You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.92 AVERAGE
3.92 AVERAGE
In the foreword, the author pays homage to the exhaustive biographies already written about KM and more or less acknowledges there's not much point in writing a new one. Except, she then goes on to say, she is a woman and KM's other biographers have been men. The implication is she might bring something new to the table, a deeper and better informed female understanding of KM's secret springs. It's therefore somewhat shocking to discover what a disparaging judgemental tone she maintains throughout her narrative. Her opinions quickly got on my nerves and I often felt I was reading about Claire Tomalin, her prides and prejudices, as much as KM. There's often a sense she doesn't much like anyone she's writing about (except DH Lawrence). And perhaps that she shares Lawrence's patronising view about KM - "Poor Katherine, she was delicate and touching. But not GREAT."
Claire Tomalin is an old school professional biographer. Her perspective often seemed dated, fossilised, for example, in simplistic notions of sexual identity and thrifty ideas of moral integrity. For example, the monotonous contempt with which she refers to Murry, KM's husband, throughout the book might be comical had the author herself developed a sense of humour about her scorn for him. Her damning judgements are expressed with the kind of cemented certainty of someone writing about a close member of her own family. But she never met Murry. She simply embraces wholesale all the prejudices that have stuck to him for almost a century now, as if his sole contribution to KM's life consisted of ineptitude and blood sucking. I'd argue if you want to understand KM you have to make some attempt to also understand Murry. If you take sides in any marriage you're essentially creating fiction. First of all, her recurring notion that he didn't know his wife and often stopped her from being herself is highly questionable. KM's letters to Murry would probably fill three volumes and are consistently where you feel KM is closest to her private self. KM, in her letters, is often running ahead of herself - in other words, she sets herself up for disappointment. I'm not though convinced Murry should always take the blame for this perennial disillusionment of hers. It was the recurring determining motif of her nature. Also, despite the (spurious) claim that her book occupies itself with the "secret" life of KM, the author almost always takes Katherine at her word. It's well known that to appease her possessive and jealous friend Ida, who was to become in many ways her carer, she had to criticise Murry. Almost every negative thing KM says about Murry is to be found in letters to Ida. And likewise she tended to ridicule Ida in her letters to Murry. It was a devious ploy on her part to keep them both loyal. The result is that both Murry and Ida have been immortalised into hapless individuals - Ida ridiculed as a lackey, Murry for his blundering failure to become a lackey. Yet, Katherine couldn't have survived the last two years of her life without the love and support the pair of them provided.
And let's compare Murry with the other candidates for her sexual love - there was Garnett who got her pregnant and then showed no will to fulfil his paternal responsibilities; Florian who gave her gonorrhoea and then later blackmailed her; Franco who lured her to Paris during WW1 for what was clearly for him little more than a sexual adventure. Katherine was attracted to cads in other words. Whatever else he might have been Murry wasn't a cad. He married an ambitious, strong minded, strong willed independent woman. To a large extent this woman disappeared when she became ill; suddenly Katherine was a sexless invalid, skittish, subject to ever changing tempestuous moods, needy. He suddenly found himself out of his depth and made many insensitive blunders in his attempts to rise to the changed circumstances. At least twice, she publicly humiliated him by ostentatiously taking other lovers. Both times she took her back with no trace of bitterness. Murry is a mystery, not least the fact that he ever possessed so much authority in literary circles. The less said about his poetry the better. And his novels are no better. I don't know what he was like as a critic. However, surely to his credit, he did make many sacrifices for Katherine, albeit sometimes untimely, and was there with her at her death. Another of the popular gripes with Murry that the author reinforces is his publishing of what Lawrence calls the contents of KM's wastebasket after her death. (You could argue many writers choose themselves to publish what would be wiser consigned to the wastebasket.) KM though wasn't a rigorous overseer of her own work. She consented to publish a good deal of substandard work in her lifetime. And arguably the journal that Murry edited and published has contributed largely to her lasting fame and relevance as a writer. I suspect you also have to allow for grief and guilt in Murry's behaviour after her death. I don't buy the notion it was a cynical strategic ploy on his part to make money. I suspect he wanted the world to see Katherine as he now saw her - idealised, but isn't this wholly understandable for a man grieving and guilt-stricken? And then you have to ask the question what is the purpose of this biography if not to make money? This is a biography the world doesn't need given that all the material has already been covered. It certainly never reads like a labour of love. Yes, the world is ready for a new KM biography, but one that eschews this tiresome depiction of Murry as bloodsucking ogre. Ultimately, it belittles Katherine to ridicule her husband.
Anyway, all the same information is in the Anthony Alpers biography but without all the irritating judgement calls.
