Victorians! discussion

Much of this segment too, it seems we are to spend following Rebecca’s exploits, though we check in with developments in Amelia’s life as well (We don’t learn what became of Dobbin’s application for leave and attempt to return to England when he heard rumours of Amelia’s impeding marriage). Becky is first making a place for herself in Sir Pitt’s life, endearing herself to him and taking an active part in his affairs, starting with the redecoration of the Crawleys’ London house, and eventually advising him in matters of business, and state. As a result, both Lady Jane and Rawdon are being pushed more and more to the sidelines, more so Rawdon, as Becky’s only use for him is to have him by her side to keep up appearances as she must. This segment sees two of Becky’s biggest ambitions realised. She is finally presented at court and what a success she makes of it―perfect costume, perfect manners, and the right amount of disdain (or perhaps a little more than right). And not long after, with Lord Steyne’s help, she finally finds a place in society “proper” with invitations to parties at Lord Steyne’s, and then with foreign dignitaries and the better names in society, ones who wouldn’t receive her before. But the ladies are still not very welcoming of her (“the greatest tyrants over women are women”, something we were discussing in previous segments as well), though she manages to soften Lady Steyne herself with her singing. And then begin the entertainments at her own house. So much society means of course, plenty of glamour, and entertainment―dancing, music, charades. But Becky seems to be tiring of all this as well, that “hint of regret” creeping up once again. And Becky is cutting the few female acquaintances who paid her attention when she wasn’t so high up. Will this backfire, one wonders?

The Crawleys' circumstances are as straitened as ever, however, and neither the Raggles not Miss Briggs have received any money. Becky admits to Lord Steyne what has become of Miss Briggs’ fortune, and is glad enough to accept the money (we aren’t told how much) to pay her off, but much of that goes into her personal “bank”, while both Raggles and Miss Briggs receive a placebo of sorts. And at the end of the segment, it seems some creditors are beginning to catch up with Rawdon.

Meanwhile rumours seems to be spreading about her and Lord Steyne among the servants, but is there any truth to them? Lord Steyne has been going all out to promote her wishes pretty much forcing his family to call on her and invite her to dinner, and then there are the diamonds that she “hired” for her appearance at court. And of course, at the charades at Lord Steyne’s house, Becky as Clytemnestra is hint enough.

Alongside, little Rawdon continues to be neglected by his mother, which is a little sad to see and one is glad to see him enjoy himself so at Queen’s Crawley, where he has opportunities to have a little fun (and boss over his cousins), and at least finds some motherly love in his aunt Jane. That moment of his child-like outburst about his mother never kissing him at home was both heartbreaking from his point of view, and the slap in the face that Becky deserved.

Chapter 47 took us on a little detour of Gaunt House and Lord Steyne’s background. I must confess this chapter took me some time to get my head around, and for a bit I couldn’t quite make out who was father and who was son. But once I did manage to make some sense of it, I realised perhaps all of Lord Steyne’s dissipations were a means of escaping his reality. But I also found myself wondering why we were taken into his life, was it just his connection with Becky, or is Thackeray showing us another face of those who tread the paths of Vanity Fair, that those who seem heartless, ruthless, dissipated have a story too, are looking for escape like Steyne or revenge of sorts like Becky, for life has been unfair in its own way to them.

In the Sedley household, things aren’t faring very much better. Amelia reacts strongly (and rightly so) to Mr Osborne’s proposal to take George away from her but soon after she must retract for Mr Sedley has git his family into another spot of financial trouble. When Jos’ allowance stops, one almost begins to wonder why and whether any trouble has befallen him (since there were some discussions about this in the previous segments), but before long we find it wasn’t anything to do with poor Jos after all. He may not be the kind who can give any moral or emotional support to his family but he was generous with his money. Money trouble makes Mrs Sedley crabby and a little cruel, hurting poor Amelia in the process but I thought it was a little good for Amelia (the situation I mean) for it snapped her out of being fixated on Georgy alone as she begins to at least try and help her family. When the worst happens and she has to give up Georgy, the latter I thought showed shades of being his father’s son preferring rich grandpapa to doting mama―a much needed wake up call for Amelia, though I doubt she’ll see it as that. While I didn’t feel so bad for Amelia losing Georgy, perhaps this will be good for them both, but the thought of Mr Osborne gloating was not the pleasantest. This bit also made me realise that the part about Dobbin receiving his sister’s letter in Madras (week 5) was probably concurrent to this.

