Gone with the Wind discussion

This is a point that I realised on a Twilight topic and thought it might make for an interesting discussion.

Gone with the Wind is considered as one of *the* great novels but it also features a relationship that is extremley abusive. Scarlett and Rhett very rarely get along, he rapes her and constantly belittles her. Scarlett hurts him by constantly pining for another man and does what she wants with very little consideration for others.

Considering this - why is Gone with the Wind still considered a great novel and why is this point not raised more often and criticised?

I think that the reason for this is because Gone with the Wind is from a period of time when men were viewed as superior to women and therefore because the book is portraying that period of time we do not find it as shocking as the relationship portrayed in Twilight (which is often criticised). I also think that the popularity of the book is also a key factor but I would love to know what other people think!

I haven't read the book but seen the film a couple of times so have a vague idea what it's about.

Firstly I think there are other examples where relationships between men and women go beyond romantic to brutal/sadistic (not including 50 Shades :p) where it's OK in the context of the novel because it's interesting. Wuthering Heights springs to mind. The relationship between Kathy and Heathcliff is less romantic and more of a cruel, twisted game involving class warfare. it's a great novel, but not for the reasons that people have traditionally thought it to be (though seeing some discussions on GR, I think the sadistic nature of the relationship is generally acknowledge by readers these days). Gone With the Wind is definitely working on this level because it's definitely about class relationships.

Secondly, I think that GWTW is as much about "America" as it is about people and I think many of the points the novel is possibly trying to make are about the relationship between the Northern and Southern states (the characters symbolically representing the states) and particularly with Scarlett it's relating to how the South needs to understand its problems, as well as its childish naiveties, buckle down and get on with the job at hand.

Of course, Gone With the Wind could be completely rewritten as a politically correct novel; as could most works of literature, but what exactly would be the point? History is what it is......should we go back and re-write it so that we can all feel good about it?

Hey, that's interesting, Carina. Admittedly I've never read Gone With the Wind, but from what I hear, it's portrayed as abusive, right? Scarlett is portrayed as a moron and pays the price for her stupidity. It's not like Twilight when Meyer decides to romanticize the abusiveness rather than portray it for what it really is. Anyway, I might be wrong, I'm just collecting what I've heard others say.

Holly wrote: "Of course, Gone With the Wind could be completely rewritten as a politically correct novel; as could most works of literature, but what exactly would be the point? History is what it is......should we go back and re-write it so that we can all feel good about it? "

My point isn't that it should be written to be PC, my point was that this is a very famous book that deals with an abusive relationship but doesn't get as attacked for it as modern counterparts. I am curious as to why people think that is.

Jocelyn wrote: "Hey, that's interesting, Carina. Admittedly I've never read Gone With the Wind, but from what I hear, it's portrayed as abusive, right? Scarlett is portrayed as a moron and pays the price for her s..."

Yeah, I never picked up on it at first TBH, but Rhett rapes Scarlett in one part and I am pretty sure they both get very close to being physically violent with one another. You're right though in that the book doesn't romanticise it as much as Meyer her relationship, it more... glosses over it.

Haha :) Well, I guess I'll have to read the book to draw my own personal conclusions, and I've never been a big fan of romance. I do wonder why romance writers have to exaggerate everything to such extreme levels though, until the whole thing is one giant hyperbole of what would have been realistic in real life. The only romance book I know that does not go completely melodramatic and exaggerated is Pride and Prejudice, which happens to be the only romance book I actually liked. Eh, I guess it's just not my cup of tea.

Sorry for rambling like that XD I have to ask out of curiosity, does Margaret Mitchell put their relationship in ANY kind of perspective (besides simply glossing it over as you said) or does she simply portray it as honestly as possible?

Jocelyn wrote: "Haha :) Well, I guess I'll have to read the book to draw my own personal conclusions, and I've never been a big fan of romance. I do wonder why romance writers have to exaggerate everything to such..."

TBH I think she does go for the honest approach. I would definitely say read the book though - it is a good read and isn't what I would call a 'true' romance book like P&P etc.

