The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

I thought it was interesting reading this story after Mrs. Manstey's View as both stories deal with widowed women their relationships (or lack there of) with their grown children.

The Quicksand also seemed to pose a commentary upon the differences between the younger and older generations. We see the contrasts between Mrs. Quentin and Miss. Fenno. and Adam and his father.

What choice do think Miss Fenno will make? Will she follow in the footsteps of Mrs. Quentin and marry Adam, accepting the money and lifestyle of which he can provide for her, and have to live with the consequences of that choice for the rest of her life, suffering internally for sacrificing her ideals, or will she walk away, and give Adam up in spite of the feelings she still has for him?

Apparently this tale has also been produced as a play at The Mount (tiny spoiler):

http://berkshireonstage.com/2013/08/1...

Silver wrote: We see the contrasts between Mrs. Quentin and Miss. Fenno..."

But we see much more strongly the similarities.

I'm not sure it is the differences in generations, although there is that point in the story.

Mrs. Quentin - even though she knows that making money off something so very wrong - goes along with it, claiming that her child needs the benefits that the money can bring. Instead of "saving" her child, though, she merely creates a person who has no values, someone who has no concern for basic humanity. The parents are "bad," but the child is worse. It reminds me of Philip Larkin's poem about how parents screw up their children by passing on their flaws and then add a few more on to them. Larkin says that the only way to stop it is to stop having children. Here, Mrs. Quentin basically is asking the same - if Miss Fenno marries Adam, they would be repeating the cycle, and maybe even creating more of a monster.

There was also the idea that woman need to live by their own ideals rather than giving up their beliefs and values merely for a man. Also, woman are culpable when they don't stand up for what is right.

Even though it wasn't the main point of the story, the newspaper angle was interesting. We complain about the media today, but in the U.S. in the late 1800s, it probably far more deplorable. The newspaper industry at that time was notorious for reporting scandals and untruths.

Lynnm wrote: "I'm not sure it is the differences in generations, although there is that point in the story."

I saw it as generational differences because you had the older woman who was content to turn a blind eye to what her husband was doing, and not concerned herself with his business (at least not outwardly). She kept her mouth shut and just benefited from the money/lifestyle of which he provided her.

I think this does reflect the way women were expected to behave at that point in time. They would marry primarily for economic support, and would not concern themselves with what their husbands did, and were not supposed to involve themselves in their husbands business.

While Mrs. Quentin and Miss Fenno might have shared similar ideals, Mrs. Quentin did not question it or act upon it.

Miss Fenno comes from a younger generation of women. Women who were more "modern/liberal." She was idealistic, and she was forthright about her ideals. She represents a generation of women who are perhaps not as content to marry just for money and who are more outspoken and opinionated.

Silver wrote: "Lynnm wrote: "I'm not sure it is the differences in generations, although there is that point in the story."

I saw it as generational differences because you had the older woman who was content to..."

Nice points. Although Mrs. Quentin does question it, to the point that her husband is planning on getting rid of the newspaper. It is only when there are problems with their son that she lets it slide.

Lynnm wrote: "Silver wrote: "Lynnm wrote: "I'm not sure it is the differences in generations, although there is that point in the story."

I saw it as generational differences because you had the older woman who..."

Yes, she does question it and she is the one who caves in to the pressures of maintaining the lifestyle instead of the ethics. The husband only puts it aside when she does.
I was struck by the idea that you can seldom pass on what you learn in life to the younger generation. Mrs. Quentin regrets her decision and warns Miss Fenno, but we are not told what effect that has...what choice Miss Fenno makes. I have often observed that when we try to pass our knowledge on to someone younger as likely as not they will respond with a "that's you and not me". Most have to learn the hard way. I wonder if Miss Fenno will have the strength of character to turn away . By seeking Mrs. Quentin out at the art gallery, she is already showing her desire to make excuses and bury her ethics. What Mrs. Quentin does in telling her about her own experience is make it impossible for Miss Fenno to later blame anyone but herself.

Lynnm wrote: "...she merely creates a person who has no values, someone who has no concern for basic humanity. "

I'm not sure I would say he was that bad. He has two sides, but the one side is the perfect son, appreciates good books and art, works hard, is dedicated to his work, is capable of love, like so many people is addicted to seeking power, but I'm not sure that constitues no concern for basic humanity.

Sara wrote: "Mrs. Quentin regrets her decision and warns Miss Fenno, but we are not told what effect that has...what choice Miss Fenno makes."

Very nice reminder. Will Miss Fenno marry him anyhow? Does she believe that she can change him (assuming she wants to), thinking she can succeed where Mrs. Quentin couldn't? Even if his journalist ethics are deplorable, does that necessarily make him a bad husband or father?

Everyman wrote: "Even if his journalist ethics are deplorable, does that necessarily make him a bad husband or father?."

I do not think it necessarily means he would be a bad husband and father, but I would be leery of someone who did conduct themselves with no sense of morality or ethics in their professional life, because that does indicate that type of person they are.

Maybe it is possible he could still make a decent husband and father, but at the same time, if he would lie, cheat, steal, deceive at work what is really to stop him from doing the same thing at home?

Mrs. Quentin herself does state that while her husband still had some scruples, her son has absolutely none.

And though we don't really know what sort of husband Mr. Quentin was, we know that his wife came to deeply regret her marriage.

If outside of his business practices he was a great guy and if he was truly a good husband, would she still fill this strongly about it, in spite of her personal ideals?

And the way Adam turned out clearly learning no values from his parents, is perhaps a reflection of the kind of father he himself would turn out to be.

Silver wrote: "Maybe it is possible he could still make a decent husband and father, but at the same time, if he would lie, cheat, steal, deceive at work what is really to stop him from doing the same thing at home? "

I don't think the implication is that he would lie, cheat, or steal at work (or elsewhere). What I took from the story is that the Radiator was a form of yellow journalism, a 19th century National Enquirer, that it retailed gossip, and the more lurid the better, that it dug up the dirtiest dirt that it could, and that it would attack anybody it could, priest or pauper, baker or banker, indiscriminately. I suppose he could be printing absolute lies, though I don't think we're ever told that (in fact, we aren't told what the scruples his father had were), but then, isn't that what novelists retail all the time?

Everyman wrote: "Silver wrote: "Maybe it is possible he could still make a decent husband and father, but at the same time, if he would lie, cheat, steal, deceive at work what is really to stop him from doing the s..."

Sorry perhaps I did not word that very will, I did not necessarily mean to indicate he literally did the things, but more that that if one would conduct themselves deplorably at their work, can you really trust that they will not also conduct themselves in that way at home?

Can a person who has no sense of ethics in their professional life, truly know how to conduct themselves morally in their home/family life?

I think people can and do lead a schizophrenic existence by behaving differently at work than at home. In certain jobs, for instance, men swear a great deal but never swear in front of their wives and children. An undertaker who needs to be sombre at work could be jolly at home.A prostitute who is sexy and lewd with clients mught be a 'respectable' housewife elsewhere. Sometimes at work people act a part in order to get through the working day and they take that mask off at home or with friends. The requirements of a workplace and a difficult employer can change behaviour especially if jobs are in short supply and people can't get work elsewhere.

In recent years we have seen journalists behave unethically in pursuit of a story but their ethics may be perfectly sound in other aspects of their lives. Salesmen seem often to lie about their wares but one assumes they tell the truth about other things.

I have to go with Silver on this one. I can't trust someone who has no morals at work to have any type of ethical compass in other aspects of their lives.

What's the line in "You've Got Mail" - it's not personal, it's business. But I would argue that business is personal as well...people's lives are affected even though people in business claim that everything is for the bottom line. And these types of newspapers are sensational because they sell papers. Doesn't say much for the people who publish them or the people who buy them.

Another nice story. I liked the change of perspective, both for the protagonists, as for the reader (this reader - but the story seems designed for this to happen).

First we see things from the point of view of the Q.’s and miss F.’s objections seem immature. A person can be immoral in some sense and all right in others. Better to keep work and personal life separated.
But than we get more information on the newspaper and on Adam. And mrs. Q. changes her point of view - maybe Adam's commitment makes him not such a good partner after all.

But can we trust mrs. Q? First she mentions her girlish naiveté to explain her own passive behaviour, then her son’s illness. But is there really anything - that we know of - she can lay at her husband's door? Is not her own lack of character the quicksand that swallowed her?

Wendel wrote: "Another nice story. I liked the change of perspective, both for the protagonists, as for the reader (this reader - but the story seems designed for this to happen).

First we see things from the p..."

These are some good points and it is worth mentioning also that Mrs. Q was originally against the marriage between Adam and Miss Fenno, she did not think that Miss Fenno was the right kind of girl for Adam to marry.

Though later she says that she had changed her mind about Miss Fenno and the marriage, she is still trying to discourage Miss Fenno by what she tells her about her own marriage and Adam.

Considering that we do know that Mrs. Q is also lacking in character can we really trust that Mrs. Q in talking to Miss Fenoo is truly doing what she believes is in the best interests of both Miss Fenno and her son? Or is she looking to achieve her own goals as she does have a history of turning a blind way to right and wrong in the name of her own self-serving motives.

Lynnm wrote: "I have to go with Silver on this one. I can't trust someone who has no morals at work to have any type of ethical compass in other aspects of their lives.

What's the line in "You've Got Mail" - i..."

I have to agree with the moral compass works or doesn't. The thing is, if he can rationalize the tabloid because of the things he gets from it, what will keep him from rationalizing other things he wants but that come at a cost to others? I can't help thinking of Madoff and how he rationalized stealing all that money and convinced himself that if he didn't get caught at it, it wasn't wrong.

Wendel wrote: "Another nice story. I liked the change of perspective, both for the protagonists, as for the reader (this reader - but the story seems designed for this to happen).

First we see things from the p..."
Mrs. Q is suspect in many ways. She seems to have never come to complete terms with her own compromise and perhaps what she sees in her son is simply a reflection of herself.

Silver wrote: "Everyman wrote: "Even if his journalist ethics are deplorable, does that necessarily make him a bad husband or father?."

I do not think it necessarily means he would be a bad husband and father, b..."

I didn't get the I pressuon she regrets her marriage. Instead I think she regrets her compromising her beliefs, and feels those compromises has ultimately hurt the son she was trying to protect,

I'm really enjoying Wharton's language. This story, however, was difficult for me to get into.

We don't know Mrs. Q's or her son's ages. Mrs. Q indicates she loved her husband, and her husband listened to her concerns re the paper. He was willing to sell it for her, but wanted a good price so he continued to grow the business. Mrs. Q is again a somewhat solitary woman. She says she has understanding of her son through familiarity. But is familiarity really understanding? I don't think so.

Mrs. Q did what was expected, married well and took care of her family by making everything beautiful on the outside. That's what society said she should do, and parrallels Wharton's marriage. Mrs. W's life is limited by the rules of society. She has friends, but she sees them when she's feeling more shallow. There's no real human support system for her so she soothes herself with art, and throws herself into saving a sick son,

I'm not a parent, unless you count my cat, but it seems to me most parents would do almost anything to help their sick child survive. She did so by compromising her beliefs and looking away from the source of the resources she needed to do this.

Re the conversation in the museum, I think Mrs. Q saw a younger self in Miss Fenno. I don't think she has alternative motives in sharing her story with Miss Feno. Instead, she's trying to prevent Miss Feno from living the same way Mrs. Q did.

I love the title. Mrs. Q is caught in quicksand by society's demands, a sick child, a compromise of beliefs, and the effect it has on the son. Miss Fenno is also traped without a good choice. Either Miss Feno loses the person she loves, or she loses her beliefs and repeats a terrible pattern. I don't think it matters which choice she makes - there cannot be a happy outcome which I think is Wharton's whole point.

Deborah wrote: "Re the conversation in the museum, I think Mrs. Q saw a younger self in Miss Fenno. I don't think she has alternative motives in sharing her story with Miss Feno. Instead, she's trying to prevent M..."
I believe you have hit upon the crux of the story. The thing about choices is that they simply turn us down one road or the other most of the time. They are not between good and evil, but between directions. Often they cannot be seen in their true light except from a distance. From the distance she has traveled, Mrs. Q can see that her choices did not get her the result she had wished for. What she cannot see is whether sticking to her values and demanding the sale might have then resulted in the loss of her child...an outcome she would have undoubtedly regretted even more. Miss Fenno has a choice to make and whichever way she goes she will be caught in the quicksand that is life. No choice comes without a consequence and no road leads to unfettered bliss. Even happy choices might contain unhappy elements, as have many of the choices I have made in my own life.

Sara wrote: "Deborah wrote: "Re the conversation in the museum, I think Mrs. Q saw a younger self in Miss Fenno. I don't think she has alternative motives in sharing her story with Miss Feno. Instead, she's try..."

Very eloquent Sara.

Wow, what an amazing story (I just finished reading it). At first, I didn't really see where it was going, but since the part where Hope admitted her change of heart--and then Mrs. Q doing so as well--it was one epiphany after another, a series of twists and awakenings that also led me to one more at the end: "When the girl looked up, she was alone."

I wondered when Edith Wharton wrote this story--did she have Mrs. Q's age and life experience, or Hope's? She published it when she was 42, but I don't know when she wrote it. But perhaps she was closer to being Mrs. Quentin's age than Hope's.

We might think it's rarer to find older, more experience people prize idealism over realism, pragmatism, or whatever the opposite of it may be. Sometimes we assume that with life experience comes the ability to make compromises for the overall greater good (whatever that means) and that it's a sign of maturity. But here, Mrs. Q realizes that there is something valuable for standing up for your values, for yourself, and not to let that die (because it won't).

Even in my life, as I made my decision to become a classical musician (as opposed to a doctor or lawyer), I tried to imagine how I would feel late in life--would I regret not pursuing my passion, or doing the more practical thing? Of course one can say, why not do both? But in doing so, something will suffer somehow. It depends on your own values. Alan valued his career (it is a value, even if the work itself may have lacked value/virtue/nobility). People value different things. But it is important to stand for them.

At the end, Edith W. threw me for a loop: "...she was alone"--did Hope just dream it all up? Was that her own imagination, her own self giving her guidance? Mrs. Q was almost an apparition (whether ghostly or angelic). But she was "Hope" after all. It personally didn't occur to me that she could have decided to marry Alan anyway until our discussion brought up the possibility. The ending was indeed open, but I'd like to think this last scene showed the journey of her realizations and decision-making, tortuous and conflicted as it may have been. She was alone. Which is when and how many such decisions are made, carried out, and upheld, whichever decision it may have been.

Deborah wrote: "Re the conversation in the museum, I think Mrs. Q saw a younger self in Miss Fenno. I don't think she has alternative motives in sharing her story with Miss Feno. Instead, she's trying to prevent M..."

Yes, the title is very interesting. If you move, you'll sink. If you don't move, you won't get out. You're trapped either way. But then it occurred to me, you could have someone pull you out--it seemed like Mrs. Q, by reaching out her hand, was trying to pull Hope out of the quagmire; a 'wiser' person sharing their insights and wisdom. There is indeed some hope for Hope! Unless, of course Mrs. Q is still in the quicksand herself. :(

Charisse wrote: "you could have someone pull you out--it seemed like Mrs. Q, by reaching out her hand, was trying to pull Hope out of the quagmire; a 'wiser' person sharing their insights and wisdom."

Interesting observation.

Charisse wrote: "She was alone. Which is when and how many such decisions are made, carried out, and upheld, whichever decision it may have been.
"
Absolutely. In the end we must all make our own choices and decisions. Regardless of any well-intentioned advice, everyone decides for themselves in the end whether they value one thing more than another.

What a great conversation. I don't really have anything to add at this point but the Livy commentary added much to my enjoyment of the story.

Okay, one thing... I've been thinking about how all three stories center on different female relationships. Mothers and daughters, and mother/daughter-in-laws. Friends. Rivals. Mentors. Even Mrs. Manstay had a female landlady with whom the story's interaction revolved. (In my mind I'm also including Xingu which I read quite recently.) Perhaps because these relationships are those best known by Wharton the writer. But I love that her stories describe so well the inner life of women.

Renee wrote: "What a great conversation. I don't really have anything to add at this point but the Livy commentary added much to my enjoyment of the story.

Okay, one thing... I've been thinking about how all t..."

That is a very interesting point. Wharton does understand women and center her stories around them, in a time when many women were still writing under pseudonyms to mask the fact that they were women at all. "The Age of Innocence", if I recall it correctly, was a very feminine voiced novel as well.
An interesting fact about Wharton is that she was one of the very wealthy Jones family...the family for which the expression "keeping up with the Jones" was penned.

That a nice titbit Sara:) She certainly does do women very well. Also,she does dialogue well, very authentically. The next story, The Looking Glass, has excellent dialogue featuring a working class masseuse.

MadgeUK wrote: "That a nice titbit Sara:) She certainly does do women very well. Also,she does dialogue well, very authentically. The next story, The Looking Glass, has excellent dialogue featuring a working class..."

I find it interesting that she understood working class women well since she was from one of the wealthiest families in the country.