This is a continuation of last month’s post, talking with Prairie Rose authors C. A. Asbrey, Mary Sheeran, and myself about our unconventional heroines.
Christine: Definitely. I’ve had people tell me time and time again that there were no female Pinkertons in the 19th century, or tell me that there was only one – Kate Warne. On the whole though, readers have been very positive about finding out that these women not only existed, but were skilled and brave. I have to be realistic about the fact that I deliberately chose a role most people didn’t know existed at that time though, or that Abigail’s success was predicated on the element of surprise. Once the readers accept the idea that female Pinkertons existed, most of the disbelief centers around the fact that they were disbanded as soon as Alan Pinkerton died, despite being very successful. That single piece of information speaks to the sexism of the time far more that surprise at their existence at all.
One thing I think has surprised people is the forensics of
the time, and that the detectives had to perform their own tests. Many readers
have commented on enjoying the characters’ hands-on approach to the
investigation, and the details of the tests themselves. I also enjoy introducing readers to the spy
techniques, and gadgets used in the 19th century, especially those
which were invented much earlier than people think. Many of the readers have no
idea about this early technology, and it’s novel to them to see it in use. Readers
tell me that they enjoy seeing the nuts and bolts of the investigative
techniques, and that there were more skills around in the 19th
century than they were previously aware of.
Cate: Yes, I always have to explain that there actually
were women lawyers in the United States in the 19th century, which
is much earlier than people generally imagine.
Arabella Mansfield of Iowa was admitted to the bar in 1869, and over the
next three decades, there was a cascade effect throughout the various states
and territories. I used to show my students the concurrence
from the 1872 U.S. Supreme Court case, Bradwell
v. Illinois, in which Mrs. Myra
Bradwell was denied admission to her state bar on the “separate spheres”
argument that women belonged in the home.
Illinois changed its law a few years later, to specifically allow women
attorneys. Also, Mrs. Bradwell’s sponsor
for bar admission was her husband, who clearly wasn’t buying the whole separate
spheres thing.
Mary: I
haven't had to explain anything to readers - I haven't been able to meet with
any! There are reviews up from people I don't know, and from what they've
written, they like her as a pioneer in her field and for being a strong woman.
They give her more credit for her independence than I think I do.
Cate: Anna and I
have some things in common – she reads many of the books I read over the course
of my PhD in 19th century literature – but we’re very
different. I went to law school out of a
misguided sense of practicality, and hated it.
I graduated in 1988 and lasted in practice for three years, then started
planning to return to graduate school. My
law school class was about half women, but there were still barriers in the
profession. At least in the larger big
city law firms, women are hired in significant numbers, but make partner far less frequently than men do.
Anna, on the other hand, loves being a lawyer. Perhaps writing her is wish fulfillment, or
it’s working through my own personal shortcomings? She’s willing to put in the hours, she has no
problem with balancing courtroom aggression with a ladylike demeanor, and she
never backs down. Maybe not even when
she should. Working with her father, she
learned how honorable the profession could be, but also its problems. Anna learned how to make hard choices, which
serves her in good stead over the course of the story. And her chief rival, Nick Powell, has taught
her to hone her verbal sparring skills.
Because she practices in a small town where she knows everyone, many of
her cases are very personal to her, and she thinks of what she does as helping
people. She puts her idealism into
action, especially in representing people who wouldn’t be able to afford her,
but whose situations seem important to her.
Her work with several of the Native nations is important to her, as
well. But she takes on commercial
clients, as well, in order to pay the bills.
Mary: Aside
from studying piano for two years with Miss Winkler? I keep intending to study
piano again. When the quarantine started, I bought a keyboard and I've played
around on it a bit, but mostly, it's gathering dust.
I have mostly lived in the 19th century's music. I took some time with 20th century music with some recitals, and I was doing cabaret shows with the Great American Songbook, but I've mostly sung 19th century music - operas, recitals, music hall tunes - and listened to 19th century music almost all the time. I started listening to the piano repertory years ago when I was working on my first book, Who Have the Power. Here's the thing. I sing. Why don't my heroines sing? I love listening to the piano and sing along, maybe that's it?
