Gone with the Wind discussion

Vrsh wrote: "Well, Adria, we do admire her for her free-willed spirit, and her strong-willed quality as well...Never denied that.But since that wasnt the topic of discussion, it just didnt seem that obvious.

..."

Read Scarlett, Rhett finds her and Scarlets daughter little Kat O'hara Butler!!!

Mike wrote: "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 inaccur..."

Actually, Mitchell was very close to Atlanta's black community, and came close to losing her status because of that. I expect she wrote what she heard about "darkies" from older women who had lived through the War.

Connie wrote: "I was exasperated at Ashley's inability to admit his love of Melanie to Scarlett. Ashley's actions only flamed Scarlett's obsession. As in life, we can't always see what we have is actually what we..."

That was the most irritating part.

Marian wrote: "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, friend..."

Beg to differ. Mitchell was very close to Atlanta's black community - closer than a white woman should have been, back then.- I believe she wrote down what she heard from women who had actually lived through the War, and she portrayed their attitudes toward "darkies" fairly accurately.

David wrote: "The most exasperating thing about GWTW is its lack of historical accuracy and racism. This novel and the movie distort the Reconstruction period and glorifies a klan like group. It's message is tha..."

Mitchell portrayed the time and mores quite accurately. The racism existed, and she didn't water it down. The KKK was viewed as Mitchell portrayed it. She didn't pull any punches. Scarlett's attitude toward "The Glorious Cause" reflected Mitchell's.

Scarlett's blindness for rhett n her obsession abt ashly...

The most exasperating things about GWTW for me is the Scarlett/Ashley relationship and the ending....I always want to scream out at the end of the movie "IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY" of course without these exasperating things the book nor the movie would have been the success it was.

Sharon wrote: "The most exasperating things about GWTW for me is the Scarlett/Ashley relationship and the ending....I always want to scream out at the end of the movie "IT DIDN'T HAVE TO BE THIS WAY" of course wi..."

Yes I agree it is exasperating when characters do what you don't want them to do lol. You just want to grab and shake them. But also, Scarlet kinda got what she deserved, she pushed Rhett one too many times.

J.R. wrote: "That Scarlett just WUVED being raped by her husband!

Gag!!!"

Agreed X100

Mj wrote: "J.R. wrote: "That Scarlett just WUVED being raped by her husband!

Gag!!!"

Agreed X100"

I wouldn't call it rape, because I think she wanted to sleep Rhett but they were going through a rough patch and once again she is too damn stubborn to admit her true feelings.

As pretty much everyone else is saying, how obsessed Scarlett was with Ashley when she had Rhett, who was her perfect match, and truly loved her.
Also, I hate how her first two children are so insignificant to her, and Bonnie is clearly the most important one.

To my understanding, Melanie was NOT the saintly character. As Scarlett said to her, "Melanie, what a perfect liar you are!" It was meant to be a compliment because she had just lied about the soldier being killed in Tara but it changed my attitude toward Melanie throughout the book. At least when Scarlett lied everyone knew it!

And, what we must also keep in mind, Scarlett was only 16 years old at the start of the book and Rhett (whom I love) was not a young fellow. I think he was 40.

And, lastly. Scarlett saved Tara, took care of her selfish, spoiled sisters, her deranged father (who might have been as weak as Ashley) and the slaves who needed her, too. She saved Melanie's life during the fire, kept everyone fed. While everyone else was mourning and in shock about the war and sitting back, she was taking care of her family. 16 years old.

I started reading the book when I was very young and have read it many times since. Think I'll read it again.

Although by the time she got back to Tara she was not 16.

Do you think she was 21 when she went back to Tara? I'm not sure how old but she sure had a lot of shocking memories by the time she was 21.

I also think Rhett's jealousy was what ended their relationship. He was so blinded by his jealousy that he didn't see the changes in Scarlet. She was a very young girl when he met her.

I know I have a romantic opinion of this story. I loved it so. How do you think the sequel should have been written? Rhett's people was truly the most disgusting book. The author did not read GWTW or it would have been so much better. I think Rhett went back to Tara after he cooled off and that they lived happily (passionately) ever after!

Well I read Rhett Butler's People and I liked it, just because it was from Rhett's point of view. There is the offical sequel Scarlett by Alexandria Ripley, and it starts right where Gone with the Wind left off. I haven't read it yet, but its definitely on my to read list.

Scarlett's blindfolded infatuation for Ashley which ultimately denies her the ability to see Rhett's affection for her hidden behind the veneer of his sardonic humour and bland indifference~!

The romanticization of slavery and the glorification of marital rape.

The death of Americans by Americans.

Anyone who wasn't Rhett. I had Yankee blood boiling I didn't know I had. Yes, I know this was, like anything else, a product of its time and place, and I got just enough of a sense that Mitchell didn't exactly approve of Scarlett's behavior, stating at one point Scarlett wanted a reputation for kindness and charity like her late mother without actually BEING kind or charitable, and that there was a sense of hypocrisy going on with just about everyone aside from Rhett, who was far too pragmatic to be anything else more often than not. Then he raped his wife.

That said, I thought the book was a beautifully written account of an awful time and place, idealized by wealthy people who lost everything at least in part because they owned other human beings. When the Lost Cause seems to deal primarily with slavery, its hard to support. Mitchell herself made the blacks in the books simpletons, even Mammy once or twice, incapable of taking care of themselves or smart enough to think they should. There's even a passage to that effect stating that the smart former slaves stayed with their former masters because they knew they couldn't take care of themselves.

Someone above said Roots was a good answer to Gone with the Wind. I'll add Cold Mountain to that, as this one dealt with how horrible war was and how hard it fell on the poor folk of the South who didn't really own slaves and had nothing to gain or lose through leaving the Union.

Scarlett grew a backbone,became self reliant. She would have done better to say to heck with Rhett and Ashley.

All of the characters are flawed (with the possible exception of Scarlett's mother), that's what makes them human and interesting.

I like this comment. The flaws of the characters are what make them come to life because that's how we all truly are.

I have just finished this book and absolutely loved it. No one was one dimensional in this book and it was such a thrilling read. I guess Scarlett's blindness to Ashley was the biggest gripe. It was frustrating, but that is part of the whole story. So I wouldn't change it.
Can I ask something? Not being American (I am Australian) I don't understand how the north were Republicans and the south Democrats. I thought it would be the other way around?

Jools wrote: "I have just finished this book and absolutely loved it. No one was one dimensional in this book and it was such a thrilling read. I guess Scarlett's blindness to Ashley was the biggest gripe. It wa..."
DISCLAIMER: NOT INTENDED TO START A POLITICAL DEBATE
Jools, the Republican party used to be the more progressive party--civil rights under Lincoln, conservation of natural resources under Theodore Roosevelt. The first Democrat president, Andrew Jackson, was from the south. This is a topic that has filled several books; I will try to give the short answer without simplifying it too much. The south were mostly Democrats, especially after the Civil War, because it was Republicans who imposed Reconstruction on them. Democrat "liberalism" began, mostly, with Franklin D. Roosevelt, because of the social programs he helped initiate and because he was sending weapons and equipment to Europe as early as, I believe, 1936. So the pre-Depression social Darwinism and the political isolationism (remember, we didn't show up in Europe to help with World War I till 1917)experienced a huge change under a Democrat. Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, championed equality and civil rights. Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, worked for the conservation of natural resources. The first national parks were set aside under his presidency. Republican conservatism and paranoia got a huge shot in the arm during the Nixon years, where he vilified war protesters and had an "enemies list" of over 1,000 people, including John Lennon (wtf, really?) Republican favoring of big business, tax cuts and deregulation came under Ronald Reagan and his Republican successors.

Republican conservatism appealed to Southerners. It was under a Democrat president that the Civil Rights act of 1964 was passed. LB Johnson was a Texan and ostensibly a "Dixiecrat" (a special breed of southern Democrat who may not have been a fan of FDR and his policies), yet he was the one who signed the Act.

The first President George Bush, who was then a senator, voted against it.

So the shift to Republicanism in the South is due mostly to ideological shifts in the parties. The first Democrat president was a southerner and a bit of a racist who forced thousands of Native people off their lands. Republicans were responsible for the "ruin" of the South's fortunes, which were almost entirely dependent upon slave labor.

And there's more to it than even this brief explanation. But that's the gist. Republican conservatism wasn't really all that pervasive until the 1970's.

To add a bit to what Lynne is saying above: what is and isn't considered "liberal" and "conservative" changes with the times. This is true anywhere. If there is one particular pattern I can personally see, it is that the South has largely been a small government-conservative part of the United States since the days of Thomas Jefferson. It wasn't until the late 60s and early 70s that the two parties really started to split along ideological lines as they exist today, as opposed to a time when there were liberal and conservative branches to both parties.

If this sort of thing really interests you, Rick Perlstein's "Nixonland" is a great nonfiction take on the late 60s when the modern versions of the two parties started forming.

Jools wrote: "I have just finished this book and absolutely loved it. No one was one dimensional in this book and it was such a thrilling read. I guess Scarlett's blindness to Ashley was the biggest gripe. It wa..."

I fail to see how you can love a book that glorifies slavery and the plantation way of life in the South. I'm a New Zealander, but I've spent time in the American South because my daughter married a Southerner and livedin the South for some years before moving to Missouri becasue of her job.
I "loved" Gone with the Wind when I read it at high school, before I read Carson McCullers or any other Southern literature. However, visiting North Carolina and seeing how entrenched old attitudes are, including racism and sexism, I found it depressing, particularly for such a beautiful part of the South.
As for south Carolina, it's hardly moved out of the Civil War era....

Being an avid reader, means having an open mind. Just because I "loved" Gone With the Wind, does not mean I agree with the politics of it. It doesn't mean that I agree with slavery. I meant it was a well written book, it gave me insight into that period of history, which I had little idea about. Being Australian, we don't get to study much American history at school.
I too have read Carson McCullers and enjoyed it.
I forgot that chat rooms of any type attract people getting their noses out of joint if others don't agree with them.
Thank you Lynne and Tom for your replies. It has helped me understand and clear a few things up for me. I appreciate it.

Jools wrote: "Being an avid reader, means having an open mind. Just because I "loved" Gone With the Wind, does not mean I agree with the politics of it. It doesn't mean that I agree with slavery. I meant it was..."
I didn't agree with the politics either, but Margaret Mitchell is a helluva writer. It took her ten years to write the book. That sort if perfectionism just isn't seen these days. Too bad she didn't write anything else in her short life (hopefully she would have expanded beyond slavery apologetics).

Remembering the society that produced these characters - Very typical of the era.

I totally agree with you Lynne and Lesley. This is the world she knew. Always write about what you know.

Jools wrote: "Being an avid reader, means having an open mind. Just because I "loved" Gone With the Wind, does not mean I agree with the politics of it. It doesn't mean that I agree with slavery. I meant it was..."

You deserve an apology, Jools. I looked at what I'd written and decided it was pompous, arrogant and self-opinionated. So sorry for that.

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..."

She didn't ignore it. She portrayed it would have been at the time and also she wrote it in the 1920's/1930's whilst living in the Southern United States when things were a lot different to how they are now.

Absolutely NOTHING!! I have loved this story since I first read it many years ago. It is my favourite movie of all time and inspired me to become a historical romance author!

Most exasperating was the whole of Southern slave/aristocratic culture. In an oblique way, MM critiques that culture by showing us what sorts of people it created. Then, those people are confronted with the destruction of their way of life and we get to see how they cope or don't. Everyone had to adapt or die, both slave or free.

Scarlett turned her manipulative skills to her advantage, coupled with her indomitable will. I like that about her. Mammy continued to rule the household and keep things in order. She demonstrated rectitude, strength, and yes, loyalty, not just to the white folks, but to all folks who came into her orbit. I liked her very much.

Melanie may have been the only character who exasperated me to no end. She was entirely too long-suffering, to butter-wouldn't-melt-in-her-mouth saintly for me. I suppose she had to be too good as Scarlett was too bad. Still, she got on my nerves. I often wanted to punt her. As Jamie said, she is the anti-Scarlett.

Tom wrote: "To add a bit to what Lynne is saying above: what is and isn't considered "liberal" and "conservative" changes with the times. This is true anywhere. If there is one particular pattern I can pers..."

Thanks for the rec, Tom.

Deborah wrote: "Mike wrote: "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 affirm..."

MM was a secret supporter of education for Black doctors. She was a product of her times and did have very definite ideas about the racial order of things, but I don't think she was a racist. She did, however, have to fit in, though she did so very sparingly, with her peers.

Margaret Mitchell's racism. She completely distorted history. Her version of slavery is that it was benign and that the only good blacks were people like Mammy who forsook her own family to care for her white folks. Mitchell also erred on Reconstruction. It's a noxious book.

Hi Robyn,
Apology accepted. All forgotten. I just like discussing books and know that differences of opinion come up at times. Anyway moving on. All is good.
Jules

Jools wrote: "Hi Robyn,
Apology accepted. All forgotten. I just like discussing books and know that differences of opinion come up at times. Anyway moving on. All is good.
Jules" Thanks Jules. I'll stick to the book next time!

David wrote: "Margaret Mitchell's racism. She completely distorted history. Her version of slavery is that it was benign and that the only good blacks were people like Mammy who forsook her own family to care fo..."
I have to agree, David.

David wrote: "Margaret Mitchell's racism. She completely distorted history. Her version of slavery is that it was benign and that the only good blacks were people like Mammy who forsook her own family to care fo..."

You can't say that Margaret Mitchell was a racist from a work of FICTION she produced.

The thing that irked me the most was that nobody--starting with her father in the first chapter--grabbed Scarlett, slapped the s**t out of her, and told her to get over herself. The closest anyone came to that was when Rhett walked out on her after saying, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."

Scarlett's stupid obsession to Ashley

Money and beauty are powerful personality builders. Scarlett was blessed to have both, but in many ways it made her the victim of those that cherished such traits. Ashley was the only man she had ever met, that was not motivated by those powers. Every woman wants to be loved for who she, not for just the shell in which her soul travels.

Thank you, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!! I can't believe how many people those issues in the book are lost on!

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..."

Connie wrote: "I was exasperated at Ashley's inability to admit his love of Melanie to Scarlett. Ashley's actions only flamed Scarlett's obsession. As in life, we can't always see what we have is actually what we..."

I had he told Scarlett she still wouldn't have believed him.