I've finally gotten around to reading The Ladies of Missalonghi, by Colleen McCullough, which is widely reputed to be just an Australianized version of my favorite of L.M. Montgomery's books, The Blue Castle (henceforth Ladies and TBC) and I'd have to say that in large part I'd agree with that assessment.
It's true that many of the items the two stories have in common are standard plot devices, some straight out of those penny dreadful romances Missy in Ladies loved: the three maiden women living together, the character who doesn't fit in to a talented or prominent family, the marriage in which one or both people don't fall in love until after they're married (a feature in roughly every other Harlequin-type romance, I think, because it so conveniently legitimizes the sex). But there are so many little correspondances that I don't think they can all be coincidence. Three examples are the heroines of both books both being forced to eat the oatmeal they loathe every morning; the comment, in the exact same words, about how Alicia / Olive "keep all their goods in the shop window", and Barney's / John Smith's always having wanted to own an entire island / valley.
This bewilders me, because if I were reusing a plot so closely, those small details would be exactly the sort of things I would be sure to change. It's been pointed out to me that oatmeal every morning was a common thing in the Scots heritage widespread in both Canada and Australia, and that the "goods in the shop window" phrase wasn't uncommon in the period of both books (1920s-1930s). However, the "shop window" comment is used so much in the same context that I have a hard time believing that. Another possible explanation that has occurred to me is that possibly reusing some of those details may have given McCullough a chance to talk back to LMM, through the device of Una. ("And do you know what happens to goods when you keep them in the window, darling? They fade!") I've certainly had the experience of wanting to talk back to an author and can imagine McCullough might have had a lot of fun with this. It also let her give a strong opinion on the "Did they or didn't they?" perennial quation about Valancy and Barney Snaith. Missy and John Smith emphatically did. (Though I never could imagine why anyone would think Valancy and Barney didn't. She loved him, they were married, and they slept in the same bed. How not? Some LMM fans are a bit too determinedly pure sometimes.)
There are plenty of unique bits in Ladies; the number of other books on the shelf by McCullough shows she has no need to borrow ideas to fill out a book. (I didn't know she'd written about Caesar until I went looking for Ladies. Una is at least an interesting plot device, though she strikes me as a bit odd, and I absolutely fell in love with Missy's mother Drusilla, as her character unfolds through the book. Ladies has a much more explicit feminist message than TBC. In the latter the women in Valancy's family are as unpleasant as the men. In Ladies, the men are uniformly obnoxious, but only some of the women are. I enjoyed the BlueMountains setting (I've been there!) and the
irrepressible Australian bawdiness - everything from Una's comment that Uncle James would probably rather have someone else bite his bum, preferably someone masculine, to John Smith's question when Missy visits the lavatory: "Long visit or short?"
I don't think Ladies has the heart TBC does. TBC can really be viewed as the emergence of truth from a tissue of conventional lies. When I peeked ahead at the ending, it looked like the marriage in Ladies was based on a lie, which I thought it would really poison the book for me. It's not exactly, though; it's just begun on a lie. Still, the lie is never cleared up and John Smith makes it clear that a woman's untruthfulness is one of the unforgiveable sins to him, so that though the book isn't exactly ruined, it's certainly diminished. Missy is nice enough but not as enchanting as Valancy -- Valancy is really a lady, a term not too old-fashioned for Montgomery's characters. While she might try to get her own back at Cousin Olive, she doesn't ever do anything untrue to herself. When Valancy rebels, her first act after leaving a family party early with a few well-chosen words, is to perform an act of kindness, moving in to stay with dying Cissy Gay. When Missy rebels, after leaving a family party early with a few well-chosen words, her first act is to return a dress Alicia had handed down with disdain, after festooning it with cow and pig muck. Valancy falls in love with Barney after getting to know him well at Abel Gay's. Missy falls in love with her idea of John Smith after three brief meetings and a few words.
Ladies isn't quite cotton candy; it's too good for that. But it's not the nourishing comfort food TBC is, either.
Good analysis! I read these both accidentally within the same year when I was about 13 or 14. I never considered that McCullough may have been talking back to Montgomery, but somehow find that more reassuring!
Posted by: Mer at May 16, 2004 08:46 PMDude, people thought Valancy and Barney didn't have sex??? WHY??? I mean, married. Mar-ried. She didn't ask to be his housekeeper, for heaven's sake.
Posted by: Mris at May 17, 2004 03:20 PMThis has long puzzled me, as I've read and enjoyed both books. I find them different enough to be regarded as separate, but it seems to me that the likenesses could be--not coincidence--somewhat accidental. I know I wrote two books (a children's and a YA) and it wasn't until I reread them both some time after publication that I realised each had a character who painted her dreams! (In AURORA it was an alien teenager, in TAKING A CHANCE the hero's mother.)If I can accidentally duplicate something like this in my books, I can't see why Colleen McCullough shouldn't have done the same thing, albeit with someone else's book.
Posted by: Sallyo at October 27, 2004 07:24 AMWell done - nice analysis. I'm not up on the copyright laws of the late 19th or early 20th century, but the farther back one goes in history, the less 'plagarism' is considered a sin. Partially this is due to the impossibility of enforcing your rights two continents (or more!) away, but also because of the much smaller body of literature available. There was no way to hide your theft from another's work - because everyone who read, read everything. So 'stealing' was usually considered 'tribute', and much like great artists start out by copying the works of the masters, great authors started the same way.
I do like the idea of Colleen McCullough having a literary conversation with LMM... ^_^ I wonder - has anyone every seen any articles or interviews from either one of them on this issue?
Great review! I recently finished reading both TBC and Ladies and I too thought that it was rather obvious of McCullough to use the same overall theme and development of the plot as Montgomery. It actaully made me upset!
Posted by: Relle at April 25, 2005 04:08 PMFrom what I've heard and read, "Ladies" was an act of unintentional plagiarism, though plagiarism it certainly is. McCullough read the book as a child, and had more or less forgotten about it, although plainly it remained with her on an unconcious level. I remember that after "Ladies" was published I saw a news story on the resulting controversy in which McCullough heatedly denied deliberately plagiarising the book. I do believe she's telling the truth on that - no one would try to rip off so well-known a book.
Posted by: Orange Swan at August 8, 2005 09:34 AMI read The Blue Castle first and loved it. The similarity of the two books was brought to my attention by a niece. When I read Ladies -- I couldn't believe my eyes. My first thought was where did she get her ideas for her other books --- maybe somewhere way back in history. Just change the setting to Australia...TBC was far superior to Ladies. I can't believe an author would stoop so low.
Posted by: Marilynn Delin at October 26, 2005 05:01 PMYes, this was an excellent review. My mother and I were talking about this just this morning, in fact. She was saying that TBC was her favorite LMM book, and I told her that I just didn't like how close TBC and Ladies were. I'm checking it out from the library soon, and I'm going to reread TBC to see how much different they are.
Posted by: Wren at June 8, 2006 03:46 PM