Victorians! discussion

Week 3

Chapter XXII "A Blow and its Consequences" brings us to the heart of the novel. When we read that Margaret "had thrown the door open wide - and was there, in the face of that angry sea of men, her eyes ... flaming arrows of reproach ... for she stood between them and their enemy" much is at stake, and, I think, much suggested as well. Here are some ideas to consider and discuss.

As Thornton's door opens, we have the angry confrontation between Thornton and his workers. The door opening could also be seen as a metaphor for both the open confrontation and the initial physical contact between Margaret and Thornton. To what degree do you support the position of the workers? Of Thornton? Was Margaret out of line to take her aggressive stance?

2. While we have not yet met Margaret's brother, we do know he was a leader in a mutiny. In this week's section we read about the strike as well. There seems to be a trend of confrontation with authority in the novel. From what we have read so far, do you detect a position that Gaskell has on how a group of people should/must deal with what is perceived as injustice?

3. Margaret is hit by a "sharp pebble" that was meant for John Thornton and the rock draws blood. Thornton carries Margaret inside and rests her on a sofa. In these moments of upset he says to Margaret "you are the only woman I ever loved!" Here we have what most readers have been anticipating. So much turns on this phrase. Thornton's mother, who has been Margaret's antagonist, will have her role in Thornton's life adjusted. Thornton and Margaret must learn to navigate their differences. What hints has Gaskell offered the reader to suggest where her narrative may lead next?

4. There is so much going on. What is intriguing you, puzzling you, and what predictions do you have?

cool questions Peter.

Gah! What an exciting section! Margaret acted quite impulsively, both in goading Thornton to confront the angry mob and in throwing herself in front of him as protectress. Yet, Gaskell makes it completely clear why Margaret is compelled to both. I do like that about her writing. We are given the thought processes behind action and reaction, which had made it possible to see all sides and empathize with each character as they maneuver through the conflicts of the story.

Margaret placing herself between Thornton and the workers shows quite clearly what she is also arguing: middle ground. I love the fact that it is a woman who represents rationality here. (Ok, it could also be taken so represent compassion and abhorrence of violence etc, but let's face it, Margaret want Thornton to reason with them, whereas Thornton and the rioting workers just want to stubbornly and emotionally have their way.)

I'd love to know what exactly happened on the ship. Did Margaret's brother try to mediate and see both sides, or did he align himself squarely with the "hands" from the start? And if we heard the Captain's point of view, would we see his side, like we can see Thornton's side? (Knowing what little I do know of the way the navy worked in those days, I don't think there is too much of a parallel between Thornton and the Captain. Navy hands were only a tiny step up from slaves. The Captain would be the extreme example of unbridled and unmediated authority. Thornton is at a different part of the spectrum.)

I think the best thing would be if Margaret could get Thornton and Harris in a room together. Just lock them up and not let them out until they agreed to a solution that would work for all. But it doesn't look like that's likely to happen.

I admit that I was almost as surprised as Margaret at Thornton's sudden burst of passion and matrimonial intent. Unlike Margaret I was expecting it to come at some point, but I thought it would develop more gradually. Obviously they were in an intense and dangerous situation, and that brought Thornton's admiration and fascination with her to the forefront. But to go from there and straight into a marriage proposal? There hasn't been even a hint of courtship. And while the way things were done in the 19th century was different from the way they're done now, I get the sense from other novels that there would certainly be some manoeuvring before an "offer" of marriage is made.

Renee wrote: "Gah! What an exciting section! Margaret acted quite impulsively, both in goading Thornton to confront the angry mob and in throwing herself in front of him as protectress. Yet, Gaskell makes it com..."

I have my difficulties with the scene in front of the mob. I was very surprised Thornton let himself get goaded by Margaret. I thought him smarter than that. I would have assumed that he would give her points on principle, but also remind her of the explosiveness of the situation. Its a wonder nothing worse happened.

