Victorians! discussion

Not the most even split between pages for this book, but I thought it best to set this up as one discussion thread per section. Please use this discussion thread to discuss A.S. Byatt's The Children's Book, Part I; "Beginnings." This includes chapters 1-9.

MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

Happy reading!

Ok, I'll bite :) I don't know many of the names, nor have I stopped to look them up. I'm only at about page 60, and so far I feel like I'm reading something where the author has taken all the classic kids books, swirled them together, and poured out this compilation. I feel like I've met the characters before; the ones who don't want to grow up (Peter Pan), the huge family gathering where the kids run a bit wild (Swiss Family Robinson), the poor boy on the street who is taken home (pick a Dickens novel).

All together, this could easily make me get bored with it, because it's not new, but somehow the feeling I get so far is just ... comfort... because I feel like I know the characters already.

Did that make any sense?

Although the era of this book falls toward the end of the Victorian era, it feels much more Edwardian, anti-Victorian, if you will. It feels as if Byatt set out to write a history of the Aesthetes (William Morris types), the politically radical upper middle class types who were rebelling against the Victorian moral and political conservatism. So far ('m on page 97) it feels as if the characters were created more to illustrate the era than the other way around. Plus there are so many of them it's harder to get involved with any particular one. I am enjoying this (listening to it on my iPod while I walk) but I confess that sometimes my mind wanders off in different directions. A.S. Byatt is a wonderful writer, yet I'm still waiting for the urgency of the story to take hold.

I keep imagining an American editor: "More showing, less telling!" "The story doesn't grab you at the outset, it's too slow, you'll lose your reader!" Good thing she's: A.) Famous already; B.) Published initially in England.

Heidi wrote: "it feels as if the characters were created more to illustrate the era than the other way around..."

I like this phrase, and completely understand what you mean.

As far as the time period, that was something Boof and I actually talked about - whether or not it was appropriate to leave in considering the time period it covered.

I'll admit, I like books that bridge eras, and tend to prefer these types in non-fiction books so was curious about it happening in a fiction book. I think it tells a lot about an era when an author describes transitioning out of one era and into the other... that sort of grey, in-between, time. We were torn because it doesn't truly fit the neo-Victorian qualifications, but obviously people wanted to read/discuss it, based on the votes.

I'll be curious to hear people's impressions as they get into the book about this transition out of the Victorian and into the Edwardian time, and whether or not Byatt successfully captured that transition.

I think it's interesting how the sections are broken up - Beginnings, the Golden Age, the Silver Age, the Age of Lead. "Beginnings" must be the Victorian people (hope to know more conclusively once I get further into the book) but I think it's noteworthy that the section is named this; it implies nothing much happened prior to this time period, the 'beginning' not an intermediate phase.

Paula wrote: "Heidi wrote: "it feels as if the characters were created more to illustrate the era than the other way around..."

I like this phrase, and completely understand what you mean.

As far as the time ..."

Don't misunderstand -- I'm glad we picked this book. I voted for it. I find the transitioning out of period very interesting also. And technically it does start in the victorian era (albeit at the end) so it is within the period specified. I just think it is interesting how different the "feel" is from something like, say, Possession, when so many things were unacceptable. For instance, this book is much more overt about sex, which I find interesting.

I may not have been clear - I don't think ideas are unique to one, and only one, time period. I also don't think the book itself is strictly one time period, which makes it interesting, in one sense, because it does cover that gap between what are typically thought of as distinct eras.

We could define "Victorian" as the time period of Queen Victoria's reign, so as soon as the book tips post-1901 it's technically out of our era.

V&A museum's site about the Arts & Crafts movement, if anyone is interested in seeing the objects that are described in the book. Link : http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsi...

I wish I could see the pottery that Benedict Fludd makes. Is he based on a specific Arts and Crafts artist?

