Victorians! discussion

I can't help but think, to borrow a title from Thomas Hardy, that as we enter Cranford we will be "far from the madding crowd." There is something special about this novel, and I hope that we all experience the novel's unique sense of place and mood.

The narrator's function is a key element in any novel. It is interesting to note that in Cranford we have a narrator who remains somewhat of a mystery throughout the novel. Who she is, where she comes from, and, indeed, her name, will all be revealed in time, but not at the beginning of the novel. What are your early impressions of her? We have just finished a reading a Sherlock Holmes story. It might be fun to assemble clues as to the full identity and background of the narrator as we read through the novel.

In the first paragraph of Cranford we are told that "A man ... is so in the way in the house." Cranford is a novel of women, of domesticity and of anecdotal events. Beneath this seemingly innocent layer, however, resides a novel of great human interest, interaction and events. What have you found to be appealing so far?

Captain Browne's presence in Cranford signals " the invasion of [the Cranford ladies] territories". How would you characterize the relationships between Captain Browne and the ladies of Cranford?

We read of Captain Browne's death and that he was "killed by the nasty cruel railroads." In this event, we see how the changing world of Victorian England is invading the quiet, rural tranquility of Cranford. Although we are only beginning our reading of Cranford, what other events, symbols and comments in the novel show or suggest the changing times in Victorian England?

It is my intention to provide some anecdotes, facts, a poem and some bits of history to give our reading a broader context. To start, I will provide a link to Mr. William Huskisson, the first human to die in a railway accident in the 19C. Huskisson's death would have been well known to the readers of Cranford.

As we read through this novel there will be numerous references to both Charles Dickens and his writing. It is interesting to recall that Cranford was published in Dickens's Household Words in 8 irregular instalments between December 1851 and May 1853. It was first published in novel form in 1853. Do you think Dickens would have enjoyed Gaskell's Cranford and her comments about him and his work?

As always, your own ideas, thoughts, comments and insights are what will make our reading of Cranford most enjoyable. Please join in our conversation.

Peter wrote: "In the first paragraph of Cranford we are told that "A man ... is so in the way in the house." Cranford is a novel of women, of domesticity and of anecdotal events. .."

This is true. And yet in Chapter 3, I think it is, we are told of the many men there actually are in Cranford, butchers and bakers and tradesmen, and of course the young men with whom the servants walk out. These men are presumably not only convenient but necessary.

Another thing I noticed quite strongly is the absolute absence, at least in the early chapters, of any children. We are told of a "charity-school maiden" who is the servant of all work, but unless I missed it there is not a single reference in the early chapters to any child or school. Given that in most English villages of the time the school was second only to the church as the genteel social center of the village (I omit the pubs which served a totally different function), this omission seems somewhat striking.

Here is a link to what is most often assumed to be the first death caused by a railway train.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willi...

For clarification, what is the scope of this thread?

The reading schedule goes over six weeks, but this thread title isn't for just the first four chapters. Is this a general, non-spoiler thread? Or is this the thread for the first part but the thread title should be amended to say so? Or is this thread for all of the discussion so that spoilers from any part of the book are allowed here?

Everyman wrote: "For clarification, what is the scope of this thread?

The reading schedule goes over six weeks, but this thread title isn't for just the first four chapters. Is this a general, non-spoiler thread?..."

Thanks, Everyman. I've put up the chapters 1-4 notation. I struggle with getting the set-up correct.

Here is a link to the famous Turner painting "Rain, Steam and Speed."

As you will see from the brief commentary the Victorians struggled with the concept of the train as an established presence in their society.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rain,...

I just started listening to Cranford on tape. I have read that it is based on her early years growing up in Knutsford in the Midlands. It reminded me of Mrs. Oliphant's Miss Marjoribanks. The parties and tea and the formalities. Seems that both Mrs. Oliphant and Mrs. Gaskell captured a slice of English life.

