Victorians! discussion

For discussion of these chapters

I was trying to decide whether to squeeze in another mystery befor the end of the month, or start Shirley. When I saw that some of the threads were already up, I decided to get a headstart on Shirley, since there are several other novels I want to read in February. Hope it's ok if I start posting while it's fresh in my mind!

I read the first two chapters last night. I enjoyed the three curates in the first chapter. I find that Charlotte in general does not display a lot of humor in her work, but their description was quite amusing! Off to a good start!

This is reread for me. I first read this a couple of years ago, shortly after reading North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell. Although my edition of Shirley has no annotations, I learned quite a bit about the troubles surrounding the industrial revolution from notes and appendices to North and South, which gave me a good background for encountering the same theme in this novel.

The character of Moore is interesting. On the one hand, he seems antisocial and it says that he doesn't even think about the people he is replacing with machinery, or how they will live without work. Not a very sympathetic character, it seems. On the other hand, I think it is difficult not to sympathize with him in a way, because so many people are against him, he is in danger, and does not deserve to have his property destroyed. Several men in similar positions have been shot and buildings have been burned, and yet he does not seem afraid for his own safety.

Thanks for sharing Densie. Its helpful to me. I have started Northand South and wondered if I should wait to read Shirley or try to read both at the same time?

Denise, I went ahead with the early posting hoping I would be ready to dive in. I am reading it from my ipad so I definitely do not have any annotations and the hard copy I have does not have any either. Thanks for diving in and hopefully many of us will catch up with you shortly.

Rebecca wrote: "Thanks for sharing Densie. Its helpful to me. I have started Northand South and wondered if I should wait to read Shirley or try to read both at the same time?"

Personally, I like to read one book at a time, but that is just a personal preference. Shirley plunges right into the industrial revolution stuff, even before we meet the heroine, while North and South is the opposite. I don't think it's the major theme in either, though, although it is important.

I really want to read this one, too. I have The Bronte Sisters Kindle edition so no annotations for me either. I do remember from reading The Life of Charlotte Brontë that Shirley was based on Emily.

Thanks for the confirmation on that, Martha! I don't think I knew that the last time I read this, so I will definitely be keeping Emily in my thoughts as I read this again!

Denise I found the bio interesting for many reasons but especially to know what was going on in Charlotte's life when writing her books.

hey everyone! i decided to take a break from my year of trollope because i'm already ahead of my reading schedule. (i'm doing both the pallisers and the barsetshire chronicles.)

i read north and south and hard times fairly recently, so i am interested to see how shirley fits into the industrial novel milieu. xo.

Martha wrote: "I really want to read this one, too. I have The Bronte Sisters Kindle edition so no annotations for me either. I do remember from reading The Life of Charlotte Brontë that Shirley was based on Emily."

I'm reading Gaskell's biography right now, and I find it "illuminating"! I also read last year Romancing Miss Brontë and if I remember right there it was said that the caracter of Malone was based of the curate of his father who in the end will become her husband.
And clearly the points in common with North and South, but also Mary Barton are numerous ...

Interesting. I'm reading N&S now (a reread) & will check out the others.

Don't forget the Napoleonic wars were raging on the Continent. The British had sent massive number of troops too, which effected the economy

In the rest of this section, we see the first action against Mr. Moore - destroying his machinery while it was being delivered to his mill, and leaving his men tied up in a ditch. Moore rides out to save them, accompanied by the warlike vicar, Helstone. They meet with Mr. Yorke, an important local man, who has already found and freed the men. Moore and Helstone then have a drink with Yorke at his home, while the workmen are given something in the kitchen. I like Yorke, even though he is rough and opinionated. He is in some ways the opposite of Moore - when he has to let someone go, he tries his best to help them, unlike Moore, who doesn't give them a second thought. However, Yorke see promise in Moore and seems to like him. With Helstone it is a different story - he and Yorke wanted the same woman, and Helstone got her. He didn't treat her well, and she eventually died. Yorke hates Helstone. I don't like him very much, myself.

