Random House: Bringing You the Best in Fiction, Nonfiction, and Children's Books
Newletters and Alerts

Buy now from Random House

  • Blindspot
  • Written by Jane Kamensky and Jill Lepore
  • Format: Trade Paperback | ISBN: 9780385526203
  • Our Price: $15.00
  • Quantity:
See more online stores - Blindspot

Buy now from Random House

See more online stores - Blindspot


    Select a Format:
  • Book
  • eBook

A Novel

Written by Jane KamenskyAuthor Alerts:  Random House will alert you to new works by Jane Kamensky and Jill LeporeAuthor Alerts:  Random House will alert you to new works by Jill Lepore


List Price: $11.99


On Sale: December 09, 2008
Pages: 600 | ISBN: 978-0-385-52853-5
Published by : Spiegel & Grau Random House Group
Blindspot Cover

Share & Shelve:

  • Add This - Blindspot
  • Email this page - Blindspot
  • Print this page - Blindspot
Categories for this book
Tags for this book (powered by Library Thing)
historical fiction (38) fiction (25) boston (21) art (10)
» see more tags


Stewart Jameson, a Scottish portrait painter fleeing his debtors in Edinburgh, has washed up on the British Empire's far shores—in the city of Boston, lately seized with the spirit of liberty. Eager to begin anew, he advertises for an apprentice, but the lad who comes knocking is no lad at all. Fanny Easton is a fallen woman from Boston's most prominent family who has disguised herself as a boy to become Jameson's defiant and seductive apprentice.
Written with wit and exuberance by accomplished historians, Blindspot is an affectionate send-up of the best of eighteenth-century fiction. It celebrates the art of the Enlightenment and the passion of the American Revolution by telling stories of ordinary people caught up in an extraordinary time.


Had Columbus my gut, the world would be a smaller place. And maybe the better for it. O brave new world: wild, rebellious, mysterious, and strange. And distant. God above, who knew it could be so
bloody far?

Now begins a gentleman’s exile, and, with it, my tale.

You may wonder, dear Reader, dear, unfathomable Reader, why I have undertaken this voyage, why a man of parts, of fine parts, I may say, and education, better than most, would hazard a crossing and that, in April, the most treacherous of months—showers sweet turn to tempests bitter—and, worse, on a galleon with no berth for a gentleman but a bunk not fit for a dog, not even my mastiff, Gulliver—and I, though six foot tall, his Lilliputian—who, despite my best efforts, splays himself, fleas
and all, atop my moth- ridden blanket, with me huddled under it, as if I were a city and he a great army, equipped with cauldrons of drool, besieging me. While you wonder why I wander, know this: run I must.

Aye, I would have stayed home if I could. If I could. Instead, each day the winds blow me farther from the dales and vales of Jamesons past, clan of clans, men among men, though, truth be told—and here, dear Reader, it will be told, and without ornament—our tartan is sold by the yard at Covent Garden to every shaver, ever striver, every waster with twopence in his pocket and a plan to marry a merry widow with ten thousand a year and an estate in Derbyshire, with horses, comely, and tenants, timely in their rents. Had I ever come across such a lady—let us call her the Widow Bountiful—I would have wooed her with sighs enough to heat a stone- cold bed- chamber in the dead of winter. Perhaps she waits for me, my Widow B., somewhere on the other side of this
wretched sea. Hark, she pants for me. Or, no, ’tis only Gulliver, giant cur.

As a man of both sense and sincerity, I admit, freely, and with that same unsparing candor which you must henceforth expect of me, that I leave behind little but debt. Twould be an even greater sorrow to leave Edinburgh, that nursery of enlightened genius, did not each degree of longitude stretch the distance betwixt me and my creditors, to whom I owe so much gold, and so little gratitude, the brothers McGreevy, with their Monday duns, Tuesday threats, and Wednesday bludgeons. Suffice to say: I sailed on a Thursday, a day too late, with the scars to show for
it. Departed, the Sea- Serpent, April 5, 1764.

