Reading 1001 discussion

Ormond by Maria Edgeworth, March BOTM Discussion. Moderator is Gail.

I have not read Ormond so I will be reading it with you. I did read Castle Rackrent so I have a sense of the author. I believe her style is good hearted, full of eccentric characters with meandering but well paced plots.

Ormond was published in 1817 but is set in the 1760's and 1770's with all its revolutionary fervor. The name Ormond is a very old surname originating in Ireland and was a hereditary title within the Irish aristocracy.

Here is a spoiler free bio of Maria Edgeworth:

One of the eminent intellectuals in Irish history, for more than a quarter-century Edgeworth bore her high standards as an educationist and writer on class, race and gender. Outspoken and small in stature she was never short on grace and wit. Maria Edgeworth was born on 1 January 1768 at her maternal grandfather's home at Black Bourton, Oxfordshire, England. Her father, an Anglo-Irishman, Richard Lovell Edgeworth (1744–1817), writer, scientist, inventor and educationist, would marry four times and in total have twenty-four children. Her mother, Anna Maria Elers (1743–1773), died when Maria was six. She was attended by Dr. Darwin, the father of Charles Darwin, who tried in vain to save her. Honora Sneyd (d.1780) became Maria's first step-mother.
Under the ever-watchful eye of her father, a follower of Jean Jacques Rousseau, his high hopes for her led her to attend Mrs. Lattafière's school in Derby until 1780 studying among other subjects dancing and French, then on to Mrs. Davis's school in Upper Wimpole Street, London. She loved to tell stories in the dorms and wrote many for her siblings and assisted in their education and upbringing. She was a fast learner and voracious reader though her eyes troubled her with inflammation at times. When her mother died, she as the eldest became very close to her father who would give her writing assignments while young, and who was to profoundly influence her work, insisting on reading and editing most of the works she produced while he was alive.

We will have some questions about literary influences once I have read the book but to begin here are some questions:

Edgeworth speaks to the influence on her writing of Dorothy Richardson and Henry Fielding.
Have you read anything by these two authors?

Evidently her family members were friends with Ivan Turgenev. Have you read any of Turgenev's work?

Walter Scott acknowledged his debt to Edgeworth and Jane Austen spoke of her admiration for one of Edgeworth's books (not Ormond)...
Have you read books by either of these two authors?

I started it this morning and it is great fun, but my Kindle version has too many mistakes. I have read all of the authors mentioned as being influenced by her (thanks to having joined this group!) but I had never heard of her. This book has been added to 1001 Books since my print copy from 2012.

Questions for Ormond:
I enjoyed this Edgeworth much more than Castle Rackrent which lacked the character development of Ormond. I could find no published study questions on this book so we are going with ones I have developed. Please feel free to throw in some of your own.

1) What did you think about Ormond being taken with the fiction he reads? He is sympathetic to the character Tom Jones, and is more inclined to be a spendthrift and a rake when reading Fielding’s great comedy. Then when Ormond reads Sir Charles Grandison, although he finds the Richardson less addicting than the Fielding, he is inspired to do better and be more useful in the world.
Do you think that Edgeworth is largely impressed with both Fielding and Richardson? If you have read these two books, do you find any direct influence in her work? Do you think that novels were still considered frivolous by high society at the time?

2) Most of the story revolves around promises made and kept too exactly, such as King Corny’s promise to marry off his daughter to White Connal OR not kept at all, such as Sir Ulick’s promise to take care of Ormond’s inheritance.
Did you find these parts of the story to be realistic or contrived in relationship to the rest of the book?

3) Much of the humor is in the gentle mocking of the speech and lives of the Irish working class and the stereotypical presentations of the French as being manipulative, arrogant and vain, yet Edgeworth is viewed as someone very supportive of the Irish working class, the poor, her gender and the revolutionary spirit of the French. Did you find her able to balance the humor and the moralizing?

4) How would you compare Edgeworth to Jane Austen? I found Edgeworth’s men to be better rounded with both good and bad in them at the same time (other than Marcus of course). In the Austen that I have read (which is not very much) the male characters tend to be either all good or all bad although they sometimes flip from one to the other. If you have read Austen, how would you compare them?

