For discussion purposes, it’s worked out well that our first venture into non-fiction involves a biography that is anything but straightforward. Lots to think about!
^ I agree mary13 it has turned out to the perfect for “discussion”
These two books make believe two things about Beryl- she is veiled behind lies and deceit - and this is just what she preferred, as Hemingway noted.
Mclain’s attempts to portray Beryl as a modern day, feminist, non conformist - failed.
McLain “circled” around the real Beryl.
Sad to think of all the readers who will only know Mclain’s version.
How well did these books depict Africa?
Yes. It’s one of the first lessons of history. When you are working with original sources you are never getting the complete story, facts are always in dispute, and how the heck do you evaluate rumors and hearsay!
I think it’s quite unreasonable of me, but if I read an historical novel set, say in the Middle Ages, I expect lots of things to be made up, because I know the source material is so limited, but when the past is so recent I expect more accuracy.
I think the relationship of Beryl and Karen (and Bror and Denys) was complicated, but that, yes they were friends who understood each other and had a lot in common. They both write so similarly about their love for Africa, for the natives, for the view of Africa from their plane rides. Remember that Karen was officially still married to Bror for a long time before they finally officially got divorced. It’s my understanding that Denys did not really take up with Beryl until after more or less breaking up with Karen, so perhaps the relationship wasn’t quite as icky as portrayed in the book. Or perhaps it was all more or less okay with all of them. I’ve got in-laws who have the most amazingly complicated open-marriage arrangement. The two guys are married, but they frequently have girlfriends on the side and nobody seems to mind. It wouldn’t work for me, but these guys have been together forever.
in any event Bror remained friends with Denys -
from http://www.newcriterion.com/articles.cfm/The-price-of-distinction-6559
While its significant I think that they don’t either of them write about the other in their respective memoirs, both memoirs are extremely discreet. Kind of surprising for such a wild crowd, but I think it shows how much our culture has changed!
Regarding SouthJerseyMom’s question about how well the books portrayed Africa. I think they do a pretty good job of depicting Africa, at least as viewed from European eyes of that era. I don’t claim to be an African expert, but did live in Africa from 1964-67 in Somalia. Nairobi was the big city then compared to Hargeisa, we went there for civilization and stayed at the Norfolk Hotel. We also took a boat from Aden to Mombasa once and then, the train from Mombasa to Nairobi. My parents were also assigned to Tanzania from 1972-1974 and I spent my summers there. Later my Dad was in Uganda 1980 to 1983. I visited my family a couple of times, but by then I was in grad school and then working, so shorter visits. The Kenya highlands are quite different from Somalia, but similar to Uganda - very green and lush. The game parks are still chock-a-block full of animals, so I imagine the tales of running into lions are all too true. Speaking of lions - the story of the good lion - was pretty amazing. At one point someone gave the embassy a lion cub and it lived in a cage in our driveway for a while until we very thankfully found a zoo for it.
One thing that struck me a lot is how the Europeans speak of the different ethnic groups as having very different personalities. We like to believe that we are all the same, but even we generally think that Italians are nothing like the Germans. There’s an interview with my Dad that I have read where he makes very similar observations. I always cringe a bit when I read it, but that way of looking at Africans was absolutely part of the way Westerners viewed them, and like most stereotypes, there is some truth to them, though obviously we can’t be defined by stereotypes.
mathmom, thanks for the very interesting review of Isak Dinesen.
When I first read the above, I thought (a little unkindly, I admit) that the very literary Karen Blixen managed to suffer from a very literary disease. Henrik Ibsen’s A Doll’s House came to mind, with its subplot of syphilis and theme that “the sins of the father are visited upon the next generation.” How many of the great artists suffered from syphilis? A lot.
Continuing on in the article, I found that the reviewer was thinking along similar lines:
I agree with both of the above statements. I would hope that many readers of Circling the Sun would go on to read West With the Night, but I doubt that that will happen.
One of the things that has stuck with me the most from West With the Night was how very, very difficult the flying that Beryl did in Africa was, and how good she was at it, and how proud of her skill and courage she was. I don’t think much of that really comes through in Circling the Sun.
Here’s an entertaining 1993 review of Trzebinski’s book: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/03/books/never-down-to-earth.html
An excerpt:
I’d love to read a frank statement by Lovell (author of the Markham biography Straight on Till Morning) of what she thought of Trzebinski’s book!
Interview with Paula McLain: http://www.longitudebooks.com/blog/index.php/2015/08/whats-new/an-interview-with-paula-mclain/
This is interesting:
^ very interesting interview? it seems strange that McLain would have written her book before visiting Kenya.
But, what is incredible is that McLain, believes Beryl wrote West With the Night.
Do you recall in WWTN, when Beryl had to study for her license, page 190. Here she admits her feelings about books.
From the interview referenced. So true!
One thing I wondered is in the novel Beryl father goes to South Africa, in the memoir I think he goes to Peru. Are both true?
