Victorians! discussion
Archived Group Reads 2016
>
N&S The Final Chapters
date
newest »
newest »
Peter, have a safe, crazy and joyous voyage!
Firstly, have fun Peter! Bon voyage, buenas vacaciones, have a great vacation!
Peter wrote: "N&S 6My friends
I'm leaving for a Mediterranean cruise and am too cheap to purchase the ship's internet package which will be inconsistent, slow and unreliable if earlier cruises are a benchmark..."
1) I think Margaret has finally achieved the maturity enough to see Helstone in a realistic way, rather than the Utopic vision she framed frozen in her mind. Idyllic as it was in her longings Helstone preserved the scenery of 'home' to Margaret due to the presence of her parents and brother before all dramatic events swept all peace of mind of her ideal family. Now able to perceive 'home' as a concept and not a geographic location, Margaret is finally free to persuit happiness anywhere she chooses.
2) I see John and Margaret's marriage a very challenging one, given the unusual power imbalance between man and wife. At the beggining, Thornton had status, wealth, experience and was open to develop an emphatic understanding of the Hales situation and find a way to cope with the unknown passion he feels towards Margaret. Our heroine, on the other hand, had her strong will, steady personality, deep sense of social justice and a more than ordinary human conscience. One had a great deal to learn from the other and such interaction would have been very prone to benefit them both. By the end of the novel, nevertheless, an inversion of roles has occured, and now Thornton depends on Margaret's support to refund the Mills and keep his head up high, a position I'm not sure he would be comfortable with on the long run. It grieves me to realise the only marriage strictly for love will be so threatened by the 'ideal match' Victorian novel configuration - a young lady has a nice dowry, a gentleman needs it, hearts and flowers, happy ending. I would rather have Margaret and John married by the first (refused) proposal and see them grow and mature together, facing all deaths and challenges as a newly wed couple. But that's ground for many fanfictions, lol.
I had imagined that the end of the novel would be more dramatic. It seemed like so much was building up (the story was dragging on) and Thornton and Margaret never got to speak with each other. I was about to guess that Margaret was almost giving up on Thornton and going to marry Lennox and then Thornton would race in and win her over. Margaret never questioned the fact that someone visited Helstone and informed the inn keeper about her and her father. It could not be anyone but Thornton - but she did not think about it. Strange.
Would someone be so kind to explain to me in simple words exactly what type of work Thornton was planning to do?
It looked like Gaskell was trying to expand the story to more than necessary. I would have liked Thornton and Margaret to find eachother without the money involved. (Was Gaskell paid per installment?)
Do you think I am being too hard?
I thought it was difficult to see exactly what Margaret felt about Thornton and when she started to love him. A lot was left to our imagination.
Still this is what makes it a good book: things are not spelled out for you and there is a lot of depth, content and drama in everything that is unsaid.
@Charlotte, Thornton used to be owner of a mill. So when he went bankrupt, he lost the mill - which was on lease from Margaret's godfather, a rich Oxford professor with ancestral property in Milton, who gave it all to Margaret on his death.After bankruptcy, Thornton was looking for work as a manager of a mill who is given control over workers so that he can implement his new-found worker-friendly ideas in workplace without getting reprimanded from the mill owner. He refused an offer of partnership (a much better deal than being a mere manager) because of this reason - because he wouldn't be in control.
So when Margaret has asked him to be present in the final two pages for some 'legal matters', she offers him to continue working at the mill he owned as a mill owner while she 'invests' in his mill (i.e. pays off his debt and extra to start afresh) expecting a minimal profit in return. It's to give him back what he loves and has worked his life for. It's disguised as a business transaction but frankly - like Thornton realizes soon enough - no woman in that day and age would pay a thousand dollars to a man, pay off his debt, without having feelings for him!
As for when did Margaret started having feelings for him - I presumed that whenever she had a headache, that was a sign that she was fighting an internal battle between how she had been to the man and how she felt for him.
And yeah, the end was rushed to me too because I thought the real story was their after-marriage life- but one reader pointed it out to me long ago that Dickens was the editor and he wanted it finished and done with.