Sterner men on stouter ships have crossed this vast and furious ocean, training their hopeful gaze upon the horizon; I, ever squeamish, scan only the depths and see naught but gloom. I would blind myself—and spare you the sight—but I find, as ever, that I cannot close my painter’s eye. Here the blue sloshes into green, and there, gray, and just here, as I lean over the gunwales, lo but the ocean becomes a rainbow of muck, a palette of putrefaction. The lurching, the To and the Fro, are my twin tormentors; and the sea, my sewer and my jailer.

Wheel of Fortune, pray, turn: let some young Bluebeard take the Sea-Serpent as his prize. Let his pirates throw me overboard. Let them haul me ’neath the keel and drown me. Sweet Jesus, just get me off this ship. Captain Pumble, a bulge- eyed, blotchy frog of a man, hops about the deck, uncloaked, even against the fearsome wind, as I, shivering, lean over the rails once again. He tells me that Boston will be temperate by the time we dock.

“Yar, ’twill be blooming in the city,” croaks he, clapping me on the back, as jolly as if we were sat in a tavern, instead of steering through a storm. “Ladies walking about without shawls. And a dandy, and a Scots gent, no less, will be most welcome by the lasses. Or is it the gents you
favor, Jameson?”

Between you and me, Reader: this Pumble has not entirely earned my affection.

“At the moment, Captain,” I manage to reply. “I favor deep pockets. Deep pockets, and solid ground.”

It is customary, at this point in a narrative of a gentleman’s adventures in the world, be he knave or rogue, to offer a pedigree. So be it.

The brown hound that whelped my Gulliver belonged to a butcher who cut meat for the Laird of Firth, a corpulent and stingy man—for I find that podginess and parsimony generally travel together—who claimed that his mastiffs were descended from the kennel of the Kubla Khan, brought West by Marco Polo, and on down, across the generations, to the court of Henry VIII and his bloody Mary, and thence to Scotland. In Firth, the Laird fed his dogs better than most gentlemen feed their valets. But the old miser—too cheap to pay for the meat—instead gave the butcher his best bitch, her belly swollen with pups who, once weaned, nearly ate the butcher out of his shop. Cheated and bested, he returned the litter to the Laird. Twas then came I to town, to paint a portrait of the Laird and his favorite dog, a beast as big as himself, with teeth a sailor might scrimshaw. The subject would have defeated even my friend Gainsborough. My portrait, a study in Venetian red, caught the Laird’s greed in his ruddy cheeks, his bleary eyes, his dog’s great maw. Alas, rarely does a man love his true self. Seeing his and his mascot’s likeness so well captured displeased this gentleman, who refused to pay the balance of my fee, instead tendering a black- and- white pup, the runt of the litter, though as tall at the withers as a lad of ten. And so was I saddled
with Gulliver, sired by gullibility, son of a butcher’s bitch.

A devil’s bargain, you might think, Reader: ’twas either the cur, or naught. Would you deny me the dog’s company? Surely my exile would be even lonelier had I forfeited my fee. And be forewarned: I have made worse bargains.

chap t e r 2

In Which Our Author Secures a
Situation in a City on a Hill

As Pumble navigated the Sea- Serpent through the harbor—I craving land more than poor, scurvy Magellan ever did, and Gulliver, galumphing about deck, in a frenzy of anticipation—we sailed past a
chain of small islands, perfect refuges for pirates.

“Are you quite sure we won’t run aground, Captain?” I ventured, for, though the day was clear and the water calm, we tacked perilous close to the isles.

“I could put you at the helm, if you like, Jameson. Got the sea in your blood, eh?” he smirked. But then he softened, slightly. “No, you sorry Scot. Rest easy. I won’t smash her to bits. Though this shallow harbor has wrecked many a ship, I don’t mind saying.”

