Forgotten Classics and Other Lesser Known Books (or No One Has Read this but Me!) discussion

Hi there! I hope we have a few of you still with us, we are at the end!

In this section we learn the true background of Virginia St. Pierre (aka Rachel)! How does someone arbitrarily change another person's name by the way? That's just bizarre, although I suppose it reveals quite a bit about our Mr. Hervey, who decides to keep his little pet totally isolated from the world in the hopes of grooming her to his exact specifications. Only... wait... then he becomes bored. And is enchanted by Lady Delacour. And of course, by Belinda, who vastly exceeds our poor insipid Virginia who is stuck in her room reading romance novels all day long and pining for the only man she has ever been around. Bizarrely, but I suppose in romance novel fashion, Virginia falls in love with (she supposes) a man that she has never met, and of course Mr. Hervey flees to marry Belinda.

A few questions on this section:

1. Why do you suppose this book is called Belinda and not Lady Delacour? Do you think Belinda drives most of the action in the book? What do you think of Belinda as a main character?

2. Which character represents the ideal woman in the novel?

3. Is Mr. Hervey a good guy or selfish and calculating?

4. What concepts in the novel do you think would have been controversial during the time the book was published (1801)? Is this a feminist novel?

5. Why do you think the author described her novel as 'a moral tale'?

I was horrified by Virginia's treatment. Totally changed my opinion of Clarence and made the rest of the book hard going since I no longer cared about him ending up with Belinda. Hopefully marrying Belinda will help change his selfish nature. And why did he steal Virginia's pet bird instead of just buying one to give away?
I didn't see this as a feminist novel. Her moral seemed to be "women are happiest filling traditional roles and being virtuous - no human failings allowed". The only possible feminist part could be woman author.

I jumped in and read the book all at once, but then wished I had stuck to the reading schedule.

I'm still on ch. 24, but I will mention that the girl raised to be the perfect wife trope even comes up in Jane Austen, if only briefly as a topic of conversation in EMMA.
When Frank Churchill is quarreling with Jane Fairfax, he suggests to Emma that she bring up someone to be his bride.

I am so close to finished, and yet, unlike the cliche, I not only can put it down, I MUST put it down.
I find almost everything in this final fifth very contrived and conventional 18th C. sentimental claptrap.. esp. little orphan Rachel aka Virginia; but Vincent and the E O table (whatever that is) is almost as bad.
Why did she cram all this melodramatic junk in at the end? It's almost the yin yang to the fun with which she kicked off.

I am almost finished, though.

And.. finished. The very last chapter redeems a lot, for me. I thought the self-referential "in a play anyway," "shall I go on for five more volumes?" was witty in the Delacour style.

And Lady D. wins the book, absolutely. She is a fascinating character, and Mrs. Edgeworth didn't have to keep TELLING us this, as she did with Hervey. It was pretty much every thing she said and everything she did.

I feel bad for Vincent slinking off to Germany, of all places.

Very glad we read it on this five week schedule. On my own, I could easily have taken five years to read it.

The EO table is kind of like roulette. I guess that part was in there to give Belinda an excuse to get rid of Vincent. It would look bad for good girl Belinda yo dump Vincent for Clarence ha.

Christopher wrote: "And.. finished. The very last chapter redeems a lot, for me. I thought the self-referential "in a play anyway," "shall I go on for five more volumes?" was witty in the Delacour style.

And Lady D. ..."

I am glad you guys enjoyed breaking it into little bits. I agree it would have taken me a long time to read this one on my own.

I didn't care as much for this last part of the book either. In my annotated edition it said that Lady D was supposed to die and people argued that would have been a stronger ending. Kind of reminds me of that movie Strange than Fiction with Will Ferrell and Emma Thompson.

I think now that am done with the book I will look at those illustrations I found in a copy available online.

I do feel for the author. Apparently there were three major versions of the text the 1801, 1802 and 1810. The version I read was based on the 1802 version. Apparently they made her gut her text in the 1810 because they wanted it to follow more imperialistic goals of the time.

Oh, hmm. I guess the Tales and Novels version is the "final" version.

I know that the 1818 Frankenstein, for example, is considered to be better than Mary Shelley's 1831 revision.

I guess Dickens, Disraeli, and other authors made significant changes to their early works which used to get more deference from editors.

Portrait of a Lady is another book which is supposed to be better in the unrevised version.

Christopher wrote: "Oh, hmm. I guess the Tales and Novels version is the "final" version.

I know that the 1818 Frankenstein, for example, is considered to be better than Mary Shelley's 1831 revision.

I guess Dickens..."

I have the 1818 version of Frankenstein and I am hoping to finally get to it this year. I read somewhere that that her huband? was a poet and he went through and edited it before it was published. That she had much simpler text before that but he wanted to help her "make it better." I don't know if any of that survived.

I didn't know that Portrait of a Lady had a "better" version. Dickens is so very long I think it would be fun to find an edition or a group that would break it up into the bits it was read in in the first place. I think that might make it easier to get through.

I don't think I have ever heard of Disraeli.

I'd like to read the The Picture of Dorian Gray in the original. I found an edition of that one that was unedited at the library.

Luella, I agree about breaking up Dickens. I've never been able to get through a book.

ConnieD wrote: "I was horrified by Virginia's treatment. Totally changed my opinion of Clarence and made the rest of the book hard going since I no longer cared about him ending up with Belinda. Hopefully marrying..."

wasn't it almost criminal the way he kept her captive and isolated? It reminded me of stockholm syndrome where the imprisoned fall for their captors

Christopher wrote: "And.. finished. The very last chapter redeems a lot, for me. I thought the self-referential "in a play anyway," "shall I go on for five more volumes?" was witty in the Delacour style.

And Lady D. ..."

yes the schedules are so helpful! I liked Lady D the best even though she was hardly the most benign character. Belinda, meh, not that compelling in my view although less insipid than Virginia

Christopher wrote: "Oh, hmm. I guess the Tales and Novels version is the "final" version.

I know that the 1818 Frankenstein, for example, is considered to be better than Mary Shelley's 1831 revision.

I guess Dickens..."

I never knew there were so many versions of some of these older novels- we will have to investigate for future group reads if there are various options available!

Dianne wrote: wasn't it almost criminal the way he kept her captive and isolated? It reminded me of stockholm syndrome where the imprisoned fall for their captors


I think the whole Virginia storyline was meant to undermine the 'trope' (which she explicitly traces back to Rousseau's Emile).

That is, both Virginia and Hervey were cruising toward a life of misery out of a sense of honor.

BUT- I would point out that Hervey is raising the girl in accordance with the grandmother's wishes, and furthermore, makes every effort to reunite her with her father, including exhibiting the portrait, advertising, etc.

I think ME goes out of her way to clear Hervey of any wrongdoing.. to the point of some ridiculous twists. (Just at the time Hervey is trying to find the father, the father is institutionalized, etc.. actually that's not hard to believe, except the extraordinarily bad timing.)

Nonetheless, it is generally assumed that Virginia is his mistress, not his ward, the girl is infinitely grateful to the point where she is ashamed to tell him she doesn't love him. He feels honor bound to marry her, even though he doesn't love her..

All that was a lot to swallow, but I didn't find it MORALLY objectionable. Maybe everyone else here thinks, well, if it's so preposterous and unlikely, then it's probably wrong too.

I'm just saying, or suggesting, that Mrs. Edgeworth wrote it with everyone involved "cleared" morally, in order to prove that in the best possible scenario, it would still be a disaster or potential disaster. (shrugs shoulders)

If Clarence hadn't met Belinda and stayed enamored of Virginia, it would have been a disaster for Her anyway. And I doubt he would have gone to such lengths to find her father since his main reason for looking was to get the father to take Virginia off his hands.
But as you said, the writer smooths it all over with a happy ending for all. Even though giving Virginia a "true love" of her own took some extreme maneuvering! But I suppose early novelists were still finding their wat in how to present the stories they want to tell.

Dianne wrote: "A few questions on this section:

1. I think it is called Belinda because she was the moralizing force on those around. Most of the characters were disillusioned and jaded before spending time with her, and they were very suspect of her goodness. However, as I just stated on the week 4 discussion, Lady D is the reason to read this, I think. She was a very interesting character.

2. Lady Anne is the mature ideal woman, and Belinda is the younger version, in my opinion.

3. The Virginia/Rachel situation was weird, and I would not say I liked it. BUT I think overall Hervey is a good guy, just misguided. He was dissatisfied with society and his marriage options within it. I I believe that his plan and Virginia were a fruition of that dissatisfaction. I think he wanted a loyal and loving wife, and he saw no possibilities within society., where infidelity was almost a given. Virginia is also a device within the tale to show women's free will and individuality. It is a cautionary tale that no matter how sheltered, molding a woman into what a man wants is not a going to go as planned.

4 & 5. I will come back to.

Ok, 4&5

I see this novel as partially feminist and also not. It was contradictory in its purpose if it was, but I do think it was trying to be in some respects. It does not hold much value for today's society as feminist novel, whether it was or wasn't. Belinda didn't seem to consider marriage her only option, I didn't think, but there were very few options for women at that time. I thought it advocated the education of women, through Virginia and early on through Lady D's story of her early marriage. She was thought to be a wit and intelligent, but she was never taught economy and the importance of understanding a contract, so her husband tricked her into signing her fortune and security away and her uncle mocked her for it. The Lady D story may have been more of a cautionary tale for women though. I do think she tried to show women as free thinking individuals though.

At the time this was written, novels were considered frivolous and without much value. I believe Edgeworth was trying to write a book with a purpose that would reach the greatest audience. I think it was more of a tact to get non-novel readers to read a novel. Creating social awareness or change through fiction was not really done at this time.

Christopher wrote: "I'm still on ch. 24, but I will mention that the girl raised to be the perfect wife trope even comes up in Jane Austen, if only briefly as a topic of conversation in EMMA.
When Frank Churchill is q..."

I am reading Mansfield Park, right now, and am noticing this some in the way Fanny is treated by Edmund. Kind of strange. I feel like I have a whole new lense to read Austen through.

ConnieD wrote: "I was horrified by Virginia's treatment. Totally changed my opinion of Clarence and made the rest of the book hard going since I no longer cared about him ending up with Belinda. Hopefully marrying..."

I didn't catch this bird stealing scene when listening. Wish I had read instead now. I wonder what else I missed.

Dianne wrote: "Christopher wrote: "Oh, hmm. I guess the Tales and Novels version is the "final" version.

I know that the 1818 Frankenstein, for example, is considered to be better than Mary Shelley's 1831 revisi..."

I didn't either!

Christopher wrote: "And.. finished. The very last chapter redeems a lot, for me. I thought the self-referential "in a play anyway," "shall I go on for five more volumes?" was witty in the Delacour style.

And Lady D. ..."

I completely agree with everything you say here. The last chapter redeemed a lot for me as well.

The reading schedule worked for me, up until I took vacation. I tried to finish before, but I didn't quite make it.