Victorians! discussion
Archived Group Reads 2014
>
No Name 2014 Scene 1; Feb 1
message 51:
by
Irene
(new)
Feb 05, 2014 03:35PM
Money disputes both then and now rip families apart. I don't recall if the brothers tried to resolve their issues and if they didn't ....well then that explains the animosity towards the daughters.
reply
|
flag
Mod
I don't have introductory notes, but I like the way the book is divided into scenes like a play or one of Magdalen's "theatricals." With the "betweens" happening off stage and setting up the next "act."
Mod
One positive... Good riddance to the chin-less Frank. He needs to stay in China forever! Sorting tea leaves and counting chopsticks!
For a sense of proportion, I tried to get the 80,000 and 100 pound numbers translated into current money. There are various websites that will do it. The one I found would "translate" (my word) into 2011 numbers. It's hard to do, because we don't buy bundles of candles, and they didn't buy Iphones, so there isn't much to compare prices on. You can see where the girls got upset, because they were due to inherit tens of millions of dollars, and were offered a couple thousand.Here are the results from the page:
When using the CPI/RPI, the (average) value in 2011 of £80000 from 1840 is $8,490,000.00. The range of values is from $5,520,000.00 to $11,300,000.00.
When using the GDP deflator, the (average) value in 2011 of £80000 from 1840 is $9200000.00. The range of values is from $6610000.00 to $16300000.00.
When using the CPI/RPI, the (average) value in 2011 of £100 from 1840 is $10,600.00. The range of values is from $6,900.00 to $14,100.00. This answer is better if the subject is a consumer good or something else of interest to an individual.
When using the GDP deflator, the (average) value in 2011 of £100 from 1840 is $11,500.00. The range of values is from $8,270.00 to $20,400.00. This answer is better if the subject is a capital investment or government expenditure
Mod
That is great information, Teresa. That gives a helpful comparison. And we think in further modern terms, of someone today having an annual salary of $11,500, if you see what I mean. That certainly would not have provided the daughters the life that had been accustomed. And there was mention of a great many servants, so that implied wealth -- however, as I understand, the salary of a servant on a large estate all throughout the 19th century was very low in comparison to 20th century and later.
SarahC wrote: "But certainly still he has no sympathy or compassion for two children who had no part of any of this other than being born. Very cold move. Still his blood relations."That's true. But perhaps he believes that the sins of the father should be visited upon the children, in which case they are culpable for what he did. OTOH, he is supposed to forgive seventy time seven, whereas he's forgiving zero times zero.
To be fair, though, we don't know how much he suffered by losing his inheritance, whether he went through a long period of hardship which could only fuel his anger at his brother living in luxury on what should have been his money. Did he lose the love of his life because, being an obedient daughter, she obeyed her father's refusal to let her marry Michael because of his poverty?
It certainly doesn't look good for him, but I don't like to condemn anybody until we have heard his side of the story and been able to judge whether he really is wrong to be so harsh.
SarahC wrote: "Isn't it interesting that the choice of Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Vanstone never set out with the intention of living a wild life -- on the contrary, their getting together helped to make a settled man of ..."Just to clarify: No the Vanstones' did not set out to live a wild live however, their offsprings are being punished (I think) for a decision the father made way before they were born and also which society deemed immoral and have written laws, they say, to guard against this kind of behavior. My talking about the Regency period was to illustrate that these harsh laws were enacted in part due to the behavior during that period and the people of the Victorian era are feeling it most--it was not a indictment of the Vanstone's way of life.
Whimsical wrote: "SarahC wrote: "Isn't it interesting that the choice of Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Vanstone never set out with the intention of living a wild life -- on the contrary, their getting together helped to make a ..."Certainly, Whimsical, I understood that you were relaying the circumstances in which this story took place rather than speaking for or against any particular thing yourself. Thank you. And that is me as well, simply posing views to these situations - and certainly not necessarily condemning or making conclusions to anything at this point -- thanks to your great points as well, Everyman.
That is the beauty of good novels, particularly from key eras of our society -- they present situations that humans deal with and suffer from -- things that transcend time. And another good point, Everyman, good stories allow us to look at the experiences on all sides of the story (in this case the family). I am sure we will get to Michael Vanstone's story very soon. I can't wait.
I wonder what a psychologist would diagnose Frank with. Learned Helplessness? Spoiled Brat? My daughter is a strong character and she dated a Frank-like guy who's parents wanted her to help him grow up. He was 3 years older than her chronologically, but a child in mental age.
