A number of years ago, I bought
The Crimes of Charlotte Bronte by James Tully. At the time, I was in a rush to choose one more book and leave the bookstore (always difficult). Periodically, this book comes up again in the 'To Read' list and it is always met with the same indecision that it met when it was bought. So, being the summer and all, it was about time to feel vaguely guilty and unsure of
The Crimes of Charlotte Bronte again. I read a few reviews (many bad) and even an article on the BBC where they interviewed the author who apparently thinks that some of it is plausible as truth. Even I am skeptical about that. However, I moved on! Finally I was looking around Wikipedia at biographies of the sisters. Like many people, I have read a Bronte novel for school--for me it was Wuthering Heights, masterwork of Emily Bronte. Someday I may read more by Charlotte or Anne, but for now it's the contemplation of rather subpar, accusative "historical" fiction.
After first revisiting Emily's cause of death, I looked at Charlotte and then came to Anne. Scanning through the page, this section caught my attention:
"A year after Anne's death, further editions of her novels were required; however, Charlotte prevented re-publication of Anne's second novel,
The Tenant of Wildfell Hall. In 1850, Charlotte wrote damningly, "
Wildfell Hall it hardly appears to me desirable to preserve. The choice of subject in that work is a mistake, it was too little constant with the character, tastes and ideas of the gentle, retiring inexperienced writer." This act was the predominant cause of Anne's relegation to the back seat of the Bronte bandwagon."
How very evil. Though the suppression of works considered unbecoming of an author or family after the author's death is not unheard of, these occurence still seem remarkably cruel whenever I read about them. And although it is Wikipedia, they made it sound like Anne was more about realism and less about the romanticism that saturates the work of Charlotte and Emily. So perhaps Anne will be first in the list for a Bronte selection in the future. I will not choose to judge Charlotte personally based on this, just becase as I said that was certainly not an unheard of practice.
From looking over a few biographies of the family on Amazon, it seems that more than a few people like to consider Charlotte as the evil sister. Similarly, one sees just as many people condeming those that do, which leads to my other thought that evening as I perused the life and times of the Brontes. No one likes it when someone takes an author whose works are much-beloved and paints them as a monster. That would be like if I wrote soem "historical" fiction about Charles Dickens beating his wife and sleeping around the town with prostitutes, actresses, and the occasional chimney sweep.--it just wouldn't be well-received. Or perhaps Jane Austen as some bastard-bearing, constantly drunk harpy, who ran around Bath propositioning anything in trousers. No one takes kindly to that. I find this especially with some Victorian authors. Enough time has passed, and they have been read enough, that people consider them and their rosy coloured works to be sacred.
I am undecided about how people would take to Thomas Hardy "historical" fiction or perhaps... George Eliot or someone. This may, in fact, relate to the recent plethora of historical fiction that doesn't bother to involve their works, but rather involves the author his-or-herself.
So, the moral of the post is... watch out for reputation-obsessed relations who may not appreciate one's literary (and money-making) prowess as much as a lawyer or publisher. On the other hand, we the only-children know that there will never be assumptions made about our relationships with our siblings after we are dead.
I leave readers with the Brontes, from Emily to Anne (and Charlotte between).