5) The comparison of the two ways to take care of the people on one’s estates is a set up for the whole final act of the book. Why do you think that she waited so long to bring up these differences?

6) Critics now complain about the heavy handed moralizing found in Edgeworth. They also tend to put some of the blame on her father who evidently edited most of her books. Were you aware of this while you were reading? Did you find the ending too heavy handed?

I thought the ending was interesting when we suddenly are treated to an almost Count of Monte Cristo like adventure story as told by one character. Also, Edgeworth felt comfortable spending a great deal of time talking about the dress and extravagance of the French but then when we are about to wrap up the romance we get: “the repetition would tire the reader….”. It almost seemed like it was Edgeworth who was tired and not the reader. I for one was not tired. What did you think overall?

A couple of my favorite little quotes:

“May you live to wonder at your own good luck”

“…he was… on uncommonly good terms with himself”

I started Ormond yesterday and I am enjoying very much so far. I find characters to be so nicely described from the beginning.
I read Austen and Turgenev, but I didn't have chance to read Tom Jones so far. Maybe it should be my next TBR.

1. I think that Edgeworth is being gently satirical in having Ormond so profoundly influenced by the novels he is reading. I was constantly being reminded of Tom Jones: the coincidences, the protagonist being constantly presented with temptation and the authorial asides. I have not read Richardson. Yes, I think novels were considered frivolous at this time, and for a long time afterwards.
2. The whole plot was contrived, but that did not stop my enjoyment in reading it. The idea that a man's word was his bond was very important at the time and many duels were fought over a man's honour being really or allegedly impugned. I did think that when the promised suitor died his twin brother was able to take his place a bit much!
3. I did enjoy her humour and I did not find her moralising overbearing. She depicts foibles but with gentle humour. For example " No, sir, I will never read an edifying letter in my life with my eyes open, nor never will" or "The reasonable woman was puzzled silent, Sheilah and Moriarty having got, without knowing it, to the dark depths of metephysics. There was some danger of them knocking their heads against each other there, as wiser heads have done on similar occasions".
4. This is an interesting question. I had never really considered that Austen's men are either black or white. Mr Darcy, for exmple, was considered to be a pompous fool until his true character was revealed. But Austen's novels are firmly from the point of view of women whereas Ormond is about men.
5. The downfall of Ulick O'Shane is the climax of the book, so as a plot device it makes sense to have it near the end. The contrasts between Black Islands and Castle Hermitage was established clearly early on.
6. Now THAT is interesting! I didn't think that paternal editing was evident, but then I didn't know that it had happened.
I liked the "upon uncommonly good terms with himself" description of M. Clonal too. "His was the air of a French coxcomb, who in unconstrained delight was rather proud to display than anxious to conceal his perfect self-satisfaction".

I started this yesterday and finished it today and while I did find some of it slow going I did for the most part find the story diverting. That said Ormond being so trusting did begin to annoy me as did the high ideals he held the women in his life to.

1) This was an interesting narrative device that shows Ormond is easily influenced and easily lead.

2) Without these promises there wouldn't be much of a story, yes some of the are stretches of the imagination but this is a work of fiction.

3) I felt it was pretty well balanced although to be honest I didn't really find the book humourous I guess that at the time of publication it would have been found more amusing.

4) I like the way Ormond is various shades of grey he is passionate with a hot temper but he is also kind and caring. Austen's men keep their British stiff upper lip but they do have multiple sides as well.

5) Not sure maybe because it made a better ending to the book. As Pip says the contrast were made earlier in the book.

6) No the ending felt appropriate in terms of the rest of the book, the bad are punished and the good get their rewards. Ulrick did leave the note apologising so he was not all bad I think he just got overtaken by events. I found the main moralising came from Ormond himself and the way he rejected women some for minor character flaws but always for not being the perfect example of feminine virtue. His standards were way to high and I did begin to dislike the way it was possible for him to be flawed but not the woman who he would marry.

Overall this was a 3 star read for me I enjoyed it, the story flowed but will I remember it in a month? Probably not.

I've started this and liking it so far.

I am glad you are liking it Kristel. It is a bit of a fun romp.
Book and Pip, do you think it belongs on the 1001? It was no doubt ahead of its time on labor issues but do you think it was as literature?

