Janet Lee, The killing of Louisa (#BookReview)

Book coverI started reading Janet Lee’s historical fiction The killing of Louisa straight after reading Amor Towles’ A gentleman in Moscow (my review), which is also a work of historical fiction. They couldn’t be more different. Not only is one about a real historical figure in late 19th century Australia, while the other is about a fictional one in 20th century Bolshevik Russia, but one is told first person present tense, while the other is third person past tense.

Now, when first person present tense started appearing on the contemporary literary scene as the style-du-jour, I rather liked it. I liked its freshness, and the sense it gave of speaking directly to me. But then it started to wear a bit thin. This is not to say that I don’t like it – ever – just that it can be overused and not necessarily add to the experience. I loved the measured, sometimes wry, third person voice in Towles’ novel. It suited a book that seemed to be critiquing both human nature and an historical period. Did the first person voice suit Lee’s novel?

Well, let’s see. The novel is about Louisa Collins who, in 1889, was the last woman to be hanged in New South Wales. Her story is a horrifying one: she was tried four times for murder, with the fourth trial convicting her after the three previous ones failed to come to a decision. There’s more to it though, in that the first two were for the murder, by poison, of her second husband. When the juries could not agree, she was charged with the murder, also by poison, of her first husband. When that too failed, they returned to the first husband, and finally a guilty verdict was achieved, largely using the testimony of Louisa’s 11-year-old daughter May who admitted to seeing a box of “Rough on Rats” in the kitchen. The novel tells this story from Louisa’s point of view.

Formally, the story takes place over six weeks, from 26 November 1888, when she is in gaol waiting for her fourth trail, to 8 January 1889, when she is executed. However, of course, we want to know the full story of Louisa’s life and how she got to be where she was. Lee does this by having her tell her story to the prison chaplain, Canon Rich, while she awaits her execution.

It’s a moving story – of course. Born to a poor family in a country town, Louisa, when still a young teen, is found a job in the home of a lawyer by, it seems, the mother of a wealthy young man who fears her son is becoming too close to the girl. Louisa’s employer is good to her, and she’s happy, but at the age of 18, she is married her off to a man around 15 years her senior whom she barely knows. Charles is a butcher with his own business, and they both work hard, but, more through bad luck than bad management, the family, which seemed to be making a go of it, ends up living in Sydney, and poor. They take in boarders to supplement their income. It’s a world, of course, where women had no rights and little power, though Louisa does stand up for herself within her marriage, exerting a right to wrest some enjoyment out of her life. Things, however, become complicated when the flashy, confident Michael appears on the scene.

All, or most of, this Louisa tells Rich, with a fair degree of self-knowledge about her own failings but also with some insights into human nature (such as how recollections can change!) and how the world works. On her mistress spending years in mourning for a dead baby, Louisa says to Rich:

But the Missus had become like this because she was allowed to dwell upon her sadness for so long. Sometimes folk who suffer a tragedy can pick themselves up and dust themselves off and keep going on through life, and it is often the poorer ones who do this because they don’t have the luxury to stop and mourn […]

Mourning and feeling feeble is a luxury, and it is my observation that only the rich have that luxury, sir.

Louisa is not speaking from theory here; she has learnt the truth through her own experiences of loss.

However, hers a tricky story to tell, because, ultimately, we don’t know whether she was guilty or not, and Lee is not about producing a work of romantic fiction. So, she needs to tread a fine line. Using the primary resources available to her which comprise some letters, court and parliamentary records, and newspaper reports, she tells Louisa’s story.

And Louisa’s story is worth telling for several reasons. First, there’s that reason why many of us enjoy historical fiction, which is to learn, to feel, the social history of a period. Louisa’s first person voice conveys perfectly the lives of poor working women of the time – the hard work, the dust and grime, the worry, the powerlessness. She also conveys her increasing awareness of the need for representation for women in parliament. Knowing where we’ve come from and why we should do all we can not to go back there is a good reason for reading books like this.

But, unfortunately, the book also reminds us of how far we still have to go. One of the features of Louisa’s case is that old story of women being tried by society and the media for not behaving with the propriety expected of them. Louisa likes to have a good time, so she would dance and drink when an opportunity arose, and she argues for her right to do so. Worse though, she appears “cold” after the deaths of her husbands. She doesn’t wear mourning and she doesn’t cry and wring her hands. Heard that before? (Australians will immediately recall the Lindy Chamberlain case.) Louisa’s awareness of this issue is supported in the text by well-placed excerpts from primary sources, such as the snide remark in Parliament, comprising all men of course, about her “method of procuring divorce by means of arsenic”. The problem is that, still, even after Lindy Chamberlain, things haven’t changed, or not changed enough … we still have trial-by-media and women are still excoriated for not behaving in a so-called “womanly” way.

