Victorians! discussion
Archived Group Reads 2014
>
No Name 2014 Scenes 2 & 3; Feb 8
date
newest »
newest »
Nina wrote: "While it's arguable whether she really blames Frank as much as she should, I think we can all agree that she sees her hard-hearted uncle (and, now, his equally hard-hearted son) as the source of her misery. Added to her own turmoil is the news that her sister's life is also falling into shambles. All this is going to create a whirlwind in an already manipulative, angry girl, and I think she's going to start making bad moral decisions to enact revenge. "I have to keep reminding myself how young Madgalen is. When we first meet her she is only eighteen. Even after the months spent on the road performing, she can only be nineteen or possibly barely twenty at best. It's no wonder that she reacts so emotionally to events, particularly to Frank's letter -- the loss of one's first serious love is a traumatic event for any teenager. She is acting in many ways as though she were much older, but she isn't, so we shouldn't be surprised when she gets overly emotional about things.
Although the Preface wasn't specifically "assigned" in any of the reading sections, since it's Collins's Preface and he presumably intended readers to read it as part of the story I'm going to discuss a point from it. But if you don't want to read about a point made in it, move on to the next post and skip what's below.[Background music plays softly to give you a moment to move on to the next post, or decide to keep reading.
End of background music.]
Collins in the Preface writes "THE main purpose of this story is to appeal to the reader's interest in a subject which has been the theme of some of the greatest writers, living and dead—but which has never been, and can never be, exhausted, because it is a subject eternally interesting to all mankind. Here is one more book that depicts the struggle of a human creature, under those opposing influences of Good and Evil, which we have all felt, which we have all known. It has been my aim to make the character of "Magdalen," which personifies this struggle, a pathetic character even in its perversity and its error;"
So far, I haven't seen Magdalen struggling between Good and Evil because I really don't see much Good in her life. Pursuing a person who has legally inherited money and won't share it with you doesn't really seem to me to be a Good; it may be understandable, but it's their money, she has no legal right to it, moral rights are irrelevant at law, but in pursuing what she sees as a moral right she is trying to winkle it out of them by surreptitious, fraudulent, and perhaps even criminal means.
Maybe it will become clearer as the book progresses, but at the moment I don't see a struggle between good and evil here, let alone between Good and Evil in some apparently more universal sense.
Good point Everyman. I too wondered about Good and Evil as it pertains to the characters in the early part of the novel. However, it becomes apparent when he introduces the Uncle and even more with the introduction of Wraggle and it reaches its zenith with Mrs. Lecount. I must confess however, that I personally saw more evil than good in most of the novel.
What? She has been doing nothing else but struggling between the good and the evil. That's what Collins is going on about it every chapter almost! she's struggling to make a choice - revenge or no revenge. of course, she's probably already made this choice at this point of the book, and now the only thing that remains is how heavy the evil will be.
Whimsical wrote: " it reaches its zenith with Mrs. Lecount."Do you consider her good or evil?
In that she's opposing our heroine, it's tempting to think of her as evil, but in fact she is a very faithful and honest servant, trying to save her master from what she believes (rightly) is a fraudulent attempt to deceive him for reasons as yet not clear to her. But she is intelligent, resourceful, and dedicated 100% to what is really her master's best interests, even though he may not always know it.
She and Miss Garth, and perhaps Norah, are really the only honest people (of the main characters) in the book, aren't they? Maybe Mr. Pendril, but I'm not so sure about him, and he doesn't really have much of a role to play.
Evelina wrote: "What? She has been doing nothing else but struggling between the good and the evil. That's what Collins is going on about it every chapter almost! she's struggling to make a choice - revenge or no ..."Hmmm. I don't see much of a struggle. She seems strongly committed to extracting money by deceptive and dishonest means from a man whose legal property it is. Yes, there are a few moments in Scene 3 where she seems disheartened, but I don't see her seriously considering giving up her quest, nor do I see her acknowledging that what she's doing is wrong and evil.
