Coincidentally last week I had a Lincoln book come of Hold at the library.
It has been interesting to read of Clay. I’ve been surprised about how often Lincoln, a strong opponent of slavery, said he didn’t consider black equal (wasn’t seeking voting rights, considered plans to have them sent back to Africa).
I just saw this in the NYTimes review of Horse:
But this is really a book about the power and pain of words, not pictures: the wrong ones Jess says, fearing insensitivity; the “blinking cursor, tapping like an impatient finger” that Theo and all writers face; the archaic ones Brooks summons for verisimilitude, like “jimberjawed” and “clerestory”; the ones Jarret dare not speak. “Words could be snares,” he thinks. “Less of them you laid out there, less likely they could trap you up.” (Or as Aaron Burr put it in “Hamilton”: “Talk less. Smile more.”) And the ones beloved beasts cannot speak.
I hadn’t thought of it in this way.
I was really interested in the history of Kentucky. I remembered the Missouri Compromise which is discussed briefly in the book, but nothing about Kentucky trying to stay neutral - I could have sworn it was solidly on the southern side.
Everything you could ever want to know about Kentucky’s role in the Civil War: StackPath
@Colorado_mom , my husband was recently listening to that Lincoln book on Audible, and I heard a good percentage of it. We were both impressed by how the author traced Lincoln’s intellectual development and illuminated his interior life. It is a really rich biography of someone who has had no lack of biographers – we assume we already “know” him, but there are depths there to explore. Recommend!
I have a handful of favorite paintings at the Art Institute that I always seek out when I’m there. Robert (May’s husband) made me think of one of them: The Captive Slave by John Phillip Simpson (1827).
In reading about this British painting, and how it differs dramatically from slave depictions of the time, I got to this particular paragraph and thought “Theo!”:
Before abolition, the enslaved person in paintings was often a liveried servant, standing behind or below their “master,” almost off-stage…More often than not, the dark skin of the enslaved person fades into the background, casting them as a part of the environment, an element of nature, and a luxury item and prop. This half-visibility served to reinforce the slaveholder’s status and whiteness, but also expressed the expendability of the enslaved. John Philip Simpson’s “The Captive Slave”: From Margin to Center
Compare to this passage from Horse:
Theo’s dissertation was meant to be on depictions of Africans in British art…He planned to write of Coon caricatures, Orientalist fantasies, the decorative enslaved servant in ornate livery, proffering fruit or waving peacock-feathered fans for a White master. His thesis argued that these paintings were never meant to be viewed as portraits of individuals, merely status signifiers of the privilege, wealth, and power of the White sitters.
Plus this – Theo tells Jess about his professor who ignores the depiction of the Black servant in the background of Manet’s Olympia:
“He spent more time on the black cat at the nude’s feet than the interesting woman who occupies half the canvas. I call it the Invisible Man effect, or in this case, Invisible Woman.”
I wonder if Brooks was reading National Gallery of Art articles while writing Horse. 
@mary13, what a relevant painting, to this discussion, art, racism, political intent.
I’m sure Brooks, an art major, must have had access to your link.
From your article
“ Was Simpson a closet abolitionist? One painting does not a coherent, committed politics make. Or was he a provocateur who thought this painting could cause a socially productive stir among the ruling classes—or, at least, earn him notoriety and coin?
When the Art Institute of Chicago acquired The Captive Slave in 2008, the painting had not been publicly displayed for more than a century. A scan of the canvas showed that the shackled man was painted atop two other images: one of a vast estate house and another of a person. Some scholars have interpreted this overpainting as evidence that Simpson wanted to paint this image and that it was not commissioned (based on an assumption that an artist wouldn’t use a recycled canvas for a paying job).
Simpson himself left few archival traces. Perhaps the most relevant clue about his motivation is in the catalog of the Royal Academy exhibit, where a quote from a William Cowpens poem accompanies the item about the painting:
Ah! But what wish can prosper, or prayer
For merchants rich in cargoes of despair.”
You’re right – I had completely forgotten that she was an Art History major! She probably had Theo’s entire dissertation in her head already.
It’s amazing to think what’s in storage at art museums. Maybe Lexington Led by Black Jarret, His Groom is languishing in some (climate-controlled) museum basement somewhere.
Geraldine Brooks said about her historical fiction: “I try to get the factual details right so that when I make it up, I’ve laid the foundation strongly enough.”
As @ignatius pointed out above, she didn’t quite lay the foundation strongly enough for Thomas Scott’s side story about his affair with a young Black (male) artist. Scott’s marrying late in life was more likely the result of the intervening war, rather than his sexuality. Not that it really matters – which is basically my point. I am fine with taking poetic license with historical characters if it propels the story or explains a key plot point in some way. But the Scott embellishment didn’t seem necessary.
There is one other bit of historical poetic license that Brooks takes that does explain a key development, but is (I’m guessing) historical defamation of character. She throws John Pryor under the bus, suggesting that he is the cause of Lexington’s massive infection that led to his blindness. Under Pryor’s care, while Jarret is banished, Lexington breaks into the feed store, eats a bag of corn and develops terrible, potentially deadly colic. Pryor makes matters worse by bleeding the horse.