I haven't studied the era(s) but appreciate the comment re wondering whether to look things up. I've decided I'll have to look up Fabians, because (here I reveal ignorance and my age) I keep picturing multiples of singer/actor Fabian of the sixties surfing movie era. I'll need to shake that image in order to better appreciate this book.

Elizabeth wrote: "I'll start it off.

I'm reading this, rather slowly. I find the text to be pretty dense, but I think that's because of all the name dropping she does. It's like Byatt has an encyclopedia of late V..."

That was my initial impression, too. It seems that she wants to use the numerous characters to represent the whole spectrum of late Victorian liberals and bohemians. They're Fabians, Arts and Crafts artists, Theosophists, Feminists etc. , plus some Russian anarchists and a German puppet master. It's almost overwhelming at times, and it's quite a challenge to remember who's who and what their political/philosophical beliefs are. I suppose that she'll concentrate on a few of them as the story develops.

I find the story of Fludd and Philip to be the most interesting, as it gives an insight into how the Arts and Crafts movement works. Philip and Fludd's relationship is like a master and apprentice scheme in a medieval guild. Makes me want to knead some clay and make brilliant pots with transparent tadpoles or something. lol

I'm finding The Shrubbery story most absorbing.....

Sandybanks wrote: "V&A museum's site about the Arts & Crafts movement, if anyone is interested in seeing the objects that are described in the book. Link : http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsi......"

Thanks for the link! Byatt is a visual writer I think, and I've been picturing quite a lot as I read. However, it's good to also have this link's capsule of the look of the era....

Glynn wrote: "I haven't studied the era(s) but appreciate the comment re wondering whether to look things up. I've decided I'll have to look up Fabians, because (here I reveal ignorance and my age) I keep pictu..."


The Fabian Society, formed in 1883, was a pre-cursor to the modern Labour Party and is still an influential left wing 'think-tank'. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/20...

Fabius Maximus was a Roman general who believed in guerrilla tactics rather than direct confrontation. Fabians are socialists who believe in a gradual approach to achieving their aims. Early members included the great and the good of Edwardian society - Emmeline Pankhurst, George Bernard Shaw, H G Wells, Arnold Bennett, Rupert Brooke, Sidney and Beatrice Webb and Edith Nesbit author of The Railway Children, on whom the character of Olive Wellwood is loosely based. Unlike the 'children should be seen and not heard' views of the Victorians, Fabians believed that children should be taken seriously and Olive's attitude towards her many children reflects this.

Thanks for the info, Margaret! That helps me, too :)

Yes, it surely does. The part about Olive Welwood being based on Edith Nesbit is especially interesting. It feels like this crew is based on real people -- loosely, as you say -- but i haven't been able to figure out who might be who.

Margaret wrote: "Glynn wrote: "I haven't studied the era(s) but appreciate the comment re wondering whether to look things up. I've decided I'll have to look up Fabians, because (here I reveal ignorance and my age..."

Helpful information, Margaret!

Thank you Margaret -- I've never read The Railway Children books but may decide to do so. I'm sure my daughters read some of t hem -- great background info, again thanks.

I think I read "The Three children and It". Own but have not read "The Railway Children" (Not to be confused with the Boxcar children or kids or whatever that contemporary series is.)

I also wanted to look up whether that Russian Anarchist who was killed by a train was a real person... Can't remember his name... He sounds real, a bunch of real people spoke at his funeral.

I wish I could enjoy this book, but I've given up after giving a 125-page try. It has far too many characters, some of which stand out, but too many others when mentioned leaving me wondering, "Who is that again, and what is their relationship to... anyone?"

And gosh, I just found it tedious. I am definitely going to keep reading the discussion to see what I've missed, though!

Marsha, I completely understand stopping at page 125ish. I still haven't finished Possession which I start many months ago! I just keep hearing great things about Byatt so I feel like if I could just finish one, maybe I can understand those positive reviews.