In chapter 5, I liked seeing Moore in his home setting. His sister Hortense is a rather comic figure! It turns out that they have a young cousin, who happens to be Helstone's niece and ward. She is getting some lessons from Hortense, since her uncle has not tried to give her any education at all. I would get very fed up with Hortense, but Caroline is very patient and submits to her nonsense. Of course, it is obvious that she puts up with it mainly because she has a huge crush on Robert, and wants to see him as much as possible.

There is a lot of Yorkshire dialect in this section - Yorke switches between the dialect, regular English, and French, as the whim takes him. Also, Moore's worker Joe Scott has a very thick 'accent'. I can figure most of it out, except for a word here and there. I suppose some of it would be annotated, if I had annotations. I think it is ironic, as I have heard that Charlotte edited Emily's novel Wuthering Heights by toning down Joseph's dialect, and yet here she is laying it on pretty thick, herself!

Luckily, I remember some of my high school French, since there is a lot of French here, too. I can usually at least get the drift of what they are saying.

Denise wrote: "... There is a lot of Yorkshire dialect in this section - Yorke switches between the dialect, regular English, and French, as the whim takes him ..."

In fact I'm having some difficoulties in following everything!

Just got through with the first chapter and I agree, Laura. It seemed a bit convoluted.

Denise, I also have a smattering of French left after HS and college. However I do rely on the "look it up" section on my ipad. :)

It's funny, I have absolutely no trouble with reading the dialect... Perhaps it's because even though I'm from the South, I have heard enough Northerners to know what to expect.

I was surprised how much of the French I remembered, since we moved fromm Canada 17 years ago. I had s long post typed out on my tablet, but totally lost it, and don't feel like retyping on this thing.

I read this book as a first year student in university, with only. A smattering of world history. Now after 25 years and having a degree in European history, I'm finding nuances I missed. The description of art in Mr. Yorke's house, Moore's stereotypical comments about nationalities, and prevailing class prejudices and perceptions of poor and rich.

I am actually drawn to the contradictions Bronte has tried to put in the character of Mr. Yorke. The departure to the third person narrative, allows the her to imply a sort of impartiality to the descriptions of.character's and their foibles.

Marialyce wrote: "Just got through with the first chapter and I agree, Laura. It seemed a bit convoluted.

Denise, I also have a smattering of French left after HS and college. However I do rely on the "look it up" ..."

Even if we are so closed to Fance and people think that italian and french are similar, I can't understand a word of french! Different story with spanish, but I HATE when in novles they don't translate different language - one famous istance: War and Peace

LauraT, with War and Peace it does depend on the translation you're reading!

Chapter five is my most favorite so far for all the reasons Denise specified. Bronte has in this chapter make Robert so much more human and of course the relationship with Caroline flirts on the romantic does it not?

I have read that this novel was suppose to be dealing with the Luddite rebellion, but that Charlotte's story evolved into more of a love tale than one of a historical tale.

However, as history so often repeats itself, the advance of the Industrial Revolution mimics in a way that of our current technology revolution. People have lost their jobs and there is that sense of hopelessness that one does experience. In frustration, the unemployed workers try to sabotage the machines. Don't quite know if anyone has sabotaged any computer systems lately, but there is often lots of frustration with and at the job they do.

I think it is interesting reading this book after Mary Barton, as I see some parallels in the dealing with the struggles and conflict between the workers and owners. Thus far this book is a much less romanticized portrayal and seems to have more of a detailed focus of the actual conflicts and politics, while in Mary Barton a lot of stuff happens behind the scenes.

I agree that Mr. Moore is presented as an interesting character. While on the one hand he would seem to be like the expected "villain" so to speak, as the Mill owner who does seem to be callously displacing the works of their jobs, on the other hand it is interesting that we are getting to see things from his point of view which does case him in a more sympathetic point of view.

Silver wrote: "I agree that Mr. Moore is presented as an interesting character. While on the one hand he would seem to be like the expected "villain" so to speak, as the Mill owner who does seem to be callously displacing the works of their jobs, on the other hand it is interesting that we are getting to see things from his point of view..."