Mod
Norah is Magdalen's "good angel." Which is why she cut herself off from her sister's influence at the beginning of her endeavor. She did not WANT to be influenced against her plans for revenge. M's farewell letter speaks of her internal conflict, and I do not believe, this was a small consideration. I think that every time Magdalen expresses that she misses Norah, she is expressing more than sisterly affection.
In scene one, Magdalen was shown to be willful, manipulative, and selfish. But, not evil. Not willfully cruel. Not manipulative to the detriment of others. When she embarrasses Norah through her mimicry, it is out of thoughtlessness, not intention. When they argue over Frank, Magdalen feels the censure deeply, as demonstrated by the fact that, much later, she recalls Norah's description of him as " “only twenty, and he has the worst failings of a mean old age already."
In scene two,Collins has Magdalen reconnect with her sister via correspondence as a demonstration that she has not yet gone beyond that good influence. She still craves that connection. And, in scene 3, M. Seeks out one glimpse of Norah before committing to her deception. M will not be dissuaded, but she is not, yet, wholly beyond redemption.
Also, I believe the story was published in serial, and the readers would not benefit from Collins's introductory comments. I do not believe the original audience would have one back simply to read about a bad girl behaving badly. Conflict is the lifeblood of story-telling. (Even if it's subtext.)
Yes, I actually like Mrs. Lecount too. Even in Collins's words she has more virtues than bad things about her! She's just on the wrong side (and that's what I like about Collins's writing - there are no good or bad sides, really).I also agree to the whole reasoning about Norah being the good side of Magdalen. Nicely put!
Renee wrote: "I find it interesting that Magdalen seems to have had a plan for the elder Mr. Vanstone that involved investments. Perhaps a swindle where the talents of Capt. Wragge would prove useful. (Although,..."Hi Renee
Magdalen and Lisbeth Salander. Wow! When I step back and think about it, you are spot on. They both are faced with a horrid situation and both work in, around and out of the constraints of their social/historical period.
Everyman wrote: "Nina wrote: "While it's arguable whether she really blames Frank as much as she should, I think we can all agree that she sees her hard-hearted uncle (and, now, his equally hard-hearted son) as the..."Hi Everyman
I'm finally getting caught up to date. You are right about the reader keeping in mind Magdalen's age. It keeps slipping my mind she is very young. Given her protected social background one would think the story/plot would spin in Nora's direction and we would get yet another "governess struggles and then finds success story" like Jane Eyre or "orphan finds success and love" story like bleak House.
Collins is certainly pushing convention much more than Dickens.
Everyman wrote: "I have to keep reminding myself how young Madgalen is. ."An eighteen-twenty year old in Victorian times is very different from a similar age group now though. For example within the same book, I think Frank is only 17 when he is sent off to be an engineer and it is presented as a character flaw how badly he fails, whereas for a modern youth I suspect the family and friend response would be more along the lines of, 'you gave it a go, you're still very young, plenty of time to work out what you want to do' etc.
One thing that intrigues me about Magdalen is that within the narrative it says that she's never spoken to a man like Wagge before, but very quickly she seems to be on equal terms with him so the reader is not sure who is in control, where has she learnt how to handle a scoundrel, when scene one presents her as someone who has been pampered and falls for the first good looking guy who walks her way?
Evelina wrote: "Yes, I actually like Mrs. Lecount too. Even in Collins's words she has more virtues than bad things about her! She's just on the wrong side (and that's what I like about Collins's writing - there a..."My reading of Mrs Lecount was that she is more self-interested. I am following the lead of that reliable narrator Wagge though so am probably wrong, but he indicates that she would have expected something from a will if Michael Vanstone had written one. With her control over the son and his weak health, I wonder if she is scheming, using his inherent miserly character, to secure a nice inheritance for herself one day soon.
