitting" Fanny better than Henry; Fanny keeping her love for Edmund and her brother both close to her heart; her love being founded on her own goodness and piety and its objects being good themselves; the Church of England being complicit in the slave trade; and probably a number of other possibilities.
In this book, there's a one-line aside about Fanny wearing the cross from William on the chain from Edmund at one particular point. Of course readers can go, "Ooh, I recognize that from the original book!" And it doesn't take any deep analysis for readers to go, "Ah, she's feeling torn between her brother and husband right now, but wearing something from each of them united, which probably means something about her hopes for how this subplot will resolve." If anyone does want to think about it for a few more minutes, they might go, "Hm, and the cross is associated with William while the chain is associated with Edmund. Does this mean that ultimately God is on William's side and Edmund's adherence to written doctrine is a chain weighing him down, or maybe a chain he wants to use to bind Fanny's good and loving instincts?" Again, you can probably find additional layers.
This sort of canon callback plus re-contextualizing is hard to do well! It's all too easy to throw in a detail like the necklace "just because," even if it connects to nothing else in the story and sits there like an oddly obtrusive lump for anyone who doesn't know or remember its origins in canon. It's equally easy to use it in a heavy-handed fashion and go on for paragraphs explaining the symbolism in case readers don't get it. And it's easy to bungle the set-up so that the symbolism too schematic rather than arising believably and naturally, or is contradictory or fights the story rather than having layers of meaning that all work. Gray slips it in unobtrusively, so that even if you don't recognize the necklace or don't care whether it means anything, it doesn't annoy you by interrupting the narrative. She doesn't over-explain it. It makes sense as a character detail and so doesn't look like it was artificially inserted for the symbolism. And while it can have multiple meanings, I don't think any of them are fighting each other or undermining the overt points of the subplot.
It's very nicely done. As are so many parts of the book! Really, if you like Jane Austen or country house murder mysteries, look this one up.
Notes for anyone trying to judge whether the book might be too unpleasant a reminder of issues they face daily or whether it might still work as a relaxing read: characters explain William and Harris's relationship with concepts and terms that might have been available to them in 1820, like "as if they were married" and "sodomy." It is acknowledged that William being outed would mean transportation as a criminal or even execution, and that fear drives some of Fanny's actions. Several characters learn William's secret, and their reactions include "I don't get it but I love him," "how do they even...? no, don't want to know," "hm, none of my business," and "oh noes sin!" (Plus Wickham's blackmail attempt.) At least one character condemns the idea, but there isn't a lot of page time spent on their specific comments. The Fanny/Edmund subplot is one of several, and while William's secret is the core from which the subplot grows, whether his feelings are wrong or not don't take up the majority of the subplot's words. There are also things like what Fanny thinks of that bold Mrs. Darcy, Fanny's feelings about nature, and how a fundamental disagreement would affect Fanny and Edmund's marriage. Overall the book comes down on the side of "William and Harris's love is fine, and decent people should eventually realize that even if they're initially shocked and confused because of the ideas they were raised with." Whether any particular characters do in fact realize this is something I won't spoil unless specifically asked.