I find difficoult to see him as a villain: I understand that introducing new tecnologies caused unemployment, but he had to do it in order to cope with dets! And he tryes to think of the people who losse their jobs but that, in his estimation of course!, were worth a hand.

K wrote: "LauraT, with War and Peace it does depend on the translation you're reading!"

The italian ones rarely translate the french bits!!!

I meant that in most novels which deal with the Industiral Revolution and the conflicts between the workers and owners/employers he most likely would be cast as the villain as most such books tend to be sympathetic to the workers. As a mill owner and as one who is heralding in the Industiral Revolution with his use if new technogoly Mr. Moore's character would have stereotypically been that of a villain. That is not to say that Mr. Moore himself is a villain or intended to be such but he is cast in a role commonly portrayed in a villainous light.

Denise wrote: " would get very fed up with Hortense, but Caroline is very patient and submits to her nonsense."

As a few people are saying they are reading books without notes, I thought I would post that my notes say that Caroline is supposed to be an amalgamation of Ellen Nussey, (Charlotte's closest friend), Anne Bronte and Charlotte herself, so I imagine that she'll be a very sympathetic character in the book.
Hortense is also supposed to be based on a woman Charlotte knew from her time in Belgium.

My notes also say that Charlotte wished to write a more delicate novel than some of the more melodramatic and sensational novels dealing with the Industrial Revolution, so I suspect there will be quite a contrast with 'Mary Barton'.

I've immediately warmed to the narrative style of addressing the reader and setting out the main characteristics as new people are introduced. It's a pity that this style is so out of fashion now!

The other point that interested me was the conversation about the Napoleonic war, I remember reading long ago how when the Bronte children were younger they played with soldiers and hero worshipped Wellington, which made me think that Moore with his support of Napoleon might turn out to be the villain of the piece, but thus far I think the presentation of him has been quite fair.

Silver wrote: "I meant that in most novels which deal with the Industiral Revolution and the conflicts between the workers and owners/employers he most likely would be cast as the villain as most such books tend ..."

Yes I see what you mean!

With this excellent introductory section of the novel, it is as if Charlotte knew we might be wondering about the characters. She clarifies to us that she writes "imperfect characters" but not "degraded or utterly infamous ones." I love then inclusion of the Hamlet, "instead then of harrowing up my reader's souls..."

I like this style of writing in which she has let everything build and dedicatedly included quite a bit of exposition.

What did you think of the interesting passage in chap 4, while describing Yorke, was a commentary on those with imagination like writers and poets? I thought it was a very significant thing for a woman writer of 1849 to state.

In so many ways of thought and of writing, Ms Bronte seemed ahead of the curve. I think she has a definite flow to her style, one that engages the reader and puts them on the path to really knowing her characters and then in effect really knowing their creator.

Clari wrote: "Denise wrote: " would get very fed up with Hortense, but Caroline is very patient and submits to her nonsense."

As a few people are saying they are reading books without notes, I thought I would p..."

Was Moore really for Napolean, or just against the war in that it was hampering the economic trade that he so desperately needed?

Lauri wrote: "Clari wrote: "Denise wrote: " would get very fed up with Hortense, but Caroline is very patient and submits to her nonsense."

As a few people are saying they are reading books without notes, I tho..."

I am inclined to think that Moore is primarily worried about how his trade is being effected particularly considering his own econometric struggles.

Not really a spoiler but from the next section:

(view spoiler)[There is a discussion in chapter 10 in which Moore's disagreement with Caroline's uncle is brought up and it is mentioned how Moore is against the war because of the ill effects it is having upon his trade. (hide spoiler)]

I have to agree, I think that Robert was so fixated on his business and in achieving success that anything, be it Parliament's trade laws, labor issues, or love and arrange were seen as road blocks.

Denise wrote: "....I enjoyed the three curates in the first chapter. I find that Charlotte in general does not display a lot of humor in her work, but their description was quite amusing! Off to a good start!

This is reread for me. I first read this a couple of years ago, shortly after reading North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell...."

