Susan Rivers (1)

First, I LOVE the name Placidia. It stands on its own as a signal, a beacon of a different time, and it almost evokes a sense of place. Fascinating too, is that this book is based on true events. I admire Rivers' ability to track this story given the construct. (I think my head would have exploded) She takes care with each character's role, and as I read, I imagined a stage where each one spoke their part, giving hints and details on what they knew about the dramatic event that captivated and horrified all who knew - or thought they knew - Placidia's story.

One of the most commendable aspects of the narrative is the way Susan Rivers has captured the essence of voices from the past. I have a couple of Civil War diaries and she has written this book (in epistolary form) with the unique lilt and cadence of language at that time. It makes me wonder - if in one hundred and fifty years, we can sound so different, what will our language be one hundred years plus from now?

Another is the tension she creates as the reader gleans a tiny bit more knowledge of the facts with each letter written, each diary entry, and each inquest. Even while a reader might begin to suspect that the accusations ARE suspect, Rivers confidently, and capably delivers the conclusion at exactly the right time.

Highly recommend for those who like reading books set during the Civil War, and written in epistolary form.
… (mehr)

The time period of this book is a difficult one to write in, and I just think this book glosses over so much. Placidia is presented as a good person who treats her slaves fairly....but she also owns slaves and thinks not much about the disconnect between wanting her own freedom to build a life with her husband and the fact that she literally owns people. There is no way to treat a slave fairly - it is a complete contradiction in words. Clearly, this isn't something the author wants to focus on, instead primarily leaning on the slowly (too slowly, frankly) unraveled mystery of Placidia's dead child, but you can't set a book in this time period without dealing with the actual horrors of the time. The big reveal of how the child died is another slap in the face, mostly because it is so unnecessary. The death could have been left ambiguous. It could have been clearly natural from the events that were going on. It could even have been clarified as murder by Placidia herself, or death from neglect, or any number of other things. Instead, it is murder by the enslaved woman working in Placidia's home. Really? I finished this book but wish I hadn't. There's much better stuff our there.… (mehr)

Decently researched as far as battles, clothes, foods, chores and interesting if unnecessarily complicated.
The main character is an extremely romanticized view of a southern white woman who participated in the chattel slave trade. In fact was born and raised and married in it but seems to hold no prejudiced views towards her 'servants'.
When a white author is too fragile to accurately label chattel slaves they should take that as a clue and choose a new subject.
Benevolent chattel slave owners only exist in the imagination of racist white folks. Every single person who participated in any aspect of the chattel slave trade was a bad person who's character is irredeemably scarred. The main character is not realistic to her time and class but is sanitized so modern audiences can sympathize with her.
I don't.
I don't care about her or her husband's pain. It is just that they suffered and I sincerely hope their existence was forever haunted.
None of the black characters are developed or have story lines outside of their usefulness to the main white characters.
I've read a fair bit of non fiction about southern women before and during the Civil War; black free, enslaved and white chattel slave oppressing, none of the views expressed or behaviors match the diaries or letters written at that time. Mrs Hockaday does not feel like her contemporaries and her differences are never explained.
White women left on plantations and farms with enslaved peoples had very negative and fearful views of those enslaved peoples the longer the war carried out. They were very angry with them for leaving, fearful of their desire for freedom and many white women took it very personally. Also they were terrified of armed black union troops. As white slave 'owners' felt entitled enough to black folks labor to steal it for centuries, why would the Civil War and it's trials change that?
We all know it did not.
Miscegenation is invented as a word and becomes illegal in 1864. Post Civil War the KKK is created. If southern whites suddenly realized their 'slaves' were people, why did we have and continue to have racial segregation and lynching? Both attest to southern white anxiety resulting in terrorist behaviors carried out on fellow citizens.
This narrative is just grossly apologist in nature.… (mehr)