Margaret still sees things too black and white. In a previous scene we get to see through Mr. Hale's eyes that the appartment of Boucher is much better furnished than the tenant farmers' dwellings had back in Helstone, and in addition there is food present that would have been considered luxuries. He realizes that the standards in Millstone are different.
This observation of his is consistent with the Hales' difficulty of hiring more household help. The wages are higher, therefore they can afford a higher standard of living albeit dependent on regular wages.

Later, Mr. Hale points out to his daughter that the Bouchers are better off than all his jammering suggests, and that the Union is a power player not to be underestimated. In other words, the situation is far more complicated than it appears.

All of this transpires before the mob scene. When she goads Mr. Thornton it is clear she didn't understand what her father had tried to explain to her.

I recall that in my first read of this novel, I was very much struck by how unprepared Margaret is to comprehend Thornton's passion for her. It hits her blindsided. She has had no indication of his growing admiration, none at all -- especially since much of their interactions have been arguments.

I think this stems partly from the fact that Thornton has been hiding his feelings very well. As a man who prides himself for his self-control and self-discipline, he's been fighting his growing attraction. The reader is given ready clues as to his fascination with Margaret all along the way up to this point. We can see his self-control faltering with each encounter.

The riot incites impulsive action from both Margaret and John. Margaret bursts into action to save him from harm. She throws her arms around him: tremendous propriety breech!

So it's little wonder Thornton's reserve crumbles away in these intense moments as he's left with the aftermath. What do you think the self-contained John Thornton is feeling as he carries her seemingly lifeless body up the stairs into his home? Physicality again plays a significant part.

And yes, I believe that Gaskell is arguing for some kind of middle ground in all heated conflicts. Balance. Reason and logic blended with compassion and heart.

I love that we have introductory questions to ponder. Thank you, Peter.

I see it differently: I think Margaret is the stupidest feminist in the world after the way she first told Thornton to go to speak to the mob of all things! And he has got to be incredibly dumb to listen to her! But this is supposed to be a love story of opposites so to speak so I have to put up with this contrivance.

But then she has the audacity to tell him that her protection of him should be seen as something useful and practical as opposed to a romantic gesture. Which planet was she born in because there is no way anyone would see that gesture in any other way - in North OR South? And she knows she is lying because she doesn't see him straight up at first (she knows why he is there but since she doesn't 'like' him and doesn't want to feel 'obligated to respond', she refuses him, but she knows why he is there!)

But I do like the 2 very different proposals that she has received in the span of a year - first by a man she considers nothing more than a 'friend' (her aunt's son) and then by someone whose 'intensity of words sent her shivering' - and she refuses them both. What does this woman want? I don't think she knows yet.

@Leni, Gaskell has been pretty clear that the navy captain was an evil man, who was bad to his staff (ill-treatment, torture and death are mentioned). I also don' think Gaskell is drawing a comparison between Thornton and navy captain as masters or employers who are bad to their 'hands'. Thornton is not a bad employer, just a rigid businessman.

And Peter, to answer one of the questions: I'm on Team Thornton, not Team Workers - they wanted higher wage, didn't get it, tried to heighten the pressure by going on strike, that didn't work, then became an angry and violent mob as if they owned the factory.

But I do agree with Margaret that Thornton should realize that if he invests in his people, they will be better employees - for e.g. he has better (healthier) machinery than other factories (so that 'snow fluff' is less) but doesn't think beyond that point to their welfare - that's where Margaret shows him a different perspective.

2. Gaskell is just depicting life as it existed in industrial area of that time - there was surge, money, cotton-is-great wave, and of course poverty, cheap labor, health problems, and bankruptcy of factory owners when demand of cotton lessened. I don't think Gaskell is showing any unique perspective on authority than other writers of the day, but her heroine is more opinionated and luckier and has better fate than female characters by other authors!

Noorilhuda wrote: "I see it differently: I think Margaret is the stupidest feminist in the world"

Is Margaret a feminist? She doesn't strike me as such. More like a smart, but still youthfully idealistic girl coming of age. She has strong tendencies to social justice.

