N&S: Week 3. Ch XIX - XXVII

[Peter]

Leni wrote: "Vanessa wrote: "I've been puzzled by what Bessy means by "clem/clemming" -- anyone know?"

Clemming is to go hungry/starve. It's a dialect word. I'm a bit surprised that Margaret understands it, ac..."

Leni

Thanks for supplying the definition.

[Bharathi]

Trudy wrote: "To answer one of Peter's first questions: I've always thought that Margaret's demand that Thornton go talk to the rioters was understandable, considering the circumstances. Since she has witnessed ..."

Trudy, you have articulated very well, what I was ineptly trying to say.

[Bharathi]

Peter wrote: "Vanessa wrote: "I was impressed by the pacing of these chapters and the interwoven plot lines -- from the dinner party, where Margaret begins to admire Thornton, to Mrs. Hale's 'Dark Night' of decl..."

I am pretty sure, this book was serialized, and all the teasers, especially at the end of the chapter were for the readers waiting for the next installment.

[Peter]

Bharathi wrote: "Peter wrote: "Vanessa wrote: "I was impressed by the pacing of these chapters and the interwoven plot lines -- from the dinner party, where Margaret begins to admire Thornton, to Mrs. Hale's 'Dark ..."

Yes. N&S was serialized.

Authors would certainly leave their readers is suspense at the end of a chapter so they would return for the next installment.

In Gaskell's N&S what we also see is a style where within chapters, among separate chapters and linking events within the novel occur. For the example of Frederick what we have is the reader, who is aware from a previous chapter is a sailor under heavy penalty because he dared to challenge the authority of his captain, being subtly linked to the disruption in the yard of Thornton's mill. Thornton could be seen as similar to the captain of Frederick's ship. Both are men in authority, thought to be unfair, if not a cruel person of authority, being challenged by their workers/crew. With the use of language of the sea and stormy weather Gaskell gently draws the reader's attention to the similarity of the two confrontations. It is a subtle touch.

I will pose a question this week on a subtle possible stylistic connection as well. In our last week's conversation there will be some very large connections that we can discuss.

Such links are obviously open to debate as to how conscious the author was of the events we as readers discuss. Especially under the time pressures and stress of serial publication it would be difficult to craft material to the subtlety we as fans discover and discuss.

For me, I guess, it is the joy of the hunt.

[Vanessa]

Leni wrote: "Vanessa wrote: "I've been puzzled by what Bessy means by "clem/clemming" -- anyone know?"

Clemming is to go hungry/starve. It's a dialect word. I'm a bit surprised that Margaret understands it, ac..."

Thanks, Leni! I've also had an opportunity to ask my mother, who is from the north (but not Manchester); she said she heard it used generally to mean 'go without' and associates it with rural areas. But of course it's likely shifted over time. I've since picked up another edition with footnotes, which gives just your definition, of starved.

[Vanessa]

Peter wrote: "Vanessa wrote: "I was impressed by the pacing of these chapters and the interwoven plot lines -- from the dinner party, where Margaret begins to admire Thornton, to Mrs. Hale's 'Dark Night' of decl..."

Yes, please bring on the teaser word plays, Peter! I'm enjoying your questions, commentary, and all the discussion.

[Dee]

Peter wrote: "To what degree do you support the position of the workers? "

Great discussion here, I loved reading the comments.

I'm with the workers on this one... It's hard not to sympathize with people who are hacking their lungs out and near starvation. But perhaps if they'd only ask Thornton nicely for some moneys, or pray to God, then they wouldn't have all those problems? ;)

The "riot" scene reminded me a bit of Tale of Two Cities, another Victorian novel (which I adore) that portrays the poor individually as human beings, but as animals when they gather in a "mob." As with Dickens, Gaskell is obviously not very subjective here, given the current events of her time... And the solution to inequality? Just be nicer to your masters, whether Gods or men...

I'd be interested to read about how crowds and mobs are portrayed in Victorian lit. I think I remember reading somewhere that the Victorians were deathly afraid of crowds of poor, as they were afraid of gypsies, etc.

And then there's Thornton... Who's under no obligation to explain economics to his workers (who are too stupid and unworthy of his brilliant insights). Yet he mysteriously throws a lavish dinner for his crush, in the midst of all these hard conditions that oblige him to import some sorry workers from Ireland. I guess only people who understand economics deserve to eat well.