Sure, I'll try it. The idea of a deliberately unlikable protagonist is interesting, I'd like to see how it turns out.

Hang on, Rhett rapes her?? Seriously? Good Grief I've been reading the wrong Gone with the Wind if that happened in it!!!

Teresa wrote: "Hang on, Rhett rapes her?? Seriously? Good Grief I've been reading the wrong Gone with the Wind if that happened in it!!!"

You recall when Scarlett was getting drunk and Rhett comes in and basically sweeps her off her feet and into the bedroom? The the next day he goes away for ages with Bonnie? A lot of people have interpreted that as rape...

Alex wrote: "I haven't read the book but seen the film a couple of times so have a vague idea what it's about.

Firstly I think there are other examples where relationships between men and women go beyond roman..."

OMG - cannot believe I missed this response!

It is an interesting view to take - I mean Gone with the Wind has an interesting portryal of the relationship between the 'black and the whites' as well as between the classes of people (moneybaggers, the 'old class' and the new). You are right on the focus being on America as a whole as opposed to the one relationship between Rhett and Scarlett.

If you are really looking at this as an abusive relationship then you need to focus not on what Rhett does to Scarlet but on the way she treats him.
She married him for his money and never professed any feelings for him. She uses him for his money and position and then after the birth of Bonnie she bans him from the bedroom.
She is emotionally stunted and even traumatised by the events during the war, for example her fear of starvation, and it is Rhett who repeatedly reassures her and fulfils her emotional requirements receiving nothing in return except scorn and insults.
As for the perceived rape, I doubt Scarlet would have woken up happy and smiling had it really been a sexual assault.
Scarlet is very much a flawed character but it is her flaws that make her so fascinating.

Teresa wrote: "If you are really looking at this as an abusive relationship then you need to focus not on what Rhett does to Scarlet but on the way she treats him.
She married him for his money and never profess..."

I am in no way seeing it is a one sided relationship - in fact I feel incredibly sorry for Rhett. You are totally correct in everything that you have said regarding Scarlett (in that she is both flawed but also fascinating).

My point in starting this thread was to ask why people are willing to overlook the abusive relationship aspect of this book when in a lot of other books it can be highly criticised.

Overlook it? No I don't think that people do.

You need to take into account when the book was published. In some places it was even banned for it's 'gasp' scandalous content. It took something like 30 odd attempts before a publisher accepted it and even though it became a best seller and indeed spawned the movie it was still considered the '50 Shades of Grey' of its time.

Please note that I use the reference to '50 Shades of Grey' simply for the way the book has sold and not a comparison for content or writing style.

Perhaps it is just the sites I visit but I have never seen the book criticised for the relationship within it and was curious why it was.

The scandalous content for which it was banned - was that based on the relationship or other aspects?

"The book caused some scandal in it's day (1936), because of the use of words like "damn" (gasp)and "whore"(heaven help us!). The New York Society for the Suppression of Vice objected to Scarlett being married more than once. The Watch and Ward society in Boston wanted to get people upset over the prominence of Belle Ward (a madam) in the novel, but book sellers were making way too much money to care what censors were saying."

So not really the relationship then, just other factors.

At the time it was published people didn't have the insight into relationships that we do now. You can't expect people to look at it and be horrified at the implicated abusive overtones when back then that sort of thing just wasn't talked about.

Of course in today's society, this book probably wouldn't even raise an eyebrow for it's content.

Teresa wrote: "Of course in today's society, this book probably wouldn't even raise an eyebrow for it's content."

Which is the point I made in my first post, the book is set in a completely different era and so has different socially accepted norms of behaviour. The thing I am questioning is why, when a lot of people would see the relationship as problematic, does no-one question it nowadays? I have seen this book listed on numerous best 100 books but it doesn't seem to be as criticised as 'modern' novels (such as Twilight, 50 Shades etc) and I think there must be more in it than simply it is an old book.

