It's perverse of me perhaps to make my first review of a Mary Wesley novel - of her 10 novels for adults, 3 for young readers, and other works, almost all engrossing, even fascinating - this one. The one I probably still like the least.
But bear with me, there are reasons for this, which I'll try to explain.
At first reading, this was the only Wesley novel I gave up on, part-through. At p79, to be exact ( I even made a note, surprised also at myself - I'd enjoyed all four novels I'd read previously, either a lot, with a few qualifications, or immensely.) This one seemed a dreary read, to put it mildly ... and the fact that the storyline and its "staging" seemed ideally suited to a filmscript, were no consolation.
Stifling, smothering pages of a woman, the central character, subjected to protractedtorment. A torment that transmits itself also to readers (correction: to this reader. I should never seek to speak for other readers!)
Rose seems for so long to be a lifelong sacrificial lamb, caught up in a net of constricting parental expectations, and the demands first of them, then of men, some seeming kind, but all demanding she please them, and must fit in with them. To switch my metaphor, a bird with clipped wings, trapped in a cage of exploitative convention, esp. by a mother who appears determined - a very Wesleyan theme here! - to take vengeance for her own disappointments in life on her own daughter, replicating and imposing on that victim, her own flesh and blood, her own feelings and life of slavery. But also selfishly seeking her own release through a joyless, hopeless financial security acquired via a daughter she cruelly dominates.
Mylo, the love interest of sorts, the illicit rebellion of sorts, develops as a moody, capricious free spirit pleasing only himself, expecting to turn up ad lib and find Rose immediately ready to drop everything and fit in with his desires, to his own satisfaction.
Wesley's fiction abounds with cunning manipulators, often deluding themselves that they are doing nothing wrong - a strong satirical, puckish and socially critical element common to her fiction, I believe one of its great features - but for many pages, this novel seemed to present a world of dessicated, life-squashing snobs as well as rank hypocrites, exploiters and creeps. With no prospect of escape or release - not even the tantalisation of Rose with a shocking elopement (the first sense of "Not That Sort of Girl"- that she could not bring herself to abandon her decent but deadly boring husband) looked a good choice, Mylo too being a self-centred, exploitative me-me creep.
There are many such cases in Wesley's fiction of girls and young women who are trapped in one way or another by convention, expectation, parents, men, by women friends too in some cases: some rebel (often by sexual means of one sort or another); some not able, or not willing.
Those who are awake enough, value themselves enough (and refuse to let their own self-esteem be crushed) and find courage, spirit enough to take the bold steps - risking financial indigence and social shunning (social outlaw status), risking wasting their own lives in a different way - of fighting a smothered, exploited existence, or simply slipping away from it all and trying their luck, however they can, under their own steam, on their own terms, and at their own hazard ... these young women gain much credit with Wesley, and the plots show them more likely to find a measure of fortune than those who comply, conform and submit. They - the fully-fledged heroines of these novels, no longer merely central characters - are the most likely to achieve some measure of happiness finally.
Wesley can be very cruel to her central characters. She may appear to move them around like pieces in a game, and wantonly make them suffer horrible slings and arrows (see "Jumping The Queue"!).
But then, a novel IS a game, not real life! And I imagine that Wesley would have thought that the cruelties in her novels are not half as savage as the cruelties of real life - or the cruelties that real people (especially selfish, exploitative, vengeful people) can subject others to.
Not for here, but I would suggest that Wesley uses certain "disidentification techniques", to separate her characters from her readers, to make the latter feel affronted, outraged, insulted by what the central characters are put through, and NOT to accept a similar fate, but to rage against the dying of a light that others switch off for them ....
Which brings me back to why I broke off from this novel at p79. It was just too much. I wasn't so much enraged at Rose, I was dispirited by her lack of fight, dismayed by the constant crushing of that fair Rose, that seemed to go on and on without respite (Mylo being - as suggested above - a false solution, a flatterer to deceive, to dismay even more wholly).
And now the good news, and the irony in the title of the novel. Because at last, at long last, Rose emerges as Not That Sort of Girl in a different sense. Not the sort who turns down illicit affairs she emotionally needs because that would not be proper (Stage I); not the sort who abandons her husband for a chancer lover, because that would be unfair (and would be a high risk, given Mylo) - Stage II; but finally - Stage III - "Not The Sort of Girl" to be everybody's trodden-on doormat for ever and a day. Rose finally comes into her own and is - her own sort of girl - and hallelujah for that!
It took so long, and I gave up on Rose, and her book (reader, I even threw it into the corner, and started "Second Fiddle" - immediately a more vital, crackling book, a 4.5 stars! - before deciding to give Not That Sort of Girl another chance. And I am glad I did. But still, for Mary Wesley's - for so very long - least satisfying novel for me - only 3 stars. My vengeance, if you like, for all that torment! :D
Reader, persevere if you can. The ending may not be sweetly happy. But it redeems a great deal!