Ok, this article offers some closure for me regarding the “true” Beryl Markham, which Is good, because like many of you, my feelings about missing facts in both books, is unsettling.
http://scandalouswoman.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-many-lives-of-beryl-markham.html
Clearly, Beryl’s abandonment by her mother left her scarred for life. I’d like to know why her mother left her behind? What kind of mother does that ?
[quote=mathmom]
One thing I wondered is in the novel Beryl father goes to South Africa, in the memoir I think he goes to Peru. Are both true?
[quote]
In a way, yes. Clutterbuck went to Peru initially after the farm became troubled financially. He was there for a number of years, but later came back and worked in South Africa.
I’ll try to answer the question of why Beryl’s mother left her, based on what’s written about the subject in the Lovell biography.
Beryl’s parents had had marital problems back in England, but when Beryl’s father decided to try farming in Africa, the mother, Clara, agreed to come join him with the two children after he got a farm successfully established.
Once in Africa, Clara did not like the isolation from society that living on the farm involved. In addition, Beryl’s brother Richard was sickly and it was thought that England would be healthier for him, so he was sent back there. Three months later, Clara followed him.
Well, Beryl herself is the kind of mother who does that, so I guess the apple didn’t fall very far from the tree. Makes you wonder if there is a particular “maternal instinct gene” that wasn’t in their genetic makeup.
Even though leaving behind one’s child seems like such an alien concept to us, I don’t think it was quite so unusual 100 or so years ago. Whether it was Kenya or wartime Europe or the American frontier, limited means of travel combined with health and/or financial concerns played a part in separating families.
I want to believe that Beryl Markham wrote the book herself because giving the credit to a man (whether Saint-Exupery or Schumacher) just because she happened to have a relationship with that man, offends all my feminist sensibilities. Can you think of a situation in reverse, i.e., where a famous male author’s writing is assumed to be the work of his female companion? Offhand, I can’t.
That said, the different versions we’ve read regarding Beryl’s level of education and love—or not—of books does confuse the issue. The article SJCM linked in post 91 says:
Yet in both West With the Night and Circling the Sun, Beryl admits that books take a back seat to adventure. So was she a great reader or not? Does that matter in terms of solving the mystery of authorship? Certainly you can be a great writer without formal schooling—there are undoubtedly many examples of that—but can you be a great writer without voracious reading?
^
Can you write so skillfully, with so many historical, mythological and literate references found in WWTN ? Unlikely.
I I marveled at the use of alliteration, and I’m not one to notice those things usually.
We know for sure, many things about Beryl, and what we know is consistent with her moving to Hollywood , marrying a ghostwriter, and surely allowing him to use her fame / name to promote the book.
Sadly, I don’t think Beryl, the ultimate survivor, had your " feminist" sensibilities, Mary13. She was probably trying to pay the bills.
When Beryl becomes a mother herself, she is determined not to act as her own mother did. Do you feel she succeeds?
I do not think she succeeded, but I also think she shared the blame with others–her husband Markham, her husband’s family (especially his mother), the royal family, and her own mother. Gervase, a truly sick baby in need of much medical attention, was born after a very public and scandalous affair with the Duke. Baby Gervase needed some serious medical treatment, hospital facilities, and a more advanced medical support system than could be had in Africa at that time. The fear of her son’s care must have been unimaginable for first time mother, Beryl. I can imagine a skittish mother–one not bonded with her baby–to give up her imperfect son and flee from that responsibility. The familial ostracism must have been intense because of Beryl’s visible affair with the Duke. Although the Duke could not have been the father, Markham and Markham’s family presented that possibility to Gervase throughout his childhood–almost taunting him with it. There seems to be an element of Markham cruelty, or at least a real chilliness. Even though she’s often presented as downright cold, Beryl must have felt pressure from the Markhams to leave their enclave. I can imagine her wanting to escape to an earlier, freer existence back to a life in which she was the focus of positive attention. The royal family, especially Queen Mary, obviously wanted her out. Could she really have fought that force? I also think Mary13 is correct in saying that 100 years ago, leaving one’s child behind was not so unheard of. How many children were sent to board at school? Was it not expected for a family of stature?
Once she left her son , I’m not sure how much contact or involvement Beryl really had in his life. It’s not clear in the Trzebinski biography. She seems to value being a mother, evidenced in a Daily Express clip here
This, when Gervase was seven years old.
He is described, in the Trzebinski biography, as an unhappy person. In 1946, Gervase, as a young man, visited Beryl in California.
And here, Trzebinski sums up the whole sad situation.
^Great analysis in your second paragraph of post #97, PlantMom. I agree with all of that.
I don’t think Beryl lacked a motherhood gene. The cards were stacked against her, as you have noted. Perhaps more importantly, she had not been able to witness a good model of motherhood during her own childhood.
I marked this one of many pages when I was readingWest with the Night, (My Trail Is North, Chapter XI) because I liked her phrasing. It also seems representative of her style of living in the moment and looking to the future, even if that living means you leave behind, quickly, someone as important as your father, your child, or lover; or the memory of a mother; or a place like your homeland of Africa. It also speaks of many regrets she must have had.