Twilight is about vampires and 50 Shades of Grey is an insult to the trees that were used to make the paper it was printed on.

You can't compare them or the impact they have on their target audience.

Each and every book should be taken on its own merits and also its content.

I was merely saying that Twilight and 50 Shades are popular novels as was Gone with the Wind - in that way you can compare them especially as Twilight is beginning to show up on many 100 books lists.

I would never compare expect for using them as examples of popular books as I think GwtW is far superior to them in terms of writing, plot and characterisations.

I rephrase the reasoning behind posting this thread: why is the relationship not questioned/criticised considering the different way we now look at relationships. Is it because this book is written so long ago that we accept that the relationships of that time were very different or is it because the book is not as popular as books with similarly abusive relationships that are popular now?

I don't believe that many people actually look at the relationships within any book they are reading with a view to the healthiness of the relationship or not unless they are writing an essay on it or have a blog!

ie it is generally just a story they read.

Teresa wrote: "I don't believe that many people actually look at the relationships within any book they are reading with a view to the healthiness of the relationship or not unless they are writing an essay on it..."

Exactly! Thank you Teresa. I just read for pleasure, I don't analyze stuff....if something in a book is so disturbing to me, I stop reading.

If all relationships were smooth fiction would be dull.
We need conflict for it to work.
This is a fairly "warts an' all" tale, the film cleaned up a pile of stuff...the involvement of the KKK for instance.
As an aside, I think of it more as an anti-war novel rather than a romance.

Carina, I think you're right, and I'm glad to read your posts. I did raise some of this same point in discussions before, but women readers mostly just swoon over Rhett, or else say Scarlett got what she deserved anyway. Yet he is lacerating to her, to the point where today some women would have him arrested and charged with sexual harassment just for what he says, not even getting into the question of whether that one-night event was a rape.

Margaret Mitchell did divorce her first husband, whose name was Red, for abuse. Whatever light that may shed on this question.

Michael wrote: "Carina, I think you're right, and I'm glad to read your posts. I did raise some of this same point in discussions before, but women readers mostly just swoon over Rhett, or else say Scarlett got w..."

I didn't know that about the author, it does sound as if that might have had an impact on the story then...

Michael wrote: "Margaret Mitchell did divorce her first husband, whose name was Red, for abuse. Whatever light that may shed on this question. "

Yeah, I think that's possible. A lot of authors do this. J.R.R. Tolkien used his World War II experiences to help write the Lord of the Rings, J.K. Rowling created the characters in Harry Potter that belonged to Slytherin based on bullies in her childhood, etc.

But like Carina says, I don't think the fact that it was written in the time it was explains all of the stuff. Still, Margaret Mitchell's experiences in real life probably contributed to what she decided to portray in her work, though my opinion on this isn't exactly legitimate since I haven't read the book.

It was never based on Margaret's first husband but on an amalgamation of several of Ms Mitchell's fiance's and people she came across. Further if you read a biography then you will learn of Clifford Henry, her first fiance, who died during the First World War. He was referred to as 'slightly effeminate' amongst other things which brings to my mind anyway, Ashley Wilkes.

I don't think anyone was saying it was based on her first husband merely that it may have had an impact - as you say the description of the fiance does give rise to Ashley - which again shows that her life (in general and not one aspect) does impact the story.

I was merely pointing out that if she did live through an abusive relationship it might explain why she included one in the book.

I didn't say anyone did. But the conversation was alluding to it and I wanted to point that out.

Carina wrote: "I was merely saying that Twilight and 50 Shades are popular novels as was Gone with the Wind - in that way you can compare them especially as Twilight is beginning to show up on many 100 books list..."

When I read GWTW I did of course notice the abusive relationship, I think many people did. But I feel the reason why it isn't questioned like Twilight, 50 Shades and many other books is because the core element in them is to portray a love story. Yes, GWTW is a love story but it also portrays a more serious matter...war and how people have survived through the aftermath of it. How a woman back then had to act among others. And how you will choose to survive through a disaster. This is also what makes it a great novel. It discusses a part of history and puts you in the lives of those who lived through it.

