Talk:Grace Marks

Criticism of article
The below comments were originally left in the article by User:68.48.8.56 in revisions, and , 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)


 * I think its best to delete all of the following:


 * A number of theories were offered as to Marks' mental state: that she was simply pretending to have psychological problems to get into the asylum, that she had multiple personality disorder, or that she was possessed by the consciousness of her deceased friend Mary Whitney. Another theory, controversial but supported by some evidence, was that Marks had died, not Whitney, and Whitney had adopted Marks' name and identity.


 * As has been noted, Mary Whitney is fictional, so all theories concerning her are theories about the novel. I'm not sure why this hasn't already been done. The Legend of Julie Egbert 17:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

2 Toms
Thomas Kinnear describes a banker who died in 1930. Do we have a middle name for Marks' employer to distinguish him from this one? ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Manservant without maid
http://edrh.rhpl.richmondhill.on.ca/default.asp?id=s6.3
 * Although this common-law relationship prevented Tom and Nancy from being part of the local social circle, they lived quite happily by themselves, and with their maid and manservant.
 * Then on July 18, 1843, Kinnear and Montgomery were killed by the jealous manservant in what was widely regarded as Upper Canada's most notorious murder case.
 * Then on July 18, 1843, Kinnear and Montgomery were killed by the jealous manservant in what was widely regarded as Upper Canada's most notorious murder case.

How come this only says "the jealous manservant" and not "maid and manservant" like line 1 if both were convicted of murder? Inconsistent. ScratchMarshall (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2018 (UTC)