Gone with the Wind discussion

Judging yesterday's actions with today's standards.
Margaret Mitchell grew up with the sacred tradition that the South was this perfect paradise that the damyankees had spoiled. Relatives, friends, neighbors, fellow workers, all remembered the War Between the States as a violent end to a beautiful world (that never existed). She was raised to honor "The Lost Cause". That's what people believed until WW2 & even then it wasn't until people who remembered the War had died off. Most people in the South today do not have the world view that people of Margaret Mitchell's generation had. However, reading the book carefully will reveal little peaks of present day reality. However, the title of the book "Gone with the Wind" introduces the reader that this society, no matter what one thought of it is GONE. It will never come again. Love it or hate it, it is OVER. Reconstruction was rough. "Rhett Butler's People " gives a good picture of reconstruction. "March" by Gwendolyn Brooks is another book showing the horrors of that time.

Note: When writing about a certain era, that era must be portrayed as it is. No matter that the reader might want to reach inside the pages and throttle the characters. A book that can drive the readers to both love and hate is well written and important.

Scarlett and her obsession for Ashley was soo tiring, I was so close to just saying "ok I don't want to read this." Ashley for just being a dummy and letting her go on about him, if he wanted to keep his loyalty to melly then he had to end it with scarlett. Scarlett mad me really sad because the way she didn't care about her kids. I seriously was depressed for two days because of the ending.

Kim wrote: "Jamie wrote: "Robin wrote: "Jamie are you alluding to Gone With the Wind, or the sequel, I don't recall her having three children in the Gone With the Wind book?

I'm alluding to both, but mostly..."

Scarlett married charles and the same time Ashley married Melly, they had Wade. Then she married Frank and had Ella. Then finally Bonnie with Rehtt

Gabrielle wrote: "Carla wrote: "Personally, I thought the most exasperating thing about Gone With The Wind was the fact that love and passion and acceptance was right there in front of Scarlett - A man who saw who a..."

That is soo true

Hunnh?!

The most exasperating thing?
That as much as I hated most of the characters I loved the book. Very well done. No flat characters, all shades of grey, no political correctness.
Not a single person in it I liked or admired...and I loved it.

I am glad we have the book. Today the politically correct people would scream and ban it.

The racism is deplorable but as Marian mentioned in message 52, when you write about an era in a historical novel, you write the way things actually WERE.

Not the way we hoped or wished it had been, but the way it WAS. The society in the South (and many parts of the North also, btw) was racist.

Mary JL wrote: "I am glad we have the book. Today the politically correct people would scream and ban it.

The racism is deplorable but as Marian mentioned in message 52, when you write about an era in a histor..."

Yes! I totally agree with you.

If I ever hear the name ashley again it would be too soon. Scarlett herself was also exasperating.

I don't think that the Scarlet/Ashley/Rhett triangle was any more exasperating than the Bella/Edward/Jacob triangle from The Twilight Saga. It was actually better in that it included Melanie who was the true heroine of the book (for me!)

The thing that exasperated me was the bad decisions Scarlett kept making. It reminds me of a couple of characters on my soap operas. You just know they will make a bad decision.

Hey, it's just a book, a story, get over it. But, a damn good story. The problem of race and slavery are due to greed and ignorance. We are still learning. The best solution is to meet others of different ethnic groups and learn from each other and teach each other. It has to be a personal thing, not just a $10 bill in the plate or voting for another law. Charity begins at home.

For me- its Rhett Butler. He egged on Scarlett to behave the irresponsible, self centred ways but when he reaches an age where he wants to settle and be respectable and all he denounces her.

Jordyn wrote: "Ashley.
(couldn't stand him.)"

Yes! Yes! Yes!

Scarlett does seemed spoiled and manipulative and usually gets her way, but she didn't get her hooks into Ashley, she wanted the unobtainable, she seemed like a rebound type of girl to me, she just married for money, and Rhett did spoil her unnecessarily, but they made a good match.

I loved this book like few others. I absolutely loved everything about it. The only exasperating thing for me was what the author wanted me to be exasperated about: Scarlett's blindness to the love that Rhett so freely heaped upon her.

And I agree with Jamie (above this comment) that Ashley wanted Scarlett, but he actually embodied honor.

Melly was a great character - I found her death actually soul-wracking. It disturbed me profoundly.

And I guess I am unique in that I thought that Rhett simply taking Scarlett (what another poster has called rape) was actually very hot. I don't think it was rape at all. I think she wanted it, she loved it, and if Rhett hadn't apologized, giving her an excuse to wield her superiority above him, their marriage would have taken a far different track.

Scarlett's obsession with Ashley and her inability to see how good of a guy that she had until he was gone.

How scarlett was always looking the wrong way. When rhett wanted her she wanted ashley. When Ashley didn't mean anything to her anymore rhettdidn't want her. She shouldn'tve wasted all that time on boring Ashley.

But the thing was, she wanted Ashley because she couldn't have Ashley. She was spoiled enough to want what she couldn't have, and Ashley was too fine a gentlemen to bother with Scarlett's histrionics.

I really did not like suellen

Can't speak for the book. I found the movie so obnoxious that even as a kid I wouldn't finish it. Oh, the happy, loyal slaves! No one noticed that? It seems that part of the story is Southern pro slavery wishful nostaglia. I don't wish to be insulted by my entertainment.

Cara wrote: "I loved this book like few others. I absolutely loved everything about it. The only exasperating thing for me was what the author wanted me to be exasperated about: Scarlett's blindness to the l..."

Absolutely! I think people forget you are supposed to find Scarlett irritating, Ashley is a wimp, and Rhett is your typical bad-boy romantic hero.

The book was published in the 1930's and glorified the South during the Civil War, so of course it's also racist.

BTW,Scarlett's obsession over Ashley drove me crazy. Just because you can't have him doesn't make him desirable...

Scarlett's every wrong turn IRKED ME!I wanted to scream "NO! why did you marry him?NO! don't passionately kiss ashley!" it was maddening...

Scarlett and her me, me, me, me viewpoint.

Robin wrote: "Jamie are you alluding to Gone With the Wind, or the sequel, I don't recall her having three children in the Gone With the Wind book?

Gabrielle your views are on point for this discussion. Ashl..."

She did in fact have 3 children. One from each man she was married to. And I agree with other comments. I didn't like the parts where she didnt care for her children at all.

Jamie wrote: "Robin wrote: "Jamie are you alluding to Gone With the Wind, or the sequel, I don't recall her having three children in the Gone With the Wind book?

I'm alluding to both, but mostly GWTW. She ha..."

Now you have me wanting to read the sequel!

Scarlett, Ashley, Rhett-- all exasperating. But I also disliked Melanie. How could she be so obtuse as to continue to believe that Scarlett was her friend?

Andrea wrote: "Scarlett, Ashley, Rhett-- all exasperating. But I also disliked Melanie. How could she be so obtuse as to continue to believe that Scarlett was her friend?"

That's what I always wondered too

Jamie wrote: "I can't believe only one person mentioned Scarlett's relationship to her children. I mean, love triangle, seriously flawed characters--that's what the book is ABOUT and that's what makes it so goo..."

I completely agree! I loved the book, but was amazed to see how Scarlett totally abandoned her children.

The protrayal of African Americans as either lazy, stupid or selfish or as subserviant, mindless automatons who want nothing more than to serve their former masters. I don't think any of the former slaves were protrayed with any more depth than an unintelligent child. It made me angry.

The ending! The first time I read this book I almost died at the ending. I had never ever read an ending that had NO closure, no resolution. It drove me nuts. Of course that is also one of the most intriguing aspects of the book as well. Now that I have read this book way too many times to count I feel like I know Scarlett so well and Rhett too and have come to my own concluion that she most definitely went after him and he also forgives her. Wishful thinking? Perhaps! lol

Andrea, I don't think Melanie was obtuse, she was willing to see Scarlett flawed as all get out, but she considered her still as a friend. I am sure she was aware that Scarlett was salivating over Ashley, but Melanie overlooked it. She felt that Scarlett needed a friend and she was there for her.

Every time I read this book I find more to like/dislike about most of the main characters. When I first read it at age 17, I thought Ashley was really cool. Now, I consider him to be the most exasperating! Man Up!

Genia wrote: "The thing that exasperated me most with the book was the author's deliberate blindness for issues of race, poverty, social strata and caste ...What I cannot find it in me to excuse is the author exhorting the South as the pinnacle of civilization, the slave-owning culture as benevolent, and the horrible classism of these indolent snobs as gentility.

That, especially as Margaret Mitchell is a 20th century author, thus not having the excuse of true cultural moral dissonance to shield her, really grated on my nerves."

I have to disagree on this point, Genia. Margaret Mitchell was presenting Southern culture through the eyes of a true, red-blooded Southerner. Not only that, but she herself was only one or two generations removed from the war and a Southern girl herself, and grew up with the wistful nostalgia for the antebellum South; she probably has a different view of the story than we textbook-fed 21st century readers do. In any case, I don't think she did ever mean to go out of her way to express any personally-held opinions about social strata, poverty or slavery. Of course some of the influence of her background naturally just shown through, but I don't think she condoned or upheld everything she presented, and I think there was truth to some of her representations that we find hard to swallow--for instance, that the North was not at all squarely in the right (in fact I have serious doubts that our part in the war was justified at all, but that's another story.)

And I'm probably going to get some hate mail over this, but setting the slaves free just like that really wasn't a great idea. There really were more well-treated slaves than Harriet Tubmans (not that that made slavery at all right), and many of them really had been treated like children all their lives. Regardless of their actual mental abilities, some of them had no preparation to make their way in the world, had no idea how to start life on their own and were easy prey for Northerners who were just as happy to take advantage of them as their former masters. Slavery was wrong, but what their "deliverers" did for them did not set things right, and the results still afflict South-North and race relations to this day. (And since this is already a bit of a tangent, I won't go into the details of the actual practical motivations for the Emancipation Proclamation.)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean about "the excuse of true cultural moral dissonance," but I don't think the 20th or 21st centuries are any more enlightened than the 19th century, or the 19th century B.C. (though I do hope somewhat more than the middle ages). And there is plenty of "dissonance" between morals and culture in our day as in times before. It's perfectly snobbish to "make allowances" or excuses for the worldviews of past generations when we are hardly if at all any better.

And Ashley was definitely the most exasperating. He had a perfect gem of a wife, and he betrayed her a thousand times, in his mind if not with his body, for a woman Melanie was worth five of. What an idiot. Neither Scarlett nor Ashley deserved their spouses. If it weren't for the fact that I can't imagine Rhett and Melanie as a couple...oh horrors. It's unimaginable. But perhaps Scarlett and Ashley should have had what they thought they wanted. It would have done them some good.

I think Scarlett would have become bored with Ashley if she did get what she wanted. She would have gone on to her next victim, I mean husband.

Genia wrote: "The thing that exasperated me most with the book was the author's deliberate blindness for issues of race, poverty, social strata and caste.

I can excuse the heroine by being just an obnoxious, s..."

I don't think we should judge the attitudes and beliefs of a people who lived 160+ years ago based upon our belief systems and moral compasses of today. Even when MM wrote the book in the 1930's, the attitudes toward racial issues, etc.. were different than they are today. It is like comparing apples and oranges. Remember, MM cut her teeth on stories told by her relatives, people who lived through the struggles of the South during the era of Reconstruction. At the time she wrote GWTW there were still plenty of people alive who had lived through the horrors of the war. Attitudes about Yankees were (and in some areas still are) "unkind." It is all about your perspective. What was it Atticus Finch said in TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD about walking around in the shoes of the other person?

Jamie wrote: "I can't believe only one person mentioned Scarlett's relationship to her children. I mean, love triangle, seriously flawed characters--that's what the book is ABOUT and that's what makes it so goo..."

Jamie, this bothered me too. Scarlett was too narrowly focused on Ashley and keeping Tara to see the blessings she had right in front of her. Thank goodness, Melanie (and Rhett to some extent) was there for her first two children.

Willi wrote: "This story was, above all, a TRADEGY.Scarlett was the epitome of the word "SELFISH". She cared only for her own feelings.Yes she had 'sand', but only if it would benefit her.Poor Rhett knew what he..."
I'm totally agree with you!!!

1luvbooks wrote: "She has two other kids besides Bonnie in the book. One from Melanie's brother (I can't remember his name right now) and one from Frank- a girl named Ella. She pretty much neglected all of them. The..."


Wow, I can't remember that at all! Makes me want to re-read.

I'm so biased about this book since I loved the movie since I was about six. I watched every year with my family and cried, so I can't really say anything negative about it. I love all the characters, even as they did bad things because they're so well-developed.

I also read the sequel but it can't compare to the original.

The original is nothing at all like the sequel. I don't remember all the children either. In the movie all they showed was Bonnie and her untimely death.

That Scarlett and Rhett both loved each other so much, but they were too proud to show each other.
And that I invested days in this book just to have my heart torn to pieces in the last fifty pages. I guess the total desolation of everything happy in the book reflects the total desolation of Southern society, but I would have much preferred a happy or even bittersweet ending.

Scarlett's inability to understand people or complex events. She was so childish! But I love her so much...

the racism. by far.

i hate that scarlett loves rhett so much she needs to aceppt that hes not in love with her

I enjoy reading historical books that are as factual as possible, not revised to fit today's morals and attitudes even though they can be frustrating. I always found Scarlett to be a spoiled princess, albeit a very intelligent, cunning, and loyal one. At times I wanted her to open her eyes and see Ashley for what he was and move on, but he was her first love who just could do no wrong.
I felt that Melly, Ashley, and Rhett were the most aware of what was happening to their world and each had their own way of coping or not coping with it. Scarlett was the most adaptable, she wasn't going to let the gossips stop her from keeping Tara or her loved ones from harm. A true survivalist.
Most annoying? Scarlett's obsession of Ashley. Ashley's weaknesses. It's a toss up.

I read & adored all three books. I LIKED Scarlett. Yeah, she was a spoiled brat, but like others have said, she had the gumption to get her hands dirty & do what she had to do to keep body & soul together for not just herself, but her family, who she couldn't STAND. I adored Rhett, but I've always had a weak spot for a bad boy with a wicked smile :)

Truly, I couldn't stand either Ashley OR Melanie. He was a pathetic excuse for a man, & she was no better. How can you call a woman that marries her first cousin & then has an inbred baby sane & stable?

Ashley's inability to deal with real life and Scarlett finding that attractive in him.

scarlett's obsession with Ashley, the writer's assumption that we think Scarlett's narcissism is not only normal but loveable and of course the whole race thing. Nothing in the book about how most ex-slaves split as soon as they could and didn't hang around still working for free for people who bought and sold them. Also Melanie is too good, Rhett too masculine and Ashley too wimpy.

Jane wrote: "scarlett's obsession with Ashley, the writer's assumption that we think Scarlett's narcissism is not only normal but loveable and of course the whole race thing. Nothing in the book about how most..."

Sounds like you didn't like the book much.

Mitchell's racism may a product of the South and I can understand her roots as an Atlantan, but the blithe tone of "happy darkies" still, given the audience for this book, only affirms the inaccuracy of her version of history. Is it OK because it's " only a book" ? I think it has to be part of the critical evaluation of it.