The abusive relationship isn't questioned because that is how it was back then. Like you said in your post 'this book is written so long ago that we accept that the relationships of that time were very different'. But this is just my opinion of it all.

Michael wrote: "Margaret Mitchell did divorce her first husband, whose name was Red, for abuse. Whatever light that may shed on this question."

and he did rape her.

Arianna wrote: "The abusive relationship isn't questioned because that is how it was back then...But this is just my opinion of it all"

I think it is a valid opinion and it does suggest that it is due to the books age that it isn't as highly criticised.

You are also right in that GwtW is not purely a romance novel like Twilight is - GwtW covers incredibly serious material as well (not that I am saying an abusive relationship is not serious) and the themes of the book do tend towards the 'grander' scale.

This thread answers my query well though - the clear suggestion is that it is the age of the book and its plot that mean the abusiveness is not ignored but it is simply not focussed on as the book itself focusses on other things.

I didn't see their relationship as abusive. Scarlett was a shrew of a woman and she was so unbelievably frustrating, but Rhett didn't beat her (which at that point in time would have been acceptable), he didn't take out his childhood on her, nor did he "rape" her. He put her in her place when she was being childish and saw right through her attempts and being lady-like because he knew she really was no lady. On the other side of that, he knew what he was getting himself into. Scarlett married her first husband out of spite, her second for money and Rhett the same. She neglected her first two children and was awful to almost everyone she came in contact with. I sympathized with Rhett because he tried so hard with her and she threw him out of her bed, mentally cheated on him, and dismissed him when he told her he loved her. If there was any sort of abuse it was Scarlett towards Rhett. And don't get me started on her two faced behavior with Melanie. I loved GWTW, but seriously, I wanted to slap Scarlett 'til she saw sense.

In my view I think they knew the horribleness of the rape even when the film was made. The night of the supposed rape they portrayed Rhett as a sweaty, disgusting, chauvenistic (sp?) man who could use a woman any way he would like or try to change her thinking (take Ashley out of her head). BUT I think its interesting that in the movie they never show one inch of sexuality in the bedroom and its still considered one of the biggest romance novels/movies of all time and other movies can give NOTHING to the imagination and they never are picked apart for it. I think it also is reminiscent of the times where men viewed women as property-just as much as slaves. The men were the cigar room men while their fair skinned women would lounge around and not do an ounce of work for fear of being masculine. SUCH a beautiful novel though. Must say its my favorite regardless of the rape that happens, just would be a great novel to evaluate chapter by chapter to the 'inside' scoop :p

Gone With the Wind reflects another time when their relationship was far more equal than most. Believe it or not, GWTW was FORWARD even when the film was made. Rhett respected Mammy. In real life, CLark Gable threatened to boycott the premier because black people weren't allowed. Hattie McDaniel (Mammy) told him to go. Then she and other blacks had to fight for the right to the property they had purchased when a bunch of racist white people wanted them out of the community. Research Sugar Hill. In the 1930's, men beating women was not exactly legal, but if you were married, the authorities were likely to turn a blind eye.

In the 1860's, women were property. Women could only rarely own property themselves. Most were owned by their fathers and then their husbands. Scarlett was such a despised character among her peers because she often took matters into her own hands. A "proper" woman of the day wouldn't have dreamed of saying no. In that regard, rape happened more often than is talked about, only back then, it was seen as a duty. For the time period, Rhett's actions were completely legal, and Scarlett would have been seen as wrong if she said no.

Both Rhett and Scarlett used each other, and they both knew it. He was fascinated by the woman who was so strong-willed, and she wanted his money. Their relationship isn't one of romance (few marriages were as most were still seen as a matter of busines), not is GWTW pegged as a romance. It's the story of a strong-willed woman doing what she had to, often outside social conventions, to obtain security in a time when she was "wrong" for daring to go out in public while pregnant (in the book).

