I couldn't bring myself to finish this, despite listening to over 6 hrs of this overly long novel.
Many of my GR friends loved this novel so I was sure I'd love it too. Unfortunately, that wasn't the case. Early on, my antennas were raised, first, it was the very modern language and concepts that felt off to me. I had to double check that it wasn't one of those dual timelines novels and that I wasn't listening to a modern day section. It's all set in the eighteenth century.
The first obvious anachronism - the use of the term vernix to describe the film many newborns are covered in when coming into the world. I'm annoying like that and googled, apparently, "the term 'Vernix caseosa' first appeared in 1846 in the Dunglison dictionary of Medical Sciences."
I continued on. Our heroine is Martha Ballard, a fifty-four year old midwife, who sounded like a modern-day woman, the way she was challenging the status quo, the men and the entire society was so outside of anything I could believe, it irked me.
This is yet another so-called "historical fiction" that doesn't care much about history, fact and takes lots of liberties. I find it more jarring and frankly insulting when we have google at our fingertips.
The husband, whatever his name was, a carpenter, was so unbelievable, even if he had been a contemporary man. Were people French kissing in the 18th century? While we don't know for sure people's proclivities, it's unlikely they would do that when cleanliness was dubious. Speaking of cleanliness, Martha knew about disinfecting wounds back then? I can't be bothered to search, but I'm dubious.
Irrespective of all these many anachronisms, the liberties taken with language and people's behaviours and the fact that Martha was better than everyone in so many respects irked me big time.
I'm a feminist, I'm passionate about reinstating, reviving the "forgotten women", but we don't need to go so over the board, even if it's fiction.