written July 1994
Instead of dozens of little blurbs excerpted from all of the favorable reviews that this book has received, I wish that the publishers had used the back cover and the first three pages of the book to quote Bobbie Ann Mason talking about the book. I got tired and suspicious of all the puffery, and I really lost heart when I discovered halfway through the book what happened to the quints. It wasn't until I listened to Mason read from the first 100 pages of the book and talk about it on book tour that I realized I had been looking at and for the wrong thing: this book is not about the quints, but about mother Christie's life as a result of them. Mason has Christie herself tell us this fact, but not until the book is nearly over; after she has spent virtually the whole of her life trying to figure out the strange events of her life and learn how to interpret those "signs" properly, she realizes "the central flaw in her desire to understand why such an extraordinary thing had happened to her. It wasn't WHY it happened -- that couldn't be known; it was what the world made of it that was at issue" (417).
That's what Mason's story is really concerned with, and that's why she kept talking during her reading about its "relevance" to modern life. At first I thought she was referring to the fact that her story is set in 1900 and dramatizes the millennial excitement that we will have to endure for the next six years, with evangelical preachers and everyone else trying to interpret the signs at the end of the age. But now I think she meant instead how sometimes events in people's lives, if they are big enough and strange enough, get taken away from the people they happen to and taken over by the public, just like the quints somehow invited people to transgress the normal rules of polite society on a scale that simply overwhelmed the Wheeler family. I can't think of this story now without seeing O.J.Simpson's face on the tv screen of my mind.
I was only about 2/3 of the way through the book when I heard Mason read from it, but that was about the time I really started to appreciate the book -- though whether that was because I finally figured out what it was (and wasn't) about, or because I had warmed to her personally, or because the book itself started moving more, I can't say. Somehow it helped me to have the fact/fiction question answered: this story is based on a true event, the birth of the Lyon quints in Mason's own neck of the Kentucky woods in 1896; the central character is named for and a tribute to Mason's own mother; Mason made up virtually all of the details of the story based on her research in folklore and rare old newspaper accounts and conversations with her mother. Apparently the event caused quite a stir at the time before being almost totally forgotten for almost a century. The most striking image Mason uncovered in her research is the one that came through to me the most powerfully in her story -- the crowd invading Christie's home sprung from the real-life event of the stranger stepping through the window of the Lyon home (193-5, 450).
I kept waiting for a lot of the loose threads of detail in the narrative to be tied up, like the revival at Reelfoot or the fibroids or the nice Memphis couple (201-3). Maybe I was trying to read the signs too, but as Christie tells her husband James about those feather crowns of the title, "I never did understand what those things meant anyhow" (417). "Me neither," Mason seems to be saying.