There are parallels between the Christian concept of social justice and feminism. And to be fair, at the time of the publication of North and South The Communist Manifesto was already published. But I think we are too early in the century to have the ideological components of feminism and the oppression of women formally developed. The work that gets referred here most often is The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, which was published in 1884.

But...I am no expert on the history of feminism ;)

Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman already in 1792. That said, Margaret doesn't strike me as being a feminist either. Like I've said before, she is old school. Feminism was decidedly new school at that time! She also thinks herself relatively safe from the mob because they wouldn't offer violence against a woman. That's an idea firmly rooted in the traditional view of women as someone to protect.

I think she acted somewhat rashly from her sense of what is just, but I also think she had a point. It was a gamble, and it partially succeeded. She wanted to halt the riot before it got out of hand. She wanted to protect the Irish workers from the English workers and the English workers from the soldiers. She was angry at Thornton's hardheadedness, and thought he hadn't done what he could and should to prevent the riot in the first place. Later she realised she had placed him at great risk, and that his idea of "reasoning" with the workers was to aggravate them further by telling them he wouldn't budge. So she tried to defuse the situation by sheer womanliness. Thornton acted on her urging because she called him a coward (at least I think she did. And Milton North is not a place for cowards), and so her notion of "a gentleman" and his notion of "a man" both came into play. There is nothing of feminism here.

That's much they way I interpreted the scene, Leni.

I wasn't referring to the concept of 'feminist theory' or feminist movement. To me, Margaret's chief characteristics are that she is interested in 'substance' not frivolity, she likes intellectual challenge, doing housework instead of sitting pretty on her thumbs and talking dresses and thinking it beneath her to be 'useful' in this way. She isn't even 'good in piano' - which was at that time the way women got noticed as being accomplished. There has not been a single mention of her considering her looks, acknowledging how beautiful she is or being vain (unless I've been reading wrong, she only thinks of what to wear when invited to Thornton's dinner). And she isn't afraid of taking charge of a situation - whether at home or outside with acquaintances or speaking her mind. I think Trudy mentioned that other factory owners would not have been as accepting of her views as Thornton, but I believe she spoke her mind as freely in London as she does in Milton.

She is her own person. That's basic feminism, whether the term was connoted at the time or referred to in the press or not!

Trudy wrote: "I recall that in my first read of this novel, I was very much struck by how unprepared Margaret is to comprehend Thornton's passion for her. It hits her blindsided. She has had no indication of his..."

Trudy, I am glad you've read this before! You are able to point out to us the 'in-betweens' and nuances we "first readers" miss.

Thornton's proposal was a bit of a shock, to say the least. I didn't think we had reached this tipping point yet. I took it as an impulsive gesture in wake of the public embrace, to safe face for both him and her. I didn't think his feelings had developed to this extent.

Her refusal, on the other hand, makes perfect sense. She isn't ready. She has had to deal with so many changes and impressions in a relatively short time. Being uprooted from her home, her father's change of profession, the new social order and its unfamiliar rules in Milton, her mother's terminal illness -- all at the tender age of 19. His proposal overwhelms her, and she can't quite fathom why he would have taken different cues, which also shows how innocent she still is. Growing up is an uneven process.

Here I am reminded a little of Anne of Green Gables. When Gilbert proposes to Anne the first time she refuses. Her true childhood didn't really begin until she was taken in by the Cuthberts, and by the time Gilbert is ready to make her his wife, she isn't done growing up yet.

Margaret so far does not seem to be a woman who responds to men romantically. It is interesting to compare the two men who respond to her romantically. Henry gets her away for a private walk in Helstone. Wouldn't the young Victorian female ala Austen read his every gesture and know his mindset in this scenario? She could anticipate his romantic bent of mind and send messages to encourage or discourage. Instead, Margaret was totally surprised and apparently offended. Why couldn't they just continue being friends? Thornton can't take his eyes off Margaret's wrist that night in the Hale home. Margaret was then and continues oblivious to Thornton's attention. Not only is Margaret closed to romance, but Thornton seems well-defended on the female front. He assures his mother that he is impervious to the charms of women. Between these two, something's gotta give. In chapter 22 Gaskell sets up that something. Because of the strike playing out in the street, Thornton's passions are at full boil. Then Margaret goads him to be a man. Things are at a pretty primitive level. All it takes is fear for her life to open up all the constraints he places on himself...and he makes a declaration of love.

