Fossil Hunter: How Mary Anning Changed the Science of Prehistoric Life: A Review

I received a free ARC of this book from NetGalley in exchange for a fair review.

Title: Fossil Hunter: How Mary Anning Changed the Science of Prehistoric Life
Author: Cheryl Blackford
Illustrators: Cover by Stephanie Son, interior illustrations and paleoart by Ellen Duda
Rating: 4/5

Mary Anning is the single most important paleontologist you’ve never heard of. She discovered the first Plesiosaurus, the body of the first Ichthyosaur, and the first pterosaur outside of Germany. She first identified the “bezoar” stones in the stomachs of fossils to be coprolites (fossilized feces) and figured out that Belemnoids, an extinct cephalopod, had ink sacs like its modern relatives. Her specimens are among the most prized possessions of the Natural History Museum in London. And she barely received any credit in her time and today is barely known.

Cheryl Blackford, herself a geologist, sets out to address this in her middle grade biography of Anning. The book begins with a prehistoric interlude with the doomed ichthyosaur that would someday be discovered by the Anning siblings, Joseph and Mary, followed by a chapter introducing Anning and her excavations-- from there, the biography is chronological. The biographical style is somewhat inconsistent. The introduction with the ichthyosaur and the first chapter, "Crocodile or Sea Monster?" show signs of wanting to be a narrative biography: "Thirteen-year-old Mary Anning had been hunting for an elusive treasure for months.”[1] This stands out because the rest of the book is a typical facts-only biography with no other narrative sections. This may be because the copy I read is an uncorrected proof, so this may change between now and its forthcoming publication in January, 2022. Despite this uneven opening, the rest of the book is well-organized by general era of Mary's life, and it's not cluttered by sidebars or unrelated images. 

Duria Antiquior, a more ancient Dorset, by Henry De la Beche, based on specimens discovered by Mary Anning[2]

Part of the fun for me is the inclusion of historical images. While I love paleontology in general, I find the early years of the science especially interesting. I'm fascinated with how people viewed prehistory before our modern understanding-- for example, when the Annings found their first ichthyosaur (a process that took a year, between 1811 and 1812), the only point of reference people had for the strange discovery was the crocodile. Because there were only limited specimens and research into these creatures was in its infancy, artistic reconstructions look a little goofy today, but I find them charming. Even more useful for the young reader learning about Anning are the exquisite sketches she made of her finds. It really gives the reader an impression of Anning’s dedication to her job. One thing I didn’t know was that, since she couldn’t afford books or journal subscriptions (an issue independent scholars still face to this day), she would painstakingly copy out whole articles by hand on whatever material available. Something about this particularly struck me. The paleoart by Ellen Duda in this book is very nice and serves to contextualize the fossils as living creatures well, but I was disappointed there were no illustrations of Anning’s era like on the cover. This I think is a similar issue to the inconsistent writing—the book feels like it doesn’t know what it wants to be.

These style issues aside, Fossil Hunter is a good, accessible introduction to the life and work of Mary Anning, and will hopefully influence young readers to learn more about the early years of paleontology, as well as about the woman who so often has been forgotten in discussions of this history.

---

[1]Blackford, Cheryl. “Chapter 1: Crocodile or Sea Monster.” In Fossil Hunter: How Mary Anning Changed the Science of Prehistoric Life, 3. Boston, New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, forthcoming. 

[2] Henry De la Beche. Duria Antiquior, a More Ancient Dorset. 1830. Watercolor. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Duria_Antiquior.jpg.

Persnickety Historian Review - Victoria ITV

ITV's Victoria wrapped up its second season here in the States a couple of weeks ago. It ended with some bombshells-- okay, the revelation of bombshells we the audience already knew about, only now to other characters. We get another heaping of sumptuous settings, pretty costumes, and the lovely Jenna Coleman. Joining the cast this season is Diana Rigg as the Duchess of Buccleuch, playing the same character she does on Game of Thrones, and adding a lot of old-lady sass and wisdom. I love this woman. So, does Victoria reign supreme? Why am I resorting to reviewer cliches? I'll answer one of those in this review, which is more about the series as a whole but most examples are from the recent season.

First, the show as just a show. Every historical drama now has to measure up to Downton Abbey, which, let's face it, isn't going to happen. Victoria definitely succeeds in the sheer gorgeousness of the setting and costuming, bringing to life the early Victorian period (when you think "Victorian," you're probably thinking of Sherlock Holmes era, some forty years after this show). It truly is some eye candy, especially when they visit locations outside of London. Unfortunately storywise, there isn't much to hold my attention.

