Odd Women Chapter 10 First Principles - Chapter Chapter 11 At Nature's Bidding

[Marialyce]

For discussion of these chapters

[Becky]

Not a whole lot going on here. Everard and Rhoda seem to expand their relationship on friendly terms. In chapter 11, however, we see that Monica breaks down from stress. I know everyone is saying that its over her work, but I think it smore likely that is Widowson popping up outside her house all the time. That guy has crossed into serious creepy territory and is browbeating her into a relationship.

[Everyman]

Not a whole lot going on? Monica accepts Widdowson's proposal of marriage -- that seems a lot to me!

But I do get what you're saying. The story doesn't progress much as to actual events. But Gissing seems to me to be laying the groundwork for several major steps forward. For one, the relationship between Everard and Rhoda in Chapter 10 suggests to me that Everard intends to either toy with or seriously engage Rhoda's affections; not clear to me which, but I sense some pre-courtship bantering going on, at least on his part -- I'm less sure about hers, though it is appropriate (in that age) for the woman to be more reticent.

[Everyman]

[I'm responding to a post Lily made in the Books 4-6 thread because to do it justice I need to mention things that would be spoilers there.]

Lily wrote: "In terms of her character, she does demonstrate that she was willing to take a (big) risk in her personal life -- although she may not have perceived it that way. "

To us, certainly, marriage is a big leap and a big risk, particularly when we think of marrying someone we don't love. But I think for a young woman at her age and time, marriage, at least with someone financially stable, represented security, escape from the working world into a life of relative leisure, and security (there was effectively no divorce, and a husband was legally obligated to support his wife financially no matter how bad a wife she might turn out to be). We are told that there are many more women of marriageable age than men, so many women -- the odd women (in certain English games odd means left out) -- will have no chance to marry, and therefore unless they have inherited wealth little hope of a comfortable life. Is it really more of a risk to entrust your future to an older man who appears to be responsible, financially stable, and very fond of you than to leave yourself, perhaps forever, to the vicissitudes of the labor market and, if you should suffer an injury and be unable to work, probably poverty and the workhouse?

To us, where we have social safety nets which replace the obligations of a husband, and where women have plenty of opportunities to find jobs which will afford them, if not enjoyment in their work, at least a living and adequate leisure time to enjoy their time off, it does seem risky to marry without love or even serious affection a person you have only barely gotten to know. But in the context of Monica's life, is it really a greater risk than settling for the life which refusing him would leave her with?

I don't assert that the answer is definitely yes. But I think it's a far more significant question that it would be for a woman in her position today.

[Lily]

Becky wrote: "...That guy has crossed into serious creepy territory and is browbeating her into a relationship..."

Monica needed you for a sister!

[Becky]

Sorry, I've already finished the novel and am working off of notes. When I saw that you had posted she had accepted the marriage I realized I hadn't turned over the page to see the rest of my chapter 11 notes, and was thinking she had accepted marriage in Chapter 12.

Chapter 10 was a bit slow. I enjoyed the banter between Everard and Rhoda, but I didn't feel that the story had progressed there significantly, even the banter didn't seem to pose questions about societal as previous conversation had.

I dont necessarily think Monica would be making a poor choice to marry a man who was older and could provide for her, even if she didn't love him, at least not at this time. I think, however, that it would be incredibly important that she could respect him, and while she says she does, I think she is trying convinve herself of it. She certainly respects that he is capable of providing for her, but I dont think that she respect him . But then, I've always wondered abotu courtship during this time. How well could you get to know anyone if you were never allowed to be alone with them? When conversations were so restricted by propriety? And when people started confessing their love after a few weeks?

[Everyman]

Becky wrote: "I've always wondered abotu courtship during this time. How well could you get to know anyone if you were never allowed to be alone with them? When conversations were so restricted by propriety? And when people started confessing their love after a few weeks?
"

That's a good point. That's why, I suspect, young people almost never talked to each other until after they had been formally introduced. That way, if you trust the person introducing you to them, you have somebody who knows both parties in a way vouching for their feeling safe at least to talk with the other person.

I don't know which chapter it was in, but I do recall that there was a big point made of the fact that Widdowson initially talked to Monica without being introduced first. Gissing seemed to say that that was both highly unusual and perhaps a bit questionable. Which maybe emphasizes that Monica might want to go more slowly here than if she had been properly introduced to him and had somebody who knew him of whom she could ask questions about him if she needed to.

I think the age of arranged marriages (except for the royal family) was pretty much over, but the age of arranged introductions was still very much alive.

[SarahC]

See my message #6 in the previous discussion section. I discuss what you are discussing here.

