Talk:Grace Marks

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Criticism of article

The below comments were originally left in the article by User:68.48.8.56 in revisions [1], [2] and [3], I'm moving them here and marking the article as Disputed Thayvian 10:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: The original author of this article has clearly done little research on the Marks' case outside of reading Atwood's (admittedly excellent) novel. As Atwood herself says in the afterword, the novel has "fictionalized historical events" and while she does not change "any known facts. . .the written accounts are so contradictory that few facts emerge as unequivocally 'known'." As such, she freely admits to having "felt free to invent" where gaps occur in the historical record (Atwood 464-465).

The most glaring mistake the author of this entry makes is in accepting Atwood's character Mary Whitney as a historical personage. While "Mary Whitney" was the alias Grace Marks gave on her arrest, there is no historical evidence that Marks ever had a friend by that name; hence, no matter what one's beliefs are about spiritual/demonic possession, it is extremely unlikely that Marks could have been possessed by such a person. Both this idea and the theory that Marks was a pseudonym for Whitney are legitimate readings of Atwood's novel, but have little or no basis in history.

Similarly, the idea that Marks had multiple personality/dissociative identity dissorder is clearly one based in 20th century psychiatric theory, and quite unlikely to have been raised during Marks' lifetime. Again, this is a legitimate interpretation of the Italic textcharacterItalic text of "Grace Marks" that Atwood creates for her novel; so little is known about the Italic texthistoricalItalic text Grace Marks that attempting to posthumously diagnose her is fated to be a fruitless endeavour.

Perhaps it's worth having two sections to the article, one on the historical figure and one on the semi-fictional Atwood character. Thayvian 10:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)