No Name 2014 Scene 1; Feb 1

[Renee, Moderator]

No. Frank is unpalatable because he is weak, selfish, and self-absorbed. Not because he has tried and failed. It is, in part, because he DOESNT try, that he is repugnant. He had no spark, no drive, no intention. He is a pretty boy with reasonably good manners. A tabula Rosa that better characters keep trying to impress with depth. He simply takes whatever is offered without giving anything back. He goes to each fresh opportunity that is offered him, as though merely showing up should be enough to guarantee success.

And, he's too darn eager to live off Magdalen's cash.

Even before the heartless narcissism that allows him to whine over his "mistreatment" in the face of the grief and loss and misery around him- Frank was a non-starter.

Yes, his father is awful. Soul-numbingly awful. But, that doesn't mean he lacks discernment.

[Renee, Moderator]

p. s. I do believe that Magdalen loves him. But it is the high-strung love of a teenager. Increased by the "obstacles" into a fever of passion that she would likely have outgrown. We want more for her future than having to resign herself to her youthful mistakes.

[Evelina | AvalinahsBooks]

yes, I also think that's the case with Magdalen's feelings.

[Teresa]

Well put, Renee. I especially like the touch that Frank thinks he could make a go at engineering, now that he totally blew that opportunity. He's a wet noodle, and Magdelen has so much life force! They are mis-matched.

[Whimsical]

Teresa wrote: "Well put, Renee. I especially like the touch that Frank thinks he could make a go at engineering, now that he totally blew that opportunity. He's a wet noodle, and Magdelen has so much life force..."

I think, it was Magdalen's Dad who thought Frank could make a go at engineering. Frank was too un-ambitious and lazy to even think about improving his station in life.

[Clarissa]

Hi everyone,
I am very much behind the schedule at the moment. I've just finished this section and have enjoyed reading all the comments here.
I loved the manner in which the family was introduced coming down to breakfast after the concert, it gave an instant and easy fix on who everyone was and how they related to each other. Magdalen did seem like the pampered daddy's girl, so it'll be interesting to see how she develops.
I also liked how Frank entered the story as part of a wager between his biological father and the man who acts as a father to him. When he actually comes in the flesh it is clearly as a failure and someone who confirms his father's lack of faith rather than Vanstone's hopes. I don't think Collins shows Frank with any attachment to Magdalen apart from her money and her looks. His woes at going to China never appear to have anything to do about missing this girl who loves him.
I half wonder if it is a nature or nurture thing with him, and would like to see his brothers and how they compare to him.

I am intrigued by the use of 'scenes', is it a playful allusion to Magdalen's theatrical aspirations, or an inter-textual awareness that Collins is presenting his readers with a work of fiction, that his sensationalism is not trying to mimic the realism of other Victorian authors?
I was glad that in the between scenes there was a letter in Norah's own voice as in some ways I find her more intriguing than the more showy Magdalen. Norah's occasional losses of temper, her quiet watching of everyone, the fact she is weary of Frank where the rest of her family are willing to accept him. I don't get the sense the novel is going in this direction, but I was interested in the older sister (26 I think?) seeing her younger sibling easily find a beau, when there is no mention or indication of any love interest in her life. Is she in the pattern of a spinster like Miss Garth, guarding and spying on other people's romances as there is no hope of any of her own?

I'll read on now and hopefully catch up soon :)

[Everyman]

Evelina wrote: "Everyman - I didn't get stuck on scene 1. I'm stuck in the middle of the book."

Ditto. Scene 4 is seeming to go on forever.

[Renee, Moderator]

Good insights, Clari!

I hadn't thought of Norah as being primed to follow in Miss Garth's footsteps. I think of her as merely reserved and introverted, the foil to Magdalen's high spirits. But, That may certainly be the way things go for her now that the family fortune is lost, and she is forced into the role of governess. Miss Garth also hinted at her own family misfortune and past trials.

[Peter]

Evelina wrote: "I have to say I don't really like Magdalen either, but the funny thing is - Collins is trying to depict her as a character with all the imaginable flaws of a lady in the Victorian days - but if she..."

I'm a bit late on beginning this book but certainly agree with you about Magdalena. It is hard to imagine how much a Victorian man or woman would have squirmed when Magdalena's character, beliefs and actions began to unfold themselves on the page. While a 21c audience would see much virtue in her decisions, certainly a 19c audience would have seen much vice.

There has been much discussion on the linkage of her name to the Bible. To me, MM presents a similar dilemma ... Was she a saint or sinner, or are both of those descriptive words too harsh, too extended? Perhaps MM was simply a human, a flawed human.

[Peter]

SarahC wrote: "When beginning a read, these days I find myself ignoring the likeability of the larger characters -- because that is so variable - and looking at various other things that set up the story. I seem ..."

Hi SarahC

I agree with your comments about the importance of minor characters. While Dickens's characters, major or minor, all tend to be grand designs who tend to propel his novels forward, Collins's minor characters tend, for the most part, to be more subtle in nature, essential to the evolution of the plot, yet underplayed. They are, however, more intricate than most of Dickens's minor characters.

[Clarissa]

Peter wrote: "Collins's minor characters tend, for the most part, to be more subtle in nature, essential to the evolution of the plot, yet underplayed. They are, however, more intricate than most of Dickens's minor characters.."

Hi Peter, just interested in why you think Collins' minor characters are more intricate? I always think of Collins' novels as being focused on plot rather than the characters, but I am not well read across his oeuvre.