Two totally unimportant things bothered me in this section.One, did they not have the amphibian class in the first half of the 1800s? (I've been annoyed enough to google this but couldn't find a reply!) Why do they keep calling the toad a reptile?
Two, are there any well-rounded nice men in this world? I'm holding hopes out for the mention of a cousin, George something?, who hasn't yet appeared. But as men seem to be in short reply I'd probably pair a good one off with Norah so she doesn't have to put up with someone else's kid throwing a tantrum on her, and Magdalen could have a successful stage career without worrying about her sister having to quit her job to protect her honour.
Yes, Magdalen shows some native intelligence and savvy. Not good by 19thc standards, I suppose, but that's why I like her. I hadn't thought about the uniqueness of Mrs Lecount's toad, interesting.
Clari:a successful acting career is impossible for Magdalen. Collins states it clearly enough that acting for a young girl is nearly same as inappropriate as the red light district. Apparently. So no happy acting career for Magdalen.
I was also puzzled about the reptile, actually.
Evelina wrote: "Clari:a successful acting career is impossible for Magdalen. Collins states it clearly enough that acting for a young girl is nearly same as inappropriate as the red light district. Apparently. S..."
Yes, I'm not sure at what historical point actresses did become respected instead of viewed as prostitutes (which of course many of them were). I thought the change began in the nineteenth century and was complete by Edwardian times?
But back to the novel, seeing that Magdalen steps out of the bounds of expectations of her class and gender anyway, I think she would be happier expressing her passions on stage than on her vengeful search for some kind of justice.
The toad as a reptile is puzzling, I believed that Collins liked to research and get his stories factually correct, and coming from a scientific background Mrs Lecount would definitely call it an amphibian (if the difference between reptiles and amphibians had been defined by then?)
yeah, I also think it's a big contradiction that society wanted to view plays, but abhorred the actresses. doesn't make any sense!Collins is still writing about earlier times than his own.. but then his view still makes you think that even at the middle-end of the 19th century actresses were still thought of as totally disrespectable.
about reptiles, well.. let's give Collins the benefit of the doubt.. he didn't have google back then :D it's only really easy to find out things nowadays.. I bet it was harder then.
I think that actors and actresses were looked down on we'll into the 20th century. Certainly there were special hotels for them, since "respectable" hotels wouldn't take them.
Teresa wrote: "I think that actors and actresses were looked down on we'll into the 20th century. Certainly there were special hotels for them, since "respectable" hotels wouldn't take them."Collins was well acquainted with actresses/actors and their lifestyle. With Dickens, Collins wrote, produced and acted himself. Collins would have had a front seat to the understanding of touring acting companies and how actresses were viewed by the public, both when on the stage, and when out of costume.
Clari wrote: "Evelina wrote: "Clari:a successful acting career is impossible for Magdalen. Collins states it clearly enough that acting for a young girl is nearly same as inappropriate as the red light distric..."
I doubt if Magdalin intended to pursue acting as a career, beside it being not a respectable profession, I think it was a means to an end. I also think that acting was popular within families as a means of entertaining each other. She perhaps thought it the only way to get into the Vanstones household to find out about him and to plot a way to get back her inheritance.
Also, I don't think the author called or even alluded to a toad being a reptile. In that paragraph he spoke about "slimy frogs, "tiny fish" and "slippery eft." The eft is a reptile. He said, "the art of keeping fish and reptiles as domestics pets had not at that time been popularized in England" -- --remember Mrs. Lecount had an aquarium and a toad as a pet. To take this a little further, I think h chose to have Mrs. Lecount's pet be a toad because he perhaps was alluding to her being a "toady."
Whimsical wrote: "Clari wrote: "Evelina wrote: "Clari:a successful acting career is impossible for Magdalen. Collins states it clearly enough that acting for a young girl is nearly same as inappropriate as the red..."
