And I wish I could talk about it with someone who has read it.
When Jo Slater, one of the grandest of New York's grande dames and great patron of the arts, befriends a young French countess, trouble begins. Ignoring warnings from friends, Jo abruptly discovers the truth about her mysterious guest. But it is too late. Jo is knocked off her pedestal and the young woman takes her place in society. Dethroned and dispossessed in the world where she once reigned, she sets out to recoup her fortune and reclaim her throne. Using her knowledge of the eighteenth century, she concocts an ingenious scheme based on the greatest historical swindle of all time, a true story involving Marie Antoinette. In order for the scheme to work, however, she must resort to the most desperate of all measures: murder.
(synopsis from the publisher)
Next book I want to read is:
This is an inherently dramatic conflict between two sisters. One sister's intention to gloss over the hard truths of the past vs. the other sister's determination to harp on the past.
I find this interesting.
I believe that there is a difference between re-written history and history.
Re-writers alter their memories to serve them better.
Historians on the other hand, enjoy digging into the past in order to understand the present better.
The important thing is to acknowledged it as history and
as no longer the present.
(thanks kar for differentiating that for me)
Given the choice between re-written history
or a regular angry editorial on history
I choose neither.
I just want the chance to move on.