[Silver]

In regards to Monica and Mr. Widowson. I have mixed feelings, as on the one hand I do think that Mr. Widowson had been crossing the line into the realm of creepiness, on the other hand I am not entirely sure I view it as Monica being brow beaten into marriage with him.

Monica herself is the one that choose to string him along, and keep the possibility open just in case she could not find anything better. She wanted him as a sort of safety net that she could fall back upon. She did make the choice to give him her new addresses when she moved when she could have kept him more at a distance if she had withheld her address from him.

I think that her decision to marry Widowson, is not so much his pursuit of her, but because she is feeling pressured by her circumstance and position. She had just left her previous job, and I do not think she feels certain about her new prospects. She is acknowledged as being a week person, and she comes off as being a bit daft.

I think that the prospect of marriage to someone whom she knows loves her, and who is finically stable is just becoming more and more of a tempting offer.

For that time period, the marriage to him would be an easier route to take than the career venture.

[Lily]

Well put, Silver. I see Monica like probably most of us, not necessarily always a rational mix of caution and of risk-taking, but doing as well as we perceive we can within the limits of our knowledge and our personalities.

[Everyman]

Silver wrote: "I think that her decision to marry Widowson, is not so much his pursuit of her, but because she is feeling pressured by her circumstance and position. She had just left her previous job, and I do not think she feels certain about her new prospects. She is acknowledged as being a week person, and she comes off as being a bit daft. "

I agree with all this, except that I don't see her as daft. Rather, as a combination of indecisive (dithering, even) and lazy/manipulative. She wants to keep Widdowson on the string, as it were, as a security blanket to cushion her if this new scheme doesn't work out for her. And then she decides not even to give the new scheme time and effort, but to go ahead and take the security blanket as the easiest way to get still the turmoil of her life.

Whether it will work out that way, we will see.

[Silver]

Everyman wrote: "agree with all this, except that I don't see her as daft. Rather, as a combination of indecisive (dithering, even) and lazy/manipulative."

Maybe not daft, but she does not strike me as particularly intelligent. And she herself admits to not having more interest in learning or reading. She had no real desire to further her education and did not have any interest in study. And it seems those who know her acknowledge that she is good for little more than being married.

[Everyman]

Silver wrote: "And it seems those who know her acknowledge that she is good for little more than being married. "

And she's proving not very good at that, isn't she? At least in terms of the Victorian conception of marriage?

Note: As I developed this post I realized that I may be including some thinking which developed later in the book. I don't think it's really a spoiler, at least I hope not, but it might seem such to some, so if possible not-very spoilers are of concern, skip this post. I'm reading the book on Kindle and it's hard to go back and check in which chapters specific events took place.

Stumbled over this passage just now, which seems relevant here, from Chapter 16, but I don't think a spoiler here (Rhoda first speaker, Widdowson second):

Miss Barfoot and Miss Nunn are all for work. They take life as seriously as you do.'

'Work? What kind of work? They want to make women unwomanly, to make them unfit for the only duties women ought to perform. ...'

I believe that Widdowson's conception of marriage is the prevailing Victorian conception, perhaps a bit stereotyped so Gissing can accentuate its sharp edges, but still, isn't this basically what the large majority of Victorian males thought about marriage?

I'm far from finished with the book, but it seems to me that Gissing is not giving us nuanced characters, but is rather giving us characters who represent fairly specific beliefs and ideas in a clear light without the softening of nuance. We have the unhappy shop girl, two not very successful wives (Monica, Mrs. Thomas Barfoot) and one apparently so far quite successful wife (Mrs. Micklethwaite), the stern and proper Victorian husband, the impoverished gentlewoman, the campaigner for women's emancipatory rights, the playboy Englishman. None of them seem to me "real" people, but all seem to be written for the purpose of presenting a variety of approaches to life, marriage, and social roles.

[Clarissa]

Everyman wrote: "None of them seem to me "real" people, but all seem to be written for the purpose of presenting a variety of approaches to life, marriage, and social roles.

"

For me Gissing is using these characters (especially the lesser ones) to represent different shades of the central argument, but the novel isn't coming across as didactic.
The central characters occupy the grey areas of human nature; carrying moral flaws and trying to get through their life with some sort of fulfilment, be it the fulfilment of helping others or just to get some sort of pleasure for themselves and an escape from hardship. I like the depiction of Monica who I think has had enough education to be aware of her weaknesses but also has lost three of her sisters and the remaining two (who as far as the novel presents have been in the role of parents through her childhood) are in fading health because of the hardships they have endured.
It's not made explicit, but in Monica's life the marriage doesn't just give her security it also saves the remains of her family from poverty, which provides her with a hard decision whether to marry a man she has no attraction to.

