Victorians! discussion
This topic is about
Wives and Daughters
Archived Group Reads 2018
>
W&D: Week 1 - Chapters I - VII
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
Interesting that you compare Margaret Hale and Molly- I have of course only read a couple of chapters of W&D so far so won't comment on the grown up Molly yet- but so far Margaret comes across as more confident and self-assured that Molly but then her being brought up by her aunt would have contributed to that. Nonetheless you're right about their being between different social divides. In fact, their respective fathers' professions bring them into contact with a far wider range of social classes than others.
Mod
Joanne wrote: "How many of you are enjoying this as a story aside from the history connected to it? I find that the audio helps in my attentiveness. I admit that sometimes the wordiness of Victorian novels causes..."I find it quite entertaining to read, and found the writing beautiful from the very first paragraph. It can be a bit more difficult to read than more modern prose. Personally, I find that modern books can often be less well-written than old classics, so I do appreciate an old classic once in a while in between more recent publications.
I am enjoying the book but thus far the characters seem to be stock figures, the gruff father with the good heart, the benevolent lord with the less benevolent lady, the salt of the earth squire, the impetuous red haired young man, the delicate literary young scholar and his burlier practical brother etc. etc.I actually feel that the best paragraph in the first seven chapters was the very first one which was like the classic beginning of a fairy tale.
Martin wrote: "I am enjoying the book but thus far the characters seem to be stock figures, the gruff father with the good heart, the benevolent lord with the less benevolent lady, the salt of the earth squire, t..."Yes, you're right Martin, it bothered me too. I think it's due to the fact that Gaskell wanted each character to represent a social class, a particular type. This is of course intentional on the part of Gaskell, to denounce, among others, the women’s condition of that time. But this spoils some characters of the novel, in the sense that it doesn’t make them real or plausible.
Mod
I am really enjoying this novel. I've tried to read a few others written about the same time but usually just give up a few chapters in. I just lose interest. This one seems to be written with more of a political edge to it and the characters are enjoyable.
Odd as it seems, there are a lot of adult children that don't want their parents to remarry ( then and now). Molly feels exceptionally threatened since it's just been the two of them for so long and now she might have to share her father's attention with someone else.On women's education, parents sometimes fear too much education will lessen a woman's marriage chances. The old "men don't like smart women" thing, or at least women that are smarter than themselves.
Joanne wrote: "How many of you are enjoying this as a story aside from the history connected to it? ..." It took me a little while to get into it especially when reading the chapter about Molly at the Towers, but once I hit chap 5 (Calf love), I found that I was moving along at a steady pace.
I too watched and loved "Downton Abbey" Joanne; so the Towers and its inhabitants did remind me of the Grantham/Crawley household as well, even if they lived a good 100 years before the Granthams. ;) Interesting changes between the Victorian* and Edwardian eras.
Martin wrote: "Young Coxe is not dismissed because his father is Gibson’s friend and Gibson pledged that he would take special care the son. It is not merely because he is a male that Gibson allows him to stay."
I also think that the fact Gibson did initially resolve to remove Coxe from the house - he mentioned something about contacting the boy's father's agent the next morning, despite the relationship and the pledge he made his father, quite significant enough to indicate that he did seriously consider being rid of the young man altogether, even resolving not to take any more pupils: "He should be the very last of the race." (chap 5).
So, did he then consider the consequences of Coxe's dismissal on the boy's professional aspirations and the injury it would have resulted him and the relationship with his father and did that then stop Mr G from acting further after seeing how it was only "calf-love" on the boy's part, given how this incident reminded him of his "Jeanie" ?
"It turns out that Elizabeth Gaskell and Charlotte Bronte were close friends."
Lol...I believe one of the big reasons why Gaskell is known in the literary world today, more than any of her own works (sadly), is because she wrote this book: https://www.theguardian.com/books/201...
Interesting posts everyone!
*Edit: Eesh...I always forget that the story itself is actually pre-Victorian!
Camille wrote: "Martin wrote: "I was struck that the author chose to name Molly’s governess Miss Eyre. So I did a little research. It turns out that Elizabeth Gaskell and Charlotte Bronte were close friends. In co..."Actually, Gaskell also wrote a biography of Charlotte Bronte- The Life of Charlotte Bronte- which was published in 1857 after Charlotte’s death. Here’s marketing info from Penguin Publishers:
Elizabeth Gaskell's biography of her close friend Charlotte Brontë was published in 1857 to immediate popular acclaim, and remains the most significant study of the enigmatic author who gave Jane Eyre the subtitle An Autobiography. It recounts Charlotte Brontë's life from her isolated childhood, through her years as a writer who had 'foreseen the single life' for herself, to her marriage at thirty-eight and death less than a year later. The resulting work - the first full-length biography of a woman novelist by a woman novelist - explored the nature of Charlotte's genius and almost single-handedly created the Brontë myth.