Your phrase "a means to an end" when discussing Magdalen is very important as the reader comes to a individual perception of her. What she is attempting to accomplish is to regain what was rightfully and lawfully not hers as the 19C laws existed. Whether the reader choses to side with her plans raises the question of the law versus what is, arguably, morally right and fair. Too infrequently is the law ever fair, right, proper and morally acceptable to all parties.
For me, one of the great powers of this book is watching the drama and Magdalen's quest unfold and trying to interpret all that happens from a 19c perspective, and then balancing the events with a 21c perspective. The question I ask myself is "was she right to pursue the money?" My 21C mind cheers her on. It is much harder to judge the 19C. Collins was indeed stepping into so very new and mostly uncharted territory.
Evelina wrote: "yeah, I also think it's a big contradiction that society wanted to view plays, but abhorred the actresses. doesn't make any sense!."As Shakespeare well showed, you didn't need actresses. You only needed actors. I can only imagine what people thought when women started mixing into that all male profession, among men who were not known for their social standing. Why would any decent woman want mix with such company? What sort of women started integrating the stage? There may have been very good reason for such prejudices.
Whimsical wrote: "I doubt if Magdalin intended to pursue acting as a career, beside it being not a respectable profession, I think it was a means to an end."We have, I think, to keep in mind that Magdalen was not acting with a mixed gender company, but was a one-woman show. I think that may have been more respectable, since the society was well accustomed to women "performing" in drawing rooms and even in the public rooms of Bath, etc. I don't recall where she was actually performing, but my thought is it may well not have been in traditional playhouses.
Has anyone else pictured Noel Vanstone as a Toad?
Peter wrote: "Whimsical wrote: "Clari wrote: "Evelina wrote: "Clari:a successful acting career is impossible for Magdalen. Collins states it clearly enough that acting for a young girl is nearly same as inappr..."
Peter, yours is a good comment to ponder. Is this the basic question of this novel? The story is interesting, but very contrived. Is this the nature of sensationalist fiction and simply to create drama for the readers? Or are we meant to not even take it too seriously and simply concentrate on the moral decisions of this woman Magdalen, who faces an unethical legal/social system?
Everyman wrote: "Whimsical wrote: "I doubt if Magdalin intended to pursue acting as a career, beside it being not a respectable profession, I think it was a means to an end."We have, I think, to keep in mind that..."
Everyman, you have brought up a distinction in the story, while acting was not accepted for a person of Magdalen's class, she was, at least, performing her act in private residences, and properly chaperoned, as guess you could say, by her "relatives." This was a very good scheme of Wragge.
maybe he just wanted to draw the public attention to the law that he thought unjust and obsolete?
I know on the last section we discussed main and lesser characters in these novels. Are there any thoughts on Wragge, who clearly is a strong main character in his own right? Of course he is a con-man, but is he surprising to anyone? I keep thinking about the title of this novel. From a symbolic standpoint, Wragge has given Magdalen two names, not her own, within which to live by the end of this section of the reading. She has already lost the legal claim to the name she was born with. It seems that Wragge's naming of her symbolically represents a general unconcern for this woman's plight. She is one of the many grand schemes listed in his notebooks. One of the headings in his "books" is "Skins to Jump Into." It is strictly business for Wragge.
Also, I might suggest, aside from being a character who is bad/good, like/dislike -- instead what do you think he means to the story at this point? This would be a great thread to carry through until the end of our reading.
Also, I don't think the author called or even alluded to a toad being a reptile. In that paragraph he spoke about "slimy frogs, "tiny fish" and "slippery eft." The eft is a reptile. "Isn't an eft a life stage of a newt, which again would be an amphibian?
And the toad is certainly referred to as a reptile, for example:
'For want of a nobler object to attack, it took the direction of the toad. The sight of the hideous little reptile sitting placid on his rock throne, with his bright eyes staring impenetrably into vacancy, irritated every nerve in her body.'
I raised the point out of personal curiosity whether it was a mistake or amphibians hadn't yet been classified as separate from reptiles yet.
As you mention though, Whimsical, the more significant literary discussion is probably the connection between Mrs Lecount and these strange creatures that disgust Magdalen.
Do her pets also mark her more as a foreigner as the narrative mentions that aquariums were rare in England at this time?
SarahC wrote: "The story is interesting, but very contrived. Is this the nature of sensationalist fiction and simply to create drama for the readers? Or are we meant to not even take it too seriously and simply concentrate on the moral decisions of this woman Magdalen, who faces an unethical legal/social system? ."From a personal perspective I don't find the sensational novels that I've encountered thus far as worthy for individual study as other Victorian works. But that doesn't mean that they aren't drawing attention to important social issues, unlike the earlier Gothic novels, they do have realistic and contemporary settings which is interesting as it draws attention to the lies and secrets underneath the safety of the Victorian social veneer. And as I mentioned in another thread I'm interested in how they examine identity, is it merely a skin to put on, like in Wragge's book, another name to assume, or is it something inherent in humans that cannot be escaped?
Evelina wrote: "maybe he just wanted to draw the public attention to the law that he thought unjust and obsolete?"Good point!
SarahC wrote: "I know on the last section we discussed main and lesser characters in these novels. Are there any thoughts on Wragge, who clearly is a strong main character in his own right? Of course he is a con..."SarahC
You comments are interesting and worth pondering. Points of identity, ownership and recognition abound in No Name. If people like Magdalen and Ruth lose their identities, then how does a person assume, or perhaps, more accurately, assert a new identity? Wregge christens Magdalen with two new names/identities and through these persona she is able to become someone else in dress, speech, action and presentation. This may well be an example of Wregge's unconcern for her plight, but I wonder if it is not also a necessary forward step in the evolution of Magdalen's purpose and ability to survive in her new situation and reality.
Mrs. Lecount's aquarium of creatures seems to me to further the theme of identity and evolution. While these creatures hop about in their confined and controlled world and environment, Magdalen must adopt to her new surroundings or die. It's all rather weirdly Darwin I know, but this novel strikes me as one that is about survival, evolution of social standards and change.
As Ruth falls into the default role of governess, which was, in many ways, the sole path of survival for a woman placed in far too many situations in the 19c, Magdalen refuses to take that path. Magdalen decides to throw the dice of chance and fate. I think the two individual paths the sisters take are very key to a full understanding of this novel.
Clari wrote: "SarahC wrote: "The story is interesting, but very contrived. Is this the nature of sensationalist fiction and simply to create drama for the readers? Or are we meant to not even take it too serious..."This is a good point, Clari, and maybe what brings readers back to Collins. The improbable events, tension between characters, etc. are exciting, but the elements of real life -- death, pending poverty, women's issues, etc. are certainly part of the real world, faced then and now by our characters here. Even in the world of men -- how many men were there living on the fringes feeling it necessary to live the life Wragge did? It was a strict culture which favored the landed and wealthy classes -- not a place where too many people had opportunity and an easy time. Collins does give us a chance to think about the world underneath, as you stated it. Class and propriety simply did not "work out" for everyone.
Peter wrote: "SarahC wrote: "I know on the last section we discussed main and lesser characters in these novels. Are there any thoughts on Wragge, who clearly is a strong main character in his own right? Of cou..."I like your analysis. Yes, and does LeCount cooly keep her collection of life under glass while she also struggles to keep her place in this unstable society? -- she has also been set adrift in the word as a widow, so therefore clings to the Vanstone household and fortune -- trying to survive by adapting to the day's changes and challenges.
Among all the characters though, I feel that with Magdalen I am watching an accident waiting to happen. I think because she seems to be giving herself so totally to the plan -- but that will certainly lead to more comment in the next reading section.
Mod
Carl Linnaeus 1707-1778
"He divided the Animal Kingdom into six classes, in the tenth edition, of 1758, these were:
Classis 1. Mammalia
Classis 2. Aves
Classis 3. Amphibia
Classis 4. Pisces
Classis 5. Insecta
Classis 6. Vermes"
It looks like At that point in Linnaean Taxonomy, reptiles and amphibians were lumped into the same class. Then, in 1768, Josephus Laurenti published his work on classifications and listed reptiles in their own class, Reptilia. Apparently, there were wicked debates on how nomenclature should be determined and how much it should include evolutionary lines (or what they knew of them, at the time) which continued into the 20th century.
Additional trivia: Herpetology is the study of reptiles and amphibians. Batrachology is a further subdiscipline of herpetology concerned with the study of amphibians alone.
Bottom Line: Collins may be using the term "correctly" depending on which side of the nomenclature debate he favored.
Mod
Much the way Dickens used his storytelling skills to illuminate social inequity and shameful conditions in orphanages, workhouses, etc. etc., as well as making a living.
Renee wrote: "I've been trolling Wikipedia...Carl Linnaeus 1707-1778
"He divided the Animal Kingdom into six classes, in the tenth edition, of 1758, these were:
Classis 1. Mammalia
Classis 2. Aves
Classis 3..."
Frankly, I think this particular paragraph is open for allot of interpretation. The author might have thrown the word reptile in the mix as a foreshadowing of the "stealth" of Mrs. Lecount. Reptiles move stealthly; they crawl about slowly on their bellies waiting to pounce on their prey. That's how I view Mrs Lecount in that encounter with Magdalin. She stealthly went about gathering evidence during that scene. Meanwhile, Magdalin was clueless as to what had taken place...
Mrs. Lecount wants to keep Noel under glass and in a protected environment, just like her toad. I like the analogy that she is a "toady-ing" person to Noel.
Renee wrote: "Also, I've always believed that Collins was putting a spotlight on the injustice in the hereditary laws, when he wrote this novel. Especially, given the juxtaposition in the way Noel inherits from ..."I think you're right. And the law changed shortly after NN was published. Coincidence? The movement for womens financial rights had been brewing for some time, but NN might have helped move it into law.
Everyman wrote: I think you're right. And the law changed shortly after NN was published. Coincidence? The movement for womens financial rights had been brewing for some time, but NN might have helped move it into law."wow, really? that's so cool. I wonder if Collins really had something to do with this then.
Renee wrote: "I've been trolling Wikipedia...Carl Linnaeus 1707-1778
"He divided the Animal Kingdom into six classes, in the tenth edition, of 1758, these were:
Classis 1. Mammalia
Classis 2. Aves
Classis 3..."
thanks for all that information, Renee, very interesting.
I wonder how much Collins was interested in the classification debate, or whether like other people are saying he liked the associations of Lecount with reptiles of being sly and sneaky.
Everyman wrote: "Renee wrote: "Also, I've always believed that Collins was putting a spotlight on the injustice in the hereditary laws, when he wrote this novel. Especially, given the juxtaposition in the way Noel ..."I read last night on the internet that WC's frequent writings about social justice issues did have an influence on the laws that were enacted (a copyrighted piece on Google).
Everyman wrote: "Whimsical wrote: "I doubt if Magdalin intended to pursue acting as a career, beside it being not a respectable profession, I think it was a means to an end."We have, I think, to keep in mind that..."
I think she was a one-person act, one in which she played the part of many different individuals. (Being the novice that she was, she mimicked the members of her family, Norah and Ms. Garth, in particular). However, I don't recall whether a name was given to the act. These kinds of acts were very popular and cheap but not the kind of act that the upper class or aristocracy supported. Many were more burlesque shows, no doubt the reasons for the shame and outrage attached as it pertained to Magdalin. Thus for Magdalin, it was disgraceful to the family to be part of this class of performers. The playhouses were a different matter, they had seasons, were held in theatres with boxes etc. and were frequented by royalty and the aristocracy.
Right. Now I remember her.