Claire Tomalin is an old school professional biographer. Her perspective often seemed dated, fossilised, for example, in simplistic notions of sexual identity and thrifty ideas of moral integrity. For example, the monotonous contempt with which she refers to Murry, KM's husband, throughout the book might be comical had the author herself developed a sense of humour about her scorn for him. Her damning judgements are expressed with the kind of cemented certainty of someone writing about a close member of her own family. But she never met Murry. She simply embraces wholesale all the prejudices that have stuck to him for almost a century now, as if his sole contribution to KM's life consisted of ineptitude and blood sucking. I'd argue if you want to understand KM you have to make some attempt to also understand Murry. If you take sides in any marriage you're essentially creating fiction. First of all, her recurring notion that he didn't know his wife and often stopped her from being herself is highly questionable. KM's letters to Murry would probably fill three volumes and are consistently where you feel KM is closest to her private self. KM, in her letters, is often running ahead of herself - in other words, she sets herself up for disappointment. I'm not though convinced Murry should always take the blame for this perennial disillusionment of hers. It was the recurring determining motif of her nature. Also, despite the (spurious) claim that her book occupies itself with the "secret" life of KM, the author almost always takes Katherine at her word. It's well known that to appease her possessive and jealous friend Ida, who was to become in many ways her carer, she had to criticise Murry. Almost every negative thing KM says about Murry is to be found in letters to Ida. And likewise she tended to ridicule Ida in her letters to Murry. It was a devious ploy on her part to keep them both loyal. The result is that both Murry and Ida have been immortalised into hapless individuals - Ida ridiculed as a lackey, Murry for his blundering failure to become a lackey. Yet, Katherine couldn't have survived the last two years of her life without the love and support the pair of them provided.
And let's compare Murry with the other candidates for her sexual love - there was Garnett who got her pregnant and then showed no will to fulfil his paternal responsibilities; Florian who gave her gonorrhoea and then later blackmailed her; Franco who lured her to Paris during WW1 for what was clearly for him little more than a sexual adventure. Katherine was attracted to cads in other words. Whatever else he might have been Murry wasn't a cad. He married an ambitious, strong minded, strong willed independent woman. To a large extent this woman disappeared when she became ill; suddenly Katherine was a sexless invalid, skittish, subject to ever changing tempestuous moods, needy. He suddenly found himself out of his depth and made many insensitive blunders in his attempts to rise to the changed circumstances. At least twice, she publicly humiliated him by ostentatiously taking other lovers. Both times she took her back with no trace of bitterness. Murry is a mystery, not least the fact that he ever possessed so much authority in literary circles. The less said about his poetry the better. And his novels are no better. I don't know what he was like as a critic. However, surely to his credit, he did make many sacrifices for Katherine, albeit sometimes untimely, and was there with her at her death. Another of the popular gripes with Murry that the author reinforces is his publishing of what Lawrence calls the contents of KM's wastebasket after her death. (You could argue many writers choose themselves to publish what would be wiser consigned to the wastebasket.) KM though wasn't a rigorous overseer of her own work. She consented to publish a good deal of substandard work in her lifetime. And arguably the journal that Murry edited and published has contributed largely to her lasting fame and relevance as a writer. I suspect you also have to allow for grief and guilt in Murry's behaviour after her death. I don't buy the notion it was a cynical strategic ploy on his part to make money. I suspect he wanted the world to see Katherine as he now saw her - idealised, but isn't this wholly understandable for a man grieving and guilt-stricken? And then you have to ask the question what is the purpose of this biography if not to make money? This is a biography the world doesn't need given that all the material has already been covered. It certainly never reads like a labour of love. Yes, the world is ready for a new KM biography, but one that eschews this tiresome depiction of Murry as bloodsucking ogre. Ultimately, it belittles Katherine to ridicule her husband.
Anyway, all the same information is in the Anthony Alpers biography but without all the irritating judgement calls.
A really very interesting biography of Katherine Mansfield - certainly far more enjoyable than the Journal by KM that I slogged through a few weeks back. It left me with a very clear picture of Mansfield's personality, which is one of the things I want most from a bio so thumbs up there.
Tomalin is chatty and opinionated in her discussion of Mansfield's life, and she doesn't flinch from her subject's more negative characteristics and behaviour. As a reader, this makes any biography far more enjoyable - reading about a paragon can be so tiresome! Mansfield is very far from a paragon - but she is interesting to read about. Recommended.
Tomalin is chatty and opinionated in her discussion of Mansfield's life, and she doesn't flinch from her subject's more negative characteristics and behaviour. As a reader, this makes any biography far more enjoyable - reading about a paragon can be so tiresome! Mansfield is very far from a paragon - but she is interesting to read about. Recommended.