this book is certainly unrateable and possibly unethical. really juggling my feelings on this, because it made me question the whole nature of biographies and fandom altogether. it is the purest labor of love I have ever seen, and I think I don't mean that as a compliment.
it is, let's get this out of the way, not a good biography, because it is more or less wall-to-wall speculation. Connie Converse may have been in love with this person; she may have read a newspaper article about that person; she may have wanted to align herself with this musician; she may have wanted to reject that categorization. the facts require speculation, because the facts are few. Connie Converse didn't have a career in music. she was not, by any stretch of the imagination, a public figure during her lifetime. the research Fishman has to do is the research one does on a long-lost great-aunt: talking to family, driving to this town and that one to look at houses now owned by other people, digging through local newspaper articles. he accepts the opinions of her from her contemporaries that he wants to accept and rejects the opinions that he wants to reject based on the sort of person he wants and needs her to have been.
he is desperate for intimacy with her. he loves her. he is, and this is where I start boggling over the nature of nonfiction etc etc., very clearly what we would call parasocial about her. but surely being a historian means being parasocial with the dead? I mean, Alice Walker walks around Eatonville telling people she's Zora Neale Hurston's niece to get information for her article, is this disrespectful of the dead, is it ethical, etc... but Walker does of course get real information about Zora Neale Hurston, sorts out the true from the imagined from the lied-about, and Fishman doesn't.
it is frustrating to struggle to know a person who resists being known—not just in death, but in life, the available evidence that does exist points to Converse being a private, self-contained person whose feelings and behavior were often mysterious even to those close to her. the private investigator hired after her disappearance told her family that it was her right to disappear. the fact is that I do know what RPF is, and I know the difference between research done for historical purposes and research done for RPF purposes—even if the RPF is never written, when one person locates another person primarily in their imagination and their own creative drive rather than in any other part of their psyche, when one person thinks about another "they need me to take care of them" without actually being asked for it, it isn't hidden. when one person uses another as a mirror it isn't hidden.
it is such a labor of love! it is such an incredible work of research—the quantity of people that Fishman has tracked down, the quantity of recollections that he has worked out of them. he has been so relentless in his quest to give this woman's music the recognition it clearly deserves, and his love for her is clearly the love of one musician to another. the questionable intimacy of it all isn't what made me write the book off—honestly, I was half-prepared to believe that Fishman really was being haunted by Converse's ghost, and if you believe in that sort of thing you might too.
there were two incidents: firstly, when Fishman is analyzing the opening of "Roving Woman", People say a roving woman / is likely not to be better than she ought to be, and writes: "What does this first line even mean? If what Converse means is "people say a roving woman is no good", she could have come up with a simpler way to say that." the phrase "no better than she ought to be" did fall out of fashion a long while ago—I wouldn't expect all of my friends, who are well-read people, to know it—but all of my friends are not writing biographies of a woman working in the '40s and '50s. did no one at Penguin Random House catch this? it was used on Downton Abbey, for God's sake.
the second incident is when Fishman quotes from Converse's diary: If I ever cease to recall that my destiny is bound with a living cord to the destiny of... the anti-fascists... I shall indeed be half-dead. and remarks, "This is Converse, talking about antifa. In 1950." genuinely floored me. that you could write down that talking about anti-fascists makes you ahead of your time. in 1950. are you fucking joking? what's the explanation here? why did he write this? I'm boggled.
anyway, I DNFed there, which was the 25% mark. other reviewers here talk about how determined Fishman also seems to overlook the evidence of Converse's possible lesbianism and sexual abuse in favor of speculating that she slept with this man and that one and that one, but I didn't get far enough in to draw my own conclusions on that, so I will just say that I also am not inclined to trust Fishman on the subject of her sexuality. what a bewildering and discomfiting book. I can think of people I need to send it to