“Shallow, Captain?” I asked nervously.

“Yar, she’s deep enough for the Sea- Serpent, but New York, where I’m bound, has deeper. Which is why that city builds banking houses, while this here Boston builds churches.” He nodded toward the town—cut against the sky, as if in silhouette—and pointed out the North Church, with its proud wooden spire, the tallest among a thicket of steeples. Prim, pious, and provincial. Trim, trim, and tidy, all.

“Ah, well then,” I answered, brightening. “Tis proved: a merchant measures his prospects by a port’s fathoms and not by its people’s piety, just as a whore measures a man’s parts by the bulge of his purse and not of his breeches.”

Pumble rewarded me with no more than a mincing smile.

Mark me, dear Reader: bidding my captain farewell will not break my heart.

Closer to shore, I spied people bustling about—along streets riddled with ruts and gutters of mud and manure whose stench reached us even before we docked—everyone hurrying, but at a trot and not a gallop. Here is no London, where men race as foxes chased by hounds. Here is
a place where, pray God, I can stand still.

I put on my hat, left my bags on board, and stepped ashore. Stumbling about the dock, my spirits soon improved, and my gut seemed to slow and finally halt its orbit round my middle. Along what is called the Long Wharf, I found a tavern, the Blue Herring, and I quaffed. Say I: there is fine beer here, brewed, I am told, by a man named Adams, in barrels built of the pine woods of New Hampshire. Steadied, fortified, I took a brief tour of the waterfront, and report, also, this: if there is nothing elevated and fine in the town of Boston, there is little to be found that is particularly unpleasant, save the restraint of the townspeople, who stare at strangers—even at a tall, brass- buttoned Scottish gentleman, and likelier than most—with a coldness that runs to cruelty.

I next made my way west along King Street, cluttered with shops, though whether this ambitious avenue is a credit to our third George in this, the fifth year of his reign, I could not claim. The trade seemed lackluster at best. Along a street called Corn- hill, I saw an utter desolation: the ruins of dwelling- houses, stores, and shops, burned in a fire that looked to have raged some winters ago, in a city too straitened to rebuild.

Just in front of a brick building called the Town House, which sits in the very middle of King Street, I found a spindle- shanked boy, no more than ten, peddling salted cod wrapped in old newspaper.

“I’m afraid I can’t stomach the fish, lad,” I said to him. “But be so good as to tell me where I might find fresher news than what’s printed in your wrappers.”

He directed me up an alley dubbed Crooked Lane—though all the streets here would equally well bear that name—to a dark, cluttered print shop whose stink made my eyes to tear ere I crossed the threshold. (My father had once wanted to apprentice me to an engraver, Reader, but I forswore the trade just as soon as I learned that every printer washes his plates in his own water. I would not toil in a piss- house.)

Behind the counter, tinkering with types, stood a man of about my own age, wise- eyed and wigless, his face as flat and round as the moon, his ginger hair tied back. From this gentleman, Mr. Benjamin Edes, I purchased a deck of cards, a map, and, for five shillings, a rather windy history of the
town, written by one Thomas Newcombe, wherein I have since read that Boston’s founder, a proper Puritan named John Winthrop, proclaimed to his followers in 1630, as they neared shore: “We shall be as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us; so that if we shall deal falsely with
our God, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world.”

Now, careful Reader, I ask you this: From such a lofty start, can any city do less than fall? Tis a small port, and charming enough. But it does not content itself with its smallness, its slack bustle, its less- thanprofound harbor. Nay, ’twould be Jerusalem. Here is a town that, by pretending to be more than it is, makes itself less. I had rather not draw an overhasty conclusion. But I have to wonder whether this is what hobbles Boston: its oversized ambition. The very opposite of what hobbles me.