Bharathi wrote: "Seems that both Mrs. Oliphant and Mrs. Gaskell captured a slice of English life. "

Well, yes, but I don't think Cranford is all that realistic a slice. I much prefer the social aspects in Wives and Daughters, and even more those in Trollope.

Bharathi wrote: "I just started listening to Cranford on tape. I have read that it is based on her early years growing up in Knutsford in the Midlands. It reminded me of Mrs. Oliphant's Miss Marjoribanks. The parti..."

Hi Bharathi

Yes. I remember reading Oliphant's Miss Marjoribanks with The Victorians awhile back. Thanks for referring to it. There are certain similarities for sure. Can anyone really eat that much cake, drink that much tea and remember all those social necessities?

This read will give us a look at a world much different from North and South. In both novels, however, Gaskell has keep within a sphere of her own experience. It's interesting to monitor that.

Everyman wrote: "Bharathi wrote: "Seems that both Mrs. Oliphant and Mrs. Gaskell captured a slice of English life. "

Well, yes, but I don't think Cranford is all that realistic a slice. I much prefer the social as..."

Hi Everyman

To what extent do you think Gaskell was trying to be realistic in Cranford? I do agree with your comments about Trollope. I am now reading The Last Chronicle of Barset, and thus finishing the Barset series. My opinion of Trollope has risen significantly. He does have a very finely tuned and nuanced eye for social conventions doesn't he?

Everyman wrote: "Bharathi wrote: "Seems that both Mrs. Oliphant and Mrs. Gaskell captured a slice of English life. "

Well, yes, but I don't think Cranford is all that realistic a slice. I much prefer the social as..."

The town itself and situations maybe fictional, but I am sure Mrs. Gaskell has experienced something similar for her to make this commentary.

When Elizabeth Gaskell's mother died, when she was less than 2 years old, she was sent to live with her aunt in Knutsford. Growing up, she was surrounded by aunts, cousins and a lot of female neighbors. I think she is trying to recapture that experience. Though, I agree, it does not seem realistic.

Peter wrote: "Bharathi wrote: "I just started listening to Cranford on tape. I have read that it is based on her early years growing up in Knutsford in the Midlands. It reminded me of Mrs. Oliphant's Miss Marjor..."

As a clergyman's wife living in an industrial city in the North during the Industrial Age, Gaskell has had a number of different experiences. How she has shown them in North and South, trying to connect the two dissimilar parts of England, in Ruth showing us the plight of an young girl in the industrial North, and now showing us yet another piece of culture. I am curious as to how this would turn out.

Peter wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Bharathi wrote: "Seems that both Mrs. Oliphant and Mrs. Gaskell captured a slice of English life. "

Well, yes, but I don't think Cranford is all that realistic a slice. I much pre..."

I have enjoyed every book that I have read of Trollope, but the Last Chronicle is one of my favorite Victorian books.

Peter wrote: "To what extent do you think Gaskell was trying to be realistic in Cranford? "

That's a great question. I wish I had an even adequate answer. But I don't.

As Bharathi noted, when she was very young she was sent to live in Knutsford and lived in a largely feminine environment. Is she trying to recapture the memories of that society as a young child experienced them? Is she gently parodying that society? Is she writing the way she wished it had actually been? Or something else? I really don't know.

Bharathi, Thanks for this biographical info! I had been thinking that Gaskell wanted to capture a time and place in her own life. The tone of the first paragraph seemed nostalgic somehow. The first sentence suggests she is remembering a real town with personal impact rather than inventing a setting for a story:

"In the first place, Cranford was a town of Amazons...."

"In the first place..." Reminds me of the opening of Christmas Carol. Keep this fact in mind whatever happens, Marley was dead.

"...a town of Amazons". The idea of Amazons does not come up again, at least in the first three chapters .

Everyman wrote: "Peter wrote: "To what extent do you think Gaskell was trying to be realistic in Cranford? "

That's a great question. I wish I had an even adequate answer. But I don't.

As Bharathi noted, when she..."