Great points all around!Yes, in my edition, there are letters from Dickens and Gaskell, having a 'fight', him pushing for closure and interfering, her pushing back. Quite entertaining really. The problem however is that the end of the novel was therefore rushed (although I think Gaskell did add a little to it already for the first full printing, which is the version we're reading).
Noorilhuda wrote: "@Charlotte, Thornton used to be owner of a mill. So when he went bankrupt, he lost the mill - which was on lease from Margaret's godfather, a rich Oxford professor with ancestral property in Milton..."I loved your analysis!
Mod
I think the slow-down at the end was deliberate. The novel builds slowly, then at Milton things get quite action-packed, and when Margaret returns to the genteel life in London the action slows as well.
Mod
I didn't find the ending as abrupt as some of you. I felt like I saw Margaret gaining more and more respect and appreciation for him as the novel progressed and events showed each of them more about the other's true personality and qualities. In fact, I found the final scene enormously passionate and moving. I could reread those last several times over and over, and feel a catch in my throat every time.
Mod
I didn't find the ending as abrupt as some of you. I felt like I saw Margaret gaining more and more respect and appreciation for him as the novel progressed and events ..."
Ahh, the ending was perfect! Such tenderness and mutual surrender. ...and I read it twice myself :)
A bit of an anti-climatic ending... It reminded me of Jane Eyre in how the power in the relationship went from the man to the woman at the end of the novel. I also thought the novel dragged a bit towards the end and lost a bit of momentum. Have a great trip Peter, and thanks for the great discussions.
Noorilhuda wrote: I presumed that whenever she had a headache, that was a sign that she was fighting an internal battle ..."Yes, that is also what I presumed, but I was not sure if it was only my imagination. Good to confirm with you that that was what you also thought.
And thank you for your explanation about Thornton's mill!
Great questions, great comments...I enjoyed this discussion. I thought the ending was perfect, nothing else would have made sense in light of all that has happened. Gaskell captured the breadth of social, religious, political issues of the times, so informative for me, but in the end she made it a story about a young woman growing up while keeping her integrity intact.
Mod
The visit to Helstone is Mr. Bell’s gift to Margaret. He instinctively knows she has to return to the place where all the changes began in order to put them into perspective. Since returning to London she has been a little lost. One can only imagine after all the losses she suffered how empty and hollow the genteel London life must appear to her. Margaret embraces this offer, to revisit the beautiful, innocent, and sheltered place of her youth where she had spent so many carefree hours. But life in Helstone didn’t remain in a time-capsule. Life went on just as everywhere else.
For Margaret the visit signifies that Helstone is part of a cherished past, but her life will unfold elsewhere. She will suffer yet another loss with Mr. Bell’s passing and she becomes his sole heir.
Lennox is very happy about this turn of events, now she isn’t only pretty but rich! His calculating manner comes more and more to the forefront.
Margaret remains very subdued. The losses she has suffered are enough to bring anyone to their knees. She is in this no-man’s-land, where the old life is gone and the new hasn’t emerged yet. The pages drag on and are filled with seemingly endless chatter and activities like so much redundant filler. Gaskell dips us into Margaret’s limbo. The family, concerned with her gloomy disposition, decides on a change of pace, a holiday by the sea to cheer her up. They succeed, but not the way they envisioned. Here, in a place completely removed from all familiarity, Margaret gets the opportunity during long hours of solitude to come to grips with all that’s happened. She emerges ready to embrace her future.
Thornton has had his share of sorrow as well. The suicide of the father must have had an enormous impact. Just when he needed a strong father-figure to guide him into manhood, he loses him. His mother stepped up and became both mother and father to him. He ends up building up a successful mill with her as a trusted advisor and confidante. It is his mother who teaches him how to cope and survive when life throws you a curve ball. When we initially met them, they long were a formidable pair.
The business, however, has a built-in weakness based on legacy. Thornton doesn’t own the real estate, he leases it. Despite his wealth the ownership of real estate is still largely in the hands of the establishment, Mr. Bell. In this regard he is no different from a tenant farmer. When the market sours he doesn’t have the capital to see him through and the business fails.