Only two more segments to go so things will begin to wrap up soon, so what lies ahead for Becky, now that her ambitions have been achieved, and will Amelia and Dobbin get together finally? Just a couple of weeks before we find out.

This section was a bit tedious to get through for me, especially Chaps 47 (Gaunt House) and 51 (In Which a Charade Is Acted Which May or May Not Puzzle the Reader). I found myself skimming through much of them. :S

Was the whole point about the history of Gaunt House to show us how Becky's behaviour 10 years ago towards Lady Bareacres in Brussells would come to haunt her? It's funny how 10 years has made a difference in their lives and that of Amelia's but Becky is still hanging onto the false pretentious life she has created for herself. It is quite telling how even the new Sir Pitt is influenced by her enough to give her diamonds and make his wife jealous of her. There can be no good from all this. Becky has to pay somehow.

I feel like the charade bit from Chap 51 is the beginning of her fall. Was this another miscalculation on Becky's part? With that ending, I think it might be the end of her marriage as we know it. I honestly feel bad for Rawdon. He's definitely not smart but I think he knows that the love has gone. However, this is the path he chose for himself and must accept the consequences.

No matter how hard I try I can't understand why Becky doesn't love her son Rawdon. How was he a hindrance towards achieving her goal? Was it because as son and heir he had no money to support her or was it because he was a reminder that she was a mother?

Lady Clementina wrote: "Much of this segment too, it seems we are to spend following Rebecca’s exploits, though we check in with developments in Amelia’s life as well (We don’t learn what became of Dobbin’s application fo..."

Great work, LadyC, thanks!

Lois wrote: "No matter how hard I try I can't understand why Becky doesn't love her son Rawdon. How was he a hindrance towards achieving her goal? Was it because as son and heir he had no money to support her or was it because he was a reminder that she was a mother?"

Chapter 43: Enough is enough, Rebecca is a monster with her son! It doesn’t matter to me that all these adults do the worst things to achieve their ends between them, but do not hurt children!

About Becky's behaviour towards her child:
I think what Becky cannot tolerate is weakness. It is the weakness of her father (lazy, drunkard) who forced her to endure a misery childhood. For her, weakness is the worst fault: she cannot see the love of her husband, because she sees above all his weakness. A child is, by nature, a helpless being. The only way for Becky to survive as a child and a teenager was to run away from weakness and become powerful. Unfortunately, the little Rawdy represents the weakness par excellence.
This may explain her horrible behavior towards her son, but certainly not excuse it!

I also must admit that, even if I'm not totally bad with History, I passed a little the charades.
First I didn't see what it did bring to the story,
Second, I was unable to guess the solution, and I'm not sure Thackeray gave us the answer...
This part was a mystery to me! :)

Lady Clementina wrote: "Much of this segment too, it seems we are to spend following Rebecca’s exploits, though we check in with developments in Amelia’s life as well (We don’t learn what became of Dobbin’s application fo..."

Chapter XLV:
Sir Pitt “thought that the breed of horses must be kept up in the country, and that the breed of foxes must therefore be looked to”
What is the connection between horses and foxes? Even if I know foxes were hunt on horseback with hounds in England, I'm not very familiar with foxes and horses…

Lois wrote: "This section was a bit tedious to get through for me, especially Chaps 47 (Gaunt House) and 51 (In Which a Charade Is Acted Which May or May Not Puzzle the Reader). I found myself skimming through ..."