Gail I am not sure on this one the book has been removed from my edition of the list so not sure the rationale for including it in the first place.

I am fine with having Dickens on the list for his examination of the times he lived in so by that logic as this is an earlier work than his it does deserve a place on the list. The fact that is written by a woman also gives an extra incentive for it being included.

I do think it deserves to be on the list for the reason given in your introduction - it was a book which influenced other writers.

I am a bit over half way and still hope to finish. Thanks for the bio on Maria E. That was very interesting.


Edgeworth speaks to the influence on her writing of Dorothy Richardson and Henry Fielding.
Have you read anything by these two authors? I am currently reading Dorothy Richardson and read Henry Fielding (Tom Jones) years ago.

Evidently her family members were friends with Ivan Turgenev. Have you read any of Turgenev's work? I've read one; Fathers and Sons

Walter Scott acknowledged his debt to Edgeworth and Jane Austen spoke of her admiration for one of Edgeworth's books (not Ormond)...
Have you read books by either of these two authors? I've read both of these authors. This book, Ormond, for some reason makes me think of Jane Austen because it has the feel of a comedy of manners.


I get a little upset with the on and on and on of the book. I like the whole idea of the story, just feels like it could have been done with less and probably been more interesting.

Edgeworth speaks to the influence on her writing of Dorothy Richardson and Henry Fielding.
Have you read anything by these two authors?

I have read both. I just finished the third book in Pilgrimage by Richardson. I read Tom Jones by Henry Fielding, which I enjoyed.

Evidently her family members were friends with Ivan Turgenev. Have you read any of Turgenev's work?

Turgenev is one of my favorite authors. I have read several books by him, both on and off the list.

Walter Scott acknowledged his debt to Edgeworth and Jane Austen spoke of her admiration for one of Edgeworth's books (not Ormond)...
Have you read books by either of these two authors?

I have read a few books by Walter Scott and several by Jane Austen.

1) I did enjoy this aspect of the book. Even though this was probably exaggerated, I am sure that books did influence people then. Today we have many other things to influence us, such as TV, movies, popular music, etc. I find it difficult to believe that Edgeworth would be influenced by Richardson's work since she lived prior to Richardson, dying over two decades before she was born. Richardson was most likely influenced by Edgeworth's writing.

2) Yes, these did seem contrived, but this was a major part of the overall plot.

3) I didn't find this book nearly as humorous as Castle Rackrent. I think she balanced the humor and moralizing well.

4) I never realized this about Austen. I do prefer Austen's writing and character development, though.

5) I didn't find the ending to be too heavy-handed. It seemed typical for books of this time period.

Overall, this was just an okay read for me. I do think it does deserve its place on the list.

I finished, hooray. A few hours to spare before the Month is done.

1) What did you think about Ormond being taken with the fiction he reads? He is sympathetic to the character Tom Jones, and is more inclined to be a spendthrift and a rake when reading Fielding’s great comedy. Then when Ormond reads Sir Charles Grandison, although he finds the Richardson less addicting than the Fielding, he is inspired to do better and be more useful in the world. He is an impressionable young man, obviously still developing his character. I think being influenced by what one reads is probable as I think watching movies, TV etc probably have influence on how one might like to be see themselves.

Do you think that Edgeworth is largely impressed with both Fielding and Richardson? If you have read these two books, do you find any direct influence in her work? Do you think that novels were still considered frivolous by high society at the time? I think that probably some societies like the ones in France don't have time to be wasted reading, just as people often have no time to waste on reading today. But the fact that there is a literati society in France does show that writing/literature had it's own society.

2) Most of the story revolves around promises made and kept too exactly, such as King Corny’s promise to marry off his daughter to White Connal OR not kept at all, such as Sir Ulick’s promise to take care of Ormond’s inheritance.
Did you find these parts of the story to be realistic or contrived in relationship to the rest of the book? I think marriage arrangements did exist and I think promises were honored but I think it is sad that one would keep a promise when they know in their heart it will be bad for their daughter. The daughter should be more important to the father than the promise to a friend.