Renee wrote: "Structure...I don't have introductory notes, but I like the way the book is divided into scenes like a play or one of Magdalen's "theatricals." With the "betweens" happening off stage and setting..."
I posted in our Supplemental thread also, but Renee, here is interesting commentary on the Scenes of our novel.
http://wutheringexpectations.blogspot...
Teresa wrote: "I wonder what a psychologist would diagnose Frank with. Learned Helplessness? Spoiled Brat? My daughter is a strong character and she dated a Frank-like guy who's parents wanted her to help him ..."I am not really seeing Frank as a person with major flaws at this point. I see him as a young man of a certain social status being sent out to make his way in the world, but perhaps not in ways he is meant for. He is failing to fit the assigned mode, but I am not sure that is due to internal weaknesses. Madgalen sees worthy things in him, obviously, so will we all see more from him further along in the story?
I don't necessarily see his dad as a supportive guy on the other hand! So maybe some of the trouble falls from his character and operation in life?
I think Frank is just weak, and not in a modern interesting way, but in a Victorian useless way; I also think Madgalen wants to mother him, when she really needs to find a man worthy of her. Here’s hoping she finds someone else through the course of the novel!In terms of the stigma of illegitimacy, yes, I don't think it has much importance to our modern consciousness. I don't know if it's because DNA testing kind of eliminates the need for marriage as paternity or because we no longer see marriage as a necessary requirement for offspring, but it's obvious that, for the Victorians, it was a BFD.
In response to that, I'm awed that Collins is willing to undertake such a sympathetic view of the girl's predicament, not only for the girls (since, after all, it was no fault of their own, but the "sin" of their parents that excludes them in the eyes of the law and society) but for Mr. and Mrs. Vanstone. I know that Collins never married and had several children out of wedlock so maybe that influenced his opinion on the so-called morality of illegitimate children.
SarahC wrote: "Which leads me to say, this first scene I think it tricky to comment upon in parts because it reveals so incredibly much of the story of this novel. THE "spoiler" is obviously and intentionally ri..."I agree, SarahC, the outline of the novel so far seems kind of lopsided. I makes me wonder how the rest of the novel is going to play out, since the cat is already out of the bag, but I'm so captivated by Magdalen that I don't care. This is one example of an author's characterization excusing any flaws in plot or outline!
SarahC wrote: "Teresa wrote: "I wonder what a psychologist would diagnose Frank with. Learned Helplessness? Spoiled Brat? My daughter is a strong character and she dated a Frank-like guy who's parents wanted h..."I agree with you SarahC about Frank. I think he is a product of his home environment. His Dad most definitely did not instill allot of confidence in him. Had it not been for Mr Vanstone, who took him under his wings, he would have been worst off. It is obvious that both Magdalen and her father sees some potential in him. Whether he ever live up to that potential is yet to be seen.
I think it is interesting when our discussions start to develop to not only examine individual characters, but also to move to look at them in their relationships within the story. This will certainly be a great thread to carry throughout out the discussion, as the story develops. I am thinking of what we have already been discussing. I am not sure what will be the most prevalent view of Magdalen, Frank, Clare, the other Vanstones, etc. It will be interesting to see.I think about Frank alongside Magdalen, with thoughts to Miss Garth's comments on the matter in Chap. 8. For example, Frank pales in comparison to Magdalen, but that may not necessarily mean he is pale. It will be interesting to see how we view her drive, impulses, emotions, plans, and then to see how the other characters factor in to her character.
Nina wrote: "SarahC wrote: "Which leads me to say, this first scene I think it tricky to comment upon in parts because it reveals so incredibly much of the story of this novel. THE "spoiler" is obviously and i..."I know, Nina, the early "reveal" makes us all wonder what is ahead! haha
I love the scene where Magdalene is hidden in the bushes and hears the lawyer talking to Miss Garth. The first time I read this book, I was amazed by that bit of story-telling art.I'm so happy people are enjoying this book!
SarahC wrote: "Madgalen sees worthy things in him, obviously, so will we all see more from him further along in the story?"Does she really see worthy things in him? She loves him, for sure, but if she saw worthy things in him, I missed that. Though I admit that the action of the early novel drew me relentlessly forward and made me skim many things that seemed less critical, so I may well have missed it.