[SarahC]

Everyman, one of the first critical studies I looked at (have not read it all) about Gissing was by Frank Swinnerton. He main criticism was that Gissing's work is largely analytical and researched as far as the characters-- although very intelligent, they are not "imagined" well as characters. I agree somewhat, but more so about the characters of the older Madden sisters, Edmund, and Bevis. You are right, we don't want to give spoilers in this section on the unfolding of some of the characters' roles -- but yes, we see Edmund and Bevis "a mile coming" as my family says. They are too obvious. However, as discussed in the following section, you can see that I do find subtlety and interest in the Barfoots, Rhoda, and Monica. I agree with Clari above that we are provided enough about these characters' backgrounds to give us something to think about and consider concerning their actions and feelings. Their dialog is much stronger and better written.

[Everyman]

Clari wrote: "For me Gissing is using these characters (especially the lesser ones) to represent different shades of the central argument, but the novel isn't coming across as didactic. "

I agree with you. There's certainly a strong didactic streak in it, but the story as story is quite enjoyable, and I continue reading out of pleasure, not duty.

[Everyman]

Here's a question for debate (maybe should have left it to the end of the book, but Clari's comment on the didactic nature of the book brought it to mind):

Which Victorian author shoves his social views into your face more strongly, Gissing or Dickens? Or would you nominate a different author entirely for that perhaps dubious honor?

[Lily]

Everyman wrote: "Here's a question for debate (maybe should have left it to the end of the book, but Clari's comment on the didactic nature of the book brought it to mind):

Which Victorian author shoves his social views into your face more strongly, Gissing or Dickens? Or would you nominate a different author entirely for that perhaps dubious honor?..."

Can that comparison be meaningful? Are you asking in terms of being didactic? In terms of the clarity of the views upheld? In comparison of the depth and breadth of the arguments presented? In terms of the strength and quality of the literature in which embedded?

It seems to me that many of the Victorian authors had social agendas of one type or another, some administering far broader and far longer with considerable aplomb and fluency, some more specifically and perhaps more directly. But, on what spectrum and why I would put Gissing, Dickens, Glaskell, Hardy, Trollope, Thackeray, Wilde, Eliot, .... (and a not all of those may fall in the strictly Victorian range; I'm not checking right now), I'd be hard pressed to rank and justify.

With no spoiler intended(only encouragement to keep reading), I do feel Gissing's characters improve when considered across the whole book and seem less didactic in story-line intent than when first encountered.

[Lily]

Silver wrote: "Everyman wrote: "agree with all this, except that I don't see her as daft. Rather, as a combination of indecisive (dithering, even) and lazy/manipulative."

Maybe not daft, but she does not strike ..."

Perhaps a bit "ditzy"?

(eccentrically silly, giddy, or inane: lacking ... profundity: SHALLOW, ...)
Online Unabridged M-W.

Although I think she does grow -- perhaps here I should phrase it, has the potential for growth.

[Silver]

Lily wrote: "Silver wrote: "Everyman wrote: "agree with all this, except that I don't see her as daft. Rather, as a combination of indecisive (dithering, even) and lazy/manipulative."

Maybe not daft, but she d..."

Yes maybe ditzy would be a bit better than daft.

[Lily]

Silver wrote: "...maybe ditzy would be a bit better than daft...."
"
I could relate to your suggestion of "daft"! But also could sympathize with Eman implying it might be a bit harsh.

Still, depending upon what nuance of definition one intended, ...:

1 a : SILLY, FOOLISH [communicating with his friends in his own way ... making daft little beckonings and esoteric signals -- Osbert Sitwell]; especially : foolishly fond [a man daft about women] b : out of one's mind : MAD, INSANE [they had given me so many instructions that I was nearly daft -- Mary Lavin] [in this daft confusion of inverted values, it soon becomes impossible to determine when virtue is sin and sin, moral perfection -- R.K.Merton]
2 Scotland : gay and frivolous : FROLICSOME

"daft." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (20 Sep. 2012).

[Clarissa]

Thinking about Everyman asking who were the most didactic Victorian authors, I'd suspect that they probably have not survived readership in the twenty first century outside a few academics. I was coincidentally reading a random article online as you do about how there was a whole section of Victorian novelists writing about the hardships of being a governess.
I haven't finished the story yet so I am unsure even what Gissing's beliefs are, will he punish Rhoda for being 'odd' or Monica for thinking her best option was to get married? I saw a quote somewhere that he dismissed his earlier radicalism and settled down to being a conservative.
Maybe because I am more familiar with Dickens I'm more secure that in general terms the 'good' characters survive. I don't know why but I get the feeling Gissing might be a bit harder when deciding his protagonists' fate.