This seems like a huge departure/concession on Thornton's part. What will Margaret do?

Leni wrote: "Wollstonecraft wrote A Vindication of the Rights of Woman already in 1792."

Oh my! I don't recall ever hearing about her. (I may have and just never committed it to memory...) I'll have to look her up.

In answer to Peter's question about challenging authority, I believe Gaskell is indeed contrasting Fred's mutiny with the workers riot.
There are hints that Frederick's actions were tinged with a personal animosity that existed between the him and Captain Reid. Mrs. Hale also mentions that her son can be too passionate. We get a sense that he may be impulsive. So, his drastic decision to incite a mutiny may not be entirely worthy of admiration. It wasn't a wise move, considering the far-reaching consequences.

The workers' riot is an explosive break from a planned rebellion (the strike) that was intended to address a longstanding issue. Since the masters have not taken the trouble to explain why they cannot raise wages, the workers are left to believe their requests are denied purely for greed.

Are the masters required to explain why they make business decisions that will affect the viability of the organization? No, but in not sharing their side of the equation with the workers, they risk the ignorance and anger that naturally develops from wielding an authority that is too indifference from the ruled. I lay most of the blame of this riot on the masters' conceit and negligence. They need to treat their workers with respect.

Noorilhuda wrote: "I wasn't referring to the concept of 'feminist theory' or feminist movement. To me, Margaret's chief characteristics are that she is interested in 'substance' not frivolity, she likes intellectual ..."

I hadn't made the distinction between feminist theory or movement and a woman simply being herself. I don't use the word 'feminism' in this sense.
Your explanation is very helpful in understanding the extent to which the word is being used.

Devoured the chapters.

I do believe that Margaret behaved in that manner to save the situation, not because of her feelings. She is impulsive and caring, and since she goaded Thornton to face the workers in order to pacify them, which completely backfired, she felt even more responsible. I don't think she is in love with Thornton (not yet, although there is attraction). At this present moment, he puzzles her and clashes with her 'beliefs', but he also interests her. Due to her situation, in the middle of it all, going from the workers' sphere to the masters' one, she sees both sides, without any of the restraints. I can also understand how others, not knowing her, would interpret this behaviour.

Poor Thornton, who knew she didn't feel the same way, gets taken by hope from what everyone says around him. The chapter 'Mother and Son' always gets to me. I haven't read many 19th century novels but to me Gaskell describes his feelings in such an amazing way, so real, so raw. Usually (from my limited reading experience), men are not described with such intense feelings. We, the readers, are made to understand they do have them but it isn't shown in such a visible manner, like here. Thornton's reaction to refusal was not what Margaret was expecting - more brutal. Contrary to Lennox, he says he will keep loving her, defying her. Wow! One seems to be all manners but no depth, while the other could be seen to be the reverse (three guesses who I prefer). And now, he is definitely in her thoughts, but she has so much on her mind already with her family. Bad timing, and yet, the seed has been planted...

This second reading of the novel is allowing me to see more of all the elements the author is dexterously weaving together, especially relating to the social issues, and the brilliant characters she constructs from these. Higgins is shown to be a 'good' man, so is Thornton, and Boucher is not really a bad one, but all have their own points of view which somehow hinders them. Again this theme of people bound by their own culture/class, and we know nothing positive will be achieved until someone takes a step out of their inner circle. Mrs Thornton is great too, so full of courage and pride (I kind of see her like a lioness). Fanny however does annoy me, but she does represent a type too.

As for Wollstonecraft's Vindication, I've been meaning to read this for a while. And Godwin's Caleb Williams. What a family!

I was amazed by the chapter "The Blow and it's Consequences". Gaskell weaves the characters and events together in such a clever way! I find all the details believable and totally dramatic, one act leads to another. It is the best passage in literature I have read in a long time.

Margaret doesn't mean anything by throwing her arms around Thornton's neck, it is just a practical measure, because the mob would not trample a woman.

Gaskell is good at creating these misunderstood situations. I enjoy them so much!

Thornton proposes so quickly thereafter because he thought that she meant it as love and had to save her maiden honour - because the crowd had witnessed her like that.

I don't understand why she is so repulsed by him when he is proposing in the parlour. Does he seem vulgar to her with his intimate talk when she is not at all in such a place?

All these details do not come through at all in a TV adaptation. I feel so lucky that I am reading the book in stead. From now on I swear to never see a movie or TV series adapted from a classic if I have not read the book. So much is lost!

One of the interesting contrasts between the two is that Margaret is intellectual and Thornton philistine. (He is exotic to bookreaders like us, isn't he?) I am eager to see how they slowly merge.

Charlotte wrote: "Thornton proposes so quickly thereafter because he thought that she meant it as love and had to save her maiden honour - because the crowd had witnessed her like that..."
Good point Charlotte.
I wonder how many did realise it was Margaret especially since Bessie said it was Thornton's sister who had been hit...
Do you think Margaret was 'repulsed' maybe because she was also ashamed. She'd much prefer to forget all about it and here he comes proposing, mortifying her I guess by reminding her of her behaviour.
Oh I do love the TV series. I agree that much is lost, as always in adaptations, but it is a different medium too.

Yes, exactly, she was ashamed to be reminded of her behaviour.

I forget all the time that she is still young and innocent. Sometimes she is depicted as a more mature woman.

With Margaret's actions, Thornton's passion, the anger of the crowd and the reasons and justifications for a strike there certainly is much to digest here. Rather than respond to each of the wonderful, detailed, incisive and, at times, contrary comments one at a time, here's my two cent's worth all at once. Perhaps that is a bad phrase since Canada no longer uses one cent coins.

First, thanks for the references to the various reading material. From Marx to Wollstonecraft and then to Lucy Maud Montgomery. That's quite the span.

I think Margaret Hale is one of the best characters in Victorian literature. She is not our typical female character. Margaret asserts herself by speaking her mind, and yet shows great sensitivity to those around her. Her ability to move with fluidity among the various characters and social classes with grace and believability demonstrates Gaskell's skill. When we consider her interplay with Thornton, Higgins, Mr. Hale and the strikers we see a fully rounded character. I still see her as unable to grasp Thornton's business stance, his sense of propriety and the reasons for his pride, but there is much more to come.

This might be a good place to mention the Peterloo Riots that occurred in Manchester in the early 19C. This event would still be raw in the minds of the residents of Manchester and those throughout Britain. In these labour riots troops did arrive before the strike was dispersed and there were multiple deaths and hundreds of injuries. Records of the time show that many women were involved in the strike and suffered injury. Gaskell keeps the history of her city close to the fiction of her novel.

Our comments reflect much about Margaret and Thornton. If I may step into a question about Bronte's Jane Eyre. Is anyone else finding shadows of Jane Eyre in North and South? I find Thornton somewhat like Rochester. Both are brooding, rather withdrawn, their pasts are known but unknown and they both have a smouldering passion for a woman. To me, both Jane and Margaret have similar shades as well. Their position in society is below that of the protagonist male (although that is a well-worn trope) yet they have an enormous amount of inner-strength and self-will. While Margaret does have a family, she is the one who must be both child and parent at the same time in order to survive. Jane, an orphan, is rejected by her family and must seek another. Funny, but I've been pondering this for a bit and thought I'd throw it out to you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter...

Her's a link to the Peterloo Riots.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_...

Here's a link to Mary Woostonecraft.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs_B...

Just for fun, here is a link to Mrs. Beeton's Household Management. While it was published after North and South it is a fun read as it is a guide to what the perfect 19C woman should know and be aware of within her home. I guess, in some ways, the forerunner to Martha Stewart.

I cannot see Margaret Hale ever reading, let alone completely embracing the book, but still we could imagine Dixon curled up in a comfortable chair flipping the pages.

I agree with Peter, that Margaret Hale is a fabulous character sketch. I am quite fond of Mr. Thornton too. I think that Margaret is not repulsed by Mr. Thornton. Rather she hears what Fanny and her maid talk about her when she is still recovering from her faint. She is ashamed of herself for behaving in a way that could be misconstrued as romantic love.This causes her to be harsher than usual about the proposal. Sheis only nineteen, and she still needs to be thought of as maidenly. It is Mrs.Gaskell's skill in even getting these nuances to mean something.

Yes, Thornton reminds me a lot of Rochester in Jane Eyre - and also Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights. I've read that there is a term for these lonely, mysterious, passionate heros, a Byronic Hero, influenced by Lord Byron.

So glad that we have the opportunity to enjoy one more of these romantic heroes in Thornton!

What a perfectly wonderful conversation! I'm so glad to be reading this with all of you. So many terrific connections and added information like the labor riots being fresh in the minds of Gaskell's original traders. This is likely to be my favorite read of 2016. :D

Peter wrote: "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter...

Her's a link to the Peterloo Riots."

Oh my goodness! Such a scarring and far-reaching event!

It really brings to light the difficult transformation from an agricultural society to an industrial one.

In an agricultural society, when you have bad harvests, the cause is always beyond human reach. Weather patterns are not something we can control.
With the industrial age this changes. Your livelihood is dependent on factory owners and the wiles of the market, and the causes for suffering are much more immediate. In the factory owner there is a real face associated with wages keeping you at the poverty line or losing your job. Add to that protectionist policies such as the Corn Laws and the resulting artificially high food prices, and an explosive situation is created.

The basic question is, how high have wages/compensation to be in order for an average family to cover the basic necessities such as food, clothing, and housing, i.e., making a living wage? In comparing Helstone with Milton, a different understanding of 'needs' and 'wants' is already apparent. Mr. Hale has made note of the fact that at the Boucher's the material standard of living is higher than in a regular Helstone tenant dwelling. Yet from a quality of life perspective Helstone has the edge. We get to look at both situations and there are no ready answers.

Kerstin wrote: "Peter wrote: "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter...

Her's a link to the Peterloo Riots."

Oh my goodness! Such a scarring and far-reaching event!

It really brings to light the difficu..."

Kerstin

Yes. The shift from an agrarian society where bad weather or crop disease were the bad guys to the place where humans through industrialism became the saviours or goats of a town or city in distress was a huge leap in human and social history. As you comment, the needs and wants of a person could also be very dependent on the place where you live. We have lots to go yet in N&S and Gaskell still has some surprises for us.

Your comments on the abolition of the Corn Laws was very accurate and perceptive. Once Adam Smith's "invisible hand" of business was unleashed with the repeal of the Corn Laws there certainly was a seismic shift in how commerce, business and people conducted their lives.

Here is a bit of information on the Corn Laws.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_...

Here is some information on Adam Smith. The part concerning his book The Wealth of Nations is very relevant to our reading of N&S

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_...

I hope you don't mind my attaching references to material outside of our specific reading of N&S. I also hope you don't object too much to the material coming from Wikipedia. While it is not the greatest source for information, I confess to finding it the easiest and most direct way to source general information.

There is certainly no need to read any of the reference material in order to enjoy and discuss N&S fully and completely.

It's funny...I wasn't thinking of Rochester at all, till I read the comments here. Now I will see coincidences everywhere since I am reading Jane Eyre currently. Tonight Jane and Rochester's first meeting includes a moment of physicality. He places his hand on her SHOULDER, to help himself stand after his horse's fall. His estate is THORNfield.

Linda wrote: "It's funny...I wasn't thinking of Rochester at all, till I read the comments here. Now I will see coincidences everywhere since I am reading Jane Eyre currently. Tonight Jane and Rochester's first ..."

