Classics and the Western Canon discussion

And so we come to the end. Did anything surprise you? Amuse you? Annoy you? Is this book a parody of the sentimental novel? What do you think?

XXVI. A reformation in the gaol. To make laws complete, they should reward as well as punish XXVII. The same subject continued
XXVIII. Happiness and misery rather the result of prudence than of virtue in this life. Temporal evils or felicities being regarded by heaven as things merely in themselves trifling and unworthy its care in the distribution
XXIX. The equal dealings of providence demonstrated with regard to the happy and the miserable here below. That from the nature of pleasure and pain, the wretched must be repaid the balance of their sufferings in the life hereafter
XXX. Happier prospects begin to appear. Let us be inflexible, and fortune will at last change in our favour
XXXI. Former benevolence now repaid with unexpected interest
XXXII. The Conclusion

Now I understand why they call it a satire.

Yes, I agree. It is a satire. Toward the end, I started to feel like I was watching a very light play where characters come on stage each with a new surprising identity or revelation and coincidences abound…Oh, my! As has been analyzed before, it is a Job-esque story involving such extreme personal and familial crisis/tragedies …only to result miraculously in a most happy ending! And yes, does appear to intend to illustrate how pride goeth before the fall but then, good triumphs in the end. And how!

Also, I naughtily had read ahead so could not comment easily earlier as worried I might give something away albeit by accident. However, in my Oxford World's Classic's edition of the Vicar of Wakefield, the "explanatory notes" gave a lot away to me early on….for instance, explanatory note #20 (re page 20/ chapter 3) explains the statement "I forgot what I was going to observe: Mr. Burchell's momentary confusion here, as he falls into the first person singular, is the first of many indications that he is himself Sir William Thornhill." Now, if that isn't a spoiler, what is? ha!

"Magical" is a good word for this book, Sue. It's a fantasy with a moral.

As I read through the novel, I was disappointed in the one-dimensional characters, and some chapters where the action or unveiling was telegraphed and the Vicar's unrelenting ( to me unrealistic) optimism as things got progressively worse for the family. It took me quite awhile to recognize this as a parody, which placed the writing and reading in a whole different perspective. The unbelievable and surprising ending that tied everything up in bow was the icing on the cake for me to say...ah yes, a satire.

Sue wrote: "Yes, I agree. It is a satire. Toward the end, I started to feel like I was watching a very light play where characters come on stage each with a new surprising identity or revelation and coincidenc..."

Almost a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta where absurdity piles on absurdity to produce a happy ending. Or a Wodehouse novel, ditto.

Okay, let me be the downer guy and ask, at least based on this novel, why did people think so highly of Goldsmith? I frankly can't see it.

Part of it may be that they saw the satiric aspects more clearly.

Gilbert and Sullivan! Yes! And Wodehouse.

The irony stood out to me about how the Vicar was such a staunch monogamist concerning not remarrying after death (something that sounded very odd and off kilter to me to be spending so much time and effort on with his religious study and preaching,) and then how he finally folded to endorse the squires newest marriage in order to relieve the suffering of his family. He did this while knowing that the Squire currently had multiple living wives, let alone one deceased. :-)

Also I have to say I laughed out loud and was very entertained by all the unbelievable happy coincidences that happened at the jail at the very end! I'm still smiling right now while I think about them all! :-)

This may be a strange comment after the comments on the book being a satire, which I agree with, but by the time I got this far into the book, I started thinking of Job in the Old Testament. The vicar has faithfully, or as faithfully as he could, stayed true to his faith and convictions. He lost his fortune, he lost several children, he is ill from being injured, he is in jail (Job was not jailed). The vicar shows a similar contentment with his lot in life as Job. He did not complain about being jailed. In the end his family is restored along with his fortune. Now everything is not the same, but close enough.

Earlier the similarities between Pride and Prejudice and this book has been noted. Was this a popular book around 1800? Is it likely that Jane Austin had read the book and used some of the ideas in her work? I did a search in my e-copy of P&P, but found no reference to VoW.

Brit wrote: "This may be a strange comment after the comments on the book being a satire, which I agree with, but by the time I got this far into the book, I started thinking of Job in the Old Testament. The vi..."