Martin wrote: "We need to be reminded that a public school in England is not at all what an American calls a public school. In England, the public school is an aristocratic institution private and exclusive in ev..."I also was struck that Roger was dismissed as the less intellectual brother when his forte was actually in natural science. He was ahead of his time by a few years. In the 1850’s, Cambridge began offering science as an option of study. What a turnabout. Today, we belittle students of the arts and humanities while encouraging the study of STEM subjects.
Mod
I've read that and quite enjoyed it though she does present an ideal picture of CB.
I like the length of some contributions in this group. Many of you are obviously very serious about the books covered. Linda’s remarks about female education caught my eye. I like Martin’ s comments including the idea that Jane Eyre was considered subversive. Hmm. Plenty for discussion there!Yes, the various “dismissals” that take place in Victorian fiction are very informative. The breaking of a code of conduct imposed upon the lower classes? A conduct that is placed firmly inside … an ideology?
I am very much influenced by Terry Eagleton’s approach to literary criticism. E.g. the existence of art (literature, film, theatre, painting) as belonging to the complex ideological superstructure of which it is a part, in the time in which it was created.
It is interesting that these ideologies always seem to be self-evident (at the time) and self-supporting from every corner. I am particularly interested in what can seem conceivable in a given epoch. (Let’s see if I can say anything useful in this group!)
Joanne wrote: "How many of you are enjoying this as a story aside from the history connected to it? I find that the audio helps in my attentiveness. I admit that sometimes the wordiness of Victorian novels causes..."I'm thoroughly enjoying it. Gaskell's style is quite direct, with much of the story being shown through the character's speech - no long philosophical asides as in George Eliot, no grimy, grotesque characters as in Dickens (I love Eliot and Dickens too). The settings are picturesque, no explicit scenes of poverty and suffering (as in North & South), it's all very innocent and pleasant. It's a story to relax into.
I find that Gaskell similar to Trollope (whom I also enjoy and am reading at the same time!). They both explore facets of society- class, gender, politics...- through a lens of complex characters whose lives reflect their particular place in the society, but whose behavior can be psychologically nuanced and push the boundaries of what is considered acceptable. Not infrequently, I find myself rereading passages to determine what the evidence is for a particular character to act in a certain way, but there may not be any clear cut answers.
Nina wrote: "Joanne wrote: "How many of you are enjoying this as a story aside from the history connected to it? I find that the audio helps in my attentiveness. I admit that sometimes the wordiness of Victoria..."I agree with you, except that I like George Eliot's "long philosophical asides"! :)
Mod
Let's look a it from Mr. Gibson's perspective.
... She has to answer to him. When she runs extracurricular errands that undermine the safety and m..."
I agree- from Mr Gibson's pov I think he was justified in removing her- he alone was responsible for Molly's safety and reputation, and being away from home so much, he needed to have people he could completely trust. And as you said, he did ensure she got another situation.
Mod
So many Victorian writers were focussed on social injustices such as exploitation of the lower classes. I get the idea Gaskell and Bronte (and Dickens) were intent on giving the middle classes a kind of "tour" around life, lower down, where their readers had a very scant knowledge of working class life. This means it was possible for a lady or a gentleman to completely ignore social reality, should they feel so inclined. But one wonders how this was possible when the servants would surely have given them an inkling of what was really going on. I get the feeling a lot of Victorians were masters and mistresses of self-deception.
Mod
To me they strike me as indifferent. They knew but didn't care.
The Victorians tended to be very judgmental about the lower classes, poverty and squalor. There were the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. That is to say, those who deserved sympathy and aid and those who did not. There was a strong overlay of religiosity in this. All sorts of societies and groups were established for the benefit of widows, orphans, fallen women seeking redemption etc. Moreover, the class segregation in neighborhoods was not as fixed or spread out as it later became.So I don’t think it was indifference that was at the root of the apparent blindness that we are talking about. I think it was a fatalism through which people believed that one’s station in the social order was ordained and therefore, proper.
Martin wrote: "The Victorians tended to be very judgmental about the lower classes, poverty and squalor. There were the deserving poor and the undeserving poor. That is to say, those who deserved sympathy and aid..."Kerstin wrote: "John wrote: "But one wonders how this was possible when the servants would surely have given them an inkling of what was really going on. I get the feeling a lot of Victorians were masters and mist..."
John wrote: "So many Victorian writers were focussed on social injustices such as exploitation of the lower classes. I get the idea Gaskell and Bronte (and Dickens) were intent on giving the middle classes a ki..."
I don't totally agree with your last sentence, John.
I d'on't agree with oyu, Kerstin, when you say: "they didn't care."
I agree with you, Martin when you say that it wasn't "indifference that was at the root of the apparent blindness that we are talking about." But I don't agree with your idea of "fatalism".
It was only from the French Revolution of 1789 that the lower classes began to wonder whether the order of society could not change, starting from the idea of equality of Men at birth. But tit's not the common people who gave birth to this idea. the people behind this idea were the big bourgeois (I'm not sure of my English, there!). These big bourgeois didn't lead the people to make the Revolution for an idea of equality as they let them believe, but because they wanted to have more rights for themselves to increase their profits.
But this idea of men's equality at birth, which seems obvious to us in the 21st century, wasn't yet in the spirit (mind?) of the 19th century. It took it more than a century to really make its way into the minds.
Here's the point: the upper class men and women were neither blind nor insensitive (some were, of course) nor fatalistic. But they only adhered to the idea of their society. It is as if, nowadays, a new idea was born saying: "all the husbands must stay at home, that's what's right."
We wouldn't listen, and we would continue to think that everyone has the right to manage his life as he wants, because it has been this way for decades and it seems to us that this is how it must be. On the other hand, it must be remembered that upper-class people, at the time of Gaskell's book, had very little perspective on History to integrate an idea of equality between servants and lords. It must be remembered that information was very rare, and that it was accessible to very few people. The women who educated children did it in the same state of mind of inequality of people and of the sexes as in the century before.
This is how it was, that's all. All these characters in Gaskell's novel Wives and Daughters are not some kind of Jane Austen, George Eliot or even Virginia Woolf, who where intelligent persons able to think and criticize their own time and society. Most of people don't do it, in the last centuries as well as now, without being bad, careless, or fatalistic persons.
We mustn't judge Gaskell characters, thinking they should be as aware as their author about the society they live in.
Catherine wrote: "I think that Gaskell is making a comment on the ways women were perceived and treated and using Molly as part of her commentary. Molly's "softness" and lack of education are exaggerated to make thi..."Yes!
It strikes me this is a very wide topic. A bit difficult to reach a consensus of views. Kerstin wrote, "They didn't care." But it is a special way of not caring, a kind of glossing over, supported by a background ideology when it is needed.There is an interesting idea in sociology by French sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu. He offers the concept of habitus. Habitus is the mental world we live in where things go mostly unchallenged. The way the composition of society seems obvious and self-evident. It easily embraces fatalism. Across different epochs, this would include Victorian conceptions relating to the poor – it’s their fault (Martin) – and so on. Also, that it is a part of the natural order that there should be such wide social differences between the classes. Habitus tends to distantiate intellectual analysis – it belong to the intellectuals, “nothing to do with us”, safe in our self-righteousness and surrounded with our wellbeing.
Explanations of habitus would likewise be consistent with the Victorian idea of women being inferior, not worth educating, and so on. To be a dissident in those days would be equivalent to sympathizing with Che Guevara in our time: unheard of, shocking, offensive; ridiculous, outrageous.
Mod
But, I have to agree with Gabrielle that it's more realistic to portray fictional characters who are less self aware than their creators. It definitely helps my understanding of the daily pressures they faced.
Renee wrote: "Yes! I love that Bourdieu gave this a name! I have been trying to read some of the novels of the early 20th century and have been so struck by the narrow view I'm finding.... the unquestioning assu..."Thanks, Renee.
John wrote: "It strikes me this is a very wide topic. A bit difficult to reach a consensus of views. Kerstin wrote, "They didn't care." But it is a special way of not caring, a kind of glossing over, supported ..."
Ah! Habitus, you got a hold on us! Thanks for this interesting comment, John.
Mod
How does Bourdieu treat ideology or religion? What I mean, depending on the worldview or inner conviction a person has the habitus must take on different forms from group to group.
I am surprised to see that there are still these kinds of prejudices in the world today. I was out to lunch with some of my friends. One of the women said she had been to a bar. She didn't like the bartender because he had a low class accent. An accent local to our area. I thought it was so weird. I made fun of her in a sarcastic way that I don't know she was aware I was being sarcastic. I said, "so all our bartenders must go to a finishing school which teaches them the correct way to speak." I said this with an exaggerated flourish of my hand.
Martin wrote: "The Victorians tended to be very judgmental about the lower classes, poverty ... through which people believed that one’s station in the social order was ordained and therefore, proper."Well said Martin.
Interesting points raised here by John and Gabrielle too.
I don't know if they were being consciously self-deceptive John or if they didn't really care Kerstein, but it this divide between the classes reinforced with imaginary boundaries that kept them all apart. Christian charity went a certain way to ease the consciousness of those up higher in the social hierarchy but for the most part, if the poor weren't destitute or sick, they were pretty much masters of their own destinies.
I think Gaskell does strive to fight the "habitus" of her time sometimes subtly but quite out-right most times in her work.
I am a bit late to the party, but I thought I'd pitch in a bit on women's education before I read the next section. I wrote my BA thesis on 18th Century female grammarians (of English), and while it makes me feel a little bit self-conscious I am going to quote myself:"Women were usually educated at home, to the extent that they were educated at all. However, it came to be considered the duty of the mother to educate her daughters, and sons until they were of an age to attend school. Along with an increasing attention on the suitability and need of women to use the vernacular properly came the need of grammars, not just for the children, but for the mothers (or governesses) who would be instructing them. It also became more common to send girls to schools, to learn grammar and to converse with elegance on a variety of topics in English and French, in addition to practicing needlework and music. Such organised education for women, or indeed any education for women, was by no means uncontroversial (See Percy 2009), but it was becoming less uncommon."
There was a huge and competitive market for grammar books in the second half of the 18th Century. Boys traditionally learned Latin grammar and then derived English grammar from that. (Which is why there are still such prevailing notions as "you should never split an infinitive". It stems from a Latin bias. In Latin you simply cannot split an infinitive, it's grammatically impossible, and since Latin was seen as the most perfect grammatical system it was declared an error to split infinitives in English. But I digress!)
A classical education was considered unsuitable for the female mind, and increasingly as useless for boys who were destined for trade, whether through class or being younger sons. Having "correct" English, however, became a social marker of great importance for those who wanted to "better" themselves and rise in society. This process started decades before the events of "Wives and Daughters". For Hamley to insist on a Classical education for his younger son is therefore old fashioned indeed. Even though there was of yet no science department at the University there were other educational options better suited for a second son.
I was also surprised that Dr. Gibson would think his daughter needed no education at all. I eventually decided that his comment about women making good marriages without being literate had to be just more of his grumbling. Molly would be expected to either teach her sons the rudiments needed before being sent to school, or to have the money to procure a governess for them. And in order to marry someone with money, she would be expected to be able to at least recite poetry, converse in French, and so on. I guess a suitable match for her would be another doctor or a clergyman? Unless he was much older than her and well established, he would be unlikely to have a large income. If he aspired to high position (and high income), he would also likely be on want of a wife who would be presentable in the right circles. Illiteracy, although common enough, would not be presentable. So I can't believe he seriously considered not educating her at all. It would put her on par with the servants. I understand his fear of education her "too much", but it doesn't seem like he had anything to fear there. Molly Gibson is no Maggie Tulliver, that's for sure!
Martin wrote: "I am enjoying the book but thus far the characters seem to be stock figures, the gruff father with the good heart, the benevolent lord with the less benevolent lady, the salt of the earth squire, t..."Characters in fairy tales are stock figures though. So I think the opening paragraph fairly warns us what to expect! It is just a matter of identifying the fairy tale. That seems simple enough. We are in an adaptation of Cinderella. Hopefully Gaskell will subvert the tropes to her own agenda, but that remains to be seen.
Thanks for the additional info Leni!But can I just say that I didn't get the impression that Mr G thinks that Molly "needed no education at all".
In fact, I think she was receiving the bare minimum (perhaps from tutors and classes as such), but he realizes that she needs more daily structure - most certainly a better use of her time than just hanging about being a distraction for his pupils. I think that's why he hired a live-in governess and what is different from what Molly was receiving prior to Ms Eyre.
And I also think that even though Roger is the younger Hamley son, Gaskell clearly says that Sir Hamley insisted that both his sons receive the education he himself was shut out from. And since natural sciences was only an emerging field, it would be perfectly normal that Roger received the same kind of classical education as his brother. Even if he was to become a vicar, he would have needed a classical education first.
people believed that one’s station in the social order was ordained and therefore, proper."A bit like divine right of kings!
Lois wrote: "Thanks for the additional info Leni!But can I just say that I didn't get the impression that Mr G thinks that Molly "needed no education at all".
In fact, I think she was receiving the bare min..."
Lois, I agree with both your points on Molly's and Roger's education. Mr. Gibson hired Miss Eyre for two purposes- as a "protectress" as it were for Molly and also as a governess in the subjects which were considered usual for the period. (Chapter 3) The Squire felt that Roger deserved the chance to go to Cambridge, even though he's pretty sure he won't do well there. The Squire's self confidence has suffered because he was not afforded a quality education and he wants to make sure his sons have that advantage. (Chapter 4)
The discussion on social class, the natural order of things, fatalism, etc. has made me realize again how much I don't know about the history of the period in which the novel takes place and in which Gaskell writes. Just from reading a bit in the Cambridge Companion to Victorian literature, it seems that from 1832 onward there was a very close connection between literature and industrialization. The innovation which came with industrialization prompted questioning of all aspects of society. In addition, the middle class experienced a rapid growth. Novels brought to light all aspects of society and its troubles, shining a light on heretofore ignored levels of society, like the working poor. Evidently, wealthy members of various classes would probably be totally ignorant of the condition of the working poor. The dichotomy was well portrayed in Gaskell's North and South. At any rate, I'm still reading and learning. I think it's vital to remember that Wives and Daughters takes place before the coming changes. The society here has more in common with a feudal society, it is rural and isolated from other parts of the country.
Mod
Yes and no. Yes in the sense that we are talking about a stratified society based on agriculture. No in the sense that the feudalism of the Middle Ages completely infused by Catholicism is long gone. For one, Catholicism had been brutally eradicated in England and only remnants remained. With the new world order that emerged the inherent reciprocity of a feudal society with its components of social justice only survived in remnants as well. It is interesting that social justice is something that re-emerged in the 19th century with industrialization and the abuse of workers.
I don't know if you ever read any mysteries. There is a wonderful mystery series by Melvin R. Starr, The Chronicles of Hugh de Singleton a surgeon and bailiff. It plays in the 1300s, and Starr paints the inner workings of feudal society in which these mysteries takes places vividly.
Kerstin wrote: "Linda wrote: "The society here has more in common with a feudal society, it is rural and isolated from other parts of the country."Yes and no. Yes in the sense that we are talking about a stratif..."
You're absolutely right about the absence of the Catholic Church in this society. I was making reference to Gaskell's use of "feudal" to describe Hollingford and the relationship between the gentry and the common folk.
Thanks for the book recommendation. I do enjoy mysteries, but wasn't familiar with this series.
The world of Wives and Daughters thus far at least seems far more isolated and insular than the world of Jane Austen’s novels set in roughly the same period of Regency England.
Mod
Leni, I am delighted you're joining the discussion!
I read the first paragraph again, and you are right, it is a fairy tale. You know, as I was reading it the first time, I was thinking along these lines that this reads like a fairy tale. Opening paragraphs and chapters tell us so much of what a book is about and I am glad you brought it back to our attention :)
Kerstin wrote: "Leni wrote: "Characters in fairy tales are stock figures though. So I think the opening paragraph fairly warns us what to expect! It is just a matter of identifying the fairy tale. That seems simpl..."Yes! That is what I was sensing. The characters do seem like the stock characters you get in fairytales. Thank you for this. It helps me to make sense of the story.
Hi Everyone! I am new to this group. I am a bit late picking up Wives and Daughters but enjoying it tremendously. Finished this section of reading. Love everyone's comments. I do not have a background in English literature but I love reading. So all the comments have given me food for thoughts. Happy reading everyone!
Laurene wrote: "Hi Everyone! I am new to this group. I am a bit late picking up Wives and Daughters but enjoying it tremendously. Finished this section of reading. Love everyone's comments. I do not have a backgro..."Hi Laurene! Glad you're enjoying it!
Laurene wrote: "Hi Everyone! I am new to this group. I am a bit late picking up Wives and Daughters but enjoying it tremendously. Finished this section of reading. Love everyone's comments. I do not have a backgro..."Hi Laurene, welcome in this enthralled discussion on Wives and Daughters!
Neither have I a background in English literature and my English is very basic, but it's a pleasure to share our points of view in this group.
Welcome Laurene, I am glad you are here! I only have a basic high school English Lit background but I love reading as well! I love lit from all countries and time frames!
I am enjoying Molly and her father's characters and how they interact. Molly in general is a spunky kid although I admit she was a bit dumb to allow herself to get faint in the garden. Not eating all day. That was not too smart. Even so, she has opinions of her own and she makes these known to her father. In the end, she still has to bend to him. Its an interesting relationship.
I also enjoy the whole Victorian feel of it. I watched a lot of the Downton Abbey series. I loved the look of the mansion and the fashions of the time. When I listen to this book, I can imagine a world like that. Complete with the fashions! The architecture! I can see it all in my head.