This was a very enjoyable article, Andrew. Informative, too – I’d not heard of Ms Benson before, and even though I’m really not keen on Suffragettes, I intend to give her work a go.
Thank you.

In eulogising the pose prose of his almost-forgotten subject, Andrew Doyle isn’t short of a pithy phrase:

“…activists masquerading as academics…”

Quite.

I thought this was a fine article and introduction to an overlooked writer. Surprisingly, her books are available on Amazon. I thought because of her “problematic” beliefs her books might have been cancelled.

Andrew says:

“The later part of I Pose, located in the West Indies, contains descriptions of indigenous people that are *shocking* by today’s standards, and would doubtless see Benson dismissed as a *racist*. Her narrator certainly holds views that are *rightly abhorred today*…”

And here comes the obligatory disclaimer again. Why does Andrew feel the need to spell it out so clumsily, when he can usually write with such delicacy?

Much as I admire Andrew Doyle, I can’t say his enthusiasm for this neglected author is infectious – it certainly doesn’t infect me. Almost all the quotes he provides exhibit that annoyingly haughty and supercilious wit essential for membership of the English intellectual class. For example this bit of Oscar Wilde-esque:

From careful study of press reviews I gather that a story is considered a necessary thing in a novel, so this time I am going to try and include one.

However, when Doyle tells us that:

The later part of I Pose, located in the West Indies, contains descriptions of indigenous people that are shocking by today’s standards…

and:

Her narrator certainly holds views that are rightly abhorred today,

Ah, that word ‘rightly’ – no morally sound person could possibly fail to be abhorred (could they?). Still, a sample or two might have been interesting. Who knows, shocking or not, whatever ‘poses’ Benson perceived in these indigenous people may be quite telling (if we put aside our protective moral filter).

Her narrator certainly holds views that are rightly abhorred today, but the fact that no contemporary reviews of the novel commented upon these features should be sufficient evidence that they were unremarkable at the time

Here, in a nutshell, is the paradox of modern engaged academia: the claim that all apparent essences and verities are merely the expressions of particular circumstances, coupled with the insistence that only our enlightened times allow us to see things sub specie aeternitatis.

Was she related to the Benson clan that produced an Archbishop of Canterbury? A niece, or daughter perhaps. The Benson clan were a queer lot (in all senses of the word) and wonderfully inventive.

Benson’s photo has been reminding me of someone all day, and i’ve just realised who…
Gavin Williamson!

Just caught up with this. Many thanks Andrew for such a deft introduction to an unfamiliar writer. Oh, and you were right to insert ‘rightly’. Yes it clangs. As it should. The past has always been a foreign country. It’s not anachronistic to acknowledge that.