We are told (in Chapter 4) that Magdalen was Frank's "favorite playfellow in past times," Magdalen pushes him into the play where she "[takes] took him in hand, as a middle-aged schoolmistress might have taken in hand a backward little boy." When Norah berates Magdalen for her interest in Frank, of whom Norah says "He is selfish, he is ungrateful, he is ungenerous—he is only twenty, and he has the worst failings of a mean old age already. And this is the man I find you meeting in secret—the man who has taken such a place in your favor that you are deaf to the truth about him, even from my lips!" Magdalen doesn't defend him or deny Norah's accusations.
And when Magdalen and her father discuss Frank's imminent departure for China when he has failed for a second time to do anything worthwhile for his life, Magdalen says ""I suppose he will make his fortune in China?" she said. Doesn't sound to me like a ringing endorsement of faith in him. It is her father who expresses the belief in Frank using Magdalen's fortune to buy a partnership: "Your mother and I mean to live and see Frank a great merchant."
Assuming that women, especially impressionable young women, can fall in love with a man without necessarily seeing anything worth in them, what is it that Magdalen sees in Frank that makes her think he's worth much of anything?
The Legitimacy Act of 1926 made children such as Norah and Magdalene legitimate when their parents married. 1926, people!
Mod
Isn't that something, that it took until 1926 to realize that children needed to be able to legally claim a parent? Everyman, there is certainly a mixture of information coming from the text regarding Frank and Magdalen. It is almost as if we are not meant to be sure of what is happening as readers. The passages you mention do lean strongly one way, but also don't forget Magdalen's proclamation in Chap. 15, "Fond! I would die for him!" We don't know if this is evidence or not, but it should be placed on the table. The thing that is missing is any intimate conversation between the two of them -- we are left out of that entirely. I have a sense that there is something there, completely my own opinion, so we will see.
I did interpret her question of will he make his fortune in China as her not wanting him to disappear for five years. Doubting the wisdom of sending him away possibly rather than his ability. Also just my own view, but I will go back and reread that again.
Yes, I can tell we are all getting absorbed in this.
Can you imagine reading this in the serialized format and having to wait a month for the next chapter? Argh!
SarahC wrote: " The passages you mention do lean strongly one way, but also don't forget Magdalen's proclamation in Chap. 15, "Fond! I would die for him!" We don't know if this is evidence or not, but it should be placed on the table."Oh, absolutely, there's no question she loves him passionately. But that's a very different thing, in my view, from seeing worthy things in him. She's still very young, up to this point, with an intact family, wealth, an indulgent father, and a caring governess, she's been very sheltered from the world and from what it takes to succeed worthily in the world, hasn't she?
How many women marry men who their friends know perfectly well are worthless? (And, sadly, often turn out to be?) My niece did exactly that. But she was in love with him.
Magdalen's love I don't doubt. But as you say, we have almost no conversation between them, and we really don't know much about what she really thinks about him and his prospects. Nor, at her age and situation during the time she fell in love (while she was still an heiress) did she, I think, care about his prospects.
I think Norah is a lot more clear headed about him. And she doesn't think much of him, does she?
Mod
I know what you mean! I have trouble waiting until the next time I have to sit and read. I suppose that's one contributor to certain characters becoming so familiar... Rereading until the next portion came out!
Everyman wrote: "SarahC wrote: " The passages you mention do lean strongly one way, but also don't forget Magdalen's proclamation in Chap. 15, "Fond! I would die for him!" We don't know if this is evidence or not, ..."I will comment more on this, of course, as our story progresses. I can only share my own views at this point. I think a man's choices and a woman's choices in who they attach themselves to also has a great deal to do with their own self-esteem issues. If they value themselves, their own homelife, and the world around them, no matter what age, they have some basis to make decisions of another person's value to them as a friend or partner (regardless of the opinions of those around them). So probably too early in the story to see what Magdalen's real makeup is herself and the strength of her judgements about others, including Frank. Just my views, nothing more :)
I wonder if Magdalene's choice of Frank is influenced by her Dad. Her dad is so willing to do what she wants, and so good tempered, is she not seeing the underlying weakness/whining in Frank?
I dislike Frank either, but it's really mean to judge him like that too. Imagine yourself in Frank's position - put into some random trade - and he's supposed to just make it work..? what if he doesn't like it? doesn't he have a right to look for a trade that suits him? I thought that's what kids today do - they look for themselves. then why are you people so against Frank trying to find himself?however, I've said before that Magdalen's quick falling in love with Frank is quite childish and unnatural. I even found it hard to believe.
oh, and another thing. Frank's dad is a complete demotivator. I'd see you grow up in a house where you're constantly being put down. I'd see how manly and sure of yourself you'd be then.
