Victorians! discussion

To discuss the second section, "The Golden Age," which includes chapters 10-31.

MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS

More and more, this seems the portrait of an age, rather than a story of people -- though the characters are well rendered, there are too many of them to get invested deeply with any one. After being immersed deeply in the arts, with the Wellwoods (writers) and the Fludds (artists/potters) we have just been introduced to Charles (can't remember his last name) who is deeply concerned about poverty and is going to be the conduit to socialism via the Fabians.

I am enjoying this book because I listen to it on my iPod while walking or cooking, but am not positive I would be driven to pick it up and simply read it. Yet at the same time I'm glad to be reading it, enjoy the portrait of the era.

Charles is a Wellwood. The nephew of Humphrey and Olive -- I've lost the brother's given name who is Charles's father but his mother is of foreign lineage and is Katherina, I believe.

Dottie wrote: "Charles is a Wellwood. The nephew of Humphrey and Olive -- I've lost the brother's given name who is Charles's father but his mother is of foreign lineage and is Katherina, I believe."

Is this the father who works in the bank? Maybe his name is Basil? And he has a daughter called Griselda?

Heidi wrote: "Dottie wrote: "Charles is a Wellwood. The nephew of Humphrey and Olive -- I've lost the brother's given name who is Charles's father but his mother is of foreign lineage and is Katherina, I belie..."

Yes, Heidi -- thanks for refreshing my mind on these!

Anna wrote: "Yes, Basil and Katherina (German) are the parents of Charles and Griselda, who are cousins to the more numerous Wellwoods (Tom, Dorothy, Hedda, Florian, Robin, etc). It is a little overwhelming. I'..."

Hear, hear!

One of the reviews I read gave the book a B+ and said, quote "too many threads (and characters), but compelling"

I made some notes on the major fictional characters when I was reading. I hope that it's helpful --- though I'm sure that I must be missing some of them. I'll post it on the thread for the last part of the book as it (necessarily) contains some spoilers.

I'm on about pae 250 and having trouble identifying with any of the characters. Sorry if this is a spoiler, but Olive's "open marriage" with Humphrey turns me off. She's so calm about the fact that he has constant affairs. The most she gets is very irritated and annoyed, which causes her to pay him back. I understand that all these characters were rebelling against victorianism but somehow it seems childish and irresponsible and I just can't relate.

Yes, I can understand the 'too many threads' comment. And sometimes there is a feeling of unraveling threads, creating a fuzzier fabric than the writer may have intended. I'm still enjoying most of this, though.
Just absorbing it. Not expecting yet for it to all make sense...

Glynn wrote: "Yes, I can understand the 'too many threads' comment. And sometimes there is a feeling of unraveling threads, creating a fuzzier fabric than the writer may have intended. I'm still enjoying most ..."

I would like to add I would compare reading this to visiting a large, messy family. Just what I'm in the mood for right now, I guess....

Heidi wrote: "I'm on about pae 250 and having trouble identifying with any of the characters. Sorry if this is a spoiler, but Olive's "open marriage" with Humphrey turns me off. She's so calm about the fact th..."

I completely agree! Ugh! I just got through that part of Part I where his love letter from Marian is read by Olive. Her primary concern is being able to afford feeding Marian's child as well? Ugh! I mean, that's noble and all, but I would feel such rage!

Then, to hear that the children had a discussion about who their parents may or may not be, and how it's not worth it to love them too much because they might not be their parent... kind of broke my heart.

Heidi wrote: "I'm on about pae 250 and having trouble identifying with any of the characters. Sorry if this is a spoiler, but Olive's "open marriage" with Humphrey turns me off. She's so calm about the fact th..."

Isn't it rather like a polygamous marriage? Millions of women enter into such marriages and seem quite happy with them. I have spoken to Muslim women in such marriages and they seem to welcome 'sisters' into a marriage, especially as it means someone to help with the housework and the children, or to have new babies they no longer can have. If you accustom yourself to this sort of arrangement, as Olive has done, it would seem to have advantages. Also, unlike polygamous marriages, an 'open marriage' allows the woman to take on lovers as well, which is fairer than the Victorian tradition of turning a blind eye to what a man is doing whilst condemning the woman.

'Free love' was a philosophy of the age and was part of the feminism of that time which rejected the bonds of marriage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love
George Bernard Shaw, a leading Fabian and Bloomsburyite, made many satirical quotes about marriage one of which perhaps sums up the philosophy behind free love from a male point of view:-

'Those who talk most about the blessings of marriage and the constancy of its vows are the very people who declare that if the chain were broken and the prisoners left free to choose , the whole social fabric would fly asunder, You cannot have the argument both ways. If the prisoner is happy, why lock him in? If he is not, why pretend that he is?' (GBS The Irrational Knot.) This is an extract from an essay on the thinking behind the Free Love movement which gives a flavour of what women like Olive were about:-

'What was free love? The nineteenth century free love movement was a distinct reform tradition, running from the utopian socialist thinkers of the 1820s and 1830s through the center of American anarchism and from there into the birth control movement of the twentieth century. The decades in which free love first appeared were a time of upheaval and change in sexual conventions and the relations between men and women.