I like that. It hadn't occurred to me, but indeed there is something very Job like in the book. I think you nailed it.

Jeremy C. wrote: "The irony stood out to me about how the Vicar was such a staunch monogamist concerning not remarrying after death (something that sounded very odd and off kilter to me to be spending so much time a..."

It's full of irony for sure.

Brit wrote: "This may be a strange comment after the comments on the book being a satire, which I agree with, but by the time I got this far into the book, I started thinking of Job in the Old Testament. The vi..."

Yes, I think there's a lot of Job in there, Brit.

Brit wrote: "Earlier the similarities between Pride and Prejudice and this book has been noted. Was this a popular book around 1800? Is it likely that Jane Austin had read the book and used some of the ideas in..."

It was one of the most popular novels at that time, Brit. Jane Austen would have been very familiar with it. Shementions Goldsmith in both "Mansfield Park" and "Emma." I am in the midst of reading all of Austen's novels in the order published. I see a lot of the Vicar in the style of her first novel, "Sense and Sensibility," and in the plot of the second, "Pride and Prejudice.

Brit wrote: "Earlier the similarities between Pride and Prejudice and this book has been noted. Was this a popular book around 1800? Is it likely that Jane Austin had read the book and used some of the ideas in..."

Good reminder. I went and looked, and quickly found that there was an academic paper which discussed precisely this published in English Language Notes;Mar1991, Vol. 28 Issue 3, p25. The Abstract: Discusses the parallels between Jane Austen's novel `Pride and Prejudice' and Oliver Goldsmith's `The Vicar of Wakefield.' Similarities in plots and characters; Values shared by each character.

Here's a page to access it if your library subscribes to the service:
http://connection.ebscohost.com/c/lit...

Everyman wrote: "Okay, let me be the downer guy and ask, at least based on this novel, why did people think so highly of Goldsmith? I frankly can't see it."

I have wondered the same thing. Someone mentioned that the Vicar was a favorite of Dickens (?) and some other literary masters. After reading this, I am surprised.

I thought I read somewhere that Goldsmith was a literary critic, and published much in that vein. I cannot remember where I read that though. If it is true, maybe those who loved him and were familiar with his thoughts and ideas could read even more into the text and his satire than we can?

As to Vicar in re to Dickens, I just read an interesting bit about the same:
In November 1827, Dickens got a new baby brother named Augustus but Charles "took to calling him Moses by the time he was a toddler , nicknaming him after the son of the Vicar of Wakefield in Goldsmith's story, a favorite book. 'Moses' became 'Boses' when spoken through the nose , "[and CD was prone to head colds]... "so "'Boses' became 'Boz' which in turn became the pen name adopted by him for his first published writing." ( I had just re-started reading a Dickens bio (by Tomalin))
**Dickens, as a youth, received from a supportive teacher, a copy of Goldsmith's "The Bee" (collection of his essays) during an important time in his life (going to join his family in London). Such perhaps contributed to Dicken's view of Goldsmith.

I think that like most satire, much of the humor/commentary is rooted in its time. The Onion is decent example - using the AP style to say silly things only resonates if one is familiar with the AP style. Otherwise it just sounds like inane babble. So Goldsmith's contemporaries may well have seen the novel as a welcome sendup of familiar forms. Same for the substance - Primrose's defense of the monarchy in particular was tough for me to connect with, but would have linked into the debates of the time.

One thing that did age well for me was the romanticized view of the "countryside". I think we still have plenty of that sentiment today, whether is sending our kids to summer camp, hiking the Appalachian Trail, or buying vacation house out in the mountains.

Also, as others here observed, there are lots of small contradictions to reward the careful reader. The painting was my personal favorite - it just had the whole package. The "humble" characters showing their pretensions, the "unified" family how differently the actually see themselves, etc.

Also, I found this paper pretty worthwhile if anyone is interested in a deeper dive into the themes of the novel.

https://hermes-ir.lib.hit-u.ac.jp/rs/...