SarahC wrote: "So probably too early in the story to see what Magdalen's real makeup is herself and the strength of her judgements about others, including Frank."Agree. We haven't yet seen Magdalen under adversity, and haven't seen whether Frank, now that he has something meaningful to work toward, will pull himself together. They're both still quite young.
Each is facing something very different from the life they have lived up to now. Magdalen is facing poverty, namelessness, and the need to earn her own living, and Frank is being dumped into a foreign country (and presumably far more foreign to a young man then than now, when we have much more cultural awareness of the world). Watching them each deal with new challenges, when they both have the comfort of love to bolster them, will be interesting.
Evelina wrote: "however, I've said before that Magdalen's quick falling in love with Frank is quite childish and unnatural. I even found it hard to believe."I agree that we weren't well prepared for it. But we were told that they were childhood friends who spent a lot of time together. And since they lived in the country, they might not have had a wide range of young people to interact with. When I think back in the 50s, with no Internet, no texting, no social media to expose one to a wider world, how many of my high school friends married high school classmates because that's who they knew well, Magdalen and Frank falling in love is a bit less surprising.
The reason I dislike Frank so much is his childish statement during the Between the Scenes letter from Norah to Mr Pendril. When Magdalene tells him to go to China, he says "All the hardships and the sacrifices have fallen to my share. I'm the only one amoung you who has any heart ... I only want to stay at home." He says this to girls who just lost their parents and fortune, and are going to lose their home. Norah and Magdalene want to stay at home, too.
Hi everyone - as usual, I'm coming a bit late to the discussion, so apologies in advance if I mention anything that's already been said.In the same way that some of us have seen parallels between Norah/Magdalen and Eleanor/Marianne, Frank is also reminding me in some ways of Richard Carstone in Bleak House - his inability to "settle" into a profession and his occasional bouts of selfishness. They both seem like weak characters to us. I wonder, though, how frequently other young men of the time failed and failed again in this way, assuming of course they had the luxury of at least a middle-class background to support their failures. As anyone who has been an 18-year-old girl/woman can tell you, 18-year-old men/boys can seem tragically immature!
As for Magdalen, in a way she seems more real than Marianne in that her character undergoes a profound change in the face of dire circumstances. Perhaps we were intended to find her a little bit annoying at the start of the novel so that the contrast would be even more remarkable when she suddenly has to (or forces herself to?) grow up.
This is a re-read for me, and I'm very much enjoying it. And, as always, it's lovely to be reading in such good company!
It's interesting that we seem torn about Frank, since I think Collins very clearly wants us to dislike him, or at least be annoyed by him. I don't think he is worthy of Magdalen in anyway, not because he is a bad person, but because he is not ENOUGH for her. You know what I mean? Magdalen is such an intense character, both good and bad, that I worry about her throwing herself away on the first man she feels a fancy for. I don't think she loves him, because I don't think you can love someone so clearly ill-suited for you. Magdalen might THINK she's in love with him, and act accordingly, but I don't think (at least I hope) it will last the five years Frank is gone, on her side or his.
Nina wrote: "It's interesting that we seem torn about Frank, since I think Collins very clearly wants us to dislike him, or at least be annoyed by him."Interesting. I didn't get that feeling, particularly since I don't think that Dickens would have wanted us to dislike somebody Magdalen was so much in love with. I see his ineptitude more as a foil, but he outlived his usefulness fairly quickly, so had to be shipped off to China, and then gotten out of Magdalen's way for good.
Everyman wrote: I don't think that Dickens would have wanted us to dislike somebody Magdalen was so much in love with.Or Collins, even!! (G)
Despite the giggle, I have to say that No Name feels more mature and more Dickensian than many other Collins novels I've read. Captain Wragge and his mother have that element of "realistic caricature" which make Dickens' novels so intensely readable, for example. The plot so far and character development also feel far more thoughtful and avoid falling too much into the melodrama that characterizes his more sensational story lines. (I'm not criticizing the other big novels as I love them too, but this one is different in ways I hadn't noticed the first time I read it)
What do you think?
Pip wrote: "Or Collins, even!! (G)True. But Dickens and Collins were such good friends, I'm sure they thought alike on this question. [embarrassed g]
Despite the giggle, I have to say that No Name feels more mature and more Dickensian than many other Collins novels I've read.
I've only read the Moonstone and the Woman in White, but I see your point. Collins is doing something a bit different here, as he explained in the introduction, and it shows. Perhaps because he isn't so focused on trying to keep the ball hidden and the reader in such perpetual suspense it may give him more freedom to attend to character development.