Janet Lee’s is not the first book about Louisa Collins. In 2014, journalist Caroline Overington published her history, Last woman hanged, after researching the case for some years. I haven’t read that, but I understand that she too presents an “open” story, that is, one that leaves it to the reader to consider the rights and wrongs of the case. And that, I think, is the right way to handle this story. What is wrong, though, is capital punishment! It is wrong for so many reasons, but one of the greatest of these is the risk of executing innocent people.

But now back to my original question regarding voice. As I started The killing of Louisa, I felt I wanted a third person omniscient voice telling this story. I wanted a considered voice giving me the pros and cons of the case. However, as I read on, I became engaged by Louisa’s voice, particularly by the tone Lee achieves which, while containing an element of sorrow and self-pity, is neither pathetic nor whiny. By adding excerpts from the sources, Lee provides some of that overview I wanted.

The killing of Louisa, then, is not only an engrossing story about a shameful case from the past, but one that intelligently grapples with the challenges of presenting such a case through historical fiction.

AWW Challenge 2019 BadgeJanet Lee
The killing of Louisa
St Lucia: UQP, 2018
ISBN: 9780702260223

(Review copy courtesy UQP)

8 thoughts on “Janet Lee, The killing of Louisa (#BookReview)

  1. I’m horrified to learn about the multiple trials of this woman, and twice for the same crime. Obviously ‘Double Jeopardy’ laws were not in place at that time. I haven’t read this book yet but will add to my TBR list.

    • Thanks Denise – it’s well worth a read. However, I think Double Jeopardy technically didn’t apply because I gather they were hung juries, so it was one mistrial (I suppose) after another. But still, you would think that, logically, if so many juries had not been able to find her guilty they should have dropped the case, and they certainly should not have executed her given such obvious doubt?

  2. Hello Sue, this is the perfect moment to tell you that Fiona Kidman’s This Mortal Boy won the Ockham NZ Book Awards. It is, in a way, about the same topic, that is, a fictionalised retelling of a murder trial which resulted in the 1950s hanging of a young man – and it’s told in the 3rd person voice you discuss.

    Kidman’s novel (https://anzlitlovers.com/2019/03/28/this-mortal-boy-by-fiona-kidman/) shows the value of that narrative voice. It maintains that distance and objectivity, but it also shows the impact on other people that a first person narrative can’t.

    OTOH I think you’ve read Eleanor Limprecht’s Long Bay as I have? I think that was narrated in first person too?

    • Oh yes, I remember that post of yours, Lisa. I think I commented on it. And yes, you’re right, Long Bay was told first person too. I do think there’s an interesting question here in the choice of voice. The first person voice, particularly for a real person from a different place and/or period, must be challenging to write. Overall, I realise that I love the third person – because it can add multiple perspectives, including the author’s (probably the Janeite in me!) but a first person voice can be very moving.

  3. Terrific review. I usually hand mixed feelings about historical fiction involving real life characters. The mix of real life history and fiction, no matter how well researched, makes me a little uncomfortable. With that, I recognize that worthy and even great works of this type exist. This one does sound very good for all sorts of reasons.. I would probably want to read the non fiction book first.

    • They are tricky, I agree Brian. I tended not to read them either once upon a time! But then books like Wolf Hall appear and you realise that you should never say never!!

  4. I enjoyed your discussion of voice, not something I generally consider. “Pick yourself up, dust yourself off” struck an odd note – it’s from a Jerome Kern song written for a 1936 Fred Astaire movie. But of course may have been a cliche before then. Maybe.

    • Yes, I certainly thought of that song too, Bill, when I read that too Bill, but decided to let it go through to the keeper. It’s one that an editor could probably have discussed.

      Anyhow, your raising it got me intrigued so I decided to do a little research. It took a while, and I may not have found its true origin, but the Dictionary of Modern Proverbs has the fist usage in 1915 from a Walter Weyl, then a 1922 version , a 1932 one, then 1934, to that song in 1936. All expressed a little differently after the “dust yourself off” bit but all meaning the same thing. So, still possibly anachronistic, but I’d cut some slack, given all these references? BTW The 1922 version goes “this morning’s sunshine must shake off the power of last night’s sundown. Pick yourself up and dust yourself off after you have been flung”. The 1934 one ends “and walk along with Life”. Gorgeous, aren’t they?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s