To put it bluntly, Victoria fails to have the dramatic and emotional depth to be more than another period piece. It tries desperately for a fictional downstairs story, but it didn't leave much of an impression on me and I can't remember any of the servants' names, except for Mr. Penge (also, is it just me or does Buckingham have far too few servants?). The same goes for the upstairs-- even with the Queen I find it hard to become invested in the fictional plotlines. The trouble, I think, comes from there not being an overarching plot with a single goal in mind to connect episodes and make a meaningful season finale (think the "myth arc" vs. the "monster of the week" formula from The X-Files-- some episodes form a series-spanning plot, others are just one-offs). I was very excited to have Ada Lovelace and Isambard Kingdom Brunell guest star, but I felt like this was something special, rather than just other historical figures in a show about history.

Acting-wise, it's a bit hit-or-miss, especially considering historical portrayal. The first season was graced with Rufus Sewell, who is missed, and this season has the wonderful Diana Rigg, who's worth watching the show for alone. Jenna Coleman continues to be a sweet, energetic Queen, but she doesn't reflect Victoria's forceful personality in its more flawed sense. There never seems to be anything really negative from her, she's just a high-spirited monarch here, despite her historical serious temper and obstinateness. Granted, Queen Victoria was a remarkable figure and I'm not sure she ever truly could be fully emulated. Jenna is still enjoyable though, and I don't fault her too much, just the writing. On the other hand, Tom Hughes, Jenna's real-life boyfriend, is a boring and frustrating Albert. Like his portrayal of the Duke of Aumerle in The Hollow Crown version of Richard II (2012), he seems blank at best and sometimes zoned-out. His ongoing borderline power struggle with Victoria and the inaccurate portrayal of their relationship initially being testy rather than love-at-first-sight as it was historically leave them seeming to not be a good match.

Now for the history.

This show is frustrating. Daisy Goodwin, series creator and head writer brags about balancing history and fiction, but I don't think she's done that at all. Historical fiction can be an awesome genre when done well, but to make it so requires attention to detail and the understanding that history is exciting enough on its own and doesn't need embellishment. Goodwin alters things, saying "My rule is that I can change the odd date, move people around here and there, so long as I am faithful to the emotional truth of the characters."¹ She goes far beyond that-- she does everything from change the ages of figures, like the Duchess of Bucchleuch (who was actually in her thirties at the time) to creating whole new relationships, as with Alfred Paget and Edward Drummond, who weren't actually in one-- which was disappointing, since they were one of the best parts of the season. The decision to include queer characters was great, if only Goodwin had invented them, or better yet found some in history rather than making up a relationship.

Rather unsurprisingly, some things are made a little more positive or palatable to modern viewers, like the episode on An Gorta Mór--  the Irish Famine. Queen Victoria is portrayed as caring a lot about Ireland, whereas in history she wasn't all that concerned-- she certainly isn't appreciated in Irish history, being called "The Famine Queen." However inaccurate the portrayal is, I do see something good came out of the episode as a whole. British viewers were shocked at the depiction of the Famine, having not been taught much about it.²  This is called a difficult encounter in public history, and it forces us to face something we don't want to think about, and I have to praise the show for doing that, even if Victoria's reaction is sanitized (which is still an issue).

I was, however, surprised to find out that some of the stuff that sounded made-up to me (my specialty isn't this period so I've been doing a lot of fact checking) actually do have basis in fact, like the rumor that Albert is actually a bastard, which did exist. In the show, Uncle Leopold claims he believes he is actually Albert's father. This particular paternity claim, made by David Duff (1972) is iffy at best, but works for the show since Uncle Leopold continues to be the Cigarette Smoking Man of the series. On a more verifiable front, this was the first time I'd heard of Sarah Forbes Bonetta, and I learned more about her after looking her up. That's part of the fun of good historical media, learning about the real thing and maybe being introduced to something new in the process.

Victoria isn't perfect, though it has promise. It's held back by its lack of narrative direction, and more seriously it's marred by Goodwin freely admitting she makes things up but still remains true to the history, not to mention inaccurate portrayals of some serious things, like the Queen's reaction to the Famine. However, it's had some great non-political figures appear, like Ada Lovelace, and it's been the first exposure many people have had to some of the period's more difficult topics. It also has prompted me to research more of this period, if just to know the background. Goodwin says season 3 will explore more "sexual tension" between Victoria and Albert, which I can only guess means Tom Hughes will learn to make some facial expressions, but if it means that there will be a more accurate portrayal of this love story, that'd be worth it. Let's just hope Goodwin, who's based the show more or less off of Victoria's copious personal diaries, will let her subject herself tell the story more in the future.

¹ Daisy Goodwin, "Victoria writer Daisy Goodwin: how I struck a balance between drama and historical accuracy," RadioTimes, accessed March 6, 2018, http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2018-03-03/victoria-season-2-finale-itv/.

2“British TV viewers shocked by Famine scenes in Victoria,” Raidió Teilifís Éireann, accessed March 8, 2018, https://www.rte.ie/entertainment/2017/1003/909290-british-tv-viewers-shocked-by-famine-scenes-in-victoria/.