You ask some very interesting questions and they do lead us to that place where we wonder what a writer's intention was, and to what degree that intention was successfully realized by the author. Of course, the other side of the coin may well be that the writer had little interest or even awareness of events the reader would ponder and speculate about for years, and, indeed, centuries.

To me, one of the joys and frustrations of reading is the simple fact that we will never know. In response to your questions, I tend to think there is a clear degree of gentle parody going on.

I can't help but think that Gaskell must have had a twinkle in her eye when she mentioned Dickens and his work in Cranford, especially since Cranford was being published by Dickens. As part of my introduction ramble next week I will include a letter from Dickens that discusses his opinion of Gaskell and Cranford. I hope the readers enjoy it.

Linda wrote: "Bharathi, Thanks for this biographical info! I had been thinking that Gaskell wanted to capture a time and place in her own life. The tone of the first paragraph seemed nostalgic somehow. The first..."

Linda

There is an interesting tone to the first sentence isn't there? Thanks for highlighting it. If Gaskell is looking back to a place she remembers as a child then all the adult women in that place may well have appeared to be like Amazons to her child's mind's memory.

Thanks for interpreting what I was saying, Peter.

I suppose that's what Gaskell means by "Amazons". Could she be thinking strength as well as size/height?

Linda wrote: "Thanks for interpreting what I was saying, Peter.

I suppose that's what Gaskell means by "Amazons". Could she be thinking strength as well as size/height?"

Yes, I certainly think so Linda. While the word "Amazon" when referring to a woman generally denotes a woman of physical strength and size, one could also see the concept of strength being manifested as a person's moral fibre, their depth of feeling and sensitivity, and their compassion. Given that Elizabeth Gaskell was the wife of a clergyman and was herself a woman of moral strength and presence, I do not see why the word Amazon may not have a broader meaning than its general and usual context.

Narrator? I found just a few clues.

1. She lives with her father.
2. She goes from Cranford to Drumble at least once.
3. She is healthy and wise.
4. Her r elation ship with the Misses Jenkins warrantsfrequent visits.

Wise dealing with Martha, Love and Fate.

Reality or fantasy, I just like Cranford. These fusty, misguided, strong, moral old ladies who take a hold of and mismanage and plod through life seemed indeed Victorian Amazons to my sensitivities. I don't remember what is where, or even what is exactly Cranford, so will put in (view spoiler)[ joining to march in the funeral procession even though it bent her rules of propriety, the sadness that one of the romances was thwarted -- with the lingering care remaining that one of the tales tells (maybe not in Cranford per se), the ridiculous appeal of the turban inspired headdress -- oh, women and fashion, the even more ridiculous but caring blanket coats for the cows, the daring use of surgery to repair an arm (I don't believe this is in the original Cranford stories), the frugal spreading of newspapers to prevent fading where sun hit the carpet, the opening of a tea shop to provide a source of income, the judicious juggling of the romantic life of a servant, the tragic death of Mr. B? associated with the invasive train into their lives, ...it surprises me how many threads of these stories, lightly read, remain so easy to recall. (My copy is buried in a spot where not retrievable at the moment and I have not thought to pull a library copy. ) (hide spoiler)] Independence, love, the invasion of new technology, frugality, frivolity, .... all and more.

Lily wrote: "Reality or fantasy, I just like Cranford. These fusty, misguided, strong, moral old ladies who take a hold of and mismanage and plod through life seemed indeed Victorian Amazons to my sensitivities..."

"I just like Cranford." Perfectly phrased Lily!

Linda wrote: "Narrator? I found just a few clues.

1. She lives with her father.
2. She goes from Cranford to Drumble at least once.
3. She is healthy and wise.
4. Her r elation ship with the Misses Jenkins warr..."

Linda

Thanks for spotting and listing the first of the "who is the narrator" clues. There will be more to come in the next weeks and we will finally get to know the person's name. At that time - with all the "facts" in front of us - it will be interesting to speculate why Gaskell constructed the narrator as she did.

I'm having a bit of a hard time getting into this one...

I'm about 6 chapters in, and I'm finding a lot of plot and action, and plenty of characters who are easy to confuse at times. But there's no "reflection," or anything philosophical from the narrator. Nothing to give me a sense that this is all heading in some direction... I hope it gets better as the backdrop is established and the novel starts to develop.

Dee wrote: "...I hope it gets better as the backdrop is established and the novel starts to develop. ..."

Dee -- my biased view, just relax and enjoy the character sketches. Did your parents or grandparents live through the Depression here in the U.S.? I found parallels in these parsimonious, kindly, independent, skeptical lives. Laugh at the understated humor, even if it is somewhat ridiculous at times. No great plot. No great "direction." No overarching theme. Just a godly, what is, is.

Dee wrote: "I'm having a bit of a hard time getting into this one...

I'm about 6 chapters in, and I'm finding a lot of plot and action, and plenty of characters who are easy to confuse at times. But there's ..."

I don't think that reflection or philosophy were in Gaskell's mind, although there is some implied philosophy in content without riches, the importance of friendship, how to age gracefully, and other similar lessons which are perhaps no less important to learn than the Aristotelian definition of tragedy.

Apparently, there are no men in Cranford because they keep killing themselves off. Guys... stay away from trains and Paris.

Dee, I too am having trouble getting engaged by this novel, although there is no question of not being interested is seeing what Gaskell was writing 1850-1853. I'm assuming she was influenced by her contemporaries , especially women writers. Jane Eyre 1847. Villette 1853. Eliot was coming down the track...Adam Bede 1859, The Mill on the Floss 1860 Silas Marner 1861. Harriet Martineau, feminist sociologist died in 1859.

Dee wrote: "But there's no "reflection," or anything philosophical from the narrator. Nothing to give me a sense that this is all heading in some direction... I hope it gets better as the backdrop is established and the novel starts to develop."

I read this last year or maybe even a little earlier, so I'm going from memory, but I think there is actually a kind of overarching theme, and one which ties into some of Gaskell's concerns in her other writing. I think the ladies that she writes about were (and indeed are) largely invisible. They provide small side characters in other narratives, narratives about youth and marriage and substantial wealth. But they are never the center.

She makes these women the center, as a way of showing them, and of treating them with dignity and with affection. It's not a serious as a book like North and South, but I think the intention to show another side of life, other people, is still very much there.

I think this is also why there are no men in Cranford. I don't think it's meant to be a literal town with no men, but rather a part of society that functions without them. Spinsters, the ageing, those who are alone, whose lives are quiet and undramatic.

I like that interpretation. Thanks, Nicole.

Nicole wrote: "She makes these women the center, as a way of showing them, and of treating them with dignity and with affection. ..."

I like what you write, Nicole. I didn't make it that "big," but you express very well much of the affection I feel for this book. It is not The Memory of Love or Anna Karenina or one of Henry James's women, but it just is ... I keep saying over and over. I like the way the outside sneaks in -- as people, as fashion, as fads, as technology, as innovative medical practice (may be in one of the associated stories, rather than Cranford itself), as new ways of being, as recognition the past could have been done differently (again, maybe another associated story of relinquished love, but it impacted how a servant is treated), ....

Linda wrote: "Dee, I too am having trouble getting engaged by this novel, although there is no question of not being interested is seeing what Gaskell was writing 1850-1853. I'm assuming she was influenced by he..."

It's interesting to read an array of novels from the same period and compare them... the so-so ones make you appreciate the ones that you love all the more.

Plus, I like analysing why I love particular novels and not others... Why I get immediately pulled in with some books, while others leave me apathetic. Here the characters seem a bit flat, but it's only a few chapters in so I'm still hopeful.

This is my first time reading Gaskell, and I am loving it. I am a little behind the group read because my copy of Cranford just arrived in the mail this morning. I am already halfway through it, and am finding it very hard to put down. Miss Matty/Matilda has broken my heart. I love the gentle tone and pace of the book, and I do enjoy the little flashes of humor.
With regards to Gaskell and Dickens, I find myself wondering if they were friends- the little digs that Miss Jenkyns make about "Boz" seem quite gleeful.

Suki wrote: "Miss Matty/Matilda has broken my heart.."

Hi Suki,

I'm behind too, but love the friendly tone of the novel. It is strange within such a light novel that Miss Matty does not get a happy ending of a lost love regained, but instead the pain of a reunion followed by total loss. The touch of letting her maid have a lover was nice and ended the chapter on a gentler note than pure loneliness.

Clari wrote: "The touch of letting her maid have a lover was nice and ended the chapter on a gentler note than pure loneliness. ..."

I love that story (including Miss Matty's own). It is such a memorable one to me in so many ways. Off hand, I don't know another with which I would compare it for the wisdom about being female and human that it puts on view.

Lily wrote: "Clari wrote: "The touch of letting her maid have a lover was nice and ended the chapter on a gentler note than pure loneliness. ..."

I love that story (including Miss Matty's own). It is such a me..."

There are comments in this thread about the novel not being realistic, but behind the gentle tone, there are such sad stories of what it is like to be lonely, grow old, and to be a woman.

I've been rereading this thread with even new appreciation , now that we've completed our group read of Cranford . The book starts slow and I did not anticipate its final impact. There came a point however, when I could not stop reading,and thus finished it right there and then.

To the points raised here as well as my own concerns about the slow start, I just found an excerpt from the author's letter to a friend that indicates Gaskell never intended Cranford to be a novel. This explains a lot about the structural issues.


“The beginning of ‘Cranford’ was one paper in ‘Household Words’; and I never meant to write more, so killed Captain Brown very much against my will.”

There was a question in an earlier thread about why Gaskell had the bank fail in Miss Matty. I couldn't answer it then because of spoilers, but I think now its purpose becomes somewhat clearer. Without that failure, if Miss Matty had continued in her quiet, secure world, would Mary Smith have actually mailed that letter to find Peter? I think that's one impact of it. Another is to show how the women of the town pull together in a time of tragedy to one, and how much love is shown for Miss Matty. Another is to show Miss Matty's character when she buys the five pound note; she can't really afford to, but her sense of honesty and integrity overcome her. Still another is to show the resilience of Miss Matty and how she can turn to shop keeping, which her class has always looked down on, when the need arose.

In general, too, it gives a way to bring things to closure in the novel. It makes Peter's return much more important than it would have been without the failure. Now he's not just a lost brother come home, but he's the financial rescue of an embarrassed sister. It brings Miss Matty back from her fall into financial insecurity. In order to emphasize the joy Miss Matty feels, she has to go through some bad times first.

I think it was an inspiration to have Miss Matty lose her money that way. It makes the ending of the novel much more powerful.

Though isn't it sad, in a way, that in the end, this conclave of Amazons must be saved by a man?

Everyman wrote: "There was a question in an earlier thread about why Gaskell had the bank fail in Miss Matty. I couldn't answer it then because of spoilers, but I think now its purpose becomes somewhat clearer. Wit..."

Thanks for holding off on why the bank collapse occurred in the novel. I find your reasoning (as always) logical and insightful. We did need Peter to return somehow, and so he does with the bank failure.

Ah, the conclave of Amazons being saved by a male. Now here is a discussion point! :-))

Another discussion point: the difference between the original novel and the film adaptation of the story. It is like the adaptation has to modernize the thinking and value system of the characters. I enjoy reading the book because it truly takes me to a different world.

Brit wrote: "Another discussion point: the difference between the original novel and the film adaptation of the story. It is like the adaptation has to modernize the thinking and value system of the characters...."

Brit

I have never seen the film version. Is it worth it? Candidly, I'm thinking it might be best just to leave Cranford on the page. I have seen too many wonderful novels ruined by film "adaptations."

Everyman, Thanks for your (as always, interesting) comments. I agree with your thoughts about the uses of the bank fail, to reveal Miss Matty's character. Her integrity seems remarkable to me in the end, and it certainly wasn't coming across in those funny dated anecdotes in the beginning...or in her social attitudes. As you say, it took a faraway financial disaster to show us what Miss Matty and her lady friends were truly made of.

Yes, Peter's arrival is a perfect cap on the expectations for the future, I'll grant you that. And Victorian literature must be replete with the "it took a man to save them" idea. Nice, Everyman! May I just point out though,...that the bank board consisted of men...AND Miss Matty goes into business/sets about saving herself without male help.

Peter wrote: "I have never seen the film version. Is it worth it? Candidly, I'm thinking it might be best just to leave Cranford on the page...."


This is one set of stories for which I enjoyed both the book(s) and the film version. The relationships of text to film are a little confusing if one doesn't monitor closely, which I didn't, so they are all a bit jumbled together in my memory, but I am okay with that. As you all have heard me say multiple times now, I like these stories, if not always an entire story, some tidbit thereof.

Brit, You hit upon one of the reasons I would rather stick with the book over the movie, one I never fully realized. (I hope I'm getting this right.) The value system gets modernized for the film version. I've thought of it before as a kind of lack of depth in the main character but this is such an intriguing concept. Thanks for posting it.

Just one more comment on the adaptation: They worked the story of My Lady Ludlow into the Cranford story. I did not mind that. So for anyone wanting to see the adaptation and read the book(s), you need to include 'My Lady Ludlow' also.

Thanks all for the information on the TV/film versions of Cranford.

Linda wrote: "...The value system gets modernized for the film version. ..."

Hmm... interesting comment, Linda. I wonder if I do that as I read. Have to try to remember to think about that. I suspect I often quickly and unconsciously skip from meaning in time and place to meaning for me and life around me.

I was just responding to Brit's comment about six back, Lily. Brit made the point that "it's like the adaptation modernizes the thinking and value systems of the characters." I wanted to think more about that, too. When I read the book I identify, and maybe that's a way of modernizing, as you say. I think Brit was referring to the writers and directors making the changes FOR the movie audience.

Linda wrote: "...I think Brit was referring to the writers and directors making the changes FOR the movie audience. ..."

Thx, Linda! I think I got that was you and Brit were saying. You both, and you particularly, got me to thinking about my own ability to be "in" the story versus shall I say "assimilating it" for my particular circumstances. Never really thought about this aspect of reading narrative literature before, although recent work with Lectio Divina for biblical study occurred to me as I considered what you and Brit wrote. Lectio Divina is a method of study involving three reads of the same text, the first time to identify what "stands out" to one as reader, the second to attempt to grasp the essence, the meaning of the text, and the third to tangle with the application of the text to one's own life. (The exact words to describe each pass vary with the source for guidance. Hopefully this rather succinct summary will suffice for suggesting the secular relevance of such a technique.) I doubt most of us regularly tackle the texts we read in a study mode. But I describe the process here to suggest the line of thinking about reading that you provoked for me -- what the text is versus what I do with it.

Lily, Thanks for describing the method Lectio Divina for reading narrative lit. It sounds like just the kind of thing that interests me! Will I be able to find out more online?

Your comment had me grabbing a book I read several years ago, Why I Read: The Serious Pleasure of Books by Wendy Lesser. In her prologue she talks about the interaction "between you and me". ...How the reader brings something to the book (she said conversation; I substituted book as I read on)..."your attention, your memories, your interpretations..., your reflections...." I was intrigued by this idea. I like laying claim to all the mid-20th century "thinking and values" I bring to a book like, say, Cranford. I usually resist seeing a screen adaptation of a book I love. Brit's "modernization" comment helped me see why. I'm not sure I want to give up my own unique interactivity with the book.