The Gaunt house chapter for me was more confusing that tedious- I kept losing track of who was who and what was happening. But on why that chapter came in, I still wonder- Lord Steyne's backstory didn't really have to do with Becky as such - so I wonder if Thackeray included that to look at VF in general- give us a picture of another type of person we find there- someone who is escaping the reality of his situation.

Re Becky's downfall, it seems as if there are hints enough.

Gabrielle wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "Much of this segment too, it seems we are to spend following Rebecca’s exploits, though we check in with developments in Amelia’s life as well (We don’t learn what became of..."

I thought the connection was with the hunt as well. I think that it was probably to do with the whole tradition that Sir Pitt wanted to keep up.

Gabrielle wrote: "I also must admit that, even if I'm not totally bad with History, I passed a little the charades.
First I didn't see what it did bring to the story,
Second, I was unable to guess the solution, and ..."

The solution, me neither- but the part where Becky is Clytemnestra- felt like a hint that she is stabbing Rawdon in one way or other.

Gabrielle wrote: "Lois wrote: "No matter how hard I try I can't understand why Becky doesn't love her son Rawdon. How was he a hindrance towards achieving her goal? Was it because as son and heir he had no money to ..."

True- but I keep also thinking whether we're simply expecting her to be maternal because she is a woman- does it make her a bad woman if she isn't- she does go too far but I keep remembering this section in George Eliot's Daniel Deronda where she raises a very string argumet on this point

Gabrielle wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "Much of this segment too, it seems we are to spend following Rebecca’s exploits, though we check in with developments in Amelia’s life as well (We don’t learn what became of..."

You're welcome :)

Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "I also must admit that, even if I'm not totally bad with History, I passed a little the charades.
First I didn't see what it did bring to the story,
Second, I was unable to guess ..."

Clearly.

Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lois wrote: "No matter how hard I try I can't understand why Becky doesn't love her son Rawdon. How was he a hindrance towards achieving her goal? Was it because as son and heir h..."

I haven't read George Eliot's Daniel Deronda.
I don't expect Becky to be maternal because she's a woman. A woman doesn't have to have a child if she doesn't feels like, she's still a womand, and she still can be a good woman.
But "saprelote"! There's a difference between not being maternal and being as awful as Becky behaves with her child! I mean, the only thing this poor little Rawdy received from her was a slap.
Last year, when my 17 years old son went to university and would come back home only for the weekends, I couldn't sleep for weeks before I get used to it! And Becky didn't even say goodbye to her little boy when he went to school!
So I took a pen, and carefully obliterated Becky's name from my mind! ;)

Gabrielle wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lois wrote: "No matter how hard I try I can't understand why Becky doesn't love her son Rawdon. How was he a hindrance towards achieving her goal? Was it b..."

But that anxiety that you feel is part of what you feel as a mother. Apart from that, Becky is the kind who doesn't really care about anyone but herself (except a few instances here and there- like when she sent Mrs O'Dowd to Amelia)- Rawdon (her husband) was merely a means to better a social position, so is Lord Steyne- and every other person whose affairs she involves herself in. Little Rawdon means nothing to here.

Gabrielle wrote: "About Becky's behaviour towards her child:
I think what Becky cannot tolerate is weakness. ...
This may explain her horrible behavior towards her son, but certainly not excuse it! "

That's an interesting point, Gabrielle. I can see how that is a failing in her eyes.

At this point, I'm leaning towards more about how a child is seen as a hindrance towards attaining her lofty goal. I think initially she had hoped Miss Crawley would forgive them once the baby was born but when that didn't happen, she had no reason to deal with the child herself. Becky seems unable to love anyone, let alone her own flesh and blood.

First I didn't see what it did bring to the story,
Second, I was unable to guess the solution, and I'm not sure Thackeray gave us the answer...
This part was a mystery to me! :)

:) I don't think the solution mattered per se. I think it was to show just how ruthless she is, pretend-stabbing her husband in that company of strangers. I'm guessing there is more to come from this episode.

I also think that Thackeray uses this incident as a set-up for her downfall given that she's now reached that pinnacle of success she's vied for since she was a child; it can only go downhill from here (and what a fall it will be).

He's already foreshadowed her ruin for us - first by comparing her to a spider that Molly the servant brushes away with a broom and second, by having Lord Steyne say that she can't hold the position when she attains it because she has no money.

Lord Steyne wields a lot of power and seeing as how he controls Lady Bareacres, we can only guess how he's pulling the strings with Becky, even though he makes her believe that she is controlling him! In truth it is the opposite and I think this is another serious miscalculation on Becky's part.

So I took a pen, and carefully obliterated Becky's name from my mind! ;)

LOL! I see what you did there, Gabrielle. ;)

Lady Clementina wrote: "The Gaunt house chapter for me was more confusing that tedious- I kept losing track of who was who and what was happening. But on why that chapter came in, I still wonder- Lord Steyne's backstory didn't really have to do with Becky as such - so I wonder if Thackeray included that to look at VF in general- give us a picture of another type of person we find there- someone who is escaping the reality of his situation."

That is a possibility; given that his son is crazy (or sick or something to that effect), he's dealing with his loss and pain in such a way with total disregard for his reputation and those associated with him. I thought it was to show Lord Steyne's power and how he controls the top of the ladder that Becky is so determined to climb.

I also thought it was to bring Lady Bareacres back into the story; a seemingly insignificant character from Becky's past who could possibly be the one to cause her ruin. She is after all Lord Steyne's mother-in-law/relation (I'll have to go back and figure it out exactly).

True- but I keep also thinking whether we're simply expecting her to be maternal because she is a woman- does it make her a bad woman if she isn't- she does go too far but I keep remembering this section in George Eliot's Daniel Deronda where she raises a very string argumet on this point

Like Gabrielle, I too don't expect Becky to be maternal because she is a woman. She can chose not to be a mother but my question is why; why doesn't she want to be a mother?

I think you are right in saying that she cares for no one but herself; I feel the same way. I'd like to think that it is because she doesn't know how to love or care without being manipulative and with a child you cannot do that; one has to be pure like Amelia and Becky is not.

And like I said in my previous post, I think a child is a hindrance to someone in Becky's position especially when she has to constantly deal with someone like Lord Steyne who himself dislikes the boy. Also, given that Miss Crawley never accepted them or this child, I think all this combined in effect to erase all and any spark of maternal love from Becky's heart.

I agree with everyone’s comments about Becky’s attitude towards her son. He just isn’t any use to her ambitions and he bores her. When she wanted to impress Jane, who is a loving mother, she does makes a pretense of affection and kisses Rawdon. I loved it when Rawdon, as truthful as children are, says that she never kisses him at home! One of the reasons that Jane ended up seeing through Becky’s deceptions. I also agree that since Lord Steyne hates little Rawdon, it increases Becky’s dislike for him.
After Becky’s success at Court, at now being considered one of the best people, culminating with the charades night ( I didn’t understand that version of charades either), it does seem that something has to happen to cause a change (downfall?) in Becky’s circumstances. Rawdon’s detention by the bailiff certainly seems to suggest this.
I thought in this section Becky and Amelia’s circumstances were polar opposites- Becky her highest and Amelia, losing Georgy to the Osbornes, at her lowest. Although I do think Amelia should have looked past her own grief and been relieved that Georgy was enjoying living with the Osbornes. How much worse her grief would have been if he was as upset as she. Was it her vanity to want Georgy to be upset as a demonstration of love for her?

I thought it interesting that money and deception plays a central part in both Amelia and Becky’s stories. Mr. Sedley putting his family into dire straights because of his financial shenanigans and Becky playing the dangerous credit and debt game. Living within one’s means without succumbing to VF certainly one of the thematic strands.
I agree there has to be a reason for Thackeray devoting time to Lord Steyne’s background, but it confused me as well and I lost patience with more than a cursory understanding. I’ll have to go back at some point and try to decipher it better!

Lois wrote: "This section was a bit tedious to get through for me, especially Chaps 47 (Gaunt House) and 51 (In Which a Charade Is Acted Which May or May Not Puzzle the Reader). I found myself skimming through ..."

Having a hard time getting through this section due to how Becky is treating Rawdon but will keep at it.

Gabrielle wrote: "Lois wrote: "No matter how hard I try I can't understand why Becky doesn't love her son Rawdon. How was he a hindrance towards achieving her goal? Was it because as son and heir he had no money to ..."

In the beginning of VF, when she threw the dictionary, I was pulling for Becky to find and live the life she so desired. I even enjoyed the manipulation she used to reach her goals. She is desperate to become the person she always dreamed of becoming. But her behavior to her son is inexcusable!

Gabrielle wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lois wrote: "No matter how hard I try I can't understand why Becky doesn't love her son Rawdon. How was he a hindrance towards achieving her goal? Was it b..."

:D --- I loved the imagery of you scratching Becky's name out of your book!!

Lois wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "About Becky's behaviour towards her child:
I think what Becky cannot tolerate is weakness. ...
This may explain her horrible behavior towards her son, but certainly not excuse it!..."

Like button!

Ok, so I re-read Chap 47 (and a bit of 49) just to be clear on all the players in the Gaunt household.

We have Lord Steyne aka the Marquis of Steyne, who purchased the Marquisate and Garter with half the winnings of 100,000 (won along with the Duke of Orleans, friend of the Prince of Wales and supporter of the French Revolution who died on the guillotine).

He is married to the Marchioness/Lady Mary Steyne nee Caerlyon whose ancestors can be traced back to King Brute(!), whose godmother was the Dauphiness Marie Antoinette(!) and whose brother "sold" her to the then Earl of Gaunt as a means of paying his debts (the Earl battled the Count de la Marche of the Grey Musqueteers and won the hand of the lady).

They have 2 sons:

- the eldest, Lord Gaunt, is married to the daughter of Lady Bareacres (both of whom we met in Brussels), Blanche Thistlewood, whose father is in great financial debt to Lord Steyne.
They have no children and are separated/he's dead - I'm not sure exactly. He too had a lot of debt; so there is currently no heir to the title and estate which Lord Steyne uses as a weapon against his daughter-in-law to get his way in that house.

- the younger son, Lord George Gaunt, is married to Joan, daughter of John Johnes of a well-known banking firm. They have lots of sons and daughters but George Gaunt is suffering from a psychiatric illness which can be traced to his (ancient) maternal line and is confined to a house in London with just a keeper.
The wife, also called Fanny, purchased a "contingent reversion" with the money she brought into the family which Lord Steyne reminds her of rather severely. It means that should his elder son die first and without issue, the title and estate will revert to her husband or elder son (O_o)

Gist of it is that Lady Steyne feels like she is being punished and devotes her life to prayer and penance. Lord Steyne feels like the illness could take a hold of him any minute. What it boils down to is that:

So there was splendour and wealth, but no great happiness perchance, behind the tall carved portals of Gaunt House with its smoky coronets and ciphers. - Chap 47

Lois wrote: "Like Gabrielle, I too don't expect Becky to be maternal because she is a woman. She can chose not to be a mother but my question is why; why doesn't she want to be a mother? ..."
Because her sole ambition is to achieve social success/money - and she cares for nothing or no other beyond that except in so far as they can help her get there.

Lois wrote: "Ok, so I re-read Chap 47 (and a bit of 49) just to be clear on all the players in the Gaunt household.

We have Lord Steyne aka the Marquis of Steyne, who purchased the Marquisate and Garter with ..."

Thanks for clearing that up Lois :)

Laurene wrote: "Having a hard time getting through this section due to how Becky is treating Rawdon but will keep at it."

I'm surprised at how I found certain sections to drag-on...maybe it is just book fatigue setting in.

Lady Clementina wrote: "Thanks for clearing that up Lois :) "

:) I hope it helps anyone stuck as I was trying to making sense of it.

I'm surprised Thackeray introduced soo much information at this juncture. They are not really important I suppose, but interesting nonetheless. It would have been a shame to skip over Lord Steyne's emotional state of mind given what is in his background. I suppose we have gotten some sense of his moral compass and how powerful of a man he really is.

Lady Clementina wrote: "Because her sole ambition is to achieve social success/money - and she cares for nothing or no other beyond that except in so far as they can help her get there."

:) Yes, it was more a rhetorical question on my part Lady C ... me trying to analyze Becky's motivations; I think I came to nearly the same conclusion at the end of that post.

Linda wrote: "... I thought in this section Becky and Amelia’s circumstances were polar opposites- Becky her highest and Amelia, losing Georgy to the Osbornes, at her lowest. ...

I thought it interesting that money and deception plays a central part in both Amelia and Becky’s stories. Mr. Sedley putting his family into dire straights because of his financial shenanigans and Becky playing the dangerous credit and debt game. Living within one’s means without succumbing to VF certainly one of the thematic strands. ..."

I like how you compare and contrast Becky and Amelia, Linda. You raised good points here. :) I wonder if we are going to see a reversal of some sort in the end then.

Lois wrote: "Linda wrote: "... I thought in this section Becky and Amelia’s circumstances were polar opposites- Becky her highest and Amelia, losing Georgy to the Osbornes, at her lowest. ...

I thought it inte..."

Mr Sedley almost had me thinking of Little Nell's Grandfather in the Old Curiosity Shop.

Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lady Clementina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lois wrote: "No matter how hard I try I can't understand why Becky doesn't love her son Rawdon. How was he a hindrance towards achieving ..."

Yes, I agree, little Rawdy is useless to help Becky climbing the social ladder. But unlike all the persons around Becky, he is a child, a CHILD! Poor boy, fortunately, he's just a fictional character! ;)

Lois wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "About Becky's behaviour towards her child:
I think what Becky cannot tolerate is weakness. ...
This may explain her horrible behavior towards her son, but certainly not excuse it!..."

I agree, Lois.
If Becky had a child, only to get old Miss Crawley's friendship and money, as she didn't get anything, she reports all her frustration on Rawdy. Because I'm sure she had him on purpose as she calculates everything.

Linda wrote: "I agree with everyone’s comments about Becky’s attitude towards her son. He just isn’t any use to her ambitions and he bores her. When she wanted to impress Jane, who is a loving mother, she does m..."

I also liked it when little Rawdon was publicly surprised when his mother kissed him! :D
If Becky had known children, she would have known that they always reveal things we don't wish they would!

Laurene wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Lois wrote: "No matter how hard I try I can't understand why Becky doesn't love her son Rawdon. How was he a hindrance towards achieving her goal? Was it because as son and heir h..."

Same for me!

Lady Clementina wrote: "Lois wrote: "Like Gabrielle, I too don't expect Becky to be maternal because she is a woman. She can chose not to be a mother but my question is why; why doesn't she want to be a mother? ..."
Becau..."

Absolutely, LadyC!

This was the Daniel Deronda quote:

“Every woman is supposed to have the same set of motives, or else to be a monster. I am not a monster, but I have not felt exactly what other women feel, or say they feel, for the fear of being thought unlike others”.

From the author's point of view, what better way to shape the reader's opinion of Becky than to characterize her as so devoid of maternal feeling that she despises her own son. Even though Becky's other faults have sometimes been forgiven due to her childhood circumstances, her failure as a mother is an absolute red line. Given that motherhood was a foundational element of the ideal Victorian woman, I'm sure the same held true for Thackeray's contemporary readers as well.

Lady Clementina wrote: "This was the Daniel Deronda quote:

“Every woman is supposed to have the same set of motives, or else to be a monster. I am not a monster, but I have not felt exactly what other women feel, or say ..."

Great quote by George Eliot, this doesn't surprise me... thanks LadyC.

Do you remember, on chapter XXIV, when old Osborne obliterated George's names from the Bible’s page? After having a look at all the letters and documents his son had written during his childhood and youth?

In his escritoire Mr. Osborne had a drawer especially devoted to his son's affairs and papers. He had preciously kept all the documents relating to him ever since he had been a boy:
“It was—"From Georgy, requesting 5s., April 23, 18—; answered, April 25"—or "Georgy about a pony, October 13"—and so forth. In another packet were "Dr. S.'s accounts"—"G.'s tailor's bills and outfits, drafts on me by G. Osborne, jun.," &c.—his letters from the West Indies—his agent's letters, ...”
There we could see that George Osborne became an unbearable and selfish man, mostly because of his father’s admiration, of what his father found admirable, should I say, which was: asking for money or material things and getting them.

Then in chapter XXXVIII, we could see what Georgy’s education by Amelia made him become:
“… the boy grew up delicate, sensitive, imperious, woman-bred—domineering the gentle mother whom he loved with passionate affection. He ruled all the rest of the little world round about him. As he grew, the elders were amazed at his haughty manner and his constant likeness to his father. He asked questions about everything, as inquiring youth will do. The profundity of his remarks and interrogatories astonished his old grandfather. The small circle round about him believed that the equal of the boy did not exist upon the earth. Georgy inherited his father's pride, and perhaps thought they were not wrong.”

And in chapter XLVI, I was struck by what Amelia does:
“All she hoped for was to live to see her son great, famous, and glorious, as he deserved to be. She kept his copy-books, his drawings, and compositions, and showed them about in her little circle as if they were miracles of genius.”
Exactly the same as what old Osborne did with his proper son!

Both Amelia and old Osborne have a blind admiration for their son. Both keep preciously insignificant papers wrote or drawn by them. Therefore, each of them makes of their child, a child who has a wrong opinion of himself: exaggerated, an oversized ego.
So what’s Thackeray’s point of view? That moderation is necessary in all things, for an exaggeration, whether it starts from a good or a bad point of departure, cannot lead to anything good?

PS: I also kept some of my children letters and drawings. But I’m aware that they are only precious to me! :)

Lois wrote: "Ok, so I re-read Chap 47 (and a bit of 49) just to be clear on all the players in the Gaunt household.

Thanks, Lois - I confess my mind slurred over that part of the chapter, but you've clarified it all beautifully!

Lady Clementina wrote: "This was the Daniel Deronda quote:

“Every woman is supposed to have the same set of motives, or else to be a monster. I am not a monster, but I have not felt exactly what other women feel, or say ..."

I remember that quote - it was Daniel's mother explaining to him why she gave him up. She did not want the responsibilities of a child to get in the way of her career as a celebrated singer. I suppose Becky is the same - her child gets in the way of her ambitions.

Gabrielle wrote: "Do you remember, on chapter XXIV, when old Osborne obliterated George's names from the Bible’s page? After having a look at all the letters and documents his son had written during his childhood an..."

Good comparison! History is repeating itself.

I wonder if Becky means to become Lord Steyne's mistress? Up till now it doesn't seem as if their relationship is sexual, but surely she knows she can't keep taking his money and diamonds without being expected to give in to him at some point? And can't Rawdon see what is going on? Is he really that blind?

Nina wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Do you remember, on chapter XXIV, when old Osborne obliterated George's names from the Bible’s page? After having a look at all the letters and documents his son had written durin..."


Thanks, I think so too, Nina.

Nina wrote: "I wonder if Becky means to become Lord Steyne's mistress? Up till now it doesn't seem as if their relationship is sexual, but surely she knows she can't keep taking his money and diamonds without b..."

Ah, finally! I'm happy someone started this discussion!
This is 19th century, saprelote! The most famous century for his unhappy marriages, when the answer to too much vertue asked to women was men finding satisfaction outside marriage!
The time when women's bodies were in the same time sacralized and opposite: considered as a male possession, and so could sometimes be for sale.
In Paris, in the 19th century, there were more prostitues than in any other century.
With money, men could possess women's bodies, and not only prostitues, but also many little women workers which earn so few (paid twice less as men), that they had to get money the way they could. Nobody talked about it, but everybody knew it.
So in this "atmosphere", between Becky and Lord Steyne, the situation isn't what it "should be". And I think in Thackeray's mind, Steyne offers Becky diamonds to sleep with her, and not in days or weeks or months, but right the day he offered her the first present, was it money or diamonds or whatever. Steyne's character, as described, is not the kind of man to believe a little woman's promises, even if she's the lovely and clever Becky. He's not a naive teenager anymore!
Here, the story is not believable. But in my opinion, if Thackeray left this situation blury, it's only self-censorship, or censorship, for the feminine readers of the newspaper.

And about Rawdon, I don't think he's blind, he just doesn't want to see, as it still often happens between badly married couples. None of the partner wants to accept one's marriage as a defeat (failure? I'm not sure of the word, sorry!).

Gabrielle wrote: "Linda wrote: "I agree with everyone’s comments about Becky’s attitude towards her son. He just isn’t any use to her ambitions and he bores her. When she wanted to impress Jane, who is a loving moth..."

Love your comment --- "from the mouth of babes". And always at the wrong time and the wrong place.

Gabrielle wrote: "Do you remember, on chapter XXIV, when old Osborne obliterated George's names from the Bible’s page? After having a look at all the letters and documents his son had written during his childhood an..."

Maybe Thackeray's point of view is the need for balance. Too little is not right then too much is not right. The thought of trying to keep a balance in life. And coming from Thackeray during this time period is actually insightful and forward thinking. To keep life in a state of balance.


PS -- I also have some drawings, essays, and projects from my son. Some are even framed. :D

Nina wrote: "I wonder if Becky means to become Lord Steyne's mistress? Up till now it doesn't seem as if their relationship is sexual, but surely she knows she can't keep taking his money and diamonds without b..."

I guess I just accepted that Becky is Lord Steyne's mistress. She is accepting "presents" from him -- and what is he receiving from her -- companionship(?). Since Vanity Fair was written in the Victorian Age, I just thought it was not acceptable to write or more like publish "sexual encounters". I figured the best Thackeray could do was simply imply it.

I am not even sure if Rawdon is actually blind to Becky's relationship with Lord Steyne.

Laurene wrote: "Nina wrote: "I wonder if Becky means to become Lord Steyne's mistress? Up till now it doesn't seem as if their relationship is sexual, but surely she knows she can't keep taking his money and diamo..."

3 like buttons for your 3 comments, and I absolutely with the last one, Laurene!

Linda wrote: "From the author's point of view, what better way to shape the reader's opinion of Becky than to characterize her as so devoid of maternal feeling that she despises her own son. Even though Becky's other faults have sometimes been forgiven due to her childhood circumstances, her failure as a mother is an absolute red line. Given that motherhood was a foundational element of the ideal Victorian woman, I'm sure the same held true for Thackeray's contemporary readers as well."

Well said Linda! *clap*

I must admit that I'm one of the readers who was not surprised or abhorred by her behaviour towards her son. So, I think you are right in saying that if there was any doubt in a reader's mind regarding their opinion of Becky, then Thackeray ensured that her dealings with her son sealed the deal on that front. I do admire her resilience though.

Nina wrote: "Thanks, Lois - I confess my mind slurred over that part of the chapter, but you've clarified it all beautifully!"

Thank you Nina! :)