Gaynor Arnold

I had high hopes for this book as it was a choice of our book club, and usually there is something of value in the titles we pick. However, within a few pages I realized that Girl in a Blue Dress was dull, repetitive, and crammed with the most clumsy exposition, and after struggling to about page 20 I decided to see if I could skim my way through the rest. But I gave that up at page 70, resenting the time this effort was taking away from my reading of the magnificent fourth volume of Robert show more Caro’s biography of LBJ, The Passage of Power. What on earth was the purpose of writing Girl in a Blue Dress? Why would one “take a novelist’s liberties” with a novel “inspired by the life and marriage of Charles Dickens”? Why change Dickens’ and his wife’s names? Why change so much that a reader will have no idea what is real biography and what is made up? Why not write a real nonfiction biography, if the subject interests you so much? For that matter, as a novelist, why not create your own characters and plot? This lackluster middle ground between fiction and biography was a chore to enter and a relief to abandon. show less

In regards to the expression: “no one knows what goes on behind closed doors” Ms Arnold has done a fine job expounding just such in her debut novel Girl in a Blue Dress. Ostensibly ‘inspired’ by the personal life of Charles Dickens and, more pertinently, his wife Catherine, and though filled with entirely fictional characters and events, this supplies the foundation for the main interest in this tale for me, and most likely many other readers. And on the whole it works very well - at show more the least imparting a well-written, at times punchy, depiction of Victorian England and the mores of Dickensian times.

This is the narrative of Dorothea Gibson: her romance, marriage and subsequent separation from Alfred Gibson – a successful and inexhaustible writer who achieved much renown and eminence in his lifetime. But as always with celebrity, there is often a disparity between the public and private persona – the latter (read family) habitually falling victim to the demands of the former! Beginning with the funeral of this luminary attended by throngs of His Public, yet to which his wife was not invited, his very death seems to act as a catalyst to this reclusive woman, unleashing a litany of memories and instigating a rash of actions considerably opposite to the last ten years of her existence. Dodo, at first, is thrust out of seclusion with a summons from the queen; but as she remembers, and thus recreates her past for the reader, she is emboldened to question, not only her actions, but that of her illustrious husband, her sisters and her many children - their life together, their family domesticity and the issues which tore their lives apart.

Whether this fascinating chronicle reveals actualities of the Dickens family life, my ignorance cannot confirm nor deny. But I do believe the veracity of the era the author invokes; especially in regard to the status of men and women within the strictures of the society of those times. There are parts of this chronicle which mesmerize in their ability to recreate the Dicken's quality: the tone, the wit, the satire amongst the deep inequality, so aptly expressed in novels written by Charles Dickens. Ms Arnold has captured it sublimely! I adored the clever play of capital letters, used so appropriately and fittingly throughout the text. And yet, despite this being an enjoyable and sustainable read, I was most frustrated by all of the characters; in fact, at times, I felt a strong dislike – and though they played truly to their make-up I can’t help but wonder why Dodo could only find some backbone after her husband had died, in spite of ten years separation. Perhaps the point the author meant to engender! Plus the alacrity and success of Dodo’s reversal of circumstance also deflected from the overall credence of the story, to my mind.

Quibbles aside, this book was an easy, entertaining interlude; and as a friend of mine, DubaiReader, commented: “I had no idea Dickens was such a character!” For someone with no prior notion, or education, this was eye-opening in its interpretation of a man who wrote so many masterpieces of literature, in which he debunked many facets of ‘civilised’ society, but seemingly did not adhere to these principles, in relation to his wife. With Girl in a Blue Dress Ms Arnold has indeed given a voice to Catherine Dickens; if somewhat imperfect in timbre at times – a voice nonetheless!

(Feb 19, 2010) show less

The thinly-disguised story of Catherine Dickens, wife of the famous author, is at the heart of this unpretentious, unassuming story.

The celebrated author Alfred Gibbons has died, leaving England in mourning. His estranged wife, Dorothy (or “Dodo”) sits at home as the funeral and reading of the will take place. As she sits, she looks back on her twenty-year-plus marriage to “the One and Only,” and “The Great Original.” An invitation to visit Queen Victoria, as well to her sister show more Sissy and the actress Wilhelmina Rickets, leads to another series of reflections on her marriage.

It’s a quiet novel, simple yet complicated in many ways. There’s not much action, certainly not in the present day, but there’s a certain gentleness of language that makes this book compellingly readable. Dodo, despite her shy, retiring ways, is a likeable heroine, strong in the ways a “typical” Victorian woman wasn’t supposed to be. In addition, I enjoyed the way the characters interacted with one another: Dodo’s daughter Kitty, the son-in-law who is obsessed with money; but most of all, Alfred Gibson himself: control freak, obsessed with keeping poverty at bay (even when he was in his most successful period), and eagerness to change the truth when it suits him. I get the feeling that Gibson isn’t supposed to be likeable, but he’s charismatic enough that the people around him tend to overlook his flaws. The only one who realizes who Gibson really was is, ironically, Dodo.

To the modern reader, Victorian England is a strange place—all those customs regarding mourning are simply mind-boggling. Dorothy’s world is one that’s strictly defined by traditions and conventions, and Dodo’s story is that of a woman who isn’t afraid to bend the rules a bit. In all, an excellent novel, worthy of having been longlisted for the Booker Prize. show less

I liked this book better than I thought I would going in. I knew nothing of the story of Charles Dickens' marriage to Catherine, so I found the story interesting and surprising. It provided a good portrait of marriage in the Victorian era, particularly one so public, as Dickens was well-known throughout their marriage. To me the most compelling part of the story was the way we peeked into the minds of both main characters and began understanding the marriage from each of their perspectives. show more It seems that the marriage was doomed to fail with so many factors working against them - Dickens' harsh, insecure childhood; Dodo's privileged background which was so different; too many children; a famous husband who called himself ' The One and Only' and who felt his duties to the public; a husband continually searching for a younger partner; most importantly, a lack of real knowledge of each other at the time of their marriage. I also found Dodo's adulation of her husband believable (considering who he was and given the era), but quite tragic. I think the flashback style works well. The book makes me want to go read a biography of Dickens. Well done. show less