I read Possession and didn't like that either. I thought I'd give Byatt another chance, because I did want to participate in a discussion, and because the blurb made it sound like something I'd like. Oh well, to each his own, right?

Paula wrote: "Marsha, I completely understand stopping at page 125ish. I still haven't finished Possession which I start many months ago! I just keep hearing great things about Byatt so I feel like if I could ju..."

I've finished both Possession and The Children's Book. I liked Possession, but TCB is, frankly, a disappointment. Possession could be a challenge to read with all the poetry and allegorical fairy tales, but it is a well-written, emotionally engaging novel. TCB's setting and themes are interesting, but the writing is very uneven, especially for someone like Byatt. There are some parts which are interesting, and there are others that are just awkward and/or tedious.

I also have a problem with the characters; they're just too many of them and none of them are adequately explored.

It's worth ploughing through if you are interested in the history (the 1900 Exposition Universelle, Arts & Crafts movement, WW I etc.) and personalities (there are cameos by Oscar Wilde, J.M Barrie and Rodin, among others). But it was a very mixed bag for me.

Elizabeth wrote: "Nesbitt wrote The Enchanted Castle and several others that may be more relevant to the story than The Railway Children series. Maybe, maybe not.

A very famous Fabian is [author:Leona..."

Yes, Leonard Woolf was of course the husband of the even more famous Virginia Woolf and their circle of friends included several 'Apostles' who became known as The Bloomsbury Group. http://bloomsbury.denise-randle.co.uk... The group around the Wellwoods are based upon The Bloomsbury Group - A S Byatt mentioned this in this in a revealing radio interview (see Transcript): http://www.abc.net.au/rn/bookshow/sto...

The Russian anarchist Heidi mentions, who was connected with the early socialists, was Sergei Stepniak who was a friend of Edith Nesbit. http://www.guardian.co.uk/stage/2005/...

Sergei Stepniak was a friend of Prince Kropotkin, a famous Russian anarchist who lived in England at the turn of the century. They were friends with leading Fabians William Morris and George Bernard Shaw but the Fabians broke away from this group quite early in their existence as anarchists were radical not 'gradual'. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Kr...

Elizabeth wrote: "Margaret, you're a rock star!"

I second that statement! Thanks for the info, Margaret!

There are a few instances in this first section where there are puppet shows given and displayed in detail. It seemed these are a way to show fairytales, but not in the fluffy/happy way we are used to thinking of fairytales.

What did you think of the depiction of the puppet shows? How do you think it affected the children?

Thanks for the link to Byatt's interview, Margaret. I enjoyed listening to it, and found it helped to hear the author's perspective.

I'm sticking with the story so far, as I find much of it interesting, even if a bit slow at times. My biggest problem is that I usually only have 15 minutes or so to read at any one time, and therefore keep forgetting who's who. A cast of characters would have been most useful!

Marsha wrote: "I wish I could enjoy this book, but I've given up after giving a 125-page try. It has far too many characters, some of which stand out, but too many others when mentioned leaving me wondering, "Wh..."
Marsha and Paula,
I am also contemplating giving up myself. Not only due to so many characters but it's also really jumpy. You can't fully get connected into a scene or character being developed before Byatt begins taking you on to something else. She reminds me of my husband trying to tell me a story and by the end he has told me four stories in one and I can't really tell where one story starts and another begins or what he was trying to say. I may continue to read the book but just very slow and in the background of other books that are itching to be read.

If it helps for anyone, Sandybanks was kind enough to put a list of the characters onto the discussion for the fourth/last section. There are some unavoidable spoilers listed, but I've already referenced it twice when I want to remember who is connected to whom.

Just began part II (no spoilers here, don't worry), but I can certainly see where these criticisms are coming from. It's got a slow start--I think the first 50 pages or so were particularly choppy waters. But as soon as she began drawing out the family history, I made my own little chart, which I've been referring to since, and it's been so helpful. For a while, I wasn't connecting with anyone, because I couldn't damn well keep track of them all.