Twilight (and 50 Shades) are both set in the current time. These actions aren't seen as all right now. Today, stalking and rape are crimes. Yet we, in modern times, are supposed to see these actions against women who could be our current friends, as romantic.

Books must be read in the time they were written, or in the era they are about. Rhett and Scarlett are a very mild representation of real relationships at the time, and for the era, Rhett's treatment of her was a lot better than many wives had. Edward and Bella, and Christian and Ana, are both in relationships that are abusive by the standards of the time period they represent.

It's been about 10 years since i read GWTW & i can't remember if the rape was different in the book as it was from the film.

In the film the morning after the rape Scarlett was all smiles....!!!

I did some googling after I read this thread and from that excerpt I certainly don't think it was a rape. (I read it when I was 11 and I don't have the book with me right now.) In the movie it may not have been so clear (before the morning anyway) but I have always interpreted to be something quite different. Mitchell just couldn't write it like that at the time and I think they had the same problem with the movie... ;-) I think Meghan also said it well that they both knew each other and knew what they were getting (and what not).

Regarding Twilight or 50 shades, well I won't be reading them any time soon, so I can't comment.

How can someone review a book and not have read it? I read Gone with the Wind 50 years ago and considered it a novel of the time in which it was written. It wasn't to me the great American novel but it was a decent read and was a true to history as any novel.

This is one of my all-time favorite books. I don't so much feel that the relationships portrayed in it are dated and that's why there is mental abuse and emotionally stunted people...I think it's an accurate portrayal of many relationships and humans, period. No matter what time in history, including now. That's what makes it such a fascinating read. Things are not sugar-coated. People do take each other for granted. People do mistreat each other. And many endings are not happy. I think the reason it doesn't get as much discussion is because no one is trying to argue that this is a beautiful love story. It's not. But it is a realistic one. And, it is not a young adult novel, thus it isn't offending as many adults who have teens reading it.

Sandra wrote: "This is one of my all-time favorite books. I don't so much feel that the relationships portrayed in it are dated and that's why there is mental abuse and emotionally stunted people...I think it's a..."

Excellently put. It strange that when a lot of people do talk about this book they say it is a love story first and foremost but seem to skip the not so appealing aspects - but as you say it is a realistic portrayal of a realtionship and not a romanticised one (so there is still the love element - just not a traditional one).

Alys hit it dead on.

I suggest reading the book, from beginning to end. :) Know a little history before you do to understand the time period.

T.J. wrote: "Alys hit it dead on.

I suggest reading the book, from beginning to end. :) Know a little history before you do to understand the time period."

I understand the time period perfectly fine, and have read the book numerous times - the question at hand was to do with why some abusive relationships are highly criticised and others aren't.

From the previous comments most people seem to take the approach that it is because the relationships in Gone with the Wind are very true to the time period of the book so although the relationships portrayed can be seen as abusive/unhealthy by modern standards for the time they were considered to be normal.

As Alys says Twilight (and 50 Shades) are both set in the current time. These actions aren't seen as all right now. Today, stalking and rape are crimes. And from all the comments, this sounds as if it is the key thing -GWTW is a relationship from another time, the other books which feature abusive relationships are all modern and therefore can be criticised for portraying the same situations.

Carina wrote: "T.J. wrote: "Alys hit it dead on.

I suggest reading the book, from beginning to end. :) Know a little history before you do to understand the time period."

I understand the time period perfectly ..."

It's not just time period, but the actions involved. Scarlett's behavior could be interpreted as either bratty or abusive depending on the point of view. Rhett's actions I didn't see as being abusive at all. If anything he was the most tolerant (read: stupid) man on the planet for putting up with her for as long as he did. The whole sweeping Scarlett up and carrying her to bed thing shouldn't be interpreted as a bad thing if the reader is thorough with the text. There wasn't anything in the text to indicate that Scarlett was not a willing participant in the act what was described in the little that was written about she enjoyed herself (nobody on this thread has ever had angry sex?). By Rhett being more of the aggressor he somehow opened her eyes and made her realize that that relationship wasn't a game to him, she finally realized that he did love her and wanted her (albeit a little too late to salvage anything in their relationship). What Mitchell wrote did not describe rape:

"She screamed, stifled against him and he stopped suddenly on the landing and, turning her swiftly bent over her and kissed her with a savagery and a completeness that wiped out everything from her mind... He was muttering things that she did not hear, his lips were evoking feelings never felt before. She was darkness and he was darkness and there had never been anything before this time... Suddenly she had a wild thrill such as she had never known; joy, fear, madness, excitement, surrender to arms that were to strong, lips too bruising, fate that moved too fast. For the first time in her life she had met someone stronger than she, someone she could neither bully nor break... Somehow her arms were around his neck and her lips trembling beneath his and they were going up, up into the darkness again..."(Chapter 54)

Scarlett needed someone as strong as she was. The other two men she married were weak little boot lickers. She got what she didn't even know she was looking for.

There was no stalking, no watching someone sleep, or illegal information gathering. Nobody in GWTW had their intended followed or "protected" from their own stupidity. If anything, Scarlett had so much more freedom than ANY other woman of that time and Rhett let her keep it! Just because Scarlett was a selfish child and Rhett was a little condescending doesn't make the relationship abusive.

My first question is why someone who hasn't read it would inputting on a readers website. Great book. All that needs to be said. Period.

Alys wrote: "Gone With the Wind reflects another time when their relationship was far more equal than most. Believe it or not, GWTW was FORWARD even when the film was made. Rhett respected Mammy. In real lif..."

Your comments are very well said. This book for me, was so layered and complex. All of the relationships played out against the backdrop of a Civil War and reconstruction. The south completely lost their economic and social way of life. Scarlett had the kind of survival instincts she needed make it in a world that was "Gone wih the Wind" and had to rebuild literally from the ashes. Nice wasn't going cut. And the people who claimed to hate her often depended on her for their own survival. I haven't seen anyone on this thread mention the difference in age between Rhett and Scarlett. Also, something that was more accepted at the time - as she was about 16 when they met and he was considerably older. Somehow we're so conditioned for "romance" and the happy ending of the couple ending up together that the rest of the story seems insignificant. Among people I know who've read Pride and Predjudice - the same seems to be true. The only thing that mattered was that Elizabeth ended up with Darcy and the social significance of the book was glossed over. I have read this book a couple of times - and watched the movie a few more. This discussion is making want to re-read it!

Meghan wrote: "I didn't see their relationship as abusive. Scarlett was a shrew of a woman and she was so unbelievably frustrating, but Rhett didn't beat her (which at that point in time would have been acceptabl..."

to Meghan...are you seriously saying that Rhett would have been supported in 'beating' Scarlett as an appropriate means of handling her shrew of a character or that in that point in the history of US it (physical abuse) would have been seen as justifiable?

Where is the abuse? And there is no rape, or are you referring to the married bedroom scene. Mitchell depicts this as something that Scarlett enjoyed. This novel should be glorified by feminists because Scarlett is a gutsy woman who saves not only her family but also the family property. That is why no one talks about abuse in this book. The only abuse is to the blacks. Perhaps that's what you were referring to.

Pauline wrote: "Where is the abuse? And there is no rape, or are you referring to the married bedroom scene. Mitchell depicts this as something that Scarlett enjoyed. This novel should be glorified by feminists be..."

Rhett and Scarlett do not have a'healthy' relationship,they are both very rude to one another and as I state in my original post they do belittle one another (I will say that the rape accusation is something I read elsewhere and is open to interpretation - though to me if Scarlett wasn't really willing beforehand but only enjoyed it afterwords it is a bit dubious). As others have pointed out the abuse is more mental than physical.

But you raise another point as to why abuse isn't talked about (most other commentators take the approach that for the time period of the book at least Scarlett wasn't attacked by Rhett) - that Scarlett is viewed as being gutsy. My query was never about whether there is abuse but why it isn't spoken about.