Definite similarities to Job, though the vicar never entertains the bitterness of Job. Job at one point says "I cry out to you God, but you do not answer; I stand up, but you merely look at me. You turn on me ruthlessly; with the might of your hand you attack me." The vicar never responds to his ever worsening circumstances in like manner, but rather remains optimistic, much like Candide in Voltaire's great satire, though there Candide ultimately rejects his prior optimistic and gentle philosophy after a run of incredible ill-fortune, whereas here the vicar maintains it and is ultimately rewarded for it and restored to well-being - as with Job. Candide was published just a few years before TVOW, interestingly enough.

On another note, the later portion of this novel certainly took a wild turn in tone from what came before in its inclusion of lengthy discourses on the political merits of monarchy, the problem of prison reform (I imagine Dickens absolutely loving this bit), philosophy vs. religion in explaining evil, etc. The breeziness was blown away. Almost as if Goldsmith took material for essays he'd written for other purposes and shoved them into this book.

As I continue reading the biography of Dickens, I am rather struck by perhaps why Dickens might have been taken by "Vicar of Wakesfield" as indeed Goldsmith created some ludicrous characters and comical situations.(e.g. Vicar espousing humility (contrast family portrait too large for their home), etc.) Likewise, Dickens loved creating curiously amusing characters. But another factor may be the fact that Dickens was very struck by the description of very hard times: e.g. the Vicar had to live in prison and his family moved in with him (such was the situation with Dicken's father and family at one time, albeit Dickens only took meals with his family at that time). So chords were struck and apparently others besides Dickens were similarly appreciative, likely all in good humor and in accord with the times, including their appreciation of descriptions of relatable difficulties and plights of differing classes of people. (* Dicken's good friend, Forster's 700 page long (!) biographical study of Oliver Goldsmith was dedicated to Dickens with a sonnet in which Forster compared Dickens to Goldsmith (!): "O friend with heart as gentle for distress, As resolute with fine wise thoughts to bind The happiest to the unhappiest of our kind".)
**NB: Also, interestingly, Goldsmith wrote "History of England".

Sue wrote: "As I continue reading the biography of Dickens, I am rather struck by perhaps why Dickens might have been taken by "Vicar of Wakesfield" as indeed Goldsmith created some ludicrous characters and co..."

Very interesting comparisons, Sue. I hadn't realized that Forster also wrote a biography of Goldsmith. I wonder how different nineteenth century novels would be if Goldsmith had not led the way?

Re: Sue's comment about curiously amusing characters. I got to thinking about all the curiously amusing people I've meet as an adult ESL teacher and a customer service rep. And I'm wondering if Goldsmith was so popular because he was the first write about people in that way? (Or at least to first to do it well, as a blend seriousness and ridiculousness)

I think you're onto something, Tiffany. There was Cervantes, of course, and some of Shakespeare's characters.

Laurel, re the bios, Dickens wrote to Forster regarding "The Life and Adventures of Oliver Goldsmith", how proud he was to be 'tenderly connected' with what Forster had done and added, 'I desire no better for my fame, when my personal dustiness shall be past the control of my love of order, than such a biographer-and such a Critic!' (letter from D to F dated April 22, 1848).

Sue wrote: "Laurel, re the bios, Dickens wrote to Forster regarding "The Life and Adventures of Oliver Goldsmith", how proud he was to be 'tenderly connected' with what Forster had done and added, 'I desire no..."

Great, Sue. Thanks!

Brit wrote: "This may be a strange comment after the comments on the book being a satire, which I agree with, but by the time I got this far into the book, I started thinking of Job in the Old Testament. The vi..."

Goldsmith is consciously accessing the Job story, both men survive adversity through their reliance on a notion of goodness and their faith in the justice of God.
The difference, according to a critic I read, is that the vicar doesn't have a moment of spiritual enlightenment at the end, instead his happiness comes from a return to the familiar. Which possibly indicates that once everything is returned to the Vicar he could fall back on the old sins of pride when he is comfortable again. It is supposed to be a more human view of patterns of behaviour and how we work as humans.

Everyman wrote: "Okay, let me be the downer guy and ask, at least based on this novel, why did people think so highly of Goldsmith? I frankly can't see it."