Like the modern notion of women's spheres and the politics of women's rights, free love was part of a more general nineteenth century effort to respond to these changes and to reform and modernize emotional and sexual conventions between the sexes. Free love was distinguished from these other tendencies by its emphasis on personal happiness rather than social welfare, and its ability to see marriage in terms of affection and personal satisfaction and not merely biological reproduction and social order. Free love was a self-conscious reform tradition, related to but distinct from women's rights, which we have to consider if we are to examine the problem of women's liberation and sexual freedom from an historical perspective.

Above all, free love was a movement opposed to marriage, at least as a legal institution by which the state attempted to regulate private affections, at most as a practice which encouraged emotional possessiveness and psychological enslavement. It was also a civil libertarian movement, which defended individual rights in matters of sex and love; it was particularly committed to encouraging a democratic, public debate about sexuality, love and reproduction, and protested all efforts to relegate control of these areas to experts and professionals.'

I think the issue of how it affected the children of such liaisons was not well thought out at this time, which was before the advent of child psychology and widespread psychotherapy. Studies have been done, for instance, of children raised in a Kibbutz, another social experiment of the time, some of which found that children were badly affected by the experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz#...

Margaret wrote: "Heidi wrote: "I'm on about pae 250 and having trouble identifying with any of the characters. Sorry if this is a spoiler, but Olive's "open marriage" with Humphrey turns me off. She's so calm abo..."

Re women being happy in polygamous marriages... It may be they are, but I recently read "The 19th wife" which takes place in a polygamous community in the modern day as well as in the 19th century -- can't remember the mormon leader it was about, but it sure didn't seem like the women were welcoming new wives as "sisters", particularly since it wasn't a two way street.

Heidi wrote: "Margaret wrote: "Heidi wrote: "I'm on about pae 250 and having trouble identifying with any of the characters. Sorry if this is a spoiler, but Olive's "open marriage" with Humphrey turns me off. ..."

The 19th Wife is a fictional account which refers to Brigham Young's marriages. His 55 wives were rather excessive and not really comparable with polygamy generally. It seemed to be his controlling personality that was the problem, not polygamous marriage per se. Again there are thousands of Mormons who have chosen polygamy and I have seen documentaries attesting to their happiness. Like Muslims, they are born to it. Free Love was different in that women entered into it entirely of their own free will, as a form of rebellion against society's mores.

It may also be different if you live in a society where polygamy is the norm. Muslim women in a Muslim country for instance. Mormons are not entirely so because the wider society is monogamous but their immediate society, which is large, approve of their multiple marriages. Freelovers were different in that only their immediate circle 'approved'. These different circumstances would make for different outcomes. In any event, I think it is difficult to assess it from a monogamous point of view and maybe we have to 'walk in their moccasins'.

Margaret wrote: "Heidi wrote: "Margaret wrote: "Heidi wrote: "I'm on about pae 250 and having trouble identifying with any of the characters. Sorry if this is a spoiler, but Olive's "open marriage" with Humphrey t..."

I realize I may be getting a little far afield in pursuing the polygamy question here when we're discussing Byatt (although it does have some relevance given that in both cultures women are not the equal to men, more on that later) but in the "19th wife" they did not portray ANY of the women, not just Brigham Young's household, being happy about the arrangement. The women were told that the prophet had decreed it, and that was the end of that. I must hasten to add that the only thing I've read about polygamy is the "19th wife", which is a very limited source, plus fiction at that. But I do think that to say that if you're born into it you're perfectly happy about it seems "off" somehow. I suppose many african american slaves who were born into slavery were content, or at least accepting of, their status. When you've always been told that something is the right thing you accept it, even if its deleterious to your interests, or to your right to personal fulfilment.

But back to Byatt and the free love movement. Of course, women were at a disadvantage in the free love movement because they had to bear children (I don't know what the status of birth control was at the time, but I think it was limited.) And as far as "The Children's book", the men depicted seem quite selfish and irresponsible about it. For instance, Humphrey bringing his wife into the situation because she has to pay for the baby. And then giving her this wolfish, conspiratorial look which is supposed to make it all okay. And the other guy, whose name escapes me for a moment: he ran away with the vicar's wife because she was supposed to be his great love, but clearly he still plays around, all the while rationalizing what he's doing. Whereas when Olive is unfaithful, it's after being hurt, rather than because she wants to sleep with a lot of men.