I think I was supposed to have read Shirley with Denise those couple of years ago and dropped out, unable to keep up. Now, I am going to try playing catch-up to this discussion, since it is a book that I would still like to read. I agree with its similarities to Gaskell's North and South, which I have managed to complete sometime in the years Denise and I have been reading "together." I am sorry to have not been able to engage in the recent Mary Barton (also Gaskell) discussion, even though I did download a copy -- my days have just only so many hours that I am productive.

That said, I am following this Shirley discussion and will insert my two cents here and there.

@24 Clari wrote: "I've immediately warmed to the narrative style of addressing the reader and setting out the main characteristics as new people are introduced. It's a pity that this style is so out of fashion now!..."

I must say I felt exactly as you expressed, Clari. Then, at almost the same time, I stopped to ask myself "why" -- both in terms of reading current novels and in terms of what is it to be able to describe the character of someone.

My perception is that "modern" writers are taught to reveal characters through their dialog and their action. The model many Victorian writers use seems to be "character oriented" -- i.e., to presume that it is possible to observe a person (character) and to describe who they are -- all in all, perhaps a process that depends on a perception of a human's ability to judge character. One of the fun exercises for me is to ask myself whether I can observe another person and proceed to sketch their "character." Somewhere, I remember a passage, perhaps Hawthorne, but I have been unable to retrieve it, that questions our ability to ascertain the "character" of others and the limitations of doing so. Yet, I know writers like Stephen Covey (The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change) continue to talk about the importance of "character." Somehow, I find myself in the quandary of exactly what does it mean to judge others and how does doing so impact ongoing relationships.

Lily wrote: "Somehow, I find myself in the quandary of exactly what does it mean to judge others and how does doing so impact ongoing relationships.
."

It's a very interesting point, do you think the Victorians lived in a society where, despite changes in social structure and industry, where life was more certain and other people seemed more 'knowable', whereas post-Freud the underlying sense is that we cannot know ourselves let alone each other?

One of my favorite passages in these first five chapters described the coming of dawn after the night of the rather disastrous destruction of the frames for the textile manufacturing:

The coming of a cold, winter dawn: (view spoiler)[ "It was now the middle of the month of February; by six o'clock therefore dawn was just beginning to steal on night, to penetrate with a pale ray its brown obscurity, and give a demi-translucence to its opaque shadows. Pale enough that ray was on this particular morning: no colour tinged the east, no flush warmed it. To see what a heavy lid day slowly lifted, what a wan glance she flung along the hills, you would have thought the sun's fire quenched in last night's floods. The breath of this morning was chill as its aspect; a raw wind stirred the mass of night-cloud, and showed, as it slowly rose, leaving a colourless, silver-gleaming ring all round the horizon, not blue sky, but a stratum of paler vapour beyond. It had ceased to rain, but the earth was sodden, and the pools and rivulets were full.

"The mill-windows were alight, the bell still rung loud, and now the little children came running in, in too great a hurry, let us hope, to feel very much nipped by the inclement air; and indeed, by contrast, perhaps the morning appeared rather favourable to them than otherwise, for they had often come to their work that winter through snowstorms, through heavy rain, through hard frost.

....

"Mr. Moore haunted his mill, his mill-yard, his dyehouse, and his warehouse till the sickly dawn strengthened into day. The sun even rose, at least a white disc, clear, tintless, and almost chill-looking as ice, peeped over the dark crest of a hill, changed to silver the livid edge of the cloud above it, and looked solemnly down the whole length of the den, or narrow dale, to whose strait bounds we are at present limited. It was eight o'clock; the mill lights were all extinguished; the signal was given for breakfast; the children, released for half an hour from toil, betook themselves to the little tin cans which held their coffee, and to the small baskets which contained their allowance of bread. Let us hope they have enough to eat; it would be a pity were it otherwise. (hide spoiler)]

How much this passage sets a tone for the story!

It's about time you got around to this, Lily! (LOL, just teasing you!)

When I read the part that you quoted, one of the things that struck me was the children. I felt sorry for them, little children engaging in child labor in a mill. Bronte says that she hopes they are not cold or hungry, but they probably were. I had forgotten about that until I read your post.

It was a lovely description of nature, though.

Denise wrote: "It's about time you got around to this, Lily! (LOL, just teasing you!)..."

Denise -- you may be teasing (thank you), but your statement is very much on the mark! I'll get rid of one guilty mark when I get through this. (Still around will be The Tenant of Wildfell Hall.) I am going to try to shunt everything except Paradiso until I get through Shirley this time. Somehow, this novel seems so much more "grown up" to me than Charlotte's beloved Jane Eyre. So far it is hard for me to realize I am dealing with the same author.

(Love Anne Brontë's picture here, ostensibly a sketch made by Charlotte:



Sounds like you are being more sensitive to the people issues than I am at this point in my reading. I just have an expectation of the same old, same old abuses on both sides of the table, and am looking for the twist or insights Charlotte will provide.

Denise wrote: "It was a lovely description of nature, though...."

I think for me, it suggests more than that. It is almost a foreshadowing of the (theme of the) novel?

Otherwise it is just a nice description. But do I expect Charlotte to be that careless with her words?

A coincidence: I’m reading at the same time The Brothers Ashkenazi (written in 1930 but set ine the second part of the XIX Century) and at a certain point it deals with a strike of the workers of Max Ashkenazi – who would like to mechanize his mill.
The strike ends in favour of Max and the laboures have their salary reduced, but I think things will not go on smoothly …

Lily wrote: "@24 Clari wrote: "I've immediately warmed to the narrative style of addressing the reader and setting out the main characteristics as new people are introduced. It's a pity that this style is so ou..."

I think the fun of this type of novel is that we are given clues of the characters -- their setting, their relatives, their social circle, the desire for education (like Caroline) and we start to piece together who they are but may not be promised a full picture, do you think? Do you also think that is very close to what we do in real life? Of course, we want to uncover the true person underneath, but, especially as we have more experience in life, we know that surprises may be revealed that we have no real way of knowing from observation. This is a very interesting point that has been brought up.

http://live.wsj.com/video/why-clothes...

Pretty much a sidebar to Shirley, but a modern day statement on textile and clothing production. I don't remember the reasons, but as I recall, cloth and clothing have long been "starter" manufacturing industries, perhaps because of the nature of the technology? Perhaps because of the labor intensity? Anybody on this discussion from the (business) backgrounds with particular insight on this phenomena? As Laura indicates in msg 38, we are looking at an economic occurrence that has repeated itself in numerous guises again and again around the globe.

For me, part of what should be interesting will be the shifting roles of women in participating in these decisions.

Clari wrote: "Lily wrote: "Somehow, I find myself in the quandary of exactly what does it mean to judge others and how does doing so impact ongoing relationships."

It's a very interesting point, do you think do you think the Victorians lived in a society where, despite changes in social structure and industry, where life was more certain and other people seemed more 'knowable', whereas post-Freud the underlying sense is that we cannot know ourselves let alone each other?"

I think the "post-Freud" is part of it, Clari. Likewise, as you suggest, increased mobility and changing social structures have made it harder to ascribe character based on familial and cultural background. The article I can't retrieve stated something almost more fundamental that I don't think I've seen as clearly articulated anywhere else and which I can't reconstruct well (which is why I still hope to find it again), but it was something along the lines of the idea that if you assign "character" to an individual, that individual can get caught into either living into those characteristics or deprecating them -- so, for example, you might have up-right magistrates running a city -- and if someone managed to be one of them, he had similar characteristics, or perhaps was a drunkard. I think our present society's focus on diversity tries to help us see that very different individuals may hold similar societal positions with deep responsibility (ala our Supreme Court).

To a great extent, Charlotte Bronte is very "responsible" in her character descriptions and gives us rich views on their individuality, including the vicar who might have been inclined by personality to have been a military man. Yet, within the framework of Victorian writing, I feel as if she leads me to concur with her assessment of her characters, rather than leaving me to come to an independent view based on what they say and do. Now, I don't mean to be harsh in saying that, in fact, I am more exploring "do I believe what I am saying?" But, I do think it may be one of the ways writing characters has evolved over the decades, and we as readers can ask ourselves does a particular method influence our perception of the characters and the story and, if so, does it matter?

(So, for example, does it matter that Charlotte leads us to perceive Hortense as a slattern [she even acknowledges that she has done that] and then proceeds to provide evidence that Hortense is not really? What if her characteristics had been presented in somewhat reverse order? Might I have perceived her less as an immigrant ill-adjusted to her new nation and new circumstances? Would that have been fair or useful to or otherwise changed the story?)

Lily wrote: "Somehow, this novel seems so much more "grown up" to me than Charlotte's beloved Jane Eyre. So far it is hard for me to realize I am dealing with the same author."

I also find this novel different from either Jane Eyre or Villette. It seems to have a somehow lighter tone to it, even though it deals with sombre themes like the violence associated with the industrial revolution and heartache. Also, I find more humorous incidents in it. Perhaps it has something to do with the third-person narrator. Both Jane and Lucy are very serious, and have almost morbid tendencies.

On the view of nature, in a way it reminds me of near the beginning of Jane Eyre, when Jane is reading the book showing the seabirds. The descriptions of nature are very tempestuous. Different than this description, yet both very evocative. Perhaps, as you say, a foreshadowing. Jane's life was certainly tempest-tossed, both literally and figuratively.

SarahC wrote: "Lily wrote: "@24 Clari wrote: "I've immediately warmed to the narrative style of addressing the reader and setting out the main characteristics as new people are introduced. It's a pity that this s..."

You pose tough questions, Sarah.

I think the fun of this type of novel is that we are given clues of the characters -- their setting, their relatives, their social circle, the desire for education (like Caroline)...

I agree that that is part of the fun of Victorian novels -- and many that have been written since. Now as to whether that fits with how we learn about people in real life, my own sense is that's a lot tougher to pin down. Certainly there are a number of people in our lives that we learn a great deal about before we ever have much interaction with them. But, for many of us, there are lots of people that we learn about as we go and interact with them. Many we never know very much about, but we may know some very important things and some very sensitive things -- either through the comments of others or directly through our interactions with them. Others, we seem to start out, at least, with misleading information that takes us down paths that may have to be retraced or may simply never matter, but which would be a total surprise to both parties if ever explored. All of these possibilities must be a challenge to those who write and decide when, what, where, and how much the reader needs to know in order to serve the interests of the story at hand. I've never taken more than a cursory writing course on how to "write characters", so I can only guess the trade-offs modern day seminars and workshops must toss around. On the other side, as a reader, I have a whole different set of concerns.

(Transitioning from the Victorian writers, Henry James comes to mind as a writer who sets some of these questions on edge. I want him to tell more, to take me into the minds and quirks of his characters to their decisions, to tell the pieces that seem to be missing, to make things logical. Then, he can be so perverse about doing so. And, I feel left with what I have to try to understand. Is that like life itself? Certainly not always, but also sometimes, even often. What does such ambiguity do to the story told?)

Lily wrote: " But, I do think it may be one of the ways writing characters has evolved over the decades, and we as readers can ask ourselves does a particular method influence our perception of the characters and the story and, if so, does it matter? "

Reading your comment, I immediately thought of how Emily Bronte adopts this style in 'Wuthering Heights' where the majority of the characters are morally ambiguous and the whole narrative is from a questionable perception. With this novel I am enjoying it for the way Charlotte represents her characters with the all knowing narrator fairly showing both the flaws and kindnesses of her characters. It seems a friendlier style of writing when she addresses the reader directly.

Lily wrote: "Pretty much a sidebar to Shirley, but a modern day statement on textile and clothing production."

That is an interesting link, Lily, seeing that around the world people will be facing the very issues we're seeing in the books, of losing their jobs as cheaper options are available. And even though it doesn't appear to be something that Bronte has chosen to address it is scary how our highstreet clothes may still be the product of child labour so many years on.
http://gleaner.rutgers.edu/2012/04/18...