I think I do carry my singing into my approach to Elisabeth's playing. I have to absorb the music to understand how she feels about it and what her approach would be. I listen to pianists - I watch them on Youtube - what a great tool that is. I look at scores and read about keyboard music - approaches to different composers. And there's a lovely book by a young woman who in the 1870s went to Europe to study with Liszt and others - the very charming Amy Fay. That contemporary historian of 19th century pianists wrote condescendingly about her, and one doesn't know if she was good or no, but from what I can read between the lines in her memoir, she was quite good and also lots of fun. Unlike Elisabeth, no one was out to kill Amy Fay, though, so she could have plenty of fun.
Christine: I’m not the first to write a female Pinkerton Detective by a long way, but I am the first, as far as I know, to have done a similar job, and to be one of the first generation of women to do exactly the same job as the men, and for the same rate of pay. Prior to the Equal Pay act in the UK, female officers did not perform the same job, or work the same shifts as the men. They were used in family matters, sexual offences, and in dealing with female offenders. The move to full equality caused pushback, and sexism, at all levels, and that gave me a personal insight into how these women must have been received, not to mention personal experience of the mindset required to persevere in that atmosphere, and I bring that to the characters I write.
I think the time period must have heightened that kickback,
and research from the time does reveal complaints from male agents, as well as
from the wives of agents. There is no question that the female agents would
have been exposed to that. Victorian society was very unforgiving to women who
stepped outside their expected roles. The women did not just drift in to look
pretty and act as a courier to help a love-interest/family member as I had seen
them represented. Their zeal for the work was vocational in its own right, and
they were determined to justify the faith placed in them. I was unable to find any documentation on
how they handled that. However, I was able to bring my personal experience to
bear, and some of the most sexist moments in the books are based on things which
actually happened to me. There isn’t much and I didn’t want to dwell on that,
but to concentrate on the plot.
I did do research into the S.O.E. agents, the female spies
who went undercover into occupied Europe during WW2, as theirs was also an
example of historical undercover work. They echoed the Pinkerton women in many
ways. They also capitalized on the sexism of their opponents who underestimated
the abilities of women. It challenged traditional images of the protectors and
the protected, in the same way as the female Pinkertons did. Their dedication,
and willingness to work alone, was observed in the same way as Pinkerton had
almost eighty years before, and made the male and female agents equals in the
field. They also owned, and used, their femininity as an advantage in their
role – something which was not permitted in the social norms of the 19th
century, or by working women in the 20th century.
Unsurprisingly, I found a lot of parallels between the way a
woman’s character, or perceived lack of it, impacted on her more than their
male counterparts. Female agents, and early female police officers, were
expected to be above, whilst simultaneously tolerating, bawdy, risqué, and
crude behavior in a way which men were not. There was more speculation on their
sex lives, or lack of it, than on any of the men.
I think a first-hand understanding of a world very similar to theirs has allowed to me to capture the line they negotiated every day, and the personality-type who can live there. And, yes, I think that the observation on their dedication was correct, as they had to work harder, overcome more obstacles, and be better qualified than their male counterparts just to get there at all.
If you haven't yet read Courting Anna, A Dangerous Liberty, or The Innocents Mystery Series, there's no time like the present! I've love to continue the conversation with other Prairie Rose authors about their unconventional heroines -- leave a comment below and let's talk.
Connect with Cate:
Website & Blog: https://www.catesimon.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/catesimonbooks/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/cate_simon_books/
Twitter: @CateSimon3
Goodreads: https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/19389877.Cate_Simon
To Buy:
Love these interviews. Doris
ReplyDeleteIt was so much fun doing them -- I love to hear about what other people are thinking about their own writing!
DeleteIt's really interesting to see the parallels, as well as the differences, between these strong female characters. One thing they all have in common, in fiction and in real life, is a strong, forward-thinking man supporting them.
ReplyDeleteWhich is what I hated about the conclusion of the TV version of The Alienist: Angel of Darkness. It doesn't have to be an either-or. Women have choices.
ReplyDeleteAgreed, Cate. I like strong partnerships between women and men in romance
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely. I know things have changed a lot, and that's why women who are historical outliers appeal to us now -- but also, history shows us that they always existed, which suggests that the stories we were being told weren't the whole thing.
Delete