Aside from these, urm, political differences that I'm having with Thornton, I am really enjoying the love intrigue part of the novel.

That being said, it's more like an entertaining and prettily-written book than it is one that changes your life and moves your heart... precisely because of this absurd (although I suppose typical for that time, and for ours too in many parts of the world...) view of the poor.

[Trudy]

Dee wrote: "Peter wrote: "To what degree do you support the position of the workers? "

Great discussion here, I loved reading the comments.

I'm with the workers on this one... It's hard not to sympathize wi..."

Are you implying that Gaskell sees the mob as a group of animals? I don't perceive that Gaskell is dismissing the mob as unworthy of sympathy at all. She is pointing out their desperate frenzy specifically as something the reader *should* sympathize with -- as Margaret does. The author is trying to put a human face to these working masses: Bessy and Nicholas Higgins, the Boucher family.

In my reading of the novel, I see both sides of a difficult situation rather fairly presented. The workers have not had a raise in a few years and demand more pay. Thornton is pressed by the competing American market to keep his prices very low, or his whole business will go under and the workers won't have jobs at all. (The lavish dinner is a once-a-year event, not a daily Thornton house indulgence.)

The solution to the trouble -- and to inequality in general, according to Gaskell's point of view, is for both sides to communicate with each other and get to know each other as fellow human beings.

[Dee]

Trudy wrote: "Are you implying that Gaskell sees the mob as a group of animals?"

She compares them to animals: "But perhaps he [Thornton] was speaking now; there was a momentary hush of their noise, inarticulate as that of a troop of animals."

And earlier: "Many in the crowd were mere boys; cruel and thoughtless - cruel because they were thoughtless; some were men, gaunt as wolves, and mad for prey."

Not exactly pulling at the heart strings there... And it reminds me of that scene of the angry "mob" charging the Bastille in A Tale of Two Cities -- though nobody could accuse Dickens of not sympathizing with the poor. That novel also reflected what was going on at the time, and the fears some Brits had of the French Revolution coming across the pond.

Here as well the portrayal of the mob as animals doesn't mean Gaskell, or Margaret, don't sympathize with the poor. The poor individually (in their apartments, when you get to know them, etc) are human beings, but when they gather into a mob they become irrational, emotional - they go against reason as in that passage where they're described as "thoughtless." Margaret's appearance on the scene is meant to wake them up out of their angry stupor, and she calls to them to stop and not damage their cause by violence.

Gaskell is sympathetic to the poor, but thinks that strikes and angry mobs don't solve anything. Only dialogue and understanding does, as you said. I think that's a naive and idealistic belief that ignores history and the fact that sometimes violence is necessary for social change.

This was an atmosphere after the Peterloo Massacre, like somebody mentioned earlier, in which 15 people were killed after cavalry charged into the crowds... So I guess Gaskell is saying why not be nicer to each other and there won't be so much inequality. Compassionate capitalism.

At this point it all depends on Thornton. Is he going to get nicer, or not. Is Margaret going to change him?

[Kerstin, Moderator]

Dee wrote: "Trudy wrote: "Are you implying that Gaskell sees the mob as a group of animals?"

She compares them to animals: "But perhaps he [Thornton] was speaking now; there was a momentary hush of their nois..."

Gaskell does a very good job describing the volatility of the situation, the anxious tension within the house waiting for the troops to arrive, and the explosive tension within the mob outside. My first reaction to the scene was, 'you can't control an angry mob by your sole self...' Now for Gaskell it works, but I'm not fully convinced.

I am sure psychologists could add more info regarding crowds and crowd control, but in essence we are talking agitated people in sufficient numbers who could turn violent with the slightest provocation. There is a dynamic present which makes normally peaceful people loose inhibition and civilized conduct and go on a rampage. How do you control that? As a rule you need a force greater than the mob to diffuse the situation. Even if there are clashes, which are always regrettable, the main goal is to restore peace and order for the common good.

