What do you think?
Rate this book
Who Betrays Elizabeth Bennet?: Further Puzzles in Classic Fiction
In this sequel to his popular works Is Heathcliff a Murderer? and Can Jane Eyre Be Happy?, John Sutherland unravels thirty-four new literary puzzles, once again combining erudition with bold investigative speculation. In addition to these new conundrums, Professor Sutherland revisits some previous puzzles with the help of readers who offer their own ingenious solutions and who set fresh puzzles for exploration. Victorian drug habits, railway systems, sanitation and dentistry are only a few of the details that shed light on the motives and circumstances of some of literature's most famous characters. Elizabeth Bennet, Betsey Trotwood, Count Dracula, Anna Karenina, Alice and many more come under the spotlight in John Sutherland's highly entertaining collection. Bringing good humor and good sense back to literary criticism, Who Betrays Elizabeth Bennet? offers scintillating forensic exercises that are as compelling as the plots they dissect.
272 pages, Paperback
First published September 23, 1999
1 person is currently reading
320 people want to read
About the author
John Sutherland
252 books195 followersJohn Andrew Sutherland is a British academic, newspaper columnist and author. He is Emeritus Lord Northcliffe Professor of Modern English Literature at University College London.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
April 23, 2024
Who Betrays Elizabeth Bennet? Further Puzzles in Classic Fiction, is is another book in the series by John Sutherland, of literary conundrums, ideal for brainboxes to get their teeth into. The author is a British academic, a Professor of English literature with a distinguished record. These are further puzzles; here Sutherland has widened his purview to include more than his favourite Victorian age. The conundrums still all have their source in classic novels, but this time a couple are from an earlier time, and two or three are not English. The puzzles remain far more stimulating and satisfying for a reader who is conversant with the novels themselves. However, John Sutherland writes so entertainingly that each piece could act as a trigger to read an unknown work.
The premise here is that a novel should be authentic and believable; both internally consistent and also true to the times. Thirty-three novels are chosen, and for each one there is a separate essay, plus another general one entitled "Name Games". John Sutherland carefully analyses the text, highlighting apparent inconsistencies, anachronisms and oversights. He explains historical references, which a modern reader may not know, and also points out the context within the author's body of work. Sometimes it becomes clear though, that the author probably just forgot a minor detail.
One chapter entitled "Is Betsey Trotwood a spinster?" is about the character "Aunt Betsey" in Charles Dickens's novel "David Copperfield". John Sutherland focuses entirely on the events as they unfold through the action and reported action. We learn right at the start of the novel that Aunt Betsey had been married to a man considerably younger than herself, who was "strongly suspected of having beaten Miss Betsey", and - unusually for a female at that time - that she had managed to free herself from him by paying him off. He then went to India, and she moved to the coast and reverted to her maiden name. Interestingly we are also told later (in chapter 47) that Aunt Betsey believed her husband had married another woman, presumably bigamously. Word then reached Aunt Betsey "within ten years" that he had died. Hence, we deduce she is a widow.
Add into the mix the fact that living in Aunt Betsey's house is another man, Mr. Dick, described by Sutherland as an "amiable lunatic". Aunt Betsey seems to have sole change of this man. She even changed his name from "Richard Babley". (Even more interestingly, he is actually based on the real-life artist Richard Dadd ... but that is not pertinent here!) Yet given the conventions of the day, he is a valuable commodity, possessing £100 a year of his own, plus about £3000 in savings. Why should a court happily "give away his adoption to an eccentric old woman who felt sorry for him and had no near connection with him"? Why did she ever even come across him in an asylum - what was she doing there? Was it possible that she was incarcerated herself, after her first disastrous marriage?
About a third of the way through the novel we become aware that this first husband is not dead after all. David refers to him as "my aunt's persecutor", a mysterious man who frightens Betsey and preys on her for money.