Linda:

Please keep us up-to-date on any connections/similarities you find. I suspect we will hear from you again. In my opinion, Jane Eyre is one of the finest novels ever written.

@Peter thanks for the extra reading material aka links! Very helpful.

As to comparisons with Rochester - ooh boy! Rochester was a liar - fine so who wouldn't be when they are stuck with a mad woman of a wife? - but he DID try to defacto ruin Jane Eyre by marrying her (polygamy) and was exceedingly selfish! I don't think Thornton's character is that worldly or colorful as Rochester's life had been! And he is certainly more wooden - as in burning in silence - and has no past to speak of except that of hardship. I don't think he would ever lie. And his sense of inferiority vis-a-vis Margaret comes from his perception of her belief in his lower status (merchant/ trader) as opposed to weakness of character. Rochester was flawed, dysfunctional, self-serving, passionate and colorful. Thornton is downright boring in comparison!

@Trudy: you were right - I've finished the novel - and am not here to give spoilers but just to say that it's all 'meta' for these two!

Noorilhuda wrote: "I wasn't referring to the concept of 'feminist theory' or feminist movement. To me, Margaret's chief characteristics are that she is interested in 'substance' not frivolity, she likes intellectual ..."


"She is her own person. That's basic feminism, whether the term was connoted at the time or referred to in the press or not! "

Absloutely agreed. She's a 'pre'-feminist, as to say.

Charlotte wrote: "Yes, Thornton reminds me a lot of Rochester in Jane Eyre - and also Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights. I've read that there is a term for these lonely, mysterious, passionate heros, a Byronic Hero, i..."

Charlotte wrote: "Yes, Thornton reminds me a lot of Rochester in Jane Eyre - and also Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights. I've read that there is a term for these lonely, mysterious, passionate heros, a Byronic Hero, i..."

Indeed, they are very brooding, quite severe and they both do have a temper. By the last chapter of Jane Eyre, Rochester states he is 20 years Eyre's senior. How older do you think Thornton is compared to her, given Margaret is 19? I'd say 15 years or more. He has far more understanding of human nature and is much more emphatic than her.

@Carolina, Thornton is 31.

Peter wrote: "I hope you don't mind my attaching references to material outside of our specific reading of N&S."

Peter, never fear, all this background information is great!

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 first-hand the desperation of the strikers in Boucher, she sees the approach of the police as a terrible measure - comprehending from Thornton that violence is imminent.

Since she has believed all along that Thornton should communicate more with his workers, she sends him down to do just that. It's only seconds later that she realizes her injunction may be foolish.

I like to think of the moral power it takes for a young woman to stand up to a man of that position in his own house and tell him what to do! It was her deep compassion and hatred of violence that made her act so passionately.

And I believe that Margaret's vehement plea for the workers' plight gets through to Thornton's moral conscious at some level. He's not just going down there solely because the girl he's crushing on called out against his character.

The next morning when she apologizes for "having said thoughtless words which sent you down into the danger," his reply is that "it was not your words; it was the truth they conveyed, pungently as it was expressed."

There are layered reasons for Margaret's forceful rejection of him. The entire encounter is set up so that she feels like a cornered animal. And it doesn't take long before she lashes out to defend herself, since she spent most of the previous evening trying to convince herself that she did what she did solely for moral reasons.

Fanny's accusations are ringing in her ears, and she's mortified to think Thornton has come to be honorable and "save" her from her public display with him.

There are a lot of mixed signals with Margaret, though. Why is she so roused in her justification? Why does she spend so much time examining her motives?

There sure is much to contrast in this proposal to the one with Henry! This exchange is so packed with emotion that it ends with both fighting tears.

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 ..."

Your detailed commentary gives me much to think about. You are correct in the amount of energy this scene generates. I see this energy as being social energy, that which comes from their different backgrounds and value systems, and emotional, that which is generated by their hearts towards each other.