I'm still working my way through my thoughts on this, this is very preliminary, I hasten to say. I may change my mind. But that's how it seems to me right now.

I agree that some women may not be happy with their lot but being born to it means there is a certain acceptance - I have certainly found that amongst Muslim women who are taught from a young age that their husband may take other wives, even in the West.

To some extent the FreeLove movement was made possible by better birth control although they don't seem to have been very successful with condoms if their frequent pregnancies are anything to go by! The high mortality rate of children during the Victorian era had made children very idealised and wanted. The birth and mortality rate were going down at the turn of the century but the Edwardians continued to idealise children and large families, as much of their literature (Peter Pan et al) shows.

There is a certain attitude of mind here towards the promiscuity and children which I think we find difficult to understand. Because of 'the pill' promiscuity today does not usually involve having large families as it did then. I think too about the life of Mary Shelley, who also lived in a promiscous bohemian household where her husband was fathering children irresponsibly, and of how many of these earlier women died in childbirth. If you married or had liaisons with such men I guess this is what you accepted might happen. It was also much more difficult to leave your husband and set up another life with your children, even in the fin de siecle. So men were encouraged to be irresponsible and women picked up the pieces - what's new?!

I think perhaps Byatt is trying to bring out the 'selfish and irresponsible' side of the men of the era, especially the Pre Raphaelite Brotherhood, who have always been portrayed as great Romantics. We are perhaps overwhelmed by their prolific art and artefacts and overlook what tragedy lay behind them.

"But back to Byatt and the free love movement. Of course, women were at a disadvantage in the free love movement because they had to bear children (I don't know what the status of birth control was at the time, but I think it was limited.) And as far as "The Children's book", the men depicted seem quite selfish and irresponsible about it. For instance, Humphrey bringing his wife into the situation because she has to pay for the baby. And then giving her this wolfish, conspiratorial look which is supposed to make it all okay. And the other guy, whose name escapes me for a moment: he ran away with the vicar's wife because she was supposed to be his great love, but clearly he still plays around, all the while rationalizing what he's doing. Whereas when Olive is unfaithful, it's after being hurt, rather than because she wants to sleep with a lot of men."

That's the way I see it, too. Herbert Methveld is even worse than Humphry --- he has no interest whatsoever in the welfare of the women that he had seduced once they stop being his lover. Humphry at least still try to provide for Marian and her son, even though the money has to come from his wife. In an age before reliable birth control and safe obstetrics, free love is just incredibly risky for women.

As for Muslim women who live in polygamous households --- I live in the world's biggest Muslim country (though I'm not Muslim myself), and I observe that a lot of these households are NOT happy. In the majority of cases, after years of marriage and childbearing, the husband takes a much younger wife, and the first wife and her children get neglected. The first wives are coerced to accept the situation because there is a pressure to do so, both economically and socially. In fact, there is a movement among Muslim women that rejects polygamy, on the ground that it is not possible for a man to be absolutely fair in a polygamous marriage (a condition imposed by the Koran). Obviously, there are exceptions, but that's my general impression.

Maybe "The children's book" refers not only to the kids, but to the so-called adults! I remember that at some point Olive says something to Prosper Kane (sp) about how comfortable his kids are around him, and how well-balanced they are. Maybe that's because, although he did have to be both mother and father, he behaved responsibly and lovingly.

Sorry for being on such a tear, but I just hate parents who don't do right by their kids!!

I agree that the men are behaving irresponsibly but I do not think this is because they are in free love situations. Many men have behaved irresponsibly towards their offspring, both inside and outside marriage, which is why we now have laws about the payment of maintenance for children and family allowances in the UK are paid to women.

I also agree that although the Koran states that men must treat all of their wives equally, this often does not happen and it is arguable that it is an impossible caveat anyway. Even if the husband is wealthy and can distribute his wealth evenly, this does not ensure that he distributes his affection to wives or children equally. Similarly with free love situations, a man (or a woman) is unlikely to give love, money and attention equally to several partners and their offspring. Polygamy became the norm in Muslim societies because there were more women than men and many widows after battles. Similarly, polyandry occurs in societies (like Nepal) where there are historically more men than women. How long Polygamy will last amongst Muslims is likely to be as much a question of demographics as happiness.

My observation about marriage in general is that it often is not a happy state and this is borne out by the high number of divorces in all societies which allow them. We are all coerced into marriage to a certain extent because it is a relationship approved by our society (and our religions) although that is changing as partnerships become more common. The only thing that is certain is that children need someone to look after them for the first 16+? years of their lives and some sort of stable arrangement is needed to facilitate this. The adults have chosen their situation, the children haven't, so do we find that the children of the novel's free love situations, as described by Byatt, suffer more psychological trauma than those in the conventional marriages?

BTW I don't see free love as being more risky for women insofar as childbirth is concerned because married women have as many babies as unmarried ones. Indeed, it may be better economically to have more than one father around when women generally do not work.

"Many men have behaved irresponsibly towards their offspring, both inside and outside marriage, which is why we now have laws about the payment of maintenance for children and family allowances in the UK are paid to women. "

But it seems that there was no such laws during the era that Byatt writes about. (I don't know anything about 19th century English civil laws, so please correct me if I'm wrong). The women that are impregnated by Methveld have no legal right to demand any maintenance from him for themselves and their children. That's why I thought that 'free love' was a very risky proposition for women at that time; the risk of unwanted pregnancy, unsafe delivery and the absence of any laws safeguarding their interest made it so. Married women also face some of those risks, but at least they have some legal protection for themselves and their children. Methveld is having his merry way without any consequences whatsoever, while the women have to bear the burden of having the children and supporting them.

"I also agree that although the Koran states that men must treat all of their wives equally, this often does not happen and it is arguable that it is an impossible caveat anyway."

This is the interpretation that is favored by Muslims who want to abolish polygamy. Since it is not humanly possible for a man to be absolutely fair in a polygamous marriage, therefore polygamy is actually forbidden. My Muslim women friends who are educated and economically independent are overwhelmingly against polygamy.

"Polygamy became the norm in Muslim societies because there were more women than men and many widows after battles."

This was arguably true during the early days of Islam, but no longer applies to the current situation.

"The adults have chosen their situation, the children haven't, so do we find that the children of the novel's free love situations, as described by Byatt, suffer more psychological trauma than those in the conventional marriages?"

SPOILER WARNING


Tom killed himself, although to be fair, I don't think that the cause is the Wellwoods' unconventional marriage. Dorothy is in turmoil for a while, but being the resilient sort that she is, got over it. Pomona and Imogen are surely affected by their father's unconventional behavior. We're not told much about Robin Oakshott and Ann Warren, although they must have had it hard as fatherless children in Victorian society.

In real life, I observe that children from the polygamous marriages that are neglected by their fathers tend to have more problems than those from conventional marriages.

"Indeed, it may be better economically to have more than one father around when women generally do not work."

SPOILER WARNING


Olive have children from two different men, one of whom is her husband, but none of them contribute economically to the rearing of those children in a significant way. For most of her marriage, she is the breadwinner, not just for her children, but also for the children her husband fathered with other women. I'd say that the onus is on her to bear the consequences of 'free love', while the men walk away scott free.

Married women did not have much legal protection at this time. Divorce was difficult and expensive and they they did not have the right to custody of the children. There were no state benefits until 1948. They were really no better off if they were married and the law only changed significantly after WWII.

The demographics may have changed and if a high proportion of Muslim women are able to work and support themselves, changes will take place, just as they did for Christian women after they gained the vote and began to lobby their Parliaments. But they are not entitled to custody of their children and this is a big factor when it comes to divorce. Men walk away from their children but women rarely to.

In the West we are seeing a great many problems amongst children from monogamous marriages so I don't think the type of marriage has anything to do with it. Drink problems amongst young people in the UK, for instance, are growing to epidemic proportions and they cut across all parts of society. If anything, we see fewer teenage problems in the Muslim population although that too is changing.

Olive is a rare case because the problem with most women everywhere, then and now, is that they are less able to earn enough money to support their children, especially if there are a number of them. Byatt has set up an unusual scenario here. Olive could leave the marriage and support herself. That she remains within it supposes a certain amount of satisfaction or resignation. Her attitude is also to do with the Fabian attitude towards children, which is spelled out in the earlier part of the book. They are valued for themselves, whoever they 'belong' to.

I wonder if Byatt is making a social statement about the ability of women to maintain a marriage under pressure, of their strength against their partner's weakness? Or is it a social statement in support of the Fabian attitude towards children?

Heidi wrote: "Maybe "The children's book" refers not only to the kids, but to the so-called adults! I remember that at some point Olive says something to Prosper Kane (sp) about how comfortable his kids are aro..."

Maybe Byatt is saying they are all behaving like children!

In general, the Wellwood children appear to be happy and carefree and Violet seems to do a good job of seeing to their physical needs. She is like a Nanny. I don't get the impression that Olive and Humphry are not 'doing right' by them. They are just doing differently.

POSSIBLE SPOILER: The Fludds are a more problematic household where the father is sexually rampant and has a violent temper whilst the wife seems sexually unresponsive and she and the children are cowed. Fludd's 'confession' to the vicar was rather alarming I thought, as were the descriptions of his wife and children. I feared for Philip being put into this volatile household.

BTW it is reported that by 2020 there will be a 30 million shortage of marriageable women in China due to their earlier 'one child per family' restrictions when boys were favoured and girls aborted:(. Sociologists are speculating whether this will lead to polyandry or to a high number of Chinese men emigrating to marry in the West, which will in turn cause a labour shortage. There is already polyandry in at least one region in China, the Mosuo people of Yunnan Province. This shortfall is causing severe social problems:

http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19...

Fraternal polyandry is still quite common in Nepal and seems to work quite well. It also gives women more power.

http://www.happy-nomads.nl/nepal-nieu...

What are we to make of the Fludd family? What are the mother and daughters fearful of - abuse? Verbal? Physical? Sexual? What is behind young Pomona climbing naked into Philip's bed and her constant touching of him? Why is Seraphita so distracted and like an 'automaton'? Does Geraint just want to get away to earn money or for some other reason? What was Benedict really trying to confess to the vicar (Frank)?

I find this conventionally married family far more disturbing than the 'freeloving' Wellwoods.

Have you gotten to the part when Elsie gets into the locked pantry and sees what's inside? I don't want to reveal spoilers so if you haven't read that part I won't say anything else. But that definitely gave me some ideas. Plus the warning that the older girl gave Elsie before leaving.

Also, some disturbing things are coming up with the Wellwoods too, particularly what Hedda overhears between Humphrey and Violet. But again, don't want to give away spoilers.

SPOILER. Thanks Heidi. I read that part last night and my fears were realised! An earlier observation by Cain also confirmed my feeling that Seraphita is a drug/alcohol addict. Fludd might be a great artist but he is an unsavoury character and I think he is modelled upon Eric Gill, an equally reprehensible but highly talented man.
ww.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2006/j...

Anna wrote: "It seems like this conversation is overlooking that fact the the Wellwoods are essentially in a polygamous marriage with Violet and Olive playing different roles as wife to Humphrey and mother to t..."

Why do you see us as ignoring it? I likened free love to polygamy in my above posts although there are essential differences, since one form of relationship is generally underpinned by religion, marriage and the wider society and the other is a voluntary grouping outside of religion, marriage and society. The Wellwood grouping is the latter kind. Both create different kinds of problems for the parents and for the children. Byatt seems to be exploring the problems created by different groupings, especially the effect on children which, in interviews, she says worries her because she feels that the Edwardians did not pay sufficient attention to the problems their unusual liaisons might cause.

Given the rate of divorce in ordinary monogamous marriages today and the problems children in those marriages are having, I am not sure that it is the structure of marriage or partnerships which are the problem. Good parenting can surely take place whatever the circumstances. I rather think (as a divorced mother of 4) that how to bring up children is one of life's mysteries and the outcome is very much a lottery!:O

Margaret wrote: "Anna wrote: "It seems like this conversation is overlooking that fact the the Wellwoods are essentially in a polygamous marriage with Violet and Olive playing different roles as wife to Humphrey an..."

Very true, but isn't part of the answer honesty? The Wellwoods did have a polygamous marriage, but it wasn't openly admitted -- at least as far as I've gotten. Hedda discovered it by snooping. Olive apparently doesn't like it -- doesn't Violet say that if she has another baby Olive will kill her? So it's all very undercover and dishonest. And kids suffer doubly under those circumstances.

Yes there was dishonesty all round between Humphry, Violet and Olive and they kept it all from the children. That was very dishonest and harmful to the children.

It can't be counted as polygamous though because polygamy means more than one husband, not more than one wife and is usually within marriage and known to people. All wives have a marriage ceremony in a proper polygamous setup. I guess the Wellwoods are best described as a menage a trois. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9n...

Heidi wrote: "Margaret wrote: "Anna wrote: "It seems like this conversation is overlooking that fact the the Wellwoods are essentially in a polygamous marriage with Violet and Olive playing different roles as wi..."

I agree with Heidi. The situation with the Wellwoods is not entirely voluntary, at least on Olive's part. She doesn't approve of her husband's illicit liaisons, although she chooses to be pragmatic about them. And yes, the kids suffer under those circumstances, although each child handles the extra stress caused by their parents' unconventional marriage in a different way, according to their individual personalities.

Their situation is somewhat similar to the children in (not entirely voluntary) polygamous marriages that I've seen.

The Fludds may live in what outsiders consider a conventional marriage, but with a father like that, there's bound to be serious repercussions on the children. No child can escape unscathed after she's seen what's in that locked pantry.

I'd say that the adults in these families are acting irresponsibly, regardless of whether they are in conventional marriages or not, without considering the effect of their behavior on the children.

SPOILER WARNING


And the worst offender is the free-love advocate Herbert Methveld, who seduced young women in the name of sexual liberation and then discard them like used tissues.

I agree that Herbert Methey is entirely irresponsible.

Bernard Fludd (modelled on Eric Gill) is the worst character I think irrespective of his conventional marriage.

The Wellwood children seem to be loved and well cared for but the secrecy is damaging.

There are millions of polygamous marriages all over the world and I therefore do not think we can say that the children of those marriages fare any worse than those in monogamous or other partnerships. I too know several people in polygamous relationships (they are not allowed to marry second/third wives here) and their children seem no better and no worse than others. Similarly in monogamous relationships, whether or not people are married does not necessarily affect the children - love, stability and the lack of abuse does. Two of my children are married and two are in long term stable relationships. All their children are equally loved and well cared for. A good 'marriage' isn't just a piece of paper or a ceremony.

"The Wellwood children seem to be loved and well cared for but the secrecy is damaging."

SPOILER FOR PART III


Humphry's behavior towards Dorothy is unpaternal and unethical. It's also pretty disturbing; in an age before there is DNA testing, how can he be absolutely certain that she is not his biological daughter? In this respect, he's scarcely better than Benedict Fludd.


END OF SPOILER

"There are millions of polygamous marriages all over the world and I therefore do not think we can say that the children of those marriages fare any worse than those in monogamous or other partnerships. I too know several people in polygamous relationships (they are not allowed to marry second/third wives here) and their children seem no better and no worse than others. Similarly in monogamous relationships, whether or not people are married does not necessarily affect the children - love, stability and the lack of abuse does. Two of my children are married and two are in long term stable relationships. All their children are equally loved and well cared for. A good 'marriage' isn't just a piece of paper or a ceremony. "

I agree that the most important thing for children is to be equally loved and well cared for. And this can happen in both conventional and non-conventional relationships. However, based on my personal observation, the very nature of polygamous relationships often work against the children's welfare. How can one father with limited resources, both materially and otherwise, be able to be absolutely fair to all of his children from different women? Some of the children are bound to be favored and others neglected. The neglected ones are at a greater risk of having problems than those that are well cared for.

Sandybanks wrote: ""The Wellwood children seem to be loved and well cared for but the secrecy is damaging."

SPOILER FOR PART III


Humphry's behavior towards Dorothy is unpaternal and unethical. It's also pretty dis..."

Humphry was very drunk and did apologise profusely afterwards. He thought that he wasn't her father, which in those crazy mixed up circumstances wasn't surprising! It really wasn't as bad as Fludd's behaviour but to say more about that here would be a spoiler.

Again I think you are judging polygamous marriages unfairly. We surely cannot condemn a system of marriage and parenthood, which has been around for thousands of years, out of hand. A father of many children in a monogamous marriage can also fail to be fair or to provide for them all. Children in large families, or even small ones, are sometimes favoured and/or neglected by either parent. In fact, having more than one 'mother' around (like Violet, or second/third/fourth wives) might make things better.

This afternoon I was watching an antique show and some Palissy ware came up, such as that described in the Fludd chapters and subsequently made by Philip. I found it grotesque but it sold for hundreds of pounds. The ewer was rather like this one and sold for £600:-

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dl...

The plates were as these below and sold for £300 each:-

http://www.palissy.com/

BTW Philip is modelled on Don Potter, an apprentice to Eric Gill, who became a famous sculptor and potter in his own right and who died in 2004 aged 102. He met the infamous Gill in 1932 whilst he was working on the controversial Prospero and Ariel sculpture at BBC Broadcasting House.

http://www.btinternet.com/~roger.beck...

Margaret wrote: "I think you are judging polygamous marriages unfairly..."

I think when we speak of polygamous marriages we're bound to come across varying opinions. Our opinions are obviously shaped by our own culture, background, experience, etc. and I don't think there is a right or wrong opinion to have here.

The idea of being in a polygamous marriage, personally, makes me shudder. I can't imagine being in it, or growing up in it. If there are other cultures and areas where this is a legal and accepted practice, so be it.

Paula wrote: "Margaret wrote: "I think you are judging polygamous marriages unfairly..."

I think when we speak of polygamous marriages we're bound to come across varying opinions. Our opinions are obviously s..."

I live in Indonesia, where polygamous marriage is legal for Muslim men and not uncommon. My judgement of it as an institution that is more detrimental to children's welfare than monogamous marriages/relationships is based on my observation of the numerous cases that I encounter in my daily life. Based on my experience, I don't think that my judgement is unfair, but of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinions.

Frankly, I think polygamous marriages are demeaning for the women involved and more often than not, are bad for the children. Would you want your daughter, if you had one, to be involved in a polygamous marriage? Even the prophet Muhammad (himself a polygamous husband) protested vehemently when he found out that his son in law was going to take another wife.

I believe that there is a good reason why polygamy is illegal in many countries, Western or otherwise.

"Sandybanks wrote: ""The Wellwood children seem to be loved and well cared for but the secrecy is damaging."

SPOILER FOR PART III


Humphry's behavior towards Dorothy is unpaternal and unethical. It's also pretty dis..."

Humphry was very drunk and did apologise profusely afterwards. He thought that he wasn't her father, which in those crazy mixed up circumstances wasn't surprising! It really wasn't as bad as Fludd's behaviour but to say more about that here would be a spoiler."

I still think that Humphry's behavior is disturbing and unethical, even if he can be certain that Dorothy is not his biological child. It's like what happened with Woody Allen, when he decided to marry his partner's adopted child --- that they had raised together from childhood. It's not illegal per se, but it's unethical.

Polygamous marriages are only illegal in Christian countries because the influence of the church made them so. In the UK at one time (as I have posted elsewhere) only marriages performed by the Church of England were legal.

Polygamy came about, as I have posted before, because there was a demographic surplus of women and it then became a custom. It actually benefitted women in the first Muslim Caliphate because at that time many unmarried women and widows were destitute. Jews too had more than one wife, as we see in the Bible. In the West we have not had a demographic surplus or social structure to make this necessary. It has been a question of horses for courses in the Middle East and it will no doubt change as attitudes towards women and their ability to work changes throughout the world.

Here is an interesting article about polygamy in Indonesia which mentions that there are more women than men in Indonesia: http://www.insideindonesia.org/conten...

I just do not think we can judge the lives of millions of people over centuries, the majority of whom live decent lives and bring their children up well, just as we do, so harshly. And I certainly do not think we can say that their children have more problems, given the enormous problems we are facing in the West with our own young people. The Conservative Party in the UK, for instance, are currently campaigning on the slogan that 'Britain is broken', on the grounds of family breakup, teenage pregnancies and violent, unsocial and drunken behaviour by children. There are, however, far fewer breakups in Muslim families here, far less crime and drunken behaviour and very very few teenage pregnancies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politic...


Monogamy during Victorian times was demeaning to women and children were brought up, as we now think, far too strictly. Some Edwardians rebelled against this, which is what Byatt is describing. And yes, some of them went to far but they did nevertheless usher in the more tolerant era we are now fortunate enough to live in. Monogamy and the inability of women to work and have independent lives also led to the desperation of women to be married and to unhappy, poverty stricken lives outside of marriage, as we see in many Victorian novels dealing with the 'Women Question'. It is not so very long ago since Western Christian women and their children were living lives of subjugation so I think we should not be 'casting the first stone' at Eastern Muslim women.
http://www.wwnorton.com/college/engli...

If my daughter chose to live in a polygamous relationship it would be her choice. It would only matter to me that she was happy and that her husband was a good person. I do not see it as demeaning per se so if my daughter (or other women) accept it and are happy, I would be OK with it. It is only demeaning if their lives are made so by their husband or by society at large, which can be said to be the case in some Muslim societies but by no means all. Many Muslim women here, for instance, vigorously defend their wearing of the hijab or even the burkha, which I find both demeaning and unhealthy in our climate but whom am I to criticise the way they dress when I find many of the ways of dressing in my own society (like 'hooker chic') just as demeaning? I would not like polygamy but I was not too keen on monogamy either and have been a happy widow:).

I do not know the ins and outs of the Woody Allen case so do not know whether it was unethical or not. I would be more concerned to ask was it consensual and did he subsequently treat her well?

However, I think we need to get back to discussion of the book! Other marriage customs will surely pale into significance if we consider the monogamous Fludd family!

Which family in the book comes the closest to your own ideal or are they all problematic? Byatt herself preferred Prosper Cain but I found him too tolerant of Bernard Fludd and too dismissive of Imogen when she tried to explain her unhappiness. I suppose Basil and Kathryn were the most 'normal' family (whatever that is).

I suppose we all have different views on polygamy, based on our personal life experiences and values. I'm an Indonesian, not a Westerner, so perhaps I have a different perspective.

In my experience polygamy is based on inequality and therefore cannot be held up as superior or even equal to monogamous relationship. Also, how can it be consensual when the first wife is coerced (by societal pressure or economic necessity) to accept it? So far, I haven't seen any polygamous marriage that is truly happy, while I've seen some monogamous ones that are. But that's just my personal opinion, anyone else is, of course, entitled to their own.

Yes, of course our nationality and life experiences colour all our views. It is a pity that we do not have Muslims here to defend polygamy, to speak up for their happiness and the way they bring up children.

Monogamous marriage has only recently become based upon some sort of 'equality' as a result of the women's liberation movements, changes in attitudes and changes in the marriage service. In the Christian marriage service which appertained for most of my life, the woman swore to 'love, honour and OBEY' her husband and men in a monogamous marriage could until recently legally rape and beat their wives. Women in a monogamous marriage had no property rights and no rights to custody of their children. Until 1923 women could only get a divorce for adultery, which they had to prove 'beyond doubt' and also prove additional faults like rape, cruelty and incest, nor had she any right to maintenance/alimony if she divorced. Upon marriage a woman became the property of her husband and was treated as such until the 1930s. Hence the rebellion of the Edwardians!

Much of Victorian literature revolves around the unfair and cruel treatment of married women and the power of fathers and husbands, which resembled those of Arab potentates. One series of books which deals well with the 'rights' of a husband at the end of the Victorian period is The Forsyte Saga written by John Galsworthy between 1906 and 1921. One character in the book, Soames, was called The Man of Property and property included his unhappy wife.

Back to the book!:) I hope it can now be seen WHY the Wellwoods, and other characters, had 'alternative' marriages which, despite the problems caused to the children (which they did not envisage) were an honest attempt to get away from the restrictions imposed by the monogamous marriages of their parents. I therefore think we have to judge the characters not by the standards of today but by what they were trying to achieve, however imperfectly. Looking back at my grandmother's early life I certainly feel grateful to them.

Margaret wrote: "Yes, of course our nationality and life experiences colour all our views. It is a pity that we do not have Muslims here to defend polygamy, to speak up for their happiness and the way they bring up..."

Were all Edwardians like this? I assume this was a small segment of society, the artsy segment, which nevertheless had a ripple effect on all of society. Just like, in the sixties, most of the kids weren't hippies yet the hippes gave the sixties and early seventies their "aura". I think also that when there has been a long, uninterrupted period of button-down-ness, the reaction is often out of balance as well. Bring down everything! Smash all convention! That sort of thing. After the Mamie Eisenhower era in America of perfect green lawns and the little woman in the kitchen with her apron on all day, there was an equally strong pendulum swing in the other direction.

That said, I think the portrait is one of men taking advantage of the situation. Humphrey, Fludd, Methley. The only decent one is Prosper Cain.

Margaret wrote: "This afternoon I was watching an antique show and some Palissy ware came up, such as that described in the Fludd chapters and subsequently made by Philip. I found it grotesque but it sold for hund..."
Thank you! It's good to see some actual works. They look quite a bit more strange than what I'd pictured.

In addition to family tree(s), I keep thinking I would like an index to this tome. So many of the historical artistic details are things I would like to look into later, but honestly, I'm too lazy to jot the stuff down, and I'm finding this frustrating. Just when I get nearly fed up, though, I reach a part that just completely draws me in....

I think an index would come to as many pages as the novel but I know how you feel!!!

I'm fairly new to group discussions, but I have a question regarding spoiler etiquette. I appreciate that people put SPOILER ALERT before giving away these details, but in the discussion threads for both Part I and Part II now I have inadvertently had major plot spoilers thrown at me. I won't repeat the one I just stumbled over here, but happened to catch it as I was trying to scroll down for the discussion. Frankly, I'm not sure what's so difficult about keeping those details firmly in the discussion thread corresponding with that part. If you feel you absolutely need to include that here, why not direct people to your post in the thread for the next section of the book? I waited to come into this thread until I'd gotten some way in to Part III, and still managed to fall upon a really big spoiler.

I'm sorry to be so irritated, but I think I'm perhaps a lot more invested in this book than a lot of the readers in the group (it doesn't seem that Byatt's approach is particularly popular here), and to have a character's narrative more or less ruined after coming into this thread is kind of frustrating. Anyway, if this is an out of line request, just tell me to shut the hell up--but I think I'll be avoiding the group discussions until I finish the book in its entirety now.

Hey Jamie, really sorry to hear that your fun was partly SPOILED :-) was it the thing about ....ooppsss..... (sorry, i'm just trying to cheer you up, i understand you really well, I'm not making fun of you....)

As one who has really thoroughly enjoyed the book: I'm quite sure you'll find enough detail and beautiful language plus some interesting twists in the plot to have a great time reading further despite of your mishap - just as little consolation.......enjoy!!!!

It's ok; spoilers can't ruin a book (otherwise, we'd be able to enjoy a novel by simply looking at the plot skeleton), but I was disappointed to see the 'outcome' of a particular character that I've been really drawn to before I had the opportunity to read it for myself. Ah well.