Victorians! discussion

Molly is spending time at Hamley and they make her feel very welcome. She seems to enjoy herself, but she misses home. The Hamleys are a bit more old-fashioned and don’t spend any money to acquire the latest furnishings or other such transitory fashions, and they are proud of the fact.

In the meantime Mr. Gibson gets questioned why he hasn’t married again, and the Cumnors are also match-making in regards to Mr. Gibson and Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Before we know it, the two are engaged. They are two very different people, and one can already see trouble ahead…

Molly doesn’t take the engagement well. For all this time she has had her father to herself, and now she needs to share him. She accuses her father of sending her to the Hamleys to secretly arrange this marriage. He chooses to ride off instead of clarifying the situation. Molly is heartbroken and finds a hiding place under a willow tree to nurse her wounds. Roger Hamley, the second son of the Squire, finds her there and consoles her. The two strike up a tender friendship.

The wedding preparations begin in earnest. Molly is now living with the Browning sisters until the wedding. Then the big day is approaching and everyone drives over to Ashcombe.

I felt rather sorry for Molly that her worst nightmare in a way came true. And say what one might, Clare isn't going to be the easiest of persons to live with. In fact, if it hadn't been years earlier where no such thing was thought of, one would imagine, Clare's conduct when Molly is first given to her charge to be exactly that of a classic "stepmother" (the story book kind I mean).

This segment, particularly the Miss Brownings' reactions to Molly's "love story" and friendship with Roger confirms why Mr Gibson did what he did re Bethia in installment one- that's just the sort of thing he was trying to protect her from- and she is in a sense being subjected to it even without having done a thing.

I agree about Clare and Mr Gibson- I'm not even sure what possessed him to propose since he doesn't seem to really admire her very much really- even her beauty hasn't exactly captured him. It seems as though he proposed because she was the only possible "candidate".

Why Mr. Gibson proposed to Clare is a mystery to me as well. He could have just as easily given the governess more supervising instructions. Nothing suggests he was yearning for another spouse.

I also felt that Mr. Gibson’s decision to propose to Clare seemed disproportionate. At the same time, I appreciate how the proposal enables the novel to characterize Clare more fully. I’m eager to learn where her self-interest carries her.

Kerstin wrote: "Why Mr. Gibson proposed to Clare is a mystery to me as well. He could have just as easily given the governess more supervising instructions. Nothing suggests he was yearning for another spouse."
Exactly- it seems as if the circumstances, Lord Holingford's suggestion, the troubles he was having with Mr Coxe, and the idea that there was no other suitable prospect among the ladies around there- all seemed to act together to make him propose.

Lady Clementina wrote: "Exactly- it seems as if the circumstances, Lord Holingford's suggestion, the troubles he was having with Mr Coxe, and the idea that there was no other suitable prospect among the ladies around there- all seemed to act together to make him propose."

That little dinner was quite embarrassing for him wasn't it, with his sulking cook and the dingy plates; being stuck with an unhappy woman (the only one I would presume at the house at present), will push a man I guess. LOL.

I too think that domestic troubles and the realization of Molly's growing up and attracting male attention made Mr. Gibson think seriously of a second marriage.

Why she chose Mrs. Kirkpatrick was another issue. Mr. Gibson does not seemed entranced by her beauty or grace. I felt what influenced the doctor was that she was a governess and now a schoolmistress. And of course, on the praises sung by the Cumnors. I feel Mr. Gibson thought that might be sufficient qualification for the role of a stepmother.

This marriage doesn't bode well.

I felt sorry for Phoebe, who seems to have feelings for Mr Gibson.

I was a bit confused as to who Mr Preston is, could anyone clarify please?

Camille wrote: "This marriage doesn't bode well.

I felt sorry for Phoebe, who seems to have feelings for Mr Gibson.

I was a bit confused as to who Mr Preston is, could anyone clarify please?"

Re Phoebe, I see what you mean but their reactions to Molly's "love" stories (though it was the elder Miss Browning mostly) was what the doctor was trying to protect her from - so it wouldn't do to have her as Molly new mother, would it.

Lady Clementina wrote: "Camille wrote: "This marriage doesn't bode well.

I felt sorry for Phoebe, who seems to have feelings for Mr Gibson.

I was a bit confused as to who Mr Preston is, could anyone clarify please?"

Re..."

That's a good point, I hadn't thought of it this way!

What bothered me already in the first chapters, is only accentuated in these ones:
Each character represents a social class, a particular type. This is of course intentional on the part of Gaskell, to denounce, among others, the women’s condition of that time. But this spoils some characters of the novel, in the sense that it doesn’t make them real or plausible, I explain myself:

First, let’s talk about the the too kind, too naive, too little girl, too good daughter, too unconscious of her beauty, too erased Molly. Have we ever seen a 17-year-old girl ever look at herself in a mirror to get an idea of what she looks like, how beautiful, or not, she is? Have we ever seen a 17-year-old girl have the naivety of a ten-year-old child? Have we ever seen a daughters hide a little of her thoughts and actions from her parents? Ô Molly, you are a saint! And there is no harm in being a saint, except that it’s not a saint that Gaskell presents us. Gaskell wanted, through Molly, to represent a type of character, and this is why we cannot believe that this character is real.

Same for this good Dr. Gibson: Gaskell describes him as being intelligent, having already had one or more female adventures, and having already been married. Gaskell tells us that he knows the human soul well and demonstrates it to us in different things he does or thinks. Why? But then, why does he so suddenly marries a Mrs Kirkpatrick, a woman who ate Molly’s lunch when she was 12 and didn’t admit it! Mrs Kirkpatrick, the most false woman around him! This makes no sense! And the pretext of protecting his daughter with a maternal presence at home is far too thin: to protect a daughter who tells her father everything and does everything he tells her to do! Gibson could have found another solution, smart and resourceful as he is! Gibson seems to be acting lightly to serve Gaskell's purpose and again, I cannot believe this character. What a pity ! I found him so friendly, intelligent, good man and good father, in the first chapters, despite the defects of his time.
With this incomprehensible marriage, Gibson becomes stupid even to the point of disappearing from his own house: he let Betty leave, by closing his eyes on the unfortunate Betty and the equally unfortunate repercussions this has on his daughter whom he loves. He no longer eats what he likes and even ends up eating dinner alone in the kitchen in his own home! He’s not even the master of the conversation anymore and prefers to let his wife talk nonsense rather than just shutting her up! Seriously, the character of Gibson is wobbly.

But what happened to Gaskell?
A novelist writes a fiction that must seem real to the reader; the reader of a novel must be able to immerse himself in a story without ever wondering whether a character is real or not.
Now, Gaskell has the defect of the early19th century female writers Virginia Woolf talks about in A Room on One's Own: Gaskell wants to write a novel, a fictional story, but she puts in a bit of feminism, a bit of class struggle, a bit of criticism of the society and the condition of women, and above all, through Molly, an image of a woman-angel and asexual (Molly is 17, and she behaves like a child, and she seems to have no thought for men, even romantic), of a woman-angel, therefore, the perfect image of male morality in Gaskell's time.
Gaskell, instead of focusing on her story, tries to fight on all fronts through her novel, and loses the truth of her two main characters.

This said, I keep on reading Wives and Daughters with a great pleasure, and can’t wait to know if Molly’s going to choose Roger, the one I prefer! But don’t tell me! As usual, I started this book without knowing anything about it!

Camille wrote: "This marriage doesn't bode well.

I felt sorry for Phoebe, who seems to have feelings for Mr Gibson.

I was a bit confused as to who Mr Preston is, could anyone clarify please?"

Mr Preston is the young steward of Lord Cumnor's estate in Ashcombe. Ashcombe is where Mrs Kirkpatrick lives and runs a little school. Mr Preston is introduced only in passing in Ch.9, but he will become an important character later on.

Gabrielle wrote: "What bothered me already in the first chapters, is only accentuated in these ones:

...

But then, why does he so suddenly marries a Mrs Kirkpatrick, a woman who ate Molly’s lunch when she was 12 and didn’t admit it! Mrs Kirkpatrick, the most false woman around him! This makes no sense! And the pretext of protecting his daughter with a maternal presence at home is far too thin: to protect a daughter who tells her father everything and does everything he tells her to do! Gibson could have found another solution, smart and resourceful as he is!"

Yes, I can see how you feel about the characters Gabrielle. I like how you describe Molly as a "woman-angel". LOL, yes, I had the same issue with the female protagonist of "North and South" for the same reason. ;)

But in Mr G's defense, he doesn't know that Mrs K ate Molly's lunch, does he? Molly never told anyone about that.

I think it goes to show just the kind of front women like Mrs K put on - they behave a certain way among the respected ladies and men while showing their "real self" in front of the servants and children. It's all about maintaining an image and fortunately or unfortunately, men like Mr G easily fall victim to this.

I think he wasn't thinking all that much when he proposed. He seemed to be acting on pure impulse, one thing leading to another....bang, bang, bang and then ... boom!

And as much as I think we are supposed to empathize with Mrs K and see her motives for behaving the way she does in these first few chapters, I cannot come to like this character, at all! Sure she is a victim of her time, station and situation but that doesn't mean she gets a free pass from me. Her situation at the school she runs reminded me of the schools in Dickens novels (esp the one in Nicholas Nickleby for some reason) - except with girls. She has zero ounce of maternal instinct, be it for Molly, her school children or for her own daughter it seems! (Yikes!)

I think if Molly speaks to her character now to her father, all it will do is it will come off as impertinence and petty on her part. I also don't think a daughter had much say on the actions of her father in that time period - it was not her place to do so. As it was in that time, Father knows best!

Nina wrote: "Camille wrote: "This marriage doesn't bode well.

I felt sorry for Phoebe, who seems to have feelings for Mr Gibson.

I was a bit confused as to who Mr Preston is, could anyone clarify please?"

Mr..."

Thank you, it all makes sense now.

Lois wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "What bothered me already in the first chapters, is only accentuated in these ones:

...

But then, why does he so suddenly marries a Mrs Kirkpatrick, a woman who ate Molly’s lunc..."

I don’t agree with you when you excuse Gibson saying he’s a victim of Mrs Kirckpatrick false behaviour : Gaskell had described him to us as an intelligent man able to understand and see the real face of people.
You say : « He seemed to be acting on pure impulse, one thing leading to another....bang, bang, bang and then ... boom! » I like your phrase 😊 and you’re right. But I maintain what I wrote : Gibson character shouldn’t have acted so because he was introduced to us as a thoughtful and intelligent man.
Even if I don’t like Mrs Kirckpatrick, like you, I think « we are supposed to empathize with Mrs K and see her motives for behaving the way she does ». She doesn’t like children, any children (so sad for her daughter), but how many different jobs were women allowed to do ? Had she been loved in her childhood to behave this way ? Certainly not.
And about Molly la Molle (Molly the soft, as I name her in French!), like her father, Gaskell told her she was clever, so slowly, kindly, she could sometimes manage to tell her father (who loves her) a tiny tiny bit of what she thinks, despite, as you say that : Father knows best ! For me, she looks like a larva in her cocoon… ok, let’s be polite and just say : when will she wake up ?

Lois wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "What bothered me already in the first chapters, is only accentuated in these ones:

...

But then, why does he so suddenly marries a Mrs Kirkpatrick, a woman who ate Molly’s lunc..."

Your mention of female protagonist in NandS reminds me why I am resisting arguments about inconsistencies in character, with which I agree. The aforesaid protagonist changed from young woman into a real woman at the end of that novel. As a Gaskell fan, I am expecting WandD to show Molly’s growth from “girl angel”, as nicely termed, to woman. If not a full-fledged Bildungsroman, at least a coming of age story is possible for Molly. I also trust the title; character should be revealed as Mrs K, Mrs H, Mrs H as well as M and C move forward. I am not thoroughly enjoying the book yet but I have high hopes.

So far Mrs. Kirkpatrick seems to me a person who chafes at her lot in life. She must have been educated, otherwise she wouldn't have been a governess. This puts her in close proximity to the gentry, whose lives she would like to live instead of having to "moil and toil." She wants to be taken care of, and after being widowed she has to make a living again! Now that the proposal of Mr. Gibson has fallen in her lap, all she can think of is that he will take care of her now, and we've been given a foretaste that she intends to use his funds for herself. We'll see how this plays out!
She strikes me as a very egotistical woman with no nurturing instinct.

Once in a while when I read a book, I find a quote which I feel is so beautiful, I want to write it down and save it for later. I just want to look at it whenever I feel discouraged. I felt that way about Molly's reply to Roger on the subject of adversity. He has said to her in effect that everything will not seem as bad in time. Then Molly says,

“I daresay it seems foolish; perhaps all our earthly trials will appear foolish to us after a while; perhaps they seem so now to angels. But we are ourselves, you know, and this is now, not some time to come, a long, long way off. And we are not angels, to be comforted by seeing the ends for which everything is sent.”

I think this is a very wise observation about the present moment. Sometimes, we are just sad and when we are, we should be allowed to be.

My other thoughts about this book which have not been said so far are...

My skin crawls as I observe the interactions between Mrs. Kirkpatrick and Molly after the proposal. Mrs. Kirkpatrick and Molly have a little visit at the Cumnors. It seems like a real Hell for Molly. Oh my, it borders on child abuse in my opinion that Molly has to put up with so much hand stroking from Mrs. Kirkpatrick really. It almost stirs up the bile in my throat! I was relieved to see that at one point, Molly does get her hand away! Later on though, they go off with their arms around one another's waists. Then I can't help thinking, "oh no! Poor Molly!" While Molly screams inside, "Get your hands off me you witch!" Molly keeps saying, "I will try to love you." Why doesn't Mrs. Kirkpatrick give her some space?

Joanne wrote: "I daresay it seems foolish; perhaps all our earthly trials will appear foolish to us after a while; perhaps they seem so now to angels. But we are ourselves, you know, and this is now, not some time to come, a long, long way off. And we are not angels, to be comforted by seeing the ends for which everything is sent.”

This is a beautiful quote! And quite an insight. There is much more beneath the innocent veneer, and Gaskell is revealing it bit by bit.

Molly strikes me not so much as a naive girl, but an innocent one. She grew up very sheltered and lacks life experience. Yet she is a keen observer. This quote, and her reply to her father when he visits Hamley to inform her of his impending marriage and she retorts that he sent her away for the sole purpose of arranging a marriage, tells of a very active mind and perhaps a deep thinker as well. I have a hunch - and I'm reading this for the first time - that she will prove her mettle.

Kerstin wrote: "Joanne wrote: "I daresay it seems foolish; perhaps all our earthly trials will appear foolish to us after a while; perhaps they seem so now to angels. But we are ourselves, you know, and this is no..."

I agree on Molly- she is innocent but quite insightful. I don't quite agree with the comment earlier about her being too-child-like because it seems to fit with the way she was brought up.

"Have we ever seen a 17-year-old girl have the naivety of a ten-year-old child? Have we ever seen a daughters hide a little of her thoughts and actions from her parents? Ô Molly, you are a saint! And there is no harm in being a saint, except that it’s not a saint that Gaskell presents us. Gaskell wanted, through Molly, to represent a type of character, and this is why we cannot believe that this character is real." - Gabrielle

I am afraid to say there are such people - usually very protected and family-bound. I met them as the children of Aramco employees in Saudi Arabia. I hesitate to say, but they are also quite often found in strict Christian families, elsewhere. They are instantly recognizable because they look so odd - baby faces on late-teenage bodies, dated-looking clothes - a kind of throwback to decades past.

Now, this syndrome was very widespread in Victorian times. Good girls knew nothing of the real world outside the family - and they were kept that way to remain so! (See comment by Kerstin, and “Father knows best!” by Lois.) I read that in the 19th century the average age of menarche was eighteen years old!

Yup. Baby-boobies. So, to me, Molly is fairly believable.

Gabrielle wrote: "...Gibson character shouldn’t have acted so because he was introduced to us as a thoughtful and intelligent man. ..."

I actually think that was the point Gabrielle; that intelligent people can make terrible decisions too when (seemingly) in a tough place.


Is there a lot of difference between naivete and innocence Kerstin?


I agree that even though Molly is naive she is not always an angel given her temper and quick tongue as she has demonstrated so far. Her insightfullness does help in distinguishing her from the other of Gaskell's woman-angel I mentioned in my post above.

John wrote: "I read that in the 19th century the average age of menarche was eighteen years old!"

Yes. The onset of menarche has to do with body weight. A young woman has to reach a certain body weight for her cycles to begin. Since people used to be slimmer and proper nutrition a constant struggle girls physically matured at a much slower pace. Today we have the reverse problem due to the obesity crisis where girls are under 10!

Lois wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "...Gibson character shouldn’t have acted so because he was introduced to us as a thoughtful and intelligent man. ..."

I actually think that was the point Gabrielle; that intelli..."

John wrote: ""Have we ever seen a 17-year-old girl have the naivety of a ten-year-old child? Have we ever seen a daughters hide a little of her thoughts and actions from her parents? Ô Molly, you are a saint! A..."

John, I can imagine the effect that the kind of education you're talking about can have on children.
But I’m not sure that a child brought up in a very protected way and with a lot of love become an angel. It seems to me that a part of malignancy is in each one of us. Malignancy grows or shrinks, according to two things:
The environment in which one grows up; environment that can increase our tendency to harm or not.
And our free will that leaves us the choice of which part we will give the malignity in our thoughts and actions.
So I don’t understand this word «Baby-boobies», but, to me, Molly isn’t totally believable.

Lois, I agree, Molly is naive: she has the credulity that results from her inexperience which is due to her protected education.
But where I don’t agree (with Gaskell), it’s in the fact that Molly (or anyone) can’t be so innocent : she cannot be so completely free of malignancy, can she? I thought everyone had a «dark side», I mean even a tiny bad thought sometimes, a very little lie? or am I the only one having one? 😊

Gabrielle wrote: "Lois wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "...Gibson character shouldn’t have acted so because he was introduced to us as a thoughtful and intelligent man. ..."

I actually think that was the point Gabrielle;..."

But she isn't an angel is she? She hates the thought of her father remarrying but as she can't change that she is trying her best so that things go as smoothly as possible - by following Roger's advice as best as she can. You can see that she's fighting with her own opposition of the idea.

Re her child-like nature, that is more in the sense of her not really being aware of the "dangers" that she is in, in a house with young men- she doesn't react as strongly to the Miss Brownings' teasing as she ought to have had she really caught on.

Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lois wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "...Gibson character shouldn’t have acted so because he was introduced to us as a thoughtful and intelligent man. ..."

I actually think that was th..."

About your first sentence :
Maybe I missed something in the book, But I don’t think Molly reacted, even a little bit, against this marriage, she didn’t try anything, so to me, she’s too weak. And it’s her weakness that «allowed» this marriage.
About your second sentence :
This is where she’s an angel : when she fights against herself to please everyone. It’s easy to be kind when everything’s alright, but not easy when it’s the contrary.

Oh, poor Molly! I was just not very attracted by her kind of character painted by Gaskell. But it seems that the more I answer to you all, the more I look like I don’t like her at all, which is not the case. I just hope that she’s going to wake up and realize that she’s a thinking person and say what she thinks, which can be done softly without hurting anyone, when you’re not stupid, and Molly isn’t stupid, I think.

And I agree with your second paragraph, Lady Clementina.

Gabrielle wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lois wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "...Gibson character shouldn’t have acted so because he was introduced to us as a thoughtful and intelligent man. ..."

I ac..."
That's taking me back to something that I read in another context- a reaction doesn't have to be an outburst or something she does- not rebellion or protest necessarily but trying as best they can to cope with what's before them to accept it as best as they can- not "fighting" doesn't necessarily make one weak or angelic- perhaps only normal. Her heart has been broken- her crying and being upset and so openly in someone else's house shows that she's reacting- and really when you think about it, what else could she have done? - perhaps you think her angelic because she didn't try to openly protest or even try to sabotage what was happening, but not everyone would... I think the fact that she is struggling shows she is very human

Re her weakness also, if she were really meek she might even have agreed to visit with Clare at her school as Lady Cumnor suggested but she spoke up- said what was in her heart- that she did not want to lose the little time she had left with her father- surely, that can't be called weakness?

Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lois wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "...Gibson character shouldn’t have acted so because he was introduced to us as a thoughtful and intelligen..."

Ok, ok... Molly's not so weak. :)
You know what bothers me, behind Molly's character, Lady Clementina?
It's that I always wonder: how would have been Molly if Gaskell had felt more free to describe her? It seems to me that Molly isn't what Gaskell really wanted.

Gabrielle wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lois wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "...Gibson character shouldn’t have acted so because he was introduced to us as a t..."

I see you don't agree but that's ok... after all each of us is entitled to interpret a character as we see them.. that's the whole point :)

Perhaps, that I can't say with any certainty- she has written of such a range of characters- Margaret Hale for instance, who was so much more outspoken and self-assured, and not very much older than Molly- she is one I think you would see as strong- definitely much more assertive than Molly.

Again, though I can't say with certainty, the restraint you are speaking of in EG's description may have to do with the fact that she is writing of a time, fifty years before her own.

I have a real problem with seeing Dr Gibson as a sympathetic character. My impression is that he always takes the easy path- sack the woman servant and keep faith with his male friend and his son; send Molly away; oh dear, she is returning sometime, where do I look for assistance (after all the female staff have left or are sullenly reacting to his earlier treatment ) - here is a comely widow who has been suggested as a partner...To me he is dictatorial to Molly (think about how he bullied her into calling Hyacinth Mamma) and weak when confronted with an adult woman over whom he has no control. I have more sympathy with Molly as, although she is mainly portrayed as compliant (and I think this is a better description than weak) this young woman who is accustomed to doing as her father says sometimes rebels. She has a calculating eye (in the nicest sense) at times, about what is being said and done and its impact on her. Think about how she refused to countenance jokes at the expense of the sister - and she won. There are a number of these incidents and I think she will gather herself together and quietly control a difficult situation.

Apart from the politics of these chapters, I was interested in the descriptions of the countryside, which seem to have more impact than any earlier attempts to locate the story. I rather liked this as a change of pace and development of the locale beyond houses and furnishings.

Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lois wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "...Gibson character shouldn’t have acted so because he was intro..."


Bonjour Lady Clementina,
You said: "the restraint you are speaking of in EG's description may have to do with the fact that she is writing of a time, fifty years before her own."
Maybe you're right, but I think , as I already said above, it's more due to the fact that Mrs Gaskell has the defect of the early19th century female writers Virginia Woolf talked about in A Room on One's Own: Gaskell wants to write a novel, a fictional story, but she puts in a bit of feminism, a bit of class struggle, a bit of criticism of the society and the condition of women. And the young Molly is shown as the asexual woman-angel, the perfect image of male morality in Gaskell's time.
Gaskell, instead of focusing on her story, tries to fight on all fronts through her novel, and loses the truth of her two main characters, Molly and her father.

But once again, I really enjoy this novel! I'll read next chapters without thinking about "the why and the how", as we say in French, and just take pleasure to the story.

Robin wrote: "I have a real problem with seeing Dr Gibson as a sympathetic character. My impression is that he always takes the easy path- sack the woman servant and keep faith with his male friend and his son; ..."

Maybe you're not wrong at all, Robin, when you say that Gibson "always takes the easy path"! Very good point.

Gabrielle wrote: "Robin wrote: "I have a real problem with seeing Dr Gibson as a sympathetic character. My impression is that he always takes the easy path- sack the woman servant and keep faith with his male friend..."

The kind who wants to avoid any unpleasantness perhaps, or avoid difficult situations at any rate. But that said, even if he ought to have sent young Coxe away as well, I do think he did "right" getting rid of the maid- in the sense that he had to have in teh house only those he could absolutely trust with the responsibility for Molly on him alone. Even if she didn't do it out of greed, or made a mistake taking the letter, he could never have been sure that she wouldn't do such a thing again. So on that count I do see where he was coming from.

Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Robin wrote: "I have a real problem with seeing Dr Gibson as a sympathetic character. My impression is that he always takes the easy path- sack the woman servant and keep faith wi..."

Ah, ah! you're tough in business, Lady Clementina! :D
I agree that getting rid of the maid couldn't be avoid, and Gibson did it the best way he could. He's also a very busy man, with a job that isn't easy. And I understand that all he wishes is finding peace at home. And that's why he marries: a wife, in that time, gave her husband a peaceful home, a meal ready on the table, and well behaved children.
But life isn't easy for anyone - well, not for me! :D
And Robin isn't wrong: Gibson has rested so far on his wife before she dies, then on his housekeeper, and he now on his wife, whom he has chosen hastily, for fear of being left alone to face the fact that his baby Molly is growing up. He's a man of his time: he thinks he's above women but he depends on them!

Gabrielle wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Robin wrote: "I have a real problem with seeing Dr Gibson as a sympathetic character. My impression is that he always takes the easy path- sack the woman s..."

Ha ha- not so, just trying to think from Mr Gibson's perspective.

I don't know that I got the impression that Mr Gibson thinks himself above women- it seems more like he doesn't quite know how to deal with them (to put it a little bluntly) - when it comes to his practice and scientific things, he's intelligent and sure of himself, but not so when it comes to women.

Lady Clementina wrote: " ... Perhaps, that I can't say with any certainty- she has written of such a range of characters- Margaret Hale for instance, who was so much more outspoken and self-assured, and not very much older than Molly- she is one I think you would see as strong- definitely much more assertive than Molly. "

I didn't get the impression that Margaret Hale was "outspoken and self-assured" from the book. I felt that she was like that only with John and that too because she didn't like the man. But I would agree that the Margaret from the TV series was much more outspoken and self-assured than book Margaret.


Gabrielle wrote: "... Gaskell wants to write a novel, a fictional story, but she puts in a bit of feminism, a bit of class struggle, a bit of criticism of the society and the condition of women. ... Gaskell, instead of focusing on her story, tries to fight on all fronts through her novel, and loses the truth of her two main characters, Molly and her father."

I'm not sure I can agree with your viewpoint Gabrielle, considering that this was Gaskell's final novel and neither was this her first rodeo when it came to writing about prevalent gritty issues of her time.

Lois wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: " ... Perhaps, that I can't say with any certainty- she has written of such a range of characters- Margaret Hale for instance, who was so much more outspoken and self-assured..."

May be I am confusing the two Margarets a little- but I also meant as a contrast to Molly. Still Margaret conducts herself quite confidently in any society, shoulders the burdens that her family seem to literally dump on her (the moving house, her mother's illness, Frederick's situation, then again when (view spoiler)[person from the union dies, telling his family when her father ought to have (hide spoiler)]) with strength - and I think it was not just with John that she is outspoken, also with Mr Lennox, Mrs Thornton as well- also with the Higgins in a way.

Lady Clementina wrote: "May be I am confusing the two Margarets a little- but I also meant as a contrast to Molly."

;) No of course, I understand what you mean to say Lady C.

But, can I just say that Margaret (unlike Molly) has had a proper (and bonus...London!) education and upbringing, being her cousin's companion from the ages of 8-18 years.

But even Margaret doesn't protest her father's actions but rather defends him, because again, like in Molly's case, fathers know best. It was the duty of the daughter to follow and help him in every way to make his life easier rather than more difficult by voicing their anger or personal concerns.

Molly at least doesn't shy away from protesting Mr G and that may be due to being spoilt by being her father's sole companion all these years.

Lois wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "May be I am confusing the two Margarets a little- but I also meant as a contrast to Molly."

;) No of course, I understand what you mean to say Lady C.

But, can I just sa..."

True about the upbringing- I think I did say that somewhere (don't know if it was this thread). Plus of course her being just a few years older than Molly as well.

And yes, you're right as far as her reactions to her father's decision are concerned. She doesn't really understand why he did what he did (and I don't think I was very clear either on what exactly his grouse was) but still, she is more concerned with keeping peace in the house (and for her mother's health) than with her own opinions on her father's decision.

Gabrielle wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lois wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "...Gibson character shouldn’t have acted..."Yes, I am trying to enjoy this novel as a story without analyzing it a lot. I think a bit of analysis is good. After all, that's why we have this book discussion! It teaches us something about the history of the time. However, I think Mrs. Gaskell did write a good story! I am enjoying the characters. I am curious to see how Molly and Clare's relationship will develop. I think they have made a connection to some degree as they seem to want the same. I disagree with some of you who are saying that this is entirely a marriage of convenience. I know that Mr. Gibson mostly married her so Molly could have a mother. However, I don't know where I read it, but I'm sure I read it somewhere, that Mr. Gibson also loves Clare in a way. I think he really did want some female companionship. I think he was lonely for it.

Oddly perhaps, I am enjoying the minor characters and their interactions much more than the major characters. Lord and Lady Cumnor, Squire and Mrs. Hamley, the Misses Browning and even the as yet not seen Osborne, who reminds me of another Hyacinth‘s never seen Sheridan, are livelier company than Molly, Gibson and Clare. I hope Preston is not just the one dimensional cad that he is introduced as but I suspect that he will not be given any redeeming feature. I had hoped that Clare would not be merely the wicked stepmother but she seems worse and worse with every appearance. I was surprised to find Gaskell editorializing on her contemptible character when it was clear without that underscoring.

Lady Clementina wrote: "Lois wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "May be I am confusing the two Margarets a little- but I also meant as a contrast to Molly."

;) No of course, I understand what you mean to say Lady C.

But, ..."
One more thought on the ideal Victoria daughter- one also probably has to take into account social structure at that point- (though this may sound mercenary) they were after all more or less dependent on their fathers or husbands - and unless they didn't have any family or were in really dire financial straights wouldn't have had to earn their livings - so rebelling or questioning wouldn't have been as much an option. If that makes sense.

I don’t know what to make of the upper-class women (Lady Cumnor and Lady Hamley) and their frail health. There is a lot of focus on their health and we do not hear about any middle- or lower-class women with bad health.

I have the feeling that Gaskell wants to convey a message about upper-class women this way. What do you think?

The “ill health” or “delicacy” of the upper class ladies is a kind of passive aggressive power that they hold over others to gain attention, sympathy and will. This is especially clear with Lady Cumnor who adopts the invalid pose to escape her London season and then finds it convenient to have everyone dancing attendance on tiptoes. When she wants to she will bare her teeth and remind those around her of her strength. Mrs. Hamley, faced with an unpalatable rural life with a good but unpolished spouse instead of the sophisticated London life she would prefer, retreats to her boudoir and drawing room and avoids the rustics.

Martin wrote: "The “ill health” or “delicacy” of the upper class ladies is a kind of passive aggressive power that they hold over others to gain attention, sympathy and will. This is especially clear with Lady Cu..."

In Mrs Hamley's case, though, it appears the illness is more real than one thinks it at first glance.

Martin wrote: "Oddly perhaps, I am enjoying the minor characters and their interactions much more than the major characters. Lord and Lady Cumnor, Squire and Mrs. Hamley, the Misses Browning and even the as yet n..."

I love all the secondary characters too - Gaskell has done a great job in creating so many distinct characters in what is quite a sizeable cast. Gruff Mr Hamley is my favourite.

Charlotte wrote: "I don’t know what to make of the upper-class women (Lady Cumnor and Lady Hamley) and their frail health. There is a lot of focus on their health and we do not hear about any middle- or lower-class ..."

Lady Clementina and Martin are both right.

I also think that upper-class women had a lot of time for themselves, and maybe, they were bored. In fact, they had to much time to think only of themselves. They had no job to occupy their thoughts, and not all of them were gifted for the piano, reading, or whatever ... Therefore their thoughts went around in circles around their health. They self-listended too much, if I may say so. When you feel a little pain, but you have to take your children to school and go quickly to work, you don’t have time to think about it, and as well, pain might have disappear at night. But when you have only that to think, the pain amplifies.

It appears Molly's worst nightmare is coming true. Mr.Gibson is a fool for marrying Mrs. Kirkpatrick. It appears that his only motives are because of Molly blossoming into womanhood and perhaps he wants a consistent and stable routine at home. It would only be a few years until Molly is probably married herself, if she chooses. However, it looks as if Molly isn't interested romantically in the opposite sex (except for the poems of Osborne's). Molly is just content to live at home with her father, probably for the rest of her life.

Mr. Gibson could have just hired a better governess, servants and cook. He probably could have told his two male students that they would have to rent another place to live, instead of staying at his place and having dinner with him too. What a fool because he won't discuss things over with Molly, in the end he is hurting Molly and himself. Naturally, fathers wouldn't think of talking things over with there daughters during that era. In the end Mrs. Kirkpatrick is just using Mr. Gibson for his money.

We have yet to meet Mrs. Kirkpatrick's daughter and there was reference again to Mr. Gibson's dear "Jeanie." There seems to be a foreshadow of a scandal appearing somewhere.

I don't think Molly's character is unbelievable. She is ignorant of some things because she does not have a mother, siblings, or other friends her age. Girls had fewer opportunities than boys did, so naturally she lacking in character. She hasn't had enough life experience. Also, I would like to make another point about her lack in attention to the opposite sex. Society is much more open about sex now than in the past. However, isn't there some people even today who couldn't care less about romantic relationships Usually they are the ones that end up falling madly in love for a single person.

Molly is extremely childish. She reminds me of the sisters in Little Women. They all appeared to be about five years younger than their actual age. But then, women were supposed to be childlike back then, weren't they? It seems to have been an ideal that they should be as unformed as possible when they marry, so the husband could mold his wife to suit him. Makes me shudder.

As for Clare, I almost had a bit of sympathy for her for a bit. She's a widow with a child, and she is clearly not suited to be a governess or teacher, but her options have been very limited. I can see how she would long for a husband to "take care of the finances". But her idea of being a wife appears to be to preside over the drawing room and spend money. Not really taking the job of being a mother/step-mother and homemaker. She seems not just inept, but frivolous and selfish. She plays everyone. And she lost every last grain of sympathy when she schemed to keep her own daughter from the wedding because she didn't want a near-adult daughter there to outshine her. She is a terrible idea for a step-mother for Molly. Although she is at least likely to want to keep all the male attention for herself, and so keep the men away from Molly for that reason. :P

Coming into this week’s conversation late- already so many points I would like to reply to. So here’s my take which may echo observations already made.

Mr. Gibson was not thinking of marriage at all until Lord Hollingford observed it might solve all his problems and Gibson seized on this as a good idea. Having a wife would mean someone else would be responsible for the domestic duties period. If they needed a cook, she would hire one, she would take care of making sure everything was clean and presentable...he wouldn’t have to think a wink about anything domestic. A wife would be the protectress that Molly needed as she grew from girl to womanhood. A perfect solution, but he had to find someone to marry. Mrs. Kirkpatrick ended up being the only possibility. While at first his motives appeared totally devoid of attraction toward her, when he impetuously proposes, there is a little ambiguity surrounding this point. He isn’t blind to her flaws as the narrator points out, although he was totally unaware of what took place between her and Molly several years ago. The ambiguity of his decision surfaces again when the Browning sisters ascribe his decision to dealing with household matters and Molly. He tells them they can think whatever they want, he himself is unclear about his motives. This contrasts to Mrs. Kirkpatrick whose estimation of Mr. Gibson grew in relation to his being her savior from the life she abhors and feels unfair.

As for Molly, I am trying to respond to her character as representing a girl of the early 19th century who lives in an isolated social environment without a mother’s attention or teaching and very close and dependent upon her only parent. She certainly is a good girl, not subject to tantrums or demanding her own way. However, given her devotion to her father and that parent/child relationships were much more ruler/ruled than in modern times, I don’t find her hiding her emotions about the coming marriage or putting her father first in many things as problematic.

Molly obviously begins as quite naive, but also a product of her isolated and protected environment. She is already changing. Her time at the Hamleys results in her noticing the coarseness of the Browning sisters, how they are not at all interested in things, but only in people (gossipy items). She certainly is oblivious as to why she likes Roger’s company (aside from his kind nature and positive mentorship) and that Mr. Preston is flirting with her. Her only romantic notions are her fantasy about Osborne, unknown in reality, but the premier son in the eyes of his parents and so in hers as well. Before going to the Hamleys, she has spent only limited time with young men. Her father tries hard to keep her away from the apprentices, although Mr. Coxe still managed to develop a crush on her. So is it that much of a stretch to believe that this socially isolated girl has not developed an idea of herself as a coming of age young woman?