Carioca1970

Carioca1970 t1_jb58k80 wrote

It makes the whole story even more interesting because as a 31-year-old childless spinster in the early 1800s it's hard to conceive how she could have been such a difficult catch so to speak. Regardless of her looks. As a woman she would have had no real status and she didn't come with a list of businesses that she was running for example. There's no denying her extraordinary curriculum after they got married but she didn't have that when he pursued her. Their exchanges when they first met had to be off the charts and my, would I have loved to be a fly on the wall there

3

Carioca1970 t1_jb51be7 wrote

No, it's good. I reread the article and realized my mistake. It says she had been a widower since the age of 19 and I glossed over that detail and computed he married her as a 19 year old widower in 1819. So in fact she was actually 2 years older than he was and died at the age of 98 after such an amazing life. Just incredible. Thanks for the link by the way.

7

Carioca1970 t1_jb4ugsr wrote

Unless she came from a particularly influential family, it likely means she was an exceptionally attractive woman. He was 10 years older than she was and means he and she were still going at it at ages 50 and 60 after being together more than 30 years and siring 5 children. She must have been an extraordinary woman.

12

Carioca1970 t1_j6duxpf wrote

I read it when it came out and at first I was bewildered, "Where is all the big magic and high fantasy?" But I was so impressed at how she wrote so beautifully, such a compelling take. Even quiet, nothing is happening scenes, such as cleaning, had a lyrical beauty I could not deny. I dropped my expectation bias then, when this epiphany hit me about half way, and decided it might not be my favorite book by her, but it was definitely the most beautifully written of all of them. Here was a master of her craft coming into her own. Confident, unworried, with breathtaking skill.

11