With the death of Mr. Bell Margaret becomes the new landlord. Even though she herself had no wealth to speak of until now, she is still part of the establishment and benefited from the connections. Now interesting things start to happen: her plan of helping Thornton breaks all the rules. She is actively involved in managing her wealth, beyond simply learning of all she owns and then leave the active administration to others – as was expected. Lennox is happy to oblige, he is already building castles in the sky of how he will spend it all once they are married. Then she throws him the curve ball of helping Thornton. As her client, he prepares the documents, but leaves the house in disgust as he now knows she will never be his.
The final scene, deeply touching and tender, is very quiet. Like so many momentous moments in life, they happen without any fanfare, and you miss them if you blink. Beneath them, however, are layers of meaning which have long lasting ramifications into the future.
Once married, the social stratification of lord and tenant vanish. The old order is in its last days. By pooling their resources to the benefit of both, Margaret and Thornton start their life together in the complimentary union marriage is meant to be. I am confident this will be a successful marriage. Not only does Margaret have the mettle to handle the demands of a life in entrepreneurship, Thornton has never treated her in a patronizing fashion. He will value her input as much as he did his mother’s.
Elizabeth Gaskell has written a novel of lasting beauty. The beauty lies in characters drawn from real life who manage as best they can under the given circumstances. This is her focus, and she doesn’t get side-tracked by adding overt dysfunction or caricatures just to make a point. Her sharp observational skills allowed her to craft a novel with layers of complexities without losing the main focus. And best of all, she created likable characters.
Mod
One of the things I liked about Lennox is that he wasn't a particularly bad guy. Gaskell didn't need to denigrate one suitor in order to make the other one look admirable. If Margaret had ended up with him, theirs was likely to be a pretty typical alliance. Even a good one. Just not the marriage she is likely to have with John Thornton. Thornton.
Mod
One of the things I liked about Lennox is that he wasn't a particularl..."
Me too, Renee! This was such a satisfying read!
And I agree with you on Lennox. He wasn't a bad guy. He genuinely cared for Margaret for a long time and was patiently waiting for the right time to propose again. That Thornton, who was practically unknown to him, "carried her off" must have been quite a blow.
Great summary, Kerstin! I think there marriage will be strong and they will make a great impact for good in Milton. When they marry, Margaret's money and property automatically becomes her husbands' property. I don't see money making any uncomfortable imbalance between them. Neither Margaret or Thornton use money as an indicator of their identity or worth.
However much Henry was planning to wed Margaret, I don't think she would have compromised her honesty in marrying someone she didn't love. She told Edith "I will never marry." This, the reader should discern, is because she loves Thornton and believes the chance of marrying him is lost to her forever.
Actually, I touched on this topic in my most recent blog post!
http://www.morethanthornton.com/blog/...
Great comments all. Clearly you don't need me. That said, I will go over all your comments and respond when I get the time. I now am linked in a hotel lobby accessing their internet.I too found this novel a very satisfying read. There was simply so much to discover and discuss.
Trudy wrote: "Great summary, Kerstin! I think there marriage will be strong and they will make a great impact for good in Milton. When they marry, Margaret's money and property automatically becomes her husban..."
Well, yes and no. Married women had no legal status separate to their husband, and all her goods were subsumed into his. (This changed somewhat for separated/divorced women in 1857, and for married women in the Married Women's Property Act in 1870 for property earned, and in 1882 for property inherited. These reforms were spurred on in part by the Caroline Norton case, which shows the extent to which women could be held virtually economic hostages by abusive husbands. Her case also helped pass the Custody of Infants Act in 1839, which enabled separated women to gain access to their children. Honestly, legislation involving married women was a horror story that gives me the shivers whenever I read about it.)
The extent to which Thornton can use his wife's money and other property would depend on their marriage settlement and on Mr. Bell's will. I doubt Mr. Bell would have made the land entailed (meaning it cannot be sold, but must pass on to a male heir upon the death of the holder). But there's the question of dowry and pin money, which a woman could hold in her own right. Margaret's relatives might very well insist on her having a good marriage settlement. Then again, I don't know how involved Henry wants to be in this!
Either way, Margaret brings a lot into marriage. This will certainly alter the balance with old Mrs. Thornton! She can no longer see Margaret as a gold digger, but must see her as their saviour! It will be easier for Margaret to make the house into a home of her liking, and to take her rightful place as Thornton's wife when her mother-in-law has to reassess her notions of Margaret.