While the printer tallied my items in his ledger, I picked up a copy of his twice- weekly newspaper, the Boston Gazette, and flipped to its back pages, filled with advertisements: “A fine Negro Male Child to be given away. It has been kept remote from the Small- Pox.” “To be SOLD: The very Best Vinegar for Pickles.” “RAN AWAY from his Master: A stout Irish servant.”

“Are you looking for something else, sir?” Edes asked.

“Aye. My bearings.”

“Just landed, I take it? If you don’t mind my saying, sir, you’re still a bit green about the gills.”

“Green’s an improvement, I assure you,” was my smiling reply. “Aye, I’m just in, from Edinburgh.”

“It’s as well you ain’t come from London, sir, else you’d bring bad tidings, sure.”

I gave him a puzzled expression.

“You wouldn’t have heard, sir, if you’ve been at sea these last two months. Parliament voted as you set sail, and the news washed up on our shores the day before you did. I’m just now setting the type to put it in Thursday’s edition. Bastards mean to tax us to pay for their war, what’s ended not a twelvemonth ago, with the French and the Indians. Tax our sugar, they will. Worse: we ain’t allowed to pay with our own paper money. Coin of the realm, it has to be. I ask you, sir, who has hard money in these hard times? And mind, they promise, next, to tax with stamps our every piece of paper!”

“I’m sorry to hear it,” I offered, and sincerely. I liked this plainspoken printer, and admired his argument, for the town looked poor enough already.

“Not so sorry as you’ll be when the shops start closing, for ain’t we struggling, after seven years of war? But I suppose I needn’t tell a Scotsman about English wars and English taxes.”

“Aye, that you don’t,” I agreed. “My grandfather fell at Culloden. But I trust you colonials will protest these measures. For as I always say, an empty stomach has a loud mouth.”

“Ain’t heard that one afore, sir, and ’tis true enough,” he said, flashing a smile. “But we won’t be laughing when the King sends over his redcoats, those lobsterbacked sons of bitches! Their fingers will be in our purses soon enough. There’s only so much a free people will bear, I tell you, and only so far the hand of tyranny can stretch, ere its reach exceeds its grasp.”

I shook my head, and pushed back my hat.

“Edes, your metaphors alarm me. Many’s the hand I would welcome in my pocket,” I said with a wink. “But not the hand of tyranny.”

Now did the printer laugh, easy, warm, and unrestrained.

“Say, Edes, do you get any Scottish papers here?”

“Indeed, sir. When traveling gentlemen bring them by. You’ll have no trouble hearing news from home. Old news, mind, but news just the same.”

Reader, this news of news is good and bad. Maybe I haven’t fled far enough.

From the Hardcover edition.
Jane Kamensky|Jill Lepore|Author Q&A

About Jane Kamensky

Jane Kamensky - Blindspot

Photo © Nina Subin

Jane Kamensky, professor of American history and chair of the History Department at Brandeis, is the author of The Exchange Artist.  

About Jill Lepore

Jill Lepore - Blindspot

Photo © Dari Michele

Jill Lepore is the David Woods Kemper ’41 Professor of American History at Harvard University and a staff writer at The New Yorker. Her Book of Ages was a finalist for the National Book Award. She lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Author Q&A

A Conversation with Jane Kamensky and Jill Lepore 

 Jane Kamensky: Blindspot pays more attention to sensory truths than most history writing does. A convincing fictional world needs the truths of the flesh, ear, nose, and eye more than the truths of the archive; what Boston looked, smelled, sounded, and tasted like in the sweltering summer of 1764; how frail bodies experienced the vicissitudes of everyday life as well as the demands of epochal events—those are the humble truths that drive the novel forward. 

Writing Blindspot, and especially choosing to write it in the first person, also gave us a freer hand with consciousness than we have as historians. Our characters take stock of their world, but they also scrutinize themselves, unsparingly. Few eighteenth-century men, and almost no eighteenth-century women, left documentary evidence of their interior lives. And the farther down the ladder of society one climbs, the scantier that evidence gets. 