I'm sticking through it for a few reasons--first, I also thought Possession had a super slow start, but was ultimately really rewarding. Secondly, even if it feels tedious at times--perhaps a bit too learned--I love her style. It's only tedious because of its density; there are so many factoids, so much history, so many allusions, behind every sentence. It can be overwhelming, but also pretty illuminating. And then when you do hit a gut-wrenching moment, it seems to punch all the harder.

Obviously, I can't say anything until I've finished the novel, but I'm also guessing it's got a slow start because she has so much to lay out--this is very reminiscent of, well, a Victorian novel for me. Something like Trollope, where you have to have the blueprints drawn again and again before you really get ensnared in the narrative. It's a family saga of the old guard, to my mind.

Not to mention, I am so intrigued with Philip and the Wellwoods...the chapter where we began to see the stories Olive keeps hidden (about her parents and her siblings) was just incredible. To keep things moving along, though, I am reading something that's almost this novel's polar opposite, for contrast (McCarthy's Blood Meridian).

Paula wrote: "If it helps for anyone, Sandybanks was kind enough to put a list of the characters onto the discussion for the fourth/last section. There are some unavoidable spoilers listed, but I've already refe..."

I was pretty lost until I went back to the earlier chapters and made some notes about the characters and their relationship to each other. I hope that it's useful. It contains no major plot spoiler, so I think it would be safe to use.

That said, please let me know if anyone feels that any reference should be taken out. I'd be happy to edit them out.

Lekeshua wrote: "Marsha wrote: "I wish I could enjoy this book, but I've given up after giving a 125-page try. It has far too many characters, some of which stand out, but too many others when mentioned leaving me..."

I agree. This was a problem for me too. But there are parts where she gets less jumpy and the stories become quite absorbing. I thought that it's worth reading on to get to those parts.

Sandybanks wrote: "please let me know if anyone feels that any reference should be taken out. I'd be happy to edit them out. ..."

I don't think there are any real spoilers here that impact the reading. I'm almost done with Part I and haven't seen any, at least.

I agree with the comments about Byatt's writing style. I just read the part where Olive is recounting her own past, and that of her family, and found it quite captivating. She does have a certain element to her style where you can almost feel like you're watching the story in real life (or imaginary, I guess) but I do wish these moments would occur more often for me.

I'm used to having the primary character, where I can either love them, or hate them, and if I hate them it's something that keeps me involved. The characters in Byatt seem more elusive, like foggy images and I can't see one clearly yet.

Jamie wrote: "...To keep things moving along, though, I am reading something that's almost this novel's polar opposite, for contrast (McCarthy's Blood Meridian)."

Jamie -- I can't imagine reading these two books in the same time period -- definitely different but equally dense and difficult would be my take on the duo!

Dottie wrote: "Jamie wrote: "...To keep things moving along, though, I am reading something that's almost this novel's polar opposite, for contrast (McCarthy's Blood Meridian)."

Jamie -- I can't imagine readin..."

It's a pretty fascinating--mostly jarring--experience so far. I've never read McCarthy, and usually don't read such...errr...hypermasculine (?) novels, so that alone is fairly different for me. It's a bit hard to transition between them at times, but it's also quite beneficial at other times--if I'm feeling violent or in the mood to be grossed out/disturbed, I grab the McCarthy; if I've got the attention span and a hankering for tenderness, family, or fairytales, I grab Byatt. Pretty fun, all in all. :)

(Thankyou for your kind comments.)

I think the house in which the Wellwoods live is modelled on William Morris' Red House in Bexley Heath, Kent http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/... which is a beautiful Edwardian villa now filled with Pre-Raphaelite artefacts and open to the public. Humphry seems to be modelled on Morris http://www.morrissociety.org/who was also a redhead and who wrote two books of fantasy 'The Wood Beyond the World' and 'The Well at World's End' - Wellwood?