[Carolina]

I don't particularly think Thornton was able to handle an angry mob. Stubborn as he is, the Master did not feel either intimidated by the numerous people outnumbering him by dozens, if not hundreds, or fear for his own safety's, only for his beloved ones. By sending here there, Margaret probably made a projection of what she expected to be the best way to cope with conflict - an apologetical or even motivational speech, something her father perhaps would have been able to provide, but Thornton not. She also makes a point of Thornton adressing them as 'equal' human beings, failing to perceive even the most docile human being can become intractable after facing starvation and being deprived of means to survive.

[Peter]

Dee, Carolina, Kerstin and Trudy

You are providing a great discussion here in regards to the strike and how Gaskell wanted the readers to perceive that event. On reflection to your comments, here are some of mine.

If we take a close reading and focus on the specific word selection, similes, metaphors and the tone of the passage we find "fierce growl," "ferocious murmur," "entrapped," "they set up a yell, - to call it human is nothing," "demoniac desire," "poor creatures," (twice) "wild beasts," "gaunt as wolves" and others. Thanks to Dee for pointing the vocabulary out to us first.

Kirstin and Trudy's comments also are important as I can't see Gaskell as wanting consciously to demean the workers, but rather to show what happens when any wrong becomes so horrible that humans reach back into our more primitively selves in order to survive. Here, I am thinking of Golding's Lord of the Flies. I recall Ralph saying to Jack's tribe something along the lines of "but we are English" and "the rules are all we have" when confronted by the primal energy of Jack's troop.

Carolina's observations take us to how Gaskell employed Margaret in this setting. Margaret's belief in a conciliatory response may be the most logical point of view, but such a position is unable to initially quell the seething energy of the strikers in the yard. After Margaret is struck by the stone, and Thornton stands his ground, we read that "the retrograde movement towards the gate had begun ... . Even the most desperate - Boucher himself - drew back, faltered away ..."

Gaskell does not tell us specifically, clearly, precisely or clearly that the men did retreat because of the coming troops, or because of Thornton's stance or even because of Margaret's injury. By leaving the reason or reasons slightly unresolved I believe she allows the reader the task of forming our own opinions.

An incredible piece of writing, language and psychology by Gaskell.

[Trudy]

Thanks, Peter, for tying it all together. What I appreciate about Gaskell is that she presents events and characters with a great complexity of motivating factors and circumstances. This is the way things happen in real life; things are complicated and there are often no simple answers or explanations to human actions.

Mob mentality clearly works differently than individual behavior. Gaskell is bringing this out as well. The animalistic descriptions are apt.

Margaret's idea of conciliation is poorly timed in this circumstance. Here again, Gaskell is highlighting the complexity involved in trying to solve situations of human relations. A right idea must also be applied with the right methods at the right time.

And speaking of bad-timing, I think Thornton's honest declaration of love in one of the following chapters couldn't be more horribly timed for Margaret. She is not ready. But then again, the explosive confrontation has a tremendous effect on Margaret. It may have been what was needed to force her to consider Thornton as a man, and not just a master.

I was hoping someone would answer Peter's question about finding patterns in these chapters!

[Peter]

Trudy wrote: "Thanks, Peter, for tying it all together. What I appreciate about Gaskell is that she presents events and characters with a great complexity of motivating factors and circumstances. This is the way..."

Yes. When drawing complex, round characters we do get much that is seemingly contradictory, but certainly more true than the cardboard cutouts of many novels. Just when we think we have a handle on a character poof! We need to follow the breadcrumbs to find the essence of a character.

I too was hoping for a comment on a pattern or two. In next week's questions I will identify a couple and we'll see what happens. Sometimes I think the patterns and structural details are very obvious. At other times I wonder whether I'm just chasing shadows.

[LindaH]

I don't know if this qualifies for Parallels, but what about Fruit scenes? Thornton brings a fruit basket to Mrs Hale, then peels a peach for her while he is obviously intent on Margaret standing nearby. Henry brought Margaret out to the Hales' fruit tree, then peeled one for her while he is thinking of the proposal he is about to make. In both cases Margaret feels exposed, you could say.

[Peter]

Linda wrote: "I don't know if this qualifies for Parallels, but what about Fruit scenes? Thornton brings a fruit basket to Mrs Hale, then peels a peach for her while he is obviously intent on Margaret standing n..."

Nice Linda. I also like your tag as the "fruit scenes." There will be a few more parallels in the last week of our study so keep your eyes open. I had not considered your observations before. Thanks.