RHRC: Blindspot
seems to be partly a hilarious send-up of eighteenthcentury novels and partly a very serious and historically accurate rendering of life during that time period. Did you feel any tension between those two aspects of the novel? 

I’m a sucker for eighteenth-century fiction. I love its artfulness and its silliness and its bawdiness. I laugh when Fielding wants me to laugh. I cry when Richardson wants me to cry. And when Franklin tells a dirty joke, he’s totally got me, no matter how many times I’ve read it before. I also laugh, always, at Jane’s jokes. That’s why writing the book was, above all, fun. But we do, of course, have scholarly claims to make about the period. Jane’s work on money and exchange, for instance, is all over the book, as is my work on liberty and slavery. Was there a tension between trying to write an entertaining novel and wanting to write fiction with something we might think of as historical honesty? Absolutely. Deciding not to have our convicted murderer burned at the stake—as was the punishment in the actual case on which our murder is based—was a decision we made about what the emotional range of the novel could bear and what it could not. The lives of ordinary people in Boston in the 1760s weren’t uniformly a farce or uniformly a tragedy, either. That’s why the book’s a genre send-up: a mystery, with traces of the gothic; a love story, with an overwrought romantic sensibility a picaresque, somewhat overblown. That’s all part of Blindspot’s gambit, to use the literary forms of the age to tell the story of the coming of the American Revolution. 

Did you conceive of Blindspot as an explicitly feminist project? There’s some role-playing with gender, and Fanny is a strong, bold character. 

We wanted a set of questions about gender and genre that were true to the way we think about the past but also true to the past. So quite a lot of how Fanny questioned the boundaries of a woman’s life could also be found by reading eighteenth-century letters. Masquerade was a key element of eighteenth-century urban culture—for men more than for women—but there were women who dressed as men and fought in the Revolutionary War. And certainly the Enlightenment broadly and the American Revolution particularly opened questions about who gets to be what, questions that remain the unresolved work of American democracy. Fanny’s questioning of a woman’s place is very much a part of that eighteenth-century project. I think she comes to somewhat bolder answers than most women of the time would have dared. 

What were the complications of writing, now, about race, then? 

If we weren’t historians, we might have handled the subject of race differently. We wanted our two narrators to be people of their time and place, but even the most enlightened eighteenth-century Europeans and Americans are hard for modern readers to bear on the subject of race. We couldn’t afford, and didn’t want, unsympathetic narrators. We decided that, rather than tiptoeing around this problem, we’d brazen through it: we gave Fanny a backstory that, we hoped, made it plausible that she could change her mind about some things, and we made Jameson about as enlightened as he conceivably could have been. Nevertheless, they are, if not unsympathetic narrators, unreliable ones; they barely see Cicero and Hannah and Phebe, whose motives they are helpless to understand and to which they are, despite their protestations to the contrary, indifferent. It was painful to do that, to write that blindness into our narrators. That’s why Ignatius Alexander is forever reminding the reader about our narrators’ blind spots. “You remember Hannah, Jamie?” Alexander asks, when Jameson has clearly forgotten all about her. Alexander bridles at this sorry task, as he ought, but we wanted him to have his say, and to convince the reader of the inadequacy of eighteenth-century fictional forms to contain the grim and manifold evils of slavery. 

News clippings and arguments about, say, sugar taxes are interspersed throughout the novel. Did anything surprise you in your research of old pamphlets and papers? 

The two of us have been reading and teaching and writing about those old pamphlets and papers for decades. But Blindspot asked us to encounter familiar sources in new ways. Take the Boston Gazette, from whose pages we freely adapted a number of news items, and into which we inserted letters, editorials, and advertisements of our own devising. As scholars, we tend to read those newspapers in disembodied ways, scanning reels of microfilm for particular names or topics. The digital age has thinned out the experience still further; you input search terms and receive your “hits” in little boxes. For Blindspot, we wanted to read the paper the way Stewart Jameson and his friends read the paper: to page through it, to pore over it, to pass it back and forth at the post office and by the fireside. So we printed out the entire run of the Boston Gazette for 1764, broadsheet size, and had it bound. Reading it in that format just knocked us out. The proxemics of the past came through so vividly: highfalutin debates over imperial taxation set beside a notice hawking a young Negro boy on the cheap, reports of battles in Europe laid out next to an advertisement seeking a full breast of milk for an infant whose mother has died. The relationship between figure and background came clearer than in any of the times I’ve read that paper, and others, in bits and pieces of my own devising. 

Have you used novels in your history courses? Did writing the book give you new perspectives on the relationships between literary writing and other forms of historical evidence? 

JK: I’ve used period fiction as an integral part of courses on early American history and culture. Charlotte Temple is the text I’ve assigned most often, and Fanny Easton’s voice—and plight—owes a great deal to Susanna Rowson’s woebegone Charlotte. I’ve sometimes used contemporary novels set in the past as well, especially Brian Moore’s Black Robe, which is based quite closely on the Jesuit Relations. I ask students to read the seventeenth-century documents alongside the novelist’s version and to think about what Moore borrowed, what he changed, and why. I also teach a course on the Salem witch trials, where we look at several centuries of representations of 1692 in various genres and media. Arthur Miller’s Crucible is a key text in that class. Its concerns are purely contemporary, the zeitgeist of 1953 rather than that of 1692. But the voices are marvelous, an unparalleled example of a modern sensibility let loose on a foreign vernacular. Scholars of visual culture have been, of late, concerned with recovering the “period eye” of a given place and time. Miller speaks to what we might call the period ear. That was one of our goals for the novel: to communicate to a new set of readers something of the music of our work in the archives. Fiction may offer us different avenues—more palpable or visceral paths—for doing that sort of work. 

What are some common misconceptions about Revolutionary America that you hope Blindspot will dispel? 

I’m not sure the point of the novel is to dispel misconceptions, but I do worry about our culture’s abject reverence for the founding fathers. I hear people say, all the time, “Oh, those leaders were so much more virtuous than ours! Oh, what an age that was!” Yes, the Constitution is altogether brilliant, and sure, I love Franklin. But to imagine that the United States was founded by people wholly unlike ourselves is to let us completely off the hook. To imagine that the founding fathers were gods doesn’t demand more of our democracy, it demands less: compared to absurdly inflated founders, we are so hopelessly deficient, so utterly lacking in virtue that, well, why bother working at making anything better, ever? Reverence is the flip side of cynicism. And I find cynicism insidious, so in Blindspot there’s a great deal of goofy irreverence because, in fact, the Revolution was nothing if not irreverent. The novel’s irreverence, though, is also meant to suggest that ordinary people weren’t sitting around, worshipping at the feet of John Adams, just because he had made a great speech in the Assembly Hall. They still wanted him to return that ten pounds he had borrowed a fortnight ago; they still wondered if he might be willing to lend them a copy of Tristram Shandy. “Surpassingly fine speech, Mr. Adams, sir,” Jameson might say. “And now, pray: about that book . . .” 

(Parts of this interview originally appeared in an interview by Lauren Porcaro on Newyorker.com.)



"A lusty romance, a murder mystery and a bit of Americana, all rolled into one big, fat historical romp . . . Lepore and Kamensky have re-created a fascinating world and brought history hotly alive."—San Francisco Chronicle

"An erudite and entertaining re-creation of colonial America on the brink of the Revolution."—New York Times Book Review
"Both frisky and learned . . . a treat."—Washington Post

"A rip-roaring yarn, a real romp . . . It's fantastic—the romance novel of your dreams."—Newsday

"A droll, edifying novel . . . Not since John Barth . . . has anyone rendered colonial America in such exquisite satirical strokes. Blindspot succeeds as raw entertainment; better, it soars as cunning academic revisionism."—Chicago Tribune
"A very smart book . . . [Blindspot] captures Colonial America's wit and vulgarity, its sensibility, sensuality and snobbery."—San Diego Union-Tribune
Discussion Questions

Discussion Guides

1.  Discuss the motifs of blindness and seeing in the novel. Why do you think Jane Kamensky and Jill Lepore chose Blindspot as the novel’s title? What types of blind spots do the characters in the novel experience?

 2. Jameson’s and Fanny’s narratives are quite different from each other. What are the stylistic differences between them? What aspects of Jameson’s and Fanny’s roles and experiences account for those differences? Do their styles of writing remind you of other novels you’ve read? 

3. Blindspot is meant to be read as if it were written in Boston in 1764. How do the authors signal the language, values, and feel of that place in time? What role do the excerpts from the Boston Gazette, many of them loosely adapted from the actual newspaper, play in setting the mood and advancing the story? Why do you think the authors chose to tell the story with both fictional elements and historical documents? 

4. Not long after landing in Boston, Jameson points out an irony inherent in the colonists’ desire for freedom: “Ably do they see the shackles Parliament fastens about them, but to the fetters they clasp upon others, they are strangely blind” (p. 26). What do you think of his statement? How does the novel address issues of liberty and slavery?

 5. Jameson often addresses his “dear Reader” directly. Who do Jameson and Fanny assume their respective readers to be? How do their assumptions about their audience affect the ways they tell their stories? 

6. In her letters to her childhood friend Elizabeth, Fanny Easton bemoans the limits placed upon female education and ambition. What constraints shaped Fanny’s life as a woman, and does she successfully escape them by posing as Francis Weston? How different were the expectations governing American women’s lives in the eighteenth century from those in our own day? What can Jameson do that Fanny can’t? 

7. Blindspot is rife with riddles, puns, and wordplay. Jameson’s speech is filled with bawdy puns, and Fanny enjoys entertaining him with riddles. In fact, the solution to the book’s mystery is found in the pages of a book of puzzles. Discuss the role of puzzles in the novel. 

8. Although Jameson is technically Francis Weston’s superior, he often feels controlled by his apprentice: “Are you so blind you cannot see that you are master?” he implores Francis. Discuss the various master/slave relationships in the novel. How do they develop as the novel progresses? Did Kamensky and Lepore complicate your previous notions of this relationship? 

9. Why do you think the authors chose to make the main characters of Blindspot artists? What kinds of connections do the authors draw between Jameson’s paintings and the patriot politics of the Friends of Liberty? Is Jameson’s art itself revolutionary? 

10. Although the character of Ignatius Alexander—an erudite and refined African who has been educated as an experiment—may seem surprising, Kamensky and Lepore’s portrayal of him is actually very closely based in fact. Discuss his function in the novel. How well do Jamie and Fanny understand Sander’s world and his vision? Why do you think the authors chose to tell Sander’s story through Jamie’s and Fanny’s voices, and why does the doctor resist telling his own story? 

11. Jameson seems just as attracted to Francis Weston as he is to Fanny Easton. What do the authors suggest about understandings of sexuality in eighteenth-century America? Do you think our society today is more or less tolerant than the one depicted in the novel? 

12. Blindspot is a historical novel, but many of the issues it addresses still feel relevant today. What kinds of similarities did you notice between the political issues addressed in the novel and the ones you think about in your own life? 

13. Did the novel support or upturn your previous sense of Revolutionary America? In which ways was it similar, and in which was it different? Did anything surprise you? 

  • Blindspot by Jane Kamensky and Jill Lepore
  • December 29, 2009
  • Fiction - Historical
  • Spiegel & Grau
  • $15.00
  • 9780385526203

Your E-Mail Address
send me a copy

Recipient's E-Mail Address
(multiple addresses may be separated by commas)

A personal message: