Victorians! discussion

For discussion of these chapters

Accidental comments before I remembered that it's not commenting time...I got carried away! Just ignore me. :)
(view spoiler)[
I found the opening pleasant, if a little lacking in...narrative drive? I'm not actually sure what the plot is yet, if there's to be one.

Interesting that the narrator is such a blank slate.

But it's funny and sweet, and very easy to like. (hide spoiler)]

You're so funny! Are you enjoying the book? I plan to wait only because I'm trying to finish at least one of the books I'm currently reading. Cranford is calling out to me though! :-)

I am! I think - without giving away anything about plot at all - Gaskell's terrific at painting scenes and evoking characters. And it's really, really funny - a big compliment from me, because comedy somehow doesn't often work for me in books.

I am also finding it funny. There doesn't seem much of a plot from what I can tell but I don't think the book really needs it. The point is to get humor out of the every day lives of the women of Cranford. I don't even think the narrator is given a name from what I can tell.

Hope to be starting it today ...

Me too.

I recently read Cranford for another discussion and I had also read it about a year ago when the mini-series appeared. For me, it is just a delightful book that is such a break from much that I read. I do recommend watching the film in conjunction with the book, even if it draws on additional stories and gets a bit confused.

I believe the narrator eventually gets a name (Mary?) -- I am posting from memory.

Yes, I think Mary is the relative who stays with them awhile?? Sounds familiar.

We therefore discussed the circumstance of the Captain taking a poor old woman's dinner out of her hands one very slippery Sunday. He had met her returning from the bakehouse as he came from church, and noticed her precarious footing; and, with the grave dignity with which he did everything, he relieved her of her burden, and steered along the street by her side, carrying her baked mutton and potatoes safely home. This was thought very eccentric; and it was rather expected that he would pay a round of calls, on the Monday morning, to explain and apologise to the Cranford sense of propriety:...

Can anyone explain why this action was considered so improper? I didn't get it.

He endeavoured to make peace with Miss Jenkyns soon after the memorable dispute I have named, by a present of a wooden fire-shovel (his own making), having heard her say how much the grating of an iron one annoyed her. She received the present with cool gratitude, and thanked him formally. When he was gone, she bade me put it away in the lumber-room; feeling, probably, that no present from a man who preferred Mr Boz to Dr Johnson could be less jarring than an iron fire-shovel.

I adore the wooden fire shovel story. (view spoiler)[I forget right now when Miss Jenkyns finally consents to use it. (hide spoiler)]

Miss Jenkyns wore a cravat, and a little bonnet like a jockey-cap, and altogether had the appearance of a strong-minded woman; although she would have despised the modern idea of women being equal to men. Equal, indeed! she knew they were superior.

LOL!

(The text is online several places. I am using this today: http://www.gutenberg.org/catalog/worl...)

Miss Matty is played by Dame Judi Dench in the BBC production.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0974077/

Haaaaa, I was just about to say that I hope Judi Dench was involved in the movie.

I was stumped as to why they were so aghast at that scene too. Being too nice to poor people? But they state later on that the Cranford ladies are only cruel to those just beneath their social class; those way beneath them are considered harmless, and therefore kindness to them is approved. In the light of that explanation (sorry, can't remember precisely where I saw it), this episode makes even less sense.

It was probably because he was walking down the street beside her. Maybe this was only for men to do when they were married or engaged in Cranford? The fact that she was poor may have made it worse. Crandord seems to try and follow social rules but to me they seem to mess things up or not do it in a way people would in a larger city. When it comes to men, which there are few, they seem to have even stranger notions.

Yes, I guess they do treat them as aliens in a way :) Good way to put it!

What I really liked about these first chapters was the very beginning: In the first place, Cranford is in possession of the Amazons; all the holders of houses above a certain rent are women. If a married couple come to settle in the town, somehow the gentleman disappears; he is either fairly frightened to death by being the only man in the Cranford evening parties, or he is accounted for by being with his regiment, his ship, or closely engaged in business all the week in the great neighbouring commercial town of Drumble, distant only twenty miles on a railroad. In short, whatever does become of the gentlemen, they are not at Cranford

I don't quite agree with thouse who say that this is not a feminist novel. Of course not in the XX century sense; it couldn't be. But looking at things only from a womanly point of view, with all its idiosincracy is quite a breaking with the world as it was known till then, I think.
Lovley also the "Elegant Economy" "Elegant economy!" How naturally one falls back into the phraseology of Cranford! There, economy was always "elegant," and money-spending always "vulgar and ostentatious"; a sort of sour- grapeism which made
us very peaceful and satisfied...

I'm hoping to save that debate for the end of the discussion - I'm afraid it'll overwhelm the conversation otherwise - but at some point, I'm really looking forward to the debate over whether this is feminist or not. I think it'll be a really interesting topic.

But again, personally I hope we discuss that last - after we've all finished it.

Anna wrote: "I had trouble with the lack of plot. I'm not going to go into specifics yet, but it really bothered me.
[spoilers removed]"

Hi Anna,

I do agree with you on this point; the lack of plot gets me a little bored. I might make many of you laugh but as soon as I start the book,it makes me think about the TV series 'Desperate Housewives' which is much funnier. Off course the setting and context is completely different.
Anyway, what does strike me in the first chapters is that each time there is at least one character who died? It brings a kind of melancholy atmosphere right from the start.
So it might be interesting to ask ourselves why does it happen so?

Sebastien wrote: "Anyway, what does strike me in the first chapters is that each time there is at least one character who died? It brings a kind of melancholy atmosphere right from the start. So it might be interesting to ask ourselves why does it happen so? ..."

Death was much more a part of daily life in Victorian times than it is today. I don't recall having read commentary on Cranford per se, but I have read elsewhere on how different is our relationship to death today than 100-150 years ago, before the days of safer childbirth and the miracles of antibiotics, let alone other medical interventions.

It seems to me that even as a child 50 years ago, funerals were a more usual part of our lives than I experience today, with memorial services without the deceased bodily present frequently replacing other rites. Even though young death is less frequent, we may be distancing our experiences of death.

My own sense is not one of melancholy so much as of the preciousness of life and the need to live it fully while it is available. But, maybe that is melancholy, (view spoiler)[such as we will see with the life of Miss Matty. (hide spoiler)]

(I think that comment is more a foreshadowing than a spoiler, but since the view of spoilers is so diverse, I have hidden it.)

Lily wrote: "Sebastien wrote: "Anyway, what does strike me in the first chapters is that each time there is at least one character who died? It brings a kind of melancholy atmosphere right from the start. So i..."

Thanks a lot for that piece of information. I haven't even thought about that. I think I'm really going to enjoy this buddy read as I'm sure I'll learn a lot.

Sebastien wrote: "...thought about that...."

Thx for your response, Sebastian. I did edit my post even after yours, so you might want to check on whether I said anything significantly different. (I'm not sure! LOL!)

I do agree with you Lily: reading Paula I realized just because Allende pointed it out, that what we consider something contrary to nature - i.e. loosing a child - was up till a century ago a quite normal things: it was one of the reason that people had so many children - a part the non existance of scientifically good contraceptive...

Lily wrote: "Sebastien wrote: "...thought about that...."

Thx for your response, Sebastian. I did edit my post even after yours, so you might want to check on whether I said anything significantly different. ..."

Oops! Sorry, I did not spot it. I would have thanked you for your reply anyway.

Sebastien wrote: "...."

Oops! The sorry is on my side for misspelling your name!

Something I've been discussing with Susanna in another thread: is it possible to discuss Cranford without using the word "charming?" It'd be like literary Taboo. Like trying to talk about The Road without saying "bleak."

My answer: "no" and "no."

Alex wrote: "Something I've been discussing with Susanna in another thread: is it possible to discuss Cranford without using the word "charming"? ..."

LOL! I don't recall using the word relative to it, but now that you mention it....

Maybe we could banish it to the end, like any discussion of whether this is a feminist novel?

P.S. -- looking back, I see that my word of choice is "delightful."

Sebastien wrote: "Anna wrote: "I had trouble with the lack of plot. I'm not going to go into specifics yet, but it really bothered me.
[spoilers removed]"

Hi Anna,

I do agree with you on this point; the lack of ..."

I love the comparison to Desperate Housewives. I wonder what people reading this when it was originally published thought of the ladies and town. Would it have been shocking for all these ladies to live without a male figure or would it have seemed normal because death and being away to support their family was normal. I would think the last.

I enjoyed the "author feud" concerning the merits of Pickwick papers versus Dr. Johnson. The scene where the sickly sister succombed was emotional, and my favorite character is Matty. What a fun read....

Judy wrote: "I enjoyed the "author feud" concerning the merits of Pickwick papers versus Dr. Johnson..."

Agreed! That feud turns poignant as the stories move on.

One of my favorite anecdotes is the red umbrella, in large part because it evokes memories of my first umbrella -- I grew up in a part of the country with relatively little rain, so they weren't a given part of everyone's gear. It was a gift from my first fiance (the romance didn't last) and we had been to the movie "Tom Jones" that night -- I still own the hardcover, slipcased illustrated (never read) copy he gave me of the book, but not the umbrella!

I can testify to a magnificent family red silk umbrella, under which a gentle little spinster, left alone of many brothers and sisters, used to patter to church on rainy days. Have you any red silk umbrellas in London? We had a tradition of the first that had ever been seen in Cranford; and the little boys mobbed it, and called it "a stick in petticoats." It might have been the very red silk one I have described, held by a strong father over a troop of little ones; the poor little lady--the survivor of all--could scarcely carry it.

When I encountered this, it fascinated me how a short, randomly encountered passage could evoke such strong memories. Another of the pleasures (and pain) of reading.

"a stick in petticoats." -- can you imagine!

Anna wrote: "I'm still having trouble with the style, sort of multiple vignettes that creep forward two steps and then digress thirty years into the past, but I am starting to spy a bit of a plot...."

I watch very little TV, so don't really "know" "Desperate Housewives." Do you consider that to have a "plot", or are its episodes also vignettes with a direction?

Hi Anna and Lilly,

Don't be sorry for the spelling of my name. It often happens but I don't mind.

Why did that comparison pop into my head?
It's hard to tell but it's certainly because I love 'Desperate Houseviwes'; beside this evening, there are the two last episodes of the season; I'm so disappointed. I think it strikes me because the 'plot' ,if I can tell, appears to bear resemblance to the soap.
This is the story of a very affluent neigbourhood where all the inhabitants have a bond of friendship and share their daily life. However each inhabitants has their past and it is not always as good as we think, and it leads to conspiracy and murder and so on...

Anna wrote: "...One thing that does bother me about Cranford is the general air of always judging others..."

Wonderful observation! My conclusion was that Gaskell is commenting on that very trait by exposing it so clearly, but it will be interesting to hear what others observe.

Also in Cranford, the ladies meet regularly to share the tea, cakes and have women subject of conversation. There is a the same kind of thing in the Desperate Housewives; they meet to play poker and so on....

We'll have to return to the subject of judging, because I feel like over the course of the book I started to get the sense that for all their gossip, they were sortof all bark no bite - more inclusive than they'd like to appear.

Patriziabr wrote: "Rules of a small community can be oppressive but, there is also a kind of mutual support I like very much"

I liked these passages relative to this topic of judging, oppressiveness, and support:

"Although the ladies of Cranford know all each other's proceedings, they are exceedingly indifferent to each other's opinions. Indeed, as each has her own individuality, not to say eccentricity, pretty strongly developed, nothing is so easy as verbal retaliation; but, somehow, good-will reigns among them to a considerable degree.

"The Cranford ladies have only an occasional little quarrel, spirited out in a few peppery words and angry jerks of the head; just enough to prevent the even tenor of their lives from becoming too flat..." Chapter 1

"But, to be sure, what a town Cranford is for kindness! I don't suppose any one has a better dinner than usual cooked but the best part of all comes in a little covered basin for my sister. The poor people will leave their earliest vegetables at our door for her. They speak short and gruff, as if they were ashamed of it: but I am sure it often goes to my heart to see their thoughtfulness." Chapter 2

I just finished the first three chapters and a few things struck me:

1. The narrator relates everyday life in Cranford, but we don't know much about herself. She has a father, whose shirts she makes, and I guess she is a relation of the Miss Jenkynses. Maybe a niece, grand niece, a second cousin once removed....? It's a bit weird reading about her "I" and "we" without knowing who she is.

2. How very unceremoniously Miss Jenkyns is written off. She was one of the major characters that we have met so far yet she is out just like that

3. Captain Brown's death was very sudden. I liked him a lot and found myself going "What?! NO!" when he died. I think that is proof that Mrs Gaskell managed to draw me into her story (although I am predisposed to like it because I adore the miniseries:-)).

The scene where they protect the carpet from the sun with newspapers had me laughing out loud!

Patriziabr wrote: "Oh, Nina, when I was a child my mother did it! Italian sun was very hard for a wool carpet!"

I can imagine. There were no carpets in my parents' house, except on the top floor where I slept. But that carpet was an old, grey, careworn carpet so it didn't matter if the sun shone on it. And I would imagine the Italian sun would be "worse" than the Danish one anyway:)

Lily wrote: "We therefore discussed the circumstance of the Captain taking a poor old woman's dinner out of her hands one very slippery Sunday. He had met her returning from the bakehouse as he came from churc..."

I didn't understand why but for some reason I found it hilarious that it was considered ill-bred. Maybe he wasn't supposed to notice she was having trouble? Or maybe it was beneath him as a man to carry food?
Or it was perceived as intrusive & not helpful?

What a group of "odd birds" there are here in Cranford!

Jackie, I promise they'll grow on you. I can't promise you'll find a plot - there is one, but it's a bit hidden - but the characters are better than they think they are.

Nina, I found the anonymity of the narrator curious as well. She finally (and nonchalantly) introduces herself somewhere around chapter 12. I wonder why Gaskell chose to do that.

I also loved the scene of the oranges. How indelicate to "suck" an orange! I loved that so many of the scenes are in the BBC production, even the oranges and the pet cow in flannel pjs.

Charming, delightful ... yes, those two words definitely describe Cranford. They may be judgmental, but they do care very much for each other.

Ellie, you might be right that it was "wrong" for Capt. Brown to notice that she was having trouble. The Cranford ladies seem to close their eyes to smaller problems and pretend they are not there, like with Mrs Forrester and her tea-tray under the sofa. But the fact that he is a man probably didn't help:)

Alex, I am glad she introduces herself later on because I want to know who she is:) But maybe Gaskell keeps her in the background to make the Cranford ladies stand more out? Maybe it's a way of letting us know that this is about Cranford and its concerns and not the narrator, whoever she might be

Agreed, that's probably it, Nina. But she's so obstinately anonymous that it sorta draws attention to itself; it became a mystery to me. Distracting. Probably not what Gaskell intended.

Jackie Renee wrote: "I keep looking at the cattle in my neighbor's field, wondering what they would look like in flannel. (Maybe as a Hallowe'en prank). ..."

LOL! I don't know which makes me chuckle more, the image in my imagination or the way the poor cow looks in the BBC film. And the narrator thinks Captain Brown intended to be cynical? Not sure I understand the significance of falling in a lime pit, but I presume it was fairly caustic to the hide and hair?

I was in stitches at this woman dressing her cow. I wanted to feel touched but mostly I was just laughing.

And the paths of paper stitched together-they must have spent a lot of time sewing. Not to mention the paper must have been sturdier than they are now. Wouldn't the paper just rip or could this still be done?

But now I'm in chapter 3 & is anyone else having as much trouble as I am adjusting to the change of tone? Boy, did I not see any of this coming.

I assume we get back to a gentler tone soon.

I feel the same way, Ellie...I find that the quick death scenes are somewhat unnerving. Is it me or does it seem as if all the men are dying?