3) Much of the humor is in the gentle mocking of the speech and lives of the Irish working class and the stereotypical presentations of the French as being manipulative, arrogant and vain, yet Edgeworth is viewed as someone very supportive of the Irish working class, the poor, her gender and the revolutionary spirit of the French. Did you find her able to balance the humor and the moralizing? I thought it was very balanced and did not feel that it was moralizing.

4) How would you compare Edgeworth to Jane Austen? I found Edgeworth’s men to be better rounded with both good and bad in them at the same time (other than Marcus of course). In the Austen that I have read (which is not very much) the male characters tend to be either all good or all bad although they sometimes flip from one to the other. If you have read Austen, how would you compare them? I think all of Austen's books have the female as the protagonist/hero and here we have the man. So we have more developed male characters and probably less developed female characters.

5) The comparison of the two ways to take care of the people on one’s estates is a set up for the whole final act of the book. Why do you think that she waited so long to bring up these differences? Well, it maybe needed to have a reason such as the ship breaking up and perhaps it didn't fit until this point. I do feel that while the one is better in that it "provides for better caring" of the people, it is still paternalistic and kind of simplistic. We have evil rich people and we have evil poor people. I don't think "social programs" stop evil necessarily.

6) Critics now complain about the heavy handed moralizing found in Edgeworth. They also tend to put some of the blame on her father who evidently edited most of her books. Were you aware of this while you were reading? Did you find the ending too heavy handed? There is indeed moralizing but I thought over all it was not as blatant as some of the "politically correct agenda" in the books that are being published now.

Congratulations Kristel. You did it!
Thank you to everyone for participating in the Ormond discussion.

Been putting off my Ormond entry, even though I read it a couple weeks ago now. So, while I'm in the last minutes of March, here it goes lol:

1) I was amused by how taken with fictional heroes Ormond is. I also think it was smart of Edgeworth to use allusions to these works to convey the current moral state or aspirations of the protagonist. I kind of see a similar style in all author's of that period, whether the inspiration was direct or not, and while I think the literate masses would have loved novels, they definitely had their detractors on the grounds of frivolity (Mary Wolstonecraft was one of them from what I recall).

2) I'm not sure whether I find this aspect of the novel perfectly contrived ( as I find many narratives from the early to mid-late 1800s somewhat inorganically crafted for the plot to onfold precisely), or if it reflects a more rigid sense of honour based morality that may have been more common at the time. Maybe both?

3) I think a lot of it may come across as mocking now, but may have been more relatively progressive at the time. But, this aspect of the book also makes me think of Hannah Gadsby's analysis of self deprecation (considering Edgeworth was an Irish woman who was largely appealing to rich British men), where she describes it as self-awarely humbling yourself so the receiver of your message gets that you see what you are and what is mockable about you too, so you can win their trust and move on with your point. She also talks about how, when you do this from a marginal position in the first place: it isn't humility, but humiliation. And considering we are talking about the working classes, the Irish, women, and revolutionaries, the humorous self (and groups she supports)-deprecation she sets up before moralizing will also be mocking/humiliating. So, I think she tries the balance, but I wonder if the moralizing was received by the aristocracy then, or if it enforced their ideas about these groups instead.

4) I agree with previous points that having the novel be about the man or the woman changes things. ALso, I don't know that I agree that the Edgeworth men are that much more complex than Austen's. I think Mr. Darcy is a good example of a complex man actually, because he is flawed (pride) but also, it is Elizabeth's misconceptions and biases about his responses that make him seem worse than he is (the prejudice), which is unfolded as the story goes on. I don't mind Edgeworth, but I tend to enjoy Austen's characterization more.

5) I think it both sets up the climax and ending plot wise, as well as it enforces the moral bent of book after we see Ormond progress as a moral person.


6) I didn't know that about her father previously, and the fact that he does end up on the English side and not a revolutionary is potentially related to this, I would guess. It's very paternalistic and traditionalist, the way its handled. But, while it was a moralizing book, it wasn't obscenely heavy handed. I've read worse, even on this list (looking at you Pilgrim's Progress- looking at you).

I liked this book and gave it 3 stars, I don't know if it was memorable or groundbreaking enough to be on the list, personally, but I certainly am not upset that it is either. I think Castle Rackrent was a more unique story and better representation of Edgeworth's contributions to literature and place in Irish history.