When we look back at Henry Lennox who we are told he "premediated his actions" and in the engaged Edith and Captain Lennox we see propriety, good nature, and more than a possibility of a soulless and passionless future. In contrast, with John Thornton and Margaret Hale we find the elements of nature and passion brewing and even erupting to their surfaces.

Henry Lennox, Captain Lennox, Edith and Fanny Thornton will, in all probability, go on to act out their assigned roles in society. For Margaret and Thornton, however, they seem to be in the process of creating new possibilities, new directions and a new world.

Yes, I wholly agree. Henry and the others you mentioned are conformists. They are satisfied with fitting into the established patterns of class and social esteem set up by tradition. They are largely concerned with themselves and how others perceive them.

Margaret and John both show strong independence of mind, and hold to ideals. They are not seeking society approval and validation.
I believe they both have a strong moral imperative to do what they feel is right in every situation. The problem at the moment is the clash of their ideologies.

Will Gaskell work this out so that they find a way to incorporate the other's views? Will a blend of these ideologies work to set a new standard?

Noorilhuda wrote: "@Carolina, Thornton is 31."

Thank you! He is 12 years Margaret's senior, then!

Peter wrote: "Henry Lennox, Captain Lennox, Edith and Fanny Thornton will, in all probability, go on to act out their assigned roles in society. For Margaret and Thornton, however, they seem to be in the process of creating new possibilities, new directions and a new world. "

Both Margaret and Thornton are naturally born leaders. No matter what gets thrown at them, they adjust and do what is required. What distinguishes them is that they are placed in a time of great transition.
The others are followers. In a functioning society you need both, and you need more followers than leaders.

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 decline, to the need to go to the Thorntons' for assistance (the waterbed -- and I thought that was an invention of the '70s :)). All a great set-up for the riot.

I loved the image of the crowd in the street as a threatening storm at sea ('the surging wave of the dark crowd come, with its threatening crest, tumble over and retreat…"), which Margaret only dimly comprehends while so preoccupied with fears for her mother's life. For me, this also evokes the circumstance of her brother, and other kinds of storms at sea. I'm convinced Gaskell meant to give Margaret a very personal motivation for sympathizing with the treatment of men, as opposed to the masters.

I'm intrigued by the Corn Law rhymes quote prefacing Chap 22 -- suggesting that Margaret, although unfamiliar with the North, would have at least some historical knowledge of riots in London? It's ironic that her mother's family's class would likely have been behind the laws that provoked such riots. In that context, Margaret seems very naive about the potential of a mob. I think she's also in some self-denial about her attraction to Thornton. I enjoyed her comparison of Thornton to her "first olive" that she would grow to like, when she admits to her father that she is beginning to like his kind of people. (Shades of the need for the olive branch? :)

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

Renee wrote: "What a perfectly wonderful conversation! I'm so glad to be reading this with all of you..."

Yes, Renee, I also think this will be the best book I have read in 2016. Even if we have not finished it, we can almost already rate it with five stars, can't we?

Now I am getting so much used to reading books with all of you that it is awkward reading a book by myself. I am addicted to this!

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, actually. Though maybe it wasn't limited to northern dialects.

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..."

She also could have deducted the meaning through context and body language.

The word is very similar to the German 'klemmen' = to pinch. Which is not too far away from 'hunger pangs.'

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 decline, to the need..."

Hi Vanessa

Yes. The comparison of the sea to the striking crowds and thus the subtle link to Margaret's brother who was a sailor and now is exiled because he dared to oppose a repressive captain on his ship is wonderful. There are many of these subtle links, connections, references and verbal word plays throughout the book. As a teaser and for some interest (I hope) I have include a verbal one one in the next series of chapters we will be discussing this weekend.

The Corn Laws would have been a very raw wound to the population of Manchester during the writing of N&S. The aftermath of the abolition of the Corn Laws went on for years and references to loaves of bread, their size and even loaves of bread being used as props in electoral speeches and satirized in posters and political cartoons can be seen into the early 20C.