Margaret wrote: "(Thankyou for your kind comments.)

I think the house in which the Wellwoods live is modelled on William Morris' Red House in Bexley Heath, Kent http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main/... whic..."
I thought Olive was modeled on E. Nesbit, children's book author? But perhaps nobody is exactly modeled on anybody.

Yes, Nesbit too, Burden in how she behaves as a wife and mother, Nesbit in what she does. As you say, no-one is exactly modelled on anyone and I find that part of the problem in reading this book because all the real characters are very familiar to me, as my grandparents and parents were part of this scene and I find Byatt's mixups quite unbelievable. It is as if she wants to write a history of the Edwardian era, of socialism and of the Pre-raphaelites but can't quite pull it together, as if her brain is spilling over with facts and figures but she cannot add them up coherently.

Chapter 4, where she introduces her characters at the Midsummer Party , is such a conglomeration of names of people from the 1880s to the 1900s, who were just as likely to be at each other's throats (like Basil and Humphry) as be friends. I therefore cannot take her seriously or find her imaginary characters believable. I find myself mesmerised by the sheer volume of information and misinformation whilst getting rather cross with the latter.

Margaret wrote: "Yes, Nesbit too, Burden in how she behaves as wife and mother, Nesbit in what she does. As you say, no-one is exactly modelled on anyone and I find that part of the problem in reading this book be..."

I totally agree with your thoughts about trying to provide a synopsis of late vic radicalism as a background to this story. To be honest if I wasn't reading this as part of this group I probably would have given up reading this, and glad I didn't as a novel does start to emerge in the next section.

I am not a big fan of AS Byatt,if she wasn't such a well respected author i'd think that this first part betrayed a lack of confidence and skill to bring the sensibility (and even some real people)into a coherent narrative. Afterall she is not necessarily exploring the ideas but using the name checks as sort of shorthand for the readers to supposedly understand the philisophical and cultural world which she is depicting. This could be have been acheived much more effectively by developing her characters and their relationships.

I agree, she has used a very clumsy device to set her characters' background and for me, and I suspect for anyone well versed in this particular era's social history, it is alienating. It is also lazy and some of the 'statistical' paragraphs seem to have been lifted straight out of newspaper archives.

Much of this first part felt like a lecture on late Victorian trends, as mentioned, with history not being well integrated with the characters. The book fascinates me because my two latest novels, although beginning in 1914, also try to depict the radical social changes precipitated by the Great War. So my very Victorian older characters - like grandparents - the somewhat more liberal late-Victorian/ Edwardian parents, and the young protagonists who are thrust into the hell of war illuminate this era without making readers feel like they're getting a history lesson. Or so my fans tell me. : )

I would prefer your method, Gabriele, and not have history shoved at me by a fiction writer. I completely understand how learned Byatt is, but don't feel she needs to prove it by including a breadth of names in her book. Or, perhaps, she is just setting the stage, as Debbie suggests.

I think my favorite parts of this book so far are Olive's stories, interspersed and often interrupted, throughout this first section. I remember in the sections of Possession that I read, my favorite parts are the insertions of writings that Byatt attributes to some of her characters.

I think that's what keeps me reading; those nuggets of storytelling that seem to be one of Byatt's strengths.

I skip those 'nuggets of storytelling' as I am not too keen on fairy tales. I hope I am not missing anything highly pertinent to the story?

In the audio interview with Byatt that Margaret posted earlier, Byatt says that she hated this era, and wrote about it because she thought she should learn more about it. But I don't think she ever warmed to this time, and certainly her comments about some of the people were quite disdainful. Perhaps when an author is not fully engaged in the period, it is difficult to convey a proper sense of it to the reader - hence some of the comments about the uneven writing and disjointed feel.

I agree, Paula, that some of most interesting bits are Olive's stories, because I wonder what they symbolize for the children.

@ Margaret: I don't know that you're missing anything *integral* to the storyline by skipping over the fairytales, but I do think they offer some nuance to the novel, that perhaps we're not really getting elsewhere. For example, Olive rewrites the beginning of 'Tom Underground' in Part II (I'll try to make certain this isn't spoilery), which not only offers us a rare glimpse into Olive's emotional relationship with her son (that, frankly, I don't think we see otherwise), but also proves pivotal to an event soon thereafter involving Tom. Olive's fairytale for Tom, then, is not necessary, but it creates some fascinating intricacies in how we soak the story up.

I may not be the best judge, though, because I think Byatt's little fairy stories are among her most incredible moments (I felt the same way in Possession, where the poetry didn't really interest me, but the fairytales were my favorite parts of the novel).

@ Gabriele: I need to check this interview out. I'm curious, though, have you read Possession? Because she seems to handle the Victorian era quite well in that novel--but then, I don't really agree that 'The Children's Book' handles it badly. I suppose that, for me, Part I was really necessary to lay blueprints for what happens after. It's tedious at times, but I think for a sweeping saga of this sort, it's worthwhile, because the rest is then provided with more powerful resonances.

Jamie, I did read Possession, but many years ago - and liked it. And I am sticking with The Children's Book, which becomes increasingly more interesting now that I am in the second section. It was the late Victorian/ Edwardian era that Byatt didn't like, if I recall the interview correctly. She said the reason was that it was her parents' era.

Gabriele wrote: "Jamie, I did read Possession, but many years ago - and liked it. And I am sticking with The Children's Book, which becomes increasingly more interesting now that I am in the second section. It was..."

Now that's interesting . To my own personal thinking the fact that it was my parents or grandparents era would make it evn more interesting and engaging for exploration.

I agree, Dottie, but I think Byatt just didn't like the people, philosophies, etc of that time. She said something like "I had to grow up hearing about it." It was a long interview and I did a bit of multi-tasking as I listened to it, so if anyone can elaborate or correct me on that, please do.

Margaret wrote: "I skip those 'nuggets of storytelling' as I am not too keen on fairy tales. I hope I am not missing anything highly pertinent to the story? "

I agree that they aren't completely integral (altho I'm not done with the book, so something might come up later). I think they are the way that I can catch a glimpse of the inner workings of one of the characters, though. They are like little respits from the inundation of historical information that she seems to batter the read with in the rest of the book.

I agree with you, Margaret, I'm not sure what they have to do with the story. Unless there is an underlying meaning to them that I'm missing. There probably is -- I'm not too good at sniffing out stuff like that.

Thanks everyone. I did read a bit of the Tom story which threw light on Olive's relationship with him but I had already decided that there was a bit of an 'Oedipus complex' going on there.

Byatt's dislike of the period and its movers and shakers becomes more and more evident as you get into the book but I wonder how much she really knows about it. She has packed so many snippets of history into the novel that I feel that snippets are all she knows. My parents and grandparents took an active part in the politics of this era, were Fabians, believed in 'free love' etc. and I also studied it when I did my PSE at the LSE (!). I feel Byatt's knowledge is very superficial and that she is too judgemental.

Byatt also seems to be placing emphasis on the morality (or lack of it) of her characters and perhaps of the era but I think it is very difficult to judge artists by their personal morality and that if we did we would disregard most of the great art works/movements of history.

BTW I think Methley is loosely based on D H Lawrence - he espouses many of DHLs controversial views about sex and women, for which he was censored at the time.

I enjoyed Possession but there was a better separation of fact and fiction in that novel. Here the lines are very blurred and I find it difficult to believe in characters who are a sloppy composite of several historical characters. Byatt seems to be tarring the whole of the Edwardian intelligentsia with the same unsavoury brush yet the era had much to commend it, not least the strides it made in propelling women out of the dark ages of Victorianism and its more enlightened view about the bringing up of children who had previously been 'seen and not heard'.