150 + years later, Catherine calls Jess with the results of the scan of Lexington’s skeleton:
“Craniofacial infection leading to malformation of the bone. That’s the official diagnosis. As you know, the bone over the sinus is very thin, so it’s easily distorted by disease. The scan shows the teeth interacting abnormally with the sinus complex. So, the hypothesis is that a dental infection caused the outbulging.”
“Poor horse,” said Jess.
“Indeed,” said Catherine. “Though it might’ve all started with a pleasant binge at the feed bins.”
“Huh?”
“Just a theory. The horse may have got loose and gorged himself. Food went where it shouldn’t have and caused an occult abscess in the lining of his sinus. Result: erosive osteomyelitis. It’s probably what caused the blindness—the infection damaged the optic nerve.”
Pryor comes off in the novel as careless and a bit cruel. But there is no reason to believe, historically speaking, that he was anything but a superb trainer.
His interesting aside:
John Benjamin Pryor, the famed Natchez trainer of Lexington at Fatherland Plantation, married Adam Bingaman’s mulatto daughter Frances Ann. Three sons followed their father’s profession and all were working as horse trainers in New Jersey by 1880. Historic Natchez Foundation
He moved to England for a time, mid-career – some accounts say that it may have been because there would have been less hostility there toward his marriage to a woman of mixed race.
Yes, the Lincoln book (Meacham) is really good. Usually I read fiction or easier non-fiction reads. But getting it off of Hold right after done with Horse has made both reads more meaningful.
Can’t recall if this was mentioned in Horse, but Cassius Clay was nephew of famous Henry Clay (Senator).
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/cassius-marcellus-clay-fiery-kentucky-abolitionist#:~:text=On%20October%2019%2C%201810%2C%20Green,Marcellus%20Clay%2C%20into%20the%20world.
And there is a tie to the boxer…
As we wrap up, I’ve been thinking about the end of the book, with Jarret emigrating to Canada. Without a doubt, it would have been an improvement over Reconstruction U.S., but Canada was no bed of roses. (Its treatment of indigenous people is a sad part of its history.)
Still, no place on earth is perfect and Canada made Jarret feel like a whole person, unlike the “three fifths of a man” that he was in the States (p. 376).
Discussing Horse with my daughter, she said Jarret’s feeling is similar to how James Baldwin felt more than 100 years later. After moving to Paris, he observed that “in New York he would have been described as ‘what’ he was—a black man. In Paris he was described as ‘who’ he was—an American.” James Baldwin: Scrutinizing America from Paris – France Revisited - Life in Paris, Travel in France
Thanks, everyone, for this 5-star discussion 
! We can start selecting about our next book at any time.
@Mary13 , if you were the organizer/facilitator, thank you.
And thanks to all who contributed to this discussion so thoughtfully.
Since this discussion is ending. I read the book and enjoyed the conversation although I didn’t t have much to add.
Could someone point out what May’s book is again?
I also didn’t have much to add - it was a beautifully written book but it went places I didn’t expect it to go. I enjoyed the mystery of the pictures and skeleton and how they all intersected, but wasn’t prepared for the racial interweaving. Also it seems like so many books are telling different people’s stories in every chapter so there’s a lot of start and stop to reading them.
@deb922 - discussions are every other month; we are just now starting the conversation about which book to read for June.
@gardenstategal - hello fellow New Jerseyan,( not sure many people know NJ is known as the garden state, especially if you’ve only been to northern NJ )
@Mary13 has been the originator and facilitator of this book group for the last 14 (?) or more years, every other month, and she is amazing, truly skillful discussion leader, really she could be a English college prof 
Previous suggestions (found at the end of February’s discussion):
Razorblade Tears by S.A. Cosby
A Dangerous Business by Jane Smiley
The Marriage Portrait by Maggie O’Farrell (repeat author for us, if that matters to anyone)
Half Sick of Shadows by Laura Sebastian
Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow by Gabrielle Zevin
True biz by Sara Novic
Adding The Latecomer - Jean Hanff Korelitz. (Just saw the comments on the Best Books Thread.)
Thanks, @ignatius!
Razorblade Tears by S.A. Cosby
A Dangerous Business by Jane Smiley
The Marriage Portrait by Maggie O’Farrell
Half Sick of Shadows by Laura Sebastian
Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow by Gabrielle Zevin
True biz by Sara Novic
The Latecomer by Jean Hanff Korelitz
If anyone has vetoes or additions, feel free to mention them!
I read Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow and enjoyed it greatly. I don’t know if that means I’d want or not want to read it again, however.
Zevin is a repeat author too. I loved The Storied Life of A.J. Fikry and plan to read Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow whether or not it gets chosen.
These are a couple of books in my TBR list:
I have read T&T&T and liked it. Would not mind being part of a group discussion on it.