I too felt that the ending, or rather the bit leading up to the ending, was rushed. Instead of following the story step by step we get told what happens, almost like a summary, and the moralising becomes very overt. I would have gladly had the book be 50-100 pages longer (or more!) in order to let the end unfold in the same elegant fashion as the rest of the story. I wonder if Gaskell would have sent Margaret to Spain if Dickens hadn't forced her to bring things to a close? Spain might have altered and expanded the scope of the book too much though, but I think it would have been a valuable step in Margaret's development. Hopefully she and Thornton will go there on their bridal tour once the Mill is safe and business is running smoothly again.
The very end of the book was not rushed. The final scene is beautiful. Finally Thornton sees through Margaret's wall of propriety and lowers his own walls. Now they can see each other clearly and speak without hindrance. I'm feeling quite hopeful for them. They have both matured in so many ways, and I think their union will be a good one.
Oh, I also need to add that when Thornton ran into financial difficulties and Margaret became wealthy, I had a horrid notion that Thornton would be too proud and mope around thinking he had nothing to offer her now, etc etc. There are so many ways this could have still ended in confusion and misunderstandings. And if Henry Lennox had been present at that last meeting, Margaret would not have presented the case and Thornton would not have felt free to speak to her the way he did. It's a good thing poor Lennox saw through to Margaret's intent and decided he couldn't bear to be present.
Leni wrote: "Trudy wrote: "Great summary, Kerstin! I think there marriage will be strong and they will make a great impact for good in Milton. When they marry, Margaret's money and property automatically beco..."
Like you I'm feeling hopeful for Margaret and Thornton. Life in Milton, although harder than London, would offer her more meaning than in the capital (in the context of the story). I could see her helping Thornton in a more involved way, and not just 'keeping house', and thus be a real partnership. Sparks would definitely fly, and with Mrs Thornton too, but good ones :O)
Regarding Helstone, Margaret has learnt that one can romanticise a place but life keeps moving forward. I guess the saying "Home is where the heart is" works pretty well here. All the locations, not just Hestone and Milton (N&S), personify a type of authority and moral/faith - and the characters too. Margaret is the one who experiences all of them to a certain extent. This re-reading of the novel, and discussions, has made me notice and appreciate the huge social canvas painted by Gaskell.
Mod
And Richard Armitage can scowl like few others. Boy, I thought the guy never smiles!
Mod
I have been watching the commentary, and the director and writer shared that they kept dad's reasons for leaving the church vague on purpose. I think they didn't want to spend too much time explaining the church politics of the time. And felt the story really begins in Milton so they focused their screen time there.
I need to set off some time to watch BBC productions! I still haven't seen the adaptation of Middlemarch either. But... Changed the ending? Why would they change the ending?! :-/
Mod
Oh, that makes sense. It is one thing to read the complexities of the subject matter, but quite another to put it in the TV production and not loose your focus.
Mod
Leni, the ending isn't bad at all. It is completely within the spirit of the novel.
I did watch it too and as you say and it is very much in keeping with the spirit of the novel. Many scenes just stay with you (the end of the first episode for instance) and the ending is lovely. The casting is spot on and I kept visualising the actors when re-reading. I think it is one of my favourite BBC adaptations.So it is totally worth it, and if you have time Middlemarch too (obviously nowhere near the mastery of Eliot's novel but again a really great adaptation)
Thank you all for your interesting points and thank you, Peter, for carrying us through this wonderful book. I will be looking forward to reading it all over again some day and enjoy it in a new way, like so many of you did.
I watched half of the first episode of North and South with my partner, and that half hour went like this:-Wait, she met this Lennox bloke at a wedding and then he just shows up at her place and proposes!?
-No, he's the brother of the groom, and she's the cousin of the bride. They know each other and are friends, but she had no idea he was interested.
-Where are they now, on a train? What's going on?
-They are moving north. You see, her father is a priest but he's become a dissenter on some point of doctrine and is leaving the church. Now he will be a tutor to the rising middle class who have money but no classical education in Latin and such.
-Who is this Mr. Thornton, why is he finding them a house, and why is she seeking him out in... is that a cotton mill?
-Yes, he's the mill owner and will be her father's pupil. He doesn't own the land, that's a Mr. Bell and he is a university friend of Margaret's father. He's the one who... oh... wow, Thornton is beating up one of his workers. Now that really didn't happen in the book! I suppose they are trying to make his transition greater... you see in the book he's not at all the worst of masters (long further explanation)
-I don't think she actually worked for Thornton in the book... that's to make him somehow responsible, I guess... you can't tell here but she's supposed to be ill
-Yeah, they would all have lung disease working in that place! I'm surprised they're not all dying and coughing!
-Who is this then? These people are all acting oddly.
-That's Thornton's mother and sister. They're only there because he insisted. They are different examples of the nouveau riche.
-I'm sorry, I don't think I'm getting as much out of this as you who have read the book... I have no idea what is going here with any of the characters.
-Right, yeah... you should read the book first, I think.
I guess I'll be watching the rest of this on my own while he's busy with something else! lol
Mod
I really didn't notice the lack of explanation for all those things because the book was so fresh in my mind. I thought the acting was superb. The whole cast was just terrific.
Yes, I was just as shocked by the scene where Thornton pummels the smoker. But I liked the added scene where she says goodbye after her parents die. You'll have to let us know if you find it as powerful as I did.
Leni wrote: "I watched half of the first episode of North and South with my partner, and that half hour went like this:That is so funny, Leni!
Leni and Renee,
How do you manage to see the TV series? Where can I find it? I am looking forward to reliving the moments!
Mod
Renee wrote: "So painfully funny, Leni!I really didn't notice the lack of explanation for all those things because the book was so fresh in my mind. I thought the acting was superb. The whole cast was just terr..."
Gosh Leni!
I saw the TV series before I read the book back whenever it was and I cannot remember feeling lost... but I would guess that I didn't get it all. Yes, seeing Thornton hitting the smoker is quite a shocking scene but he could have set the whole thing alight in flames. The scriptwriter probably decided on this, and Margaret witnessing it all, to show the various transformations - make it more dramatic?
On the other hand I do like the reference to hell ("I wish I could tell you how lonely I am. How cold and harsh it is here. Everywhere there is conflict and unkindness. I think God has forsaken this place. I believe I have seen hell and it's white, it's snow-white.”). Margaret's voice mixed with the white scene and the music under it is magical (well, to me).
Veronique wrote: "Gosh Leni!I saw the TV series before I read the book back whenever it was and I cannot remember feeling lost... but I would guess that I didn't get it all."
It might have been a case of him getting tired of me saying "That's not how it happened in the book!" lol
If I had kept my mouth shut he might have just waited for things to become clear.
I do understand Thornton's reaction to the man smoking in the mill. But his explanation of it starts with "I have a temper and I warned him several times", and if that isn't a warning signal to not get romantically involved with someone then I don't know what is. :-/ And Thornton always struck me as very much in control of himself in the book. He would have grabbed the man by the scruff of his neck and tossed him headfirst into the street, and made sure the man was blacklisted in all mills and factories. He wouldn't have lost his temper and beaten the man bloody. (Well, maybe after he becomes convinced that Margaret has a lover and that she is leaving Milton. He was certainly on edge in that period.)
Renee wrote: "I got mine from my local library system. It's quite extensive so I can usually find what I want. I also saw it on Amazon for less than $20 (can't remember exact price)."Amazon has it for £3.99, but I don't know about the price on the American site.
Leni wrote: "It might have been a case of him getting tired of me saying "That's not how it happened in the book!" lol..."Ohhh I do the same and my husband just keeps rolling his eyes. It is so hard not to say anything (it just kinds of bursts out of me). LOL
Leni wrote: "Thornton always struck me as very much in control of himself in the book. He would have grabbed the man by the scruff of his neck and tossed him headfirst into the street, and made sure the man was blacklisted in all mills and factories. He wouldn't have lost his temper and beaten the man bloody...."
You're totally right. I do wonder why adaptations often go for the 'sensationalist' version. Do they feel the wider public wouldn't be grabbed by it otherwise? Andrew Davies, the usual scriptwriter used for all these adaptations (not in this one weirdly enough) has caused many polemics over the years. You never know what you're going to get with him. It can be great as in Pride & Prejudice (the pond scene is still being talked of now LOL), Middlemarch (1994), Sense and Sensibility (2008), or even Northanger Abbey (2007 - hilarious) but I really didn't like his remake of A Room with a View (the 1985 version is still best in my eyes).
Mod
In the commentary to N&S it was mentioned that several locations were used to get the interiors and exteriors that they wanted. One of the locations was an actual working mill/museum where they filmed all the mill scenes. Richard Armitage (John Thornton) admitted that the day they went to that location and he saw the mill that was to be "his," he gained about two inches in height and a whole huge sense of the character he was playing. Then later, the director mentioned the same thing, saying you could literally see the difference in the way he carried himself. It was very cute.
Leni, you described exactly what I think Thornton would have done - grab the worker by the scruff and throw him out! That would have been sufficiently abhorrent to Margaret. The beating was wholly out of character for Thornton. I loved how lost your husband was with the beginning of the story. this is the part the adaptation basically skips over. There's much about Margaret you don't really learn in the film.
I tried to make a general run-down of the differences between the book and the film in a blog post: https://frompemberleytomilton.wordpre...
I've seen three of the four episodes now, and there are a lot of differences! Some of them I like, others not so much. I like the changes they've made to Bessy Higgins. She's been made more of a real person and a real friend. Mr. Bell I find is all wrong. Too tall, healthy and trim by far!
Whew, they managed to put a lot into that final episode! I see why they changed the ending. Margaret and Thornton meet each other halfway! The symbolism is quite beautiful, really. Though I must say, inappropriate public displays of affection! And poor Henry!As for the extended good bye scene when Margaret leaves Milton, I couldn't quite make out what he was saying. "Turn back and look at me"? I think the scene was needed because the viewer discover how much "attached" to Margaret he still is. In the book we find out from the author's narrative and from Thornton's internal monologues. In the adaptation we can only tell by the degree of scowling and the curl of his lip! Lol
I find that a lot of the misunderstandings are lessened and it's more a case of aggressively displayed differences of opinion in the tv-adaptation. It keeps it simpler, certainly.
And now I think I must go watch the ending again. I think I was holding my breath when I watched it, and it made me a bit dizzy. Ahem.
Oh, and one more thing. Mr. Bell. I was a bit creeped out that he pretty much indicated that if he hadn't been a dying man he'd have wanted Margaret to live with him, not as a daughter but as his wife. That is so terrible wrong. It interferes so with my image of him.
But that wouldn't have been so out of the ordinary at that time, would it? I've no idea why the screenwriter put that in there. In the book he admires her very much, but only suggests she becomes the caretaker of both he and her father in their old age.
Bell jokes about marrying Mrs Shaw to keep close to Margaret in some way.
Yes, it wouldn't have been out of ordinary at all. I just found it wrong for Gaskell's portrayal of him. It also would have put Margaret in a terrible position. Either marry her benefactor or have a really awkward relationship with him after turning him down. Though I guess she could have still moved to Spain!
I really like Gaskell's ending. She has Margaret become resolute in creating her own path, and living up to her own principles. It seems very clear to me she won't marry anyone unless her sense of integrity agrees. And with her wealth she doesn't need to marry at all. This makes it vastly more significant that chooses Thornton. Because their values are now closely aligned, she can go into this marriage with all her heart AND her strongly held moral convictions and motives.
Kerstin wrote: "This got a little long. I blame it on a rainy Sunday :)The visit to Helstone is Mr. Bell’s gift to Margaret. He instinctively knows she has to return to the place where all the changes began in o..."
Kirstin
Thanks for the detailed commentary. I firmly sit in the camp of praise for the ending of the novel. A bit rushed in the final chapters, thanks to Dickens, but structurally a complement to the first chapter of the novel. Looking back at the novel I can't think of too many places where humour is obvious, and yet Gaskell does manage to finish the novel with wry smile on her face and one on mine too. Of all the mother-in-laws to have, Mrs. Thornton would be quite the challenge, and yet Margaret's own mother had passed the torch of a mother's responsibilities , so to speak, to Mrs. Thornton earlier in the novel.
I imagine that Margaret and John will have a good, strong marriage. The giving of the Helstone rose to Margaret seems emblematic of their future. I see the rose as being a symbol of the past that also holds a meaning of love for the future. As Thornton gives the Rose to Margaret we have, at once, a past being brought to the present with the promise of a future in a new place.
Trudy wrote: "Leni, you described exactly what I think Thornton would have done - grab the worker by the scruff and throw him out! That would have been sufficiently abhorrent to Margaret. The beating was wholly ..."Hi Trudy
Thank you for the link. The commentary and the observations were thoughtful, reflective and incisive.
I both enjoy and fear all cinematic and television portrayals of novels. Perhaps it is because when I read a novel I create (mostly unconsciously) images of the people, places and things I encountered in the novel. Whenever I then see a visual rendering of a novel there are two levels of clashing armies. The first is the clash between my imagination and the visual interpretation, and the second is the uneasiness of the fact that so much must be cut from the novel to fit the necessities of time in the visual representation.
I did find the N&S series to be very good. I was not a fan of the altered ending, but then again my structural mind wanted Harley Street. Nothing else would satisfy me.
Peter wrote "As Thornton gives the rose to Margaret, we have, at once, a past being brought to the present with a promise of a future in a new place."I'd never thought of how beautifully Gaskell ties things up with this simple gesture. In regard to past, present, and future as you point out. But also here are the three places all brought to mind again: a flower from Helstone presented in London by a man from Milton.
I just love discovering new ways to look at this story. I enjoyed this group read discussion very much. Thanks to all..
My friends
I'm leaving for a Mediterranean cruise and am too cheap to purchase the ship's internet package which will be inconsistent, slow and unreliable if earlier cruises are a benchmark to use. I will head for an Internet cafe as much as I can while on shore, but can't promise as much attention to your comments as I would like. When I get back home in late May I will read all your comments and respond/comment as best I can. I hope better late than never will be acceptable.
I have greatly enjoyed our discussions. You have offered many insights and opinions and I have been madly scribbling in my copy of N&S. It is full to overflowing. I have learned much from you and changed my opinion on more than one point. To me, that makes a discussion especially successful.
Thank you
Peter
1. How does Gaskell portray the way Margaret now perceives her former home in Helstone during her visit back?
2. In Ch. XXXVI Higgins comments "Folk seldom lives i' Milton just for pleasure, if they can live anywhere else." Do you think the Margaret Hale and John Thornton marriage will be successful? Also, in what ways do you see their marriage as being an unusual one in terms of the stereotypical Victorian model?
3. As well as framing N&S with both the first and last chapter set in the Harley Street, London home, and that house being the place where we read about an earlier impending marriage, we have an embrace of Margaret and John Thornton that reflects back to the strike scene where Thornton also cradled Margaret in his arms. Can you think of any other events, scenes or objects in the novel that occur in more than one place and have significance to the plot and themes of the novel?
4. In an earlier week we had a comment about how the class system represented by Gaskell would compare to that of Thomas Hardy. Our next read is a Hardy novel, but for now, how accurate and insightful did you find Gaskell in portraying class? Was there any particular person that you found to be particularity well drawn or poorly drawn in the novel?
5. N & S has been a novel of homes, both as physical places that help reveal the characters who live within them and places to fondly remember. In the end of the novel we learn that as a married couple Margaret and John will make their home in Milton. Besides her love for Thornton, what other factors will make Margaret now look upon Milton as her home?
6. Do you see any significance in the town names of Milton and Helstone?
7. I was asked earlier if we could do a stylistic comparison between the writing of M. E. Braddon and Elizabeth Gaskell. I think Ch. L "Changes in Milton" would make a nice contrast to Ch. 1 of Lady Audley's Secret. A focus on the first 5 paragraphs of each chapter offer us lots of scope. While many examples could have been selected, I think these two examples capture some of the essential similarities and differences in their writing.
Somehow it seems redundant to comment that I hope you will add your own ideas, questions and comments. The first five weeks have been incredible. While my first love is Dickens I confess that North and South is a far superior novel to Hard Times. Hopefully, Dickens will forgive me. :-))