The plotting on this book is immense. Collins must have gotten lots of paper out and written out the characters and how they intertwine, despite it being serialized. I can't explain this book to anyone in a few sentences. I need days.
yeah, this novel also felt much more like Dickens to me. although there's one immense difference.. what i dislike about Dickens is his one-dimensional characters - his guys are always either good or bad, and there's no way they'd change.. they just stay that way. while Collins keeps his characters human - having both good and bad traits.but the humour, and the pace.. definitely feels much more Dickensian to me in this novel. perhaps that's why i find No Name much less compelling than the Moonstone or the Woman in white.
I have an idea why it might be so much like Dickens's writing.. because this was serialized. and that's why it's a little dragged out. after all, i think a lot of Dickens's stuff was written in this form too.
about Frank - I think he will return. maybe not as Magdalen's lover, but i feel that he will still be present in the story. I don't think Magdalen will take him back, but he will probably regret his decision.
Dickens being one of my favorite authors, it must certainly be in the "eye of the beholder." I must disagree about the one-dimensional characters -- as Teresa said about this book we are reading -- in terms of Dickens I can hardly put it in words, but Dickens' novel Our Mutual Friend is home to an impressive list of multi-dimensional characters. And in my view, he has written immensely human, dimensional characters, male and female.Collins, however, I still do not mesh well. Pip, were you referring to Mrs. Wragge, Wragge's wife? I use her as an example. So far, I see her very much as a glaring construct. Since this is in the next discussion section, I will place in (view spoiler)
Don't get me wrong, I am really enjoying this novel, but some points do not flow as well. I know certain constructs and coincidences are found within all great fiction, Dickens is certainly an example, however they are often more appetizingly incorporated into the plot more so than Collins makes them. And I still feel, at this point, that Woman in White is my favorite, but too early to tell!
What a great discussion everyone!
All I can say is, Keep Reading! The plots develop and the characters develop. Give it more time.
Firstly, apologies for inadvertently naming a character out of her section, although I don't think the plot has been spoilt for anyone :-)SarahC - I agree with you that Dickens and Collins are in different leagues - parallel leagues, maybe, as they are both masters of their trades, but certainly different ones.
In my comment, I simply meant that I felt a slight closing of the gap with the character development shown by Magdalen, and the caricature-like figure of Mrs W. I won't say more here so as not to put my foot in it again - and I'll need to read on a bit more before commenting on the second section. I'll be back!!
Apologies not necessary, Pip. I don't think we gave away anything in our brief comments. I was commenting upon yours and the comments of other group members too, so kind of mixing responses together. I think this is very intriguing writing and look forward to what is ahead. I had thought I would get further with my reading today, but got stalled. Hopefully will catch up and discuss more tomorrow. Even though I am still a critic, I am really getting drawn in!
I'm actually sort of stuck on this book at the moment.. yes, I also think that The Woman in White was much more readable than this one. It flowed more easily. No Name sometimes gets a little bit static for me and I just get stuck.
Just wondering. Is the character of Frank based on himself. I read an article about Collins, which suggested that he had done various things, like being apprenticed to a tea merchant, studying law, being a painter etc. Was he mocking himself.
Mod
Evelina wrote: "I'm actually sort of stuck on this book at the moment.. yes, I also think that The Woman in White was much more readable than this one. It flowed more easily. No Name sometimes gets a little bit st..."I didn't get stuck as early as you did, but I'm getting a bit bored in some of the later scenes. Which I will mention when the schedule gets to them, but I understand why you would be sticking.
Bharathi wrote: "Just wondering. Is the character of Frank based on himself. I read an article about Collins, which suggested that he had done various things, like being apprenticed to a tea merchant, studying law,..."Interesting, Bharathi! Have you got a link to the article? One day I mean to read a biography of Collins, possibly the Peter Ackroyd as I generally enjoy his writing. Has anyone else read a biography they'd recommend?
I was googling Wilkie Collins and I came upon an article about him in the Newyorker. I will try to find it again and have the link here.
Everyman - I didn't get stuck on scene 1. I'm stuck in the middle of the book.About Frank being maybe similar to Wilkie in his youth - that's why I said you guys shouldn't hate him so much for not being instantly successful. Because real people are just like that - they fail. Many times. Some are never successful. Not a reason to hate them.
Victorians!
Books mentioned in this topic
Sense and Sensibility (other topics)The Woman in White (other topics)