I think the novel has humour, Christian morality, the importance of family above wealth, interspersed with the realism of how randomly horrific life can be, even to good people.
The main character is flawed, naive, and sometimes unaware, but ultimately trying his best, which is very relatable.
It is a short book too, which means it is one that people can return to again and again, and would have been easy to read to the family around the fire of an evening.
For people interested in literature it is an early example of a novel playing around with form and expectations. The second half is much more dramatic and serious than the first part, perhaps symbolising how the pastoral ideal is destroyed in the real world of commerce, con artists and Squires who abuse and lie rather than protect their people.

I liked when the Vicar says of the coincidences, that "how many seeming accidents must unite before we can be clothed and fed". The text is confronting the reader, stating that all of life runs on luck, but in reality would all these things have come together? How many people in the world stumble never to get up because, as has been noted in these comments, you generally don't bump into your missing daughter in a random inn.



This critical conclusion I read puts it better than I can:

'The novel has managed to maintain its reputation for so long because it delivers such a satisfying and recognizable story while also forcing us to question our very assumptions and expectations. Even in terms of its final pronouncements on morality, the novel is neither simplistic nor unduly challenging. Some readers can take a self-satisfied lesson from it, while others can dig deeper to ask larger questions. Goldsmith balances these opposites not from imperfection, but from a singular understanding of narrative and humanity.'

Nice, Clari! Thanks.

Clari wrote: "I think the novel has humour, Christian morality, the importance of family above wealth, interspersed with the realism of how randomly horrific life can be, even to good people.
The main character is flawed, naive, and sometimes unaware, but ultimately trying his best, which is very relatable.
It is a short book too, which means it is one that people can return to again and again, and would have been easy to read to the family around the fire of an evening."

Good points. And it also wasn't competing with a huge number of other novels published in the same year, or even today in the same week. But it wasn't just that, as you note it has its virtues.

I've struggled to really decide how I feel about this book. Ultimately, I wanted to read it as a satire of the very morals that the Vicar seems to hold dear. I think it would actually work better that way - if the message was something to the effect that you can be a good and honorable person all you want, but that's not going to save you. In that sort of a reading, the absurdly unlikely ending would be a sly way for Goldsmith to suggest that we are as likely to win the lottery as to be rescued thus.

From the other materials I've read about Goldsmith, however, I think he was sincere about the religious angle. So I still do appreciate it as a quaint pastoral, and would still probably recommend it as a short, entertaining read. Indeed, maybe people of his time would seen this as an uplifting, almost allegorical tale. But I guess I just have a hard time getting too excited about it at the end of the day.

Kyle wrote: "I've struggled to really decide how I feel about this book. Ultimately, I wanted to read it as a satire of the very morals that the Vicar seems to hold dear. I think it would actually work better t..."

It's interesting, Kyle, because the critical material I browsed seemed to indicate that Goldsmith's skill was in making both readings valid. It can just be a happy little ending, or it can be seen as a clever deconstruction of the sentimental genre. This gave his book the wider readership he needed ( I think he was in want of money at the time) as it hits the family target but also pleases the intellectuals.
The divisions in the structure allowed him to insert some of his own beliefs on current society and religion into the vicar's narrative, as well as at points making the vicar a humourous figure. I believe these layers indicate the richness of a real person, neither all good, or all bad.

Clari wrote: " .It can just be a happy little ending, or it can be seen as a clever deconstruction of the sentimental genre..."

Sure, I think thats the general consensus. And it's a definitely a cool academic point of interest that he was mocking the sentimental genre. Probably someone who has been more exposed would have a deeper appreciation of the humor than I, but it's still a cool thing to know.

I probably didn't express this as well as I could have, but I was going for more of a Candide sort of reading. Just as Professor Pangloss' "best possible world" is shown to be a sham, it seemed to me that the extreme twists of The Vicar could be perceived to ridicule Primrose's steadfast (even blind) faith. Essentially, a mockery of the substance rather than the form. The tone of both novels was also similar, and Candide was published just 7 years prior. So I just saw a lot of parallels there.

At any rate, I didn't spend a whole lot of time researching Goldsmith, but what I did see lead me to believe he probably would not have intended to mock religion in this way. But I'd be curious if anyone found anything else on his views about that.