We learn as the novel proceeds that Betsey's former husband had gambled away all her money - and yet in a couple of interchanges it is clear that he has still has some hold over her. There seems to have been a separation, but no actual divorce, despite his remarriage. Sutherland points out that as a bigamist he would be, "in no position to apply any blackmailing pressure at all on his abused former wife. He would be in mortal fear of criminal prosecution." Betsey is an independent, formidable plucky woman. She is not cowed by the Murdstones, or by Uriah Heep. Why then does she fear this man? Is it because, according to the law at that time, if they had never gone through an actual divorce (which was a very unusual circumstance needing an Act of Parliament in those days) then her property should revert to her husband?
The book isn't only about "catching the author out" however. Interestingly Dickens's mentor and biographer John Forster refers to Betsey Trotwood as "Mrs Trotwood" which implies that he was aware of Dickens's intentions as to the storyline - and also the legal implications of what had actually happened in the novel.
Also in doubt is whether Betsey Trotwood's first husband (who remains nameless throughout) ever actually went to India, and what, if anything other than a vain hope, had led her to believe that he had died.
Sutherland speculates about an apparent digression in chapter 33, about "Thomas Benjamin" a bigamist with a scam involving routinely entrapping and marrying eligible young women. He would use only part of his name so as to be able to prove in the future - when he had tired of them - that the marriage had never been legal. If a woman like Betsey Trotwood had been taken in in this manner, she would hardly be likely to own to it. If such a scenario pertained, then one could argue that Betsey Trotwood may never have been anything other than a spinster.
So are these mistakes on the part of the author, as to property, inheritance, marital status and widowhood, changing of names - even the duration of the assumed time in India? Sutherland suggests that this might well be a case where Dickens used his common ploy of having several "back-up" plot lines up his sleeve, which he never actually used.
This overview is just of one essay. Other tempting conundrums in this collection include "Why Is the Monster Yellow?" ("Frankenstein") "How Long is Alice in Wonderland For?" ("Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"), "Heathcliff's toothbrush" ("Wuthering Heights") and the riveting answer to "Why are there no Public Conveniences in Casterbridge?" ("The Mayor of Casterbridge").
In each of the 34 chapters, or essays, John Sutherland quotes extracts of other authors' novels, explaining how they can sometimes be seen as evidence that something else is going on below the surface of the book; something which is not explicitly described. It's a fascinating read for those who have a certain type of mind. For others, it might prove frustrating, seem to miss the point, or be merely irrelevant. If like me you enjoy these "brainteasers", you will be pleased to hear that there are two more in the series. They are nice to dip into just after you have read a particular novel, although some puzzle fanatics with good memories might enjoy reading the book straight through.
Here is an alphabetical list of authors, each of whom have an essay devoted to one or more of their novels in this particular volume:
Jane Austen (3)
Charlotte Bronte
Emily Bronte
Lewis Carroll
Wilkie Collins (2)
Daniel Defoe
Charles Dickens (8)
Arthur Conan Doyle
George Eliot (2)
Henry Fielding
Elizabeth Gaskell (2)
Thomas Hardy
Walter Scott
Mary Shelley
Bram Stoker
W.M. Thackeray (2)
Leo Tolstoy
Anthony Trollope
Mark Twain
Jules Verne
Edit:
As to Dickens's own conclusion about whether it was Miss or Mrs Trotwood, in "David Copperfield"'s chapter 54, Aunt Betsey explains about her husband to David, and we finally have a conclusive answer. She asks him to go for a ride and tells him the reason she has been so troubled.
All the way through this had been one of the many tempting threads of mystery dangled in front of us, and the explanation, when it comes, is really just a bit of a let-down. Perhaps this is final proof that in cases of writers of serial fiction at least, conundrums are often just the result of flexible non-characters, which may be developed or not, as necessary.
The premise here is that a novel should be authentic and believable; both internally consistent and also true to the times. Thirty-three novels are chosen, and for each one there is a separate essay, plus another general one entitled "Name Games". John Sutherland carefully analyses the text, highlighting apparent inconsistencies, anachronisms and oversights. He explains historical references, which a modern reader may not know, and also points out the context within the author's body of work. Sometimes it becomes clear though, that the author probably just forgot a minor detail.
One chapter entitled "Is Betsey Trotwood a spinster?" is about the character "Aunt Betsey" in Charles Dickens's novel "David Copperfield". John Sutherland focuses entirely on the events as they unfold through the action and reported action. We learn right at the start of the novel that Aunt Betsey had been married to a man considerably younger than herself, who was "strongly suspected of having beaten Miss Betsey", and - unusually for a female at that time - that she had managed to free herself from him by paying him off. He then went to India, and she moved to the coast and reverted to her maiden name. Interestingly we are also told later (in chapter 47) that Aunt Betsey believed her husband had married another woman, presumably bigamously. Word then reached Aunt Betsey "within ten years" that he had died. Hence, we deduce she is a widow.
Add into the mix the fact that living in Aunt Betsey's house is another man, Mr. Dick, described by Sutherland as an "amiable lunatic". Aunt Betsey seems to have sole change of this man. She even changed his name from "Richard Babley". (Even more interestingly, he is actually based on the real-life artist Richard Dadd ... but that is not pertinent here!) Yet given the conventions of the day, he is a valuable commodity, possessing £100 a year of his own, plus about £3000 in savings. Why should a court happily "give away his adoption to an eccentric old woman who felt sorry for him and had no near connection with him"? Why did she ever even come across him in an asylum - what was she doing there? Was it possible that she was incarcerated herself, after her first disastrous marriage?
About a third of the way through the novel we become aware that this first husband is not dead after all. David refers to him as "my aunt's persecutor", a mysterious man who frightens Betsey and preys on her for money.
We learn as the novel proceeds that Betsey's former husband had gambled away all her money - and yet in a couple of interchanges it is clear that he has still has some hold over her. There seems to have been a separation, but no actual divorce, despite his remarriage. Sutherland points out that as a bigamist he would be, "in no position to apply any blackmailing pressure at all on his abused former wife. He would be in mortal fear of criminal prosecution." Betsey is an independent, formidable plucky woman. She is not cowed by the Murdstones, or by Uriah Heep. Why then does she fear this man? Is it because, according to the law at that time, if they had never gone through an actual divorce (which was a very unusual circumstance needing an Act of Parliament in those days) then her property should revert to her husband?
The book isn't only about "catching the author out" however. Interestingly Dickens's mentor and biographer John Forster refers to Betsey Trotwood as "Mrs Trotwood" which implies that he was aware of Dickens's intentions as to the storyline - and also the legal implications of what had actually happened in the novel.
Also in doubt is whether Betsey Trotwood's first husband (who remains nameless throughout) ever actually went to India, and what, if anything other than a vain hope, had led her to believe that he had died.
Sutherland speculates about an apparent digression in chapter 33, about "Thomas Benjamin" a bigamist with a scam involving routinely entrapping and marrying eligible young women. He would use only part of his name so as to be able to prove in the future - when he had tired of them - that the marriage had never been legal. If a woman like Betsey Trotwood had been taken in in this manner, she would hardly be likely to own to it. If such a scenario pertained, then one could argue that Betsey Trotwood may never have been anything other than a spinster.
So are these mistakes on the part of the author, as to property, inheritance, marital status and widowhood, changing of names - even the duration of the assumed time in India? Sutherland suggests that this might well be a case where Dickens used his common ploy of having several "back-up" plot lines up his sleeve, which he never actually used.
This overview is just of one essay. Other tempting conundrums in this collection include "Why Is the Monster Yellow?" ("Frankenstein") "How Long is Alice in Wonderland For?" ("Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"), "Heathcliff's toothbrush" ("Wuthering Heights") and the riveting answer to "Why are there no Public Conveniences in Casterbridge?" ("The Mayor of Casterbridge").
In each of the 34 chapters, or essays, John Sutherland quotes extracts of other authors' novels, explaining how they can sometimes be seen as evidence that something else is going on below the surface of the book; something which is not explicitly described. It's a fascinating read for those who have a certain type of mind. For others, it might prove frustrating, seem to miss the point, or be merely irrelevant. If like me you enjoy these "brainteasers", you will be pleased to hear that there are two more in the series. They are nice to dip into just after you have read a particular novel, although some puzzle fanatics with good memories might enjoy reading the book straight through.
Here is an alphabetical list of authors, each of whom have an essay devoted to one or more of their novels in this particular volume:
Jane Austen (3)
Charlotte Bronte
Emily Bronte
Lewis Carroll
Wilkie Collins (2)
Daniel Defoe
Charles Dickens (8)
Arthur Conan Doyle
George Eliot (2)
Henry Fielding
Elizabeth Gaskell (2)
Thomas Hardy
Walter Scott
Mary Shelley
Bram Stoker
W.M. Thackeray (2)
Leo Tolstoy
Anthony Trollope
Mark Twain
Jules Verne
Edit:
As to Dickens's own conclusion about whether it was Miss or Mrs Trotwood, in "David Copperfield"'s chapter 54, Aunt Betsey explains about her husband to David, and we finally have a conclusive answer. She asks him to go for a ride and tells him the reason she has been so troubled.
All the way through this had been one of the many tempting threads of mystery dangled in front of us, and the explanation, when it comes, is really just a bit of a let-down. Perhaps this is final proof that in cases of writers of serial fiction at least, conundrums are often just the result of flexible non-characters, which may be developed or not, as necessary.
May 21, 2021
This book is by no means flawless, it should be noted. An example of its flaws comes in the titular mystery of the book, where the author engages in some armchair psychology that argues that it was Charlotte Lucas, whose jealousy about the beauty of Elizabeth and the possibility that she could marry Fitzwilliam Darcy led her to try to sabotage it through telling Lady Catherine De Burgh, and thus leading to the classic ferocious conversation that in fact is what finally brings the hero and heroine together in marriage. Other commentators have rather intelligently noted that it was probably a gossipy Lucas who told the couple what was going on and it seems quite likely that it was William Collins who ended up telling Lady De Burgh. This is one example of several puzzles, and though the author appears to be most proud of his conclusion here, most of his other mystery messages are thankfully at least more plausible. This is not a book that solves puzzles as much as shows the cleverness (usually) of the author in finding solutions to puzzles that the author does not consider to be all that important, demonstrating how it is that authors kept, or failed to keep, enough balls in the air to deal with the potential of plot holes, not realizing how it is that novels would be read in the future.
This book is almost 250 pages and it is divided into a few essays that deal with various puzzles that the author is interested in classical novels. What sort of mysteries is the author interested in? Here is a selection: why is Moll Flander's younger brother older than she is, who has Susan been talking to in Tom Jones, what do we know about the first Fanny Price, another look at apple blossoms in June, how old is Frank in Rob Roy, does Dickins lynch Fagin, how do the Crachits cook Scrooge's turkey, how many siblings does Dobbin have in Vanity Fair, does Carker have false teeth, what is Henry Esmond's great scheme, is Betsey Trotwood a spinster, does the ending of the Mill on the Floss make sense, how long is Alice in wonderland, is Franklin Blake a thief and a rapist, what happens to Jim's family in Huckleberry Finn, and so on. These are, at least sometimes, very interesting questions. The author demonstrates, in many cases, just what authors took for granted from the past, and why it is that things that were not mysterious to the authors' original audiences were in fact more mysterious to later readers who lacked the necessary context.
One of the notable aspects of this book is the way that the author demonstrates his own character through his discussion of various classical literature puzzles and his own efforts to solve them. It is not only that the author reveals (sometimes for worse, mostly for better) his knowledge of these novels, but what puzzles he finds to be interesting and what answers to those puzzles he finds striking is a sign about the author and his own interests. At times this shows him to be an immensely sensitive person. For example, his discussion of why Pip is not invited to the wedding of Joe is because Joe and his fiance spent their savings in order to take care of Pip and get him out of debt and did not want to answer any awkward questions of why they had no fancy reception (or perhaps any at all) and only had a pauper's wedding. Similarly, the author explores the religious doubts of Mr. Hale that leads the family to lose the income that he had as a rector, as well as the gentleness of Mrs. Gaskell in writing about the sexual degradation of Ruth. Not all the mysteries are so consequential, but they are definitely all demonstrative of what the author is thinking.
This book is almost 250 pages and it is divided into a few essays that deal with various puzzles that the author is interested in classical novels. What sort of mysteries is the author interested in? Here is a selection: why is Moll Flander's younger brother older than she is, who has Susan been talking to in Tom Jones, what do we know about the first Fanny Price, another look at apple blossoms in June, how old is Frank in Rob Roy, does Dickins lynch Fagin, how do the Crachits cook Scrooge's turkey, how many siblings does Dobbin have in Vanity Fair, does Carker have false teeth, what is Henry Esmond's great scheme, is Betsey Trotwood a spinster, does the ending of the Mill on the Floss make sense, how long is Alice in wonderland, is Franklin Blake a thief and a rapist, what happens to Jim's family in Huckleberry Finn, and so on. These are, at least sometimes, very interesting questions. The author demonstrates, in many cases, just what authors took for granted from the past, and why it is that things that were not mysterious to the authors' original audiences were in fact more mysterious to later readers who lacked the necessary context.
One of the notable aspects of this book is the way that the author demonstrates his own character through his discussion of various classical literature puzzles and his own efforts to solve them. It is not only that the author reveals (sometimes for worse, mostly for better) his knowledge of these novels, but what puzzles he finds to be interesting and what answers to those puzzles he finds striking is a sign about the author and his own interests. At times this shows him to be an immensely sensitive person. For example, his discussion of why Pip is not invited to the wedding of Joe is because Joe and his fiance spent their savings in order to take care of Pip and get him out of debt and did not want to answer any awkward questions of why they had no fancy reception (or perhaps any at all) and only had a pauper's wedding. Similarly, the author explores the religious doubts of Mr. Hale that leads the family to lose the income that he had as a rector, as well as the gentleness of Mrs. Gaskell in writing about the sexual degradation of Ruth. Not all the mysteries are so consequential, but they are definitely all demonstrative of what the author is thinking.
January 12, 2014
Note: This rating only pertains to approximately 5 of the essays in the book which is comprised of about 30-35 essays. I read the ones that addressed Jane Austen's works, Alice in Wonderland, and North and South.
I picked this book up at the library because of the intriguing title, which is also the title of one of the essay's in the book. It is also one of the shortest essays - so it was a bit of misleading title.
The book addresses 'puzzles' within classic literature and the author, John Sutherland, attempts to explain them with his own ideas as to their solutions. Sadly though, while every puzzle I read about intrigued me none of Sutherland's solutions or ideas about them were convincing or even all that creative.
I read the essays hoping for some new thoughts on Austen, as I got when reading What Matters in Jane Austen?: Twenty Crucial Puzzles Solved but was just kinda surprised by the absurdity of some of the ideas presented.
All in all I think there are other books out there that will help you understand these works better than this one.
I picked this book up at the library because of the intriguing title, which is also the title of one of the essay's in the book. It is also one of the shortest essays - so it was a bit of misleading title.
The book addresses 'puzzles' within classic literature and the author, John Sutherland, attempts to explain them with his own ideas as to their solutions. Sadly though, while every puzzle I read about intrigued me none of Sutherland's solutions or ideas about them were convincing or even all that creative.
I read the essays hoping for some new thoughts on Austen, as I got when reading What Matters in Jane Austen?: Twenty Crucial Puzzles Solved but was just kinda surprised by the absurdity of some of the ideas presented.
All in all I think there are other books out there that will help you understand these works better than this one.
July 11, 2020
3.5 Rounded up
Some arguments agreed with--but never quite yawned at. Some I was pleasantly surprised by. OneI dropped my jaw at (just momentarily) and wanted to not agree with. But the argument was well enough supported that I have to agree with Sutherland's argument. . . . But I won't tell my Austen-loving friends about that argument. Let them enjoy their blindness to the argument.
Some arguments agreed with--but never quite yawned at. Some I was pleasantly surprised by. OneI dropped my jaw at (just momentarily) and wanted to not agree with. But the argument was well enough supported that I have to agree with Sutherland's argument. . . . But I won't tell my Austen-loving friends about that argument. Let them enjoy their blindness to the argument.
December 7, 2014
One the series of literary conundrums by John Sutherland. It is both entertaining and thought provoking in setting out the enigmas created in great writing.
November 11, 2013
Boy, do I feel ignorant: out of 34 chapters in this book, I have read only 7 of the titles discussed. Just about 20%. Apparently, my Brit Lit class needed to be 5 times longer than it was!
Of the ones with which I'm familiar:
Of the ones with which I'm familiar:
How do the Cratchits cook Scrooge's turkey? (A Christmas Carol)-- ...because, after all, it is huge and delivered in the middle of the day on Christmas and needs to have the feathers removed, etc. Sutherland's solution is that they ate in the middle of the night, causing Bob to be late to work the next day.Here’s a partial list of some of the other books he takes to task, or explains: Mansfield Park (one of three Jane Austen books), Rob Roy, Vanity Fair, North and South, Bleak House (one of four Dickens books), The Moonstone, Anna Karenina, Dracula...
Heathcliff's toothbrush (Wuthering Heights)--This isn't really about toothbrushes, but teething rings and their use. Sutherland is referring to a short passage after Cathy dies when he says something about "moral teething." And we get extended discussion of the alimentary canals of earthworms. Lovely. It’s a bit hard to explain here.
Where does Sidney Carton get his chloroform? (A Tale of Two Cities)-- ...since chloroform wasn't "invented" until at least several decades after the French Revolution ended. Oh, but Dickens never calls it chloroform...
Why was Pip not invited to Joe's wedding? (Great Expectations)--Joe, being his very best friend and indeed savior, still leaves Pip in the dark. There's no satisfactory explanation for this. And to me it's just a plot function, so it's no big deal to me anyway.
How long is Alice in Wonderland for? (Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)--She goes down the rabbit hole in the heat of summer and returns when the cards turn into falling leaves. An extended metaphor for her entrance into puberty? Soft, silly and ridiculous. Maybe in England leaves stick to trees until the bitter end, but here in midwestern America, leaves come off trees all summer long....
What happens to Jim's family? (Huckleberry Finn)--Remember, he has a wife and son he's trying to rescue. That's why he goes south with Huck. But when they arrive, he never mentions his family again. Another plot device we're supposed to conveniently ignore? It is rather awful how they just disappear....
Cabinets and detectives ("A Scandal in Bohemia")--A cabinet was as specific type of photo, slightly larger than a postcard (carte de visite) which was copied to give to friends. So why is the King so worried about this compromising picture? Because it probably wasn't really a cabinet, but a candid photo not taken at a studio. The irony is that Irene Adler leaves an actual cabinet in a cabinet for Holmes to find instead of the missing photo.
February 4, 2012
Dammit, now I have to read a bunch of classics. I will now admit publicly that I have never read The Mill on the Floss. Or Daniel Deronda.
However, this book is enjoyable even if you don't know the books (though it certainly helps, and some of the puzzles might be spoilers). It's best to read these separately rather than in one sitting. Otherwise one might start to feel that the questions/puzzles are a bit forced, and some of the answers a bit of a stretch. But overall, fun.
I found this book referenced in a footnote to a London Review of Books personal ad reprinted in They Call Me Naughty Lola.
However, this book is enjoyable even if you don't know the books (though it certainly helps, and some of the puzzles might be spoilers). It's best to read these separately rather than in one sitting. Otherwise one might start to feel that the questions/puzzles are a bit forced, and some of the answers a bit of a stretch. But overall, fun.
I found this book referenced in a footnote to a London Review of Books personal ad reprinted in They Call Me Naughty Lola.
February 17, 2017
I love these books and re-read them regularly.
I think he's unfair on Charlotte Lucas in the title essay. She's Lizzie's best friend - raging hormones or not. If he wants to blame Charlotte's pregnancy, surely the answer is that in a baby-brained moment, she left a letter lying around and Mr Collins thought himself perfectly within his rights as her husband to read it.
I think he's unfair on Charlotte Lucas in the title essay. She's Lizzie's best friend - raging hormones or not. If he wants to blame Charlotte's pregnancy, surely the answer is that in a baby-brained moment, she left a letter lying around and Mr Collins thought himself perfectly within his rights as her husband to read it.
August 20, 2007
Third in the author's series of Victorian literature "puzzles"; however, those books really don't need to be read in order.
June 26, 2022
Who Betrays Elizabeth Bennet? belongs to a series of “literary puzzle” books by Professor John Sutherland, exploring factual inconsistencies or unresolved questions in classic (mostly mid-Victorian) fiction. I’ve read about half the books Sutherland discusses here, and several more are on my to-read list, though a few of his selections are very obscure (e.g. Thackeray's
Henry Esmond
, which currently has only about 1000 Goodreads ratings). Maybe, since this was Sutherland’s third such book, he was scraping the bottom of the barrel a little? Additionally, several essays here reconsider puzzles he addressed in previous books, or feature puzzles that readers wrote in to him about.
Still, this is a pretty fun book to dip into, especially if, say, you happen to be staying at an Airbnb with some other literature nerds. Sometimes the puzzles throw light on deeper themes: Frankenstein’s Creature, when newly brought to life, is “yellow,” like a newborn baby with jaundice, a detail that underscores the novel’s preoccupation with childbirth and parenting. Sometimes, minor factual inconsistencies can show us how Dickens or Trollope changed their minds while writing their long, serialized novels, setting up multiple potential plotlines then only pursuing one.
Perhaps my favorite essay was “What are Mr. Hale’s doubts?” In North and South , the heroine’s father, a respected reverend in the South of England, suddenly quits his job, saying only that he has developed “doubts” about religion and can no longer serve as a minister in good conscience. I definitely wanted more information about Mr. Hale’s religious crisis when I read North and South (as did my mom when she watched the miniseries adaptation with me) and Sutherland provides fascinating background as to how a Victorian reader would have “filled in the blanks.”
I do have to disagree with Sutherland’s answer to his title question: his assertion that Charlotte Lucas “betrayed” Elizabeth Bennet relies on the interpretation that these dear friends are actually catty frenemies. Ugh, isn’t that just like a man?
Still, this is a pretty fun book to dip into, especially if, say, you happen to be staying at an Airbnb with some other literature nerds. Sometimes the puzzles throw light on deeper themes: Frankenstein’s Creature, when newly brought to life, is “yellow,” like a newborn baby with jaundice, a detail that underscores the novel’s preoccupation with childbirth and parenting. Sometimes, minor factual inconsistencies can show us how Dickens or Trollope changed their minds while writing their long, serialized novels, setting up multiple potential plotlines then only pursuing one.
Perhaps my favorite essay was “What are Mr. Hale’s doubts?” In North and South , the heroine’s father, a respected reverend in the South of England, suddenly quits his job, saying only that he has developed “doubts” about religion and can no longer serve as a minister in good conscience. I definitely wanted more information about Mr. Hale’s religious crisis when I read North and South (as did my mom when she watched the miniseries adaptation with me) and Sutherland provides fascinating background as to how a Victorian reader would have “filled in the blanks.”
I do have to disagree with Sutherland’s answer to his title question: his assertion that Charlotte Lucas “betrayed” Elizabeth Bennet relies on the interpretation that these dear friends are actually catty frenemies. Ugh, isn’t that just like a man?
May 26, 2018
This is a really nifty book that I somehow came across by accident while looking for something unrelated in the UW Library catalog. Mr. Sutherland takes unanswered questions from 'classic fiction' (almost all 18th and 19th century British novels) ad attempts to use contextual and textual clues to solve them. Questions like: how did the Cratchits manage to cook the huge turkey that Scrooge gifted them in time for Christmas dinner (answer, they could not have. They must have eaten it in the wee hours of Boxing Day morning, which explains why Bob was uncharacteristically late for work that day). That kind of thing.
June 16, 2022
I love this series of books. Delightful puzzles based on close reading by someone with good knowledge and great affection for the books he plays with. Most, like crosswords, are the entertainment of an hour or two and not to be taken too seriously. Some, and Sutherland is particularly challenging with Dickens and the Brontes, are worth a seminar or two among serious students.
As Seamus Heaney once said re analysing Shakespeare. If it's good enough it will survive a bit of a kicking.
Always thoroughly entertaining
As Seamus Heaney once said re analysing Shakespeare. If it's good enough it will survive a bit of a kicking.
Always thoroughly entertaining
June 11, 2020
So much fun. Now I have to find the other two. I skipped over the explanations to mysteries that involved books I hadn't read, and, frankly, don't know that I agree with the ones for the books I have, but it still was a joy to read.
July 14, 2016
I only just got this from Bookcrossing and was so enthralled, I had to start it immediately. This is the third in a series of analyses on classic literary conundrums or inconsistencies. The specific volume discusses a variety of novels, including Austen, Gaskell, Thackeray and many others but Dickens has the largest coverage. All are interesting in their own way and I discovered it does help to at least know the vague story in whatever title is under scrutiny, although not necessarily to have read it. The main discussion I most wanted to look at was the title question, in which I was disappointed because I already knew the answer from having read and watched PandP so many times.
I did find some other articles where the conclusion was obvious as well, but overall the collection is good and certainly worth the few minutes it takes to read each one. When I eventually undertake these classics, I'm sure having the relevant essay in mind will help to understand the reasons behind the more complex or subtle story points. I even got to have a rant about the historical treatment of women with a couple of pieces, so that was fun. Now I want to get hold of the other two compilations - reading them in order is not important.
I did find some other articles where the conclusion was obvious as well, but overall the collection is good and certainly worth the few minutes it takes to read each one. When I eventually undertake these classics, I'm sure having the relevant essay in mind will help to understand the reasons behind the more complex or subtle story points. I even got to have a rant about the historical treatment of women with a couple of pieces, so that was fun. Now I want to get hold of the other two compilations - reading them in order is not important.
May 21, 2016
I enjoyed this quite a bit even though I'm only vaguely familiar with a lot of the works discussed. This is a collection of essays, each focusing on questions from well known novels (mostly English novels but one or two from the US). I thought that each essay gave enough context for the things being discussed to be perfectly understandable, but YMMV. Also, I actively seek out spoilers for things I plan to read or watch, so that aspect didn't bother me. Again, YMMV.
January 28, 2017
This is a series of essays on puzzles or conundrums from Victorian-era novels. Since I haven't read all the books in the collection, I only read the essays that pertained to books I read. I skimmed a few for books I haven't read, and it has piqued my interest in reading some of the others like Middlemarch, and North and South. I enjoyed the enjoyed the ones about Jane Austen's books, and LOVED the one about Dicken's A Christmas Carol.
October 1, 2015
Reading this book was like eavesdropping on two English professors at a cocktail party. It was great fun to read the different perspectives and queries about some of my favorite books. I skipped around to avoid any books I have not read but plan to return to read the chapters I missed once I have read them. Cannot wait to read more from this author.
March 22, 2020
Brilliant - And it's still got my original Dymocks gift card in Laura!
It's amazing, picking out oddities in great literature and then going through the eccentricities. It's much better than my description makes it.
It's amazing, picking out oddities in great literature and then going through the eccentricities. It's much better than my description makes it.
January 18, 2016
This has lots of interesting little articles about points most people would have overlooked in classic novels. Some, like the title question - Who Betrays Elizabeth Bennet? - have suggested answers, while others are merely presented for consideration.
August 7, 2016
You'd think he'd be running out of classic puzzles, but there are some humdingers in this collection. And you can have nothing but admiration for an author who can write 'I have read The History of Henry Esmond many times'. The stamina, the stamina! And the essay on false teeth is a joy.
March 22, 2009
A quick, fun read which provides some fun information about the 19th century, and made me want to read a number of classics I'd never thought to bother with before.
November 13, 2009
Perfect to be read while riding the light rail, if only for the hilarity of people reacting to the Christmas-colored cover.
October 26, 2013
Interesting, incisive and frequently amusing analysis of seemingly inexplicable plot anomalies within various pieces of classical literature.
December 14, 2016
More literary anomalies and puzzles. This is the third book in the series and not quite as interesting as the previous two.
February 12, 2016
Essays I particularly liked in this collection: Who Betrays Elizabeth Bennet? What Kills Lady Dedlock? Why Was Pip Not Invited to Joe's Wedding? and Cabinets and Detectives.
Want to read
September 21, 2017Dewey 823 English fiction
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews