Poldark Saga - Winston Graham discussion
This topic is about
Warleggan
note: This topic has been closed to new comments.
Warleggan - #4
>
SPOILER-The Very Bad Thing in this book
TANYA...You pulled this together so concisely and beautifully. The only thing I would add in Ross’s defense is Warleggan Book Three, page 362-367 when Elizabeth is trying to postpone the wedding to George she remembers …”Still less could she go from Ross’s caresses to Georges. Perhaps this was at the root of her feelings.” When Elizabeth agreed to marry a month from the day, “At that he (George) put his lips on her neck. She thought other lips had been there. God, I am in a cage! Lost forever! Why did Ross have to come? How I hate him for coming! And despise him. There’ll never be any friendship between us again. Only enmity. I shall be George’s heart and soul, his faithful wife, and faithful friend! Anything I can do against Ross. Why did he have to come? God, I am in a cage. Lost forever.” I have always thought that she was secretly hoping that Ross would leave Demelza and they would be together. Although she knew that Ross did not have the money to keep her and she would not have been able to happily "make do." Thank you so much for agreeing that if Winston Graham had meant rape, he would have used the word.
Mod
Good observation, Ross doesn't stop to weigh options when he is emotionally charged, From Book 1, when he brings Demelza to Nampara and "swills" her under the pump and then realizes that there are no clean clothes to fit her. Prudie's if clean would be tents and Jim Cater, while the right size he had only the clothes he was wearing. "Ross went up to his own room and ransacked the drawers, cursing himself for never thinking more than one move ahead . One could never keep the child shivering in the yard forever." SPOILER There is another very telling emotional admission by Ross, if you have read THE ANGRY TIDE...Back to Demelza of course she knew, before Ross even saw Elizabeth...
The web analysis of that entire section of the book seems precisely right to me. I know it could be construed as "rape" but that is not how I read it, based on everything we knew about the two characters up to that point. Your observations and comments add to the overall picture. I'm reading The Angry Tide now. . . . not sure which passage you're referring to.
Mod
!!!SPOILER!!! Oh good Pandora, glad that you also concur with the analysis. It is so well composed. RE the scene in The Angry Tide: Book Three, Chapter 3, Pages 518 - 525. This is one of my most re-read and favorite of all Winston Graham's chapters...Caroline to Ross "You must have known from the beginning that she (Demelza) wouldn't have spared so much as a thought for a wild worthless rake like Monk Adderley." ROSS: "Sometimes one doesn't think these things out." Caroline understands Ross so well and also loves Demelza.
Tanya wrote: "Victoria wrote: "SPOILER There is another very telling emotional admission by Ross, if you have read THE ANGRY TIDE..." Make a new discussion topic in The Angry Tide folder so we can talk about it ..."TANYA ACKKKKK!!!!!!!!! no idea how to set up could you do it>>>
Mod
Mod
I'll meet you all at The Angry Tide folder! LOL!
One more thought here, in the postponement scene Elizabeth sees the obstacles to ending up with Ross, "Demelza lived and would live. They had no money to run away." Considering the obstacles must mean that she was considering the possibilities. That doesn't sound like the thoughts of a woman toward a man who raped her.
Mod
Excellent point. I think we are all ready now to adress the social media outrage when the show airs!
YES it sounds absurd, however, I agree that there will be an outrage no matter how carefully and beautifully DH writes it. SO perhaps we shall want to band together to support Debbie!!...and IF my math is close, it was a six hour "adventure" so....
Yes, wishing DH great discernment, as well for all those involved in that scene, that the result will be truth & beauty.
Mod
Mod
It does make one wonder what all could have occurred. Did they say good bye, did he leave while she was still asleep, for that matter, did he climb out the window or go out the front door? It brings to mind Demelza's bewilderment at his returning home at all. It makes me wonder if in regard to the filming if less is more or MORE will be more.
Oh TANYA good questions...From WARLEGGAN, Book 3, Pages 356,357...this is the first time we have an insight into his head. He is so confused about the evening and doesn't even mention how Elizabeth might have felt."The thing had blown up like a squall in his brain and: there had been no time for calculated motives or reasoned intentions. Reason came after and reason was still out of its depth." No idea how he might have ended the time with Elizabeth. (Hmmm WH was a man so perhaps that is why??)....
Mara wrote: "It does make one wonder what all could have occurred. Did they say good bye, did he leave while she was still asleep, for that matter, did he climb out the window or go out the front door? It bri..."Oh yes MARA, I wondered too how he left Trenwith House...I have also wondered if perhaps Aunt Agatha saw him leave? I suppose Aidan would say to your "less is more or MORE will be more"..."well it depends if we need the ratings."
Bhahahahaha! That's hilarious!
Mara wrote: "Bhahahahaha! That's hilarious!"Not original, I am afraid, as Aidan Turner said it a week ago at the Radio Times Q&A, of course he was referring to additional shirtless scenes...but it is pretty funny. Of course, I read last week that Robson Green & James Norton just filmed a "Poldark scene" by going topless in Grantchester Season 2!!!
Oh, I had seen the Q&A & knew exactly what you were referring to. Your referencing it here was great comedic timing. Regarding Grantchester, I'll need to be on the lookout. What has my life become? (Does that sound familiar? Wink, wink.)
MARA sitting here laughing out loud!!! what HAVE our lives become??? I am embarrassed to say that the Grantchester article was in the Daily Mail. But there were a lot of photos.8-)!!!
Tanya wrote: "Pandora wrote: "The web analysis of that entire section of the book seems precisely right to me. I know it could be construed as "rape" but that is not how I read it, based on everything we knew ab..."I agree! I was angry with Ross for a very long time! And still, when I see posts on Poldark sites on FB, in which the followers are swooning over him, I wonder how they are going to feel when in the next series the "VBT" is revealed.
ELSA....this is what we have all been dreading. People who have not read the books, are not familiar with the "insights/insides" of the characters are going to be rabid and inappropriately moral without understanding. I do not envy Debbie's job to convey this at all. I am grateful to TANYA for supplying the analysis on this section.
Mod
Oh, I was quite angry with Ross for some time as well. I'm one of the swooners, but I have seen Aidan Turner portray some despicable traits while playing other roles--he's really quite good. I think we may be a little more sympathetic to Ross when we watch. Although I was angry with character Ross, I am very much looking forward to watching these scenes on screen--it promises to be very emotionally charged!
I was so upset with Ross that I spent hours imagining alternate outcomes where Demelza makes good on her offers and leaves Ross. In some scenarios she would return to her Father's house, in others she would go find work, all with myriad possibilities of outcomes. Then Ross would be sorry. Most of the time wherever she went, in my imagination, she ended up finding another man, mostly widowers, either "Methody" or schoolmaster or clergyman or farmer or innkeeper. Men whose appreciation of her abilities led to an appreciation of herself. Then when she'd return for Jeremy Ross would be incredibly jealous because Demelza's new man always ended up looking like Jamie from Outlander! LOL! But then I'd think of how sad Ross would be and give up my imaginings over to the way Graham worked it out. Lucky for Ross!
Mod
We recently watched the BBC series Garrow's Law, which is set during the same time period and based on real legal cases that were tried in London's "Old Bailey" court. One of the cases was a woman that had left her husband and wanted to get her child back. The law during that time period was pretty clear--once married EVERYTHING belonged to the husband, including the children. Now, in your alternate ending scenario, Ross may have been the sort that would have let Demelza take Jeremy, but he wouldn't have had to. I'm glad the story is written the way it was--Ross and Demelza belong together.
Yes, I was thinking "amicable". Since Ross is the one who broke faith I don't believe his conscience would permit rancor in that scenario in my alternate Poldark universe. Now that you mention it, these books serve to remind us of just how marginalized women have been historically. E.g. That there was no such thing as rape in marriage. Often I've thought that Ross is ahead of his time in the consideration he has shown Demelza. In his not "lording" it over her. It may be because he knew her since a girl, fighting boys, climbing trees, pulling oxen and she proved her worth.
Mod
Definitely, it could be an entire discussion topic by itself! And not just women, but men and women of "lower class." It would have been acceptable for Ross to continue to sleep with Demelza, but gone on to marry someone else. And Ross suffers no punishment for breaking Jim out of jail, but had it been someone like Zacky Martin--he probably would have been hung!
Mod
The thing with paragraphs of writing, such as Tanya has posted above, is that they normalise a rape situation, by giving background information and laying the blame on the victim for 'enticing', 'confusing' or 'winding the person up'.
The thing with rapists is, they can be anyone. Brothers, cousins, fathers, uncles, best friends, etc. They don't look like the stereotypical image of a rapist, which makes the whole victim blaming culture so easy to fuel.
Ross broke into Elizabeth's house, there was no reason in his behaviour and he certainly wasn't behaving in a gentlemanly fashion when he assaulted Elizabeth (the kisses) and although Winston Graham doesn't state what happens between them, the fact that Ross stayed the night, does NOT imply that Elizabeth was happy with what happened.
Personally, I know this was written about a time where when men could do as they pleased with women and not suffer the consequences. Where women were blamed for assaults and attacks because they were flirtatious and enticing (Trevanance's term for Demelza), hell the same principles applied when WG was writing these books. Look at how Francis treated Elizabeth after Geoffrey Charles was born, he pitched a bitch fit because she wouldn't put out. (I can't rightly remember if he went to sleep or if he continued to pressure her for sex)
Ross RAPED Elizabeth. There is no doubt about that in my mind. He was turned on by her anger and refusal to participate. That is a dangerous trait.
Elizabeth's behaviour after the incident's in later books is again fitting to the time, when women were basically told to shut up and deal with it. Get on with it, don't make a fuss. Be quiet and get on with your stuff. Elizabeth is reacting to her rapist as any other woman would have done at the time, by being an amicable woman who isn't allowed to rock the boat.
This has nothing to do with her accepting or enjoying it. This is about her dealing with it in the way society has groomed her to do so.
Elizabeth is stronger than I gave her credit for. Ross is a coward. Demelza, I'd feel sorry for if she stood by a rapist in today's day and age, as back then she wouldn't have had a choice. She didn't have a voice in the legal system. Demelza would have lost her life and her son, which would have ripped her apart.
Ross' actions have really pissed me off. I am disappointed too.
Also, regardless of what other people have written about the books, summarising and such, the only person who will ever know what actually happened is WG. And personally, I believe his view of what happened to be twisted through his own opinion, the times he lived in that those of the times he was writing about.
Mod
Just to play devil's advocate with the time period--not only was a woman often powerless to deny sex under some conditions (e.g. marriage), she was expected to deny it under others (e.g. outside of marriage). Elizabeth was a woman of good breeding and had recently admitted to Ross her feelings for him. She knew him pretty well and sent the letter about her upcoming marriage. I think she wanted Ross to come to her and when he did, she behaved in the way that was expected--showing token resistance so as not to be deemed as sexually wanton.
Mod
I understand women can be conniving and devious, but the anger Elizabeth displayed in which WG wrote of in that passage says it all to me.
She tried to talk Ross down, convince him to come back in the morning. That's not the behaviour of someone who is looking for a liaison. Ross terrified Elizabeth and then took advantage of his power over the situation.
TANYA and ANN I am still on WG's & Ross's side. If you go to WARLEGGAN Book, Four, Page 452, "He (Ross) had expected her (Elizabeth) enmity. But he did not suppose all of it derived from the ninth of May. He was not proud of his adventure then, not ever a man given to passing off his own behavior with an easy excuse: but after the initial resistance that night there had been no particular indication that she hated him. Her attitude towards him during a number of years and particularly during the last two was more than anything else responsible for what had happened, and she must have known it. Her behavior that night had shown that she knew it." Elizabeth, the night of May 9th, was acting as as a woman of the period, however, remember the afternoon, when she decided to postpone marrying George, she was secretly wishing that she might Run away with Ross, that she remembered his caresses. In the end she promised herself that she would be the perfect wife for George and she would hate Ross. Remember also, she was not an underage virgin, but an adult married woman AND as near as we have been able to figure, Ross was there 5/6 hours. Yes, she could have left him, woken the servants and created a scandal but she chose not to do so. She finally "knew" her first love. In later books, there are times when she does confide in him and does not bring up the 9th of May. We also know that WG understood the horror and demeaning of rape and used it in later books. PS I NEVER understood that Elizabeth was terrified of Ross, surprised but not terrified.
Ann wrote: "I am sorry but I have to disagree with all of this. Ross raped Elizabeth. She said no. More than once. Regardless of her behaviour before hand, she said no. Which means that Ross went against her w..."<(view spoiler)
Mod
I just read that part in The Loving Cup a few days ago, so I'm softening a little on my position. Seems like a good follow-up discussion in The Loving Cup folder! I'll post a topic. The link to the discussion follows in the spoiler tag (view spoiler)
Mod
Mod
Mod
I definitely believe that. I LOVE the character of Ross, because he is not perfect and something more real than many "romantic" lead characters. Mind you, I would never actually want to be married to a Ross (Dwight Enys would be more my fantasy type, but I think I'm married to someone more like Mark Daniel--fortunately for all concerned I'm NOT like Karen).
What I meant was, did WG want the readers to accept the Ross-Elizabeth encounter as rape? I stopped reading straight up romance novels because a lot of them glorified non-consensual sexual encounters as something done to claim a woman who would then fall in love with the "rogue." I like to think WG was more sophisticated than that--the relationship between Ross and Elizabeth was "complicated" and Elizabeth was never exactly sure what she wanted. I think she had wanted Ross to fight for her before she married Francis and she wanted him to fight for her before she married George.
Mod
I think how Elizabeth dealt with it after is how WG believed a woman should deal with it, okay possibly not during his own time, but most definitely back then. x
TANYAThank you so much for your civility and clarity. I have never before had the luxury of time to join a Book Club and for the past few days have been seriously considering dropping out. Vile and vicious personal rants about fictional characters seem to be completely out of place. During a particularly dark personal summer, I have been thrilled and completely engrossed with WG’s characters, his descriptions of Cornwall, the seas, the moors, the people. I found Ross so much the same personality as my late husband’s. Brooding, loyal to a fault, unable to articulate his feelings, and sometimes a wonderfully wry sense of humor. ALTHOUGH he looked the absolute image of Luke Norris, Mammoth’s Dr. Dwight Enys. Uncanny! Oh yes, you are so right about the Elizabeth and Ross relationship being complicated. Later books continue to evolve that pull. I keep wondering if Books Three and Four (Jeremy Poldark and Warleggan) were also heavily edited? I don’t recall reading that they were, but that is a good possibility and we haven’t a clue as to what WG actually wrote. From that line “He lifted her in his arms and carried her to the bed.” What was edited out before this line or after the line? It is rather irresponsible and frivolous of the reader to assume the occurrences by one’s own personal decisions or even experiences.
Mod
I don't understand what I have said that could be construed as a vile and vicious rant about Ross though. I was merely stating the facts as I perceived them.
It's evident that everyone has taken in the words that were written very differently. WG clearly had a knack of letting the reader fill in their own gaps.
As for civility, I don't believe I have personally attacked anyone for their opinions. I apologise if anything I have said made you feel threatened or violated. That was not my intention.
I am glad the books have bought you joy and happiness during a dark time and I am sure that was their intended notion.
WG does tell us in later books Ross took Elizabeth "against her will". He says so in "The Four Swans" Book 1, chapter 12 and again in "Bella Poldark" book 3, chapter 15.I consider "against her will" means rape. Others do not think that but when I ask them what they think that phrase means, I am ignored-oh well.
As one person mentioned here, those terrible grade B dime store romance novels of the 1960's and 70's were full of these encounters. Even Margaret Mitchell in GWTW had Rhett do this to Scarlett the night of Ashley's birthday party and supposedly this made Scarlett want him again, after she had refused to sleep with him after Bonnie's birth. Today though we call that "date rape." In real life you never hear of women who fell in love with a man after such an encounter.
Mod
Here is the actual text from THE FOUR Swans:THE FOUR SWANS, Book One, Chapter 11, page 198…
Ross and Elizabeth accidently meet in the Sawle Church graveyard…Ross is planning the headstone for Aunt Agatha.
Ross: ‘I thought a granite surround and a cross in the style of her brother’s but smaller. Nothing but granite will stand the weather here.’
Elizabeth: Choking anger welled up in her against this man who had done her such a monstrous, an unforgivable wrong. Anger especially that he should be walking beside her and talking in this apparently casual tone, as if they were two uninvolved cousins-by-marriage discussing a simple of the headstone of a deceased great-aunt. Had her anger not been so fierce, she might have realized that his calm was a surface calm hiding the emotions that her appearance had stirred in him. But it was too great. He seemed at that moment the cause, the fount, the initiator of all her present and past miseries.’
"MONSTROUS WRONG" doesn't necessarily mean rape. There are several pages following of their conversation and airing of the night of May 9th and George's behavior towards Valentine which has become intolerable (thank you Aunt Agatha.) JANE not to be picky but in THE FOUNTAINHEAD, Howard Roarke did rape Dominique and Ayn Rand had them marry.
Hi all, I'm new here but want to thank Tonya for inviting me! I am on book 6 now and almost done but in reference to this topic I have to agree that it was not rape in the same sense that say, it is with ossie/morwenna. Yes at first Ross is very angry and it might have seemed like rape but as you read later books.. All those things tonya mentioned comes to light and we learn more. If you stop at book 4, it will always look one way, when in fact there was more to it.. Doesn't mean I am happy with it all, but I can't see Ross as this horrible rapist either
Oops, spelled your name wrong sorry Tanya! ;) anyway, one thing I forgot that also bothered me was that Ross felt bad he didn't run over and explain/apologize to Elizabeth afterward? I get that would upset E, and believe me, I agree he had to apologize BUT his first duty IMO was to demelza and maybe .. Um, apologizing to her and making amends there first! Especially if it wasn't really rape. He explains why he couldn't go apologize Right away in book 6, so I'm glad he told E that much but the blame to me lies on E for thinking he will always drop everything bc she needed/wanted him to. Not this time!
SARAH, BRAVO for reading the words and the ideas and finding sense and doubt and not jumping to 21st century conclusions or irrational judging. Looking at Ross with a clear eye, understanding his male failings and difficulty in expressing his feelings makes him an enduring character to follow. Enjoy the rest of the books!
This topic has been frozen by the moderator. No new comments can be posted.
The VBT that dare not speak its name...
Let's talk about it! I'm actually really looking forward to this scene in Season 2 of the show and wondering how it's going to be handled. I found the analysis below on the web and have come to accept it. I'm reposting the text here with references to events in later books marked as spoilers--if you've read the later books or don't mind a spoiler or two, you can click on the "View spoilers" links to see the bits that are hidden. Anything NOT hidden occurs in Warleggan or earlier books.
"It has been suggested by some readers that rape is committed by Ross in Warleggan...However, in my opinion, a careful reading of Mr Graham's text shows clearly,...that no such thing occurs.
...THE "RAPE" OF ELIZABETH BY ROSS
Winston Graham, author of the Poldark novels, makes it quite clear that Ross did not "rape" Elizabeth. Here's what we are told:
(1) Despite the fact that her first love was Ross, and that Ross had recently returned from America, on 1 November 1783, Elizabeth married Ross's cousin Francis. (Ross Poldark, Book 1, Chapter 3)
(2) Eight and a half years later, on 24 May 1792, while dining at the Trevaunances, Elizabeth tells Ross that she'd been mistaken in thinking she loved Francis better than him. Ross asks when had she discovered her mistake. "Quite soon" [after her marriage] she replies. She tells him, in other words, that she's been (back) in love with him for the past eight years. (Warleggan 1.3)
(3) On 9 May 1793, having learned from her hand of her intention to marry George, and having carried for a year her admission in his heart, Ross breaks into Trenwith to confront Elizabeth. (view spoiler)[Though their meeting results ultimately in the conception of Valentine, no "rape" is described by the author. It is worth noting here that, when
one of his characters (Osborne Whitworth) does commit rape, Mr Graham has no scruple in saying so. (The Black Moon 3.11) (hide spoiler)]
The scene as written (Warleggan 3.5) ends with Ross carrying Elizabeth, in his arms, towards the bed and what happens after that is left to the reader's imagination.
Plainly, one of the possible outcomes would be for him to force himself on her despite strenuous and persistent vocal and physical resistance on her part - in other words, to rape her. Such an action would fly in the face of Ross's character as drawn:
yes, he is hot-blooded and impetuous, but also scrupulous and principled, virtues alongside which rape sits very incongruously. Though his father Joshua was a libertine from whom no wife or daughter was safe (Ross Poldark 1.15), Ross was cut from altogether finer cloth. Yet, while the author does not assert that rape happened, it remains an unspoken if implausible possibility.
Equally possible, of course, is that, once on the bed with him, the vacillating Elizabeth gave in to her long and barely suppressed love of Ross to participate willingly and perhaps eagerly in their congress. But are there any grounds, other than guesswork, for believing so?
(4) The next meeting of Ross and Elizabeth takes place on 24 December 1793, again at Trenwith, this time in the presence of her new husband George. She is very cold towards Ross. Why? Because she recalled his rape of her seven months earlier? No - this time the author is very clear:
The bitterness of Elizabeth's tones and looks had only surprised Ross in their degree. He had expected her enmity. But he did not suppose all of it derived from the ninth of May. He was not proud of his adventure then ... but after the initial resistance that night there had been no particular indication that she hated him. Her attitude towards him during a number of years, and particularly the last two, was more than anything else responsible for what had happened, and she must have known it. Her behaviour that night had shown that she knew it. But there had been other sins on his part. Over and over again during those first weeks following, he had known he should go and see her and thrash the whole thing out in the light of day. It was unthinkable to leave the thing as he had left it; but that was precisely what he had done. He had behaved abominably first in going, then in not going ... If the history of the last ten years had been the tragedy of a woman unable to make up her mind, the last six months was the history of a man in a similar case. (Warleggan 4.7)
Elizabeth's anger, then, derives from being driven by Ross's passion to acknowledge wholly, unequivocally, carnally and spiritually, her love for him - and this at a time when she was a single and thus marriageable woman - only to have him respond thereafter with nothing. Spurned in favour of his "scullery maid"! More than pride can bear!!
(5) (view spoiler)[ Meeting in Sawle churchyard in the summer of 1795 (The Four Swans 1.11), Ross and Elizabeth recall the events of May 1793. (hide spoiler)] Ross is aware of the indefensibility of his actions then and the probably greater indefensibility of his non-action in the month following.
Thus, the author tells us, Ross's boorish behaviour in manhandling Elizabeth is outweighed by his failure to contact her in the days and weeks that followed. Had rape been part of this scenario, such a statement on Mr Graham's part could not stand. But the author makes plain once more that there was no "rape":
(view spoiler)[Ross shook his head. "... I came through no door - as you know."
"Like the devil," said Elizabeth. "With the face and look of the devil."
"Yet you did not treat me so after the first shock." (hide spoiler)]
These words from Ross, which she does not deny, constitute a second confirmation that Elizabeth quickly became a willing participant in their love-making. Whether he would have proceeded to rape her had she not done so is beside the point, because the question did not arise.
Mr Graham gives attentive readers all the information they need to grasp his meaning fully. To talk of "rape" is, carelessly or consciously, to misconstrue his text."
Copied from WG's TREATMENT OF "RAPE" on the WINSTON GRAHAM ~ AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY website