Victorians! discussion

I loved Cranford, but had also seen the miniseries first. Have just watched Return to Cranford and loved it too. Miss Matty is such a wonderful character.

Anna wrote: "So, I recently finished North and South and loved it. It's an amazing portrait of the effects of the Industrial Revolution, as well as an intimate look at the disparate ways of life b..."

Anna, I liked them both, but definitely see why you might not. They are just two different animals, aren't they? I love the separate types of stories they tell. I had read Cranford first, a good while back. Then some of my Good Reads buddies told me I must read North & South, which I love so much afterward. It is just a gutsier story. But I loved the humor of Cranford and those odd characters. I think it started slowly for me also, but took off after a while. Try more if you can. Let me know when you read additional Gaskell, I will do the same and we'll compare notes.

Also to note that I didn't find the film version of Cranford to be quite right. It didn't capture the tone of the book, although I dearly adore half the actors in the thing.

I found the Cranford miniseries and the book(s) to be almost totally different entities as well. I was in a Gaskell kick but hadn't read Cranford yet when I first watched the show. I loved the show so much--who wouldn't adore Judi Dench (etc.) in that role? Anyway, when I got to it, I was highly disappointed in the book, I think just because I wanted it to be like the movie (which is SO not common with me--usually the movies are so disappointing!).

I liked "My Lady Ludlow" and "Mr. Harrison's Confessions" better than "Cranford" itself, I didn't think the narrator's voice in "Cranford" was interesting or compelling at all. The Cranford trilogy just isn't my favorite Gaskell.

I so dearly love reading Gaskell's other books, loved "Ruth," "Mary Barton," & "Cousin Phyllis" adore "North & South," and "Wives & Daughters." Didn't love "Sylvia's Lovers" as much. Looking forward to getting into "Life of Charlotte Bronte" some day. It's also worth looking for some of her short stories and novellas online--for instance, Gaskell, Dickens, Collins and Adelaide Procter collaborated on one story you can find online called "A House to Let"--so fun!

Point is, don't give up on Gaskell after a bad experience. "Cranford" may not be a must read, but her others are definitely worth exploring!

You'll be especially interested in "Mary Barton" if you liked the insight into the Industrial Rev topics in "N & S."

I haven't tried to read Cranford yet, but loved North and South, there was a good BBC adaption of that too a few years ago. Wives and Daughters and The Life of Charlotte Bronte were also both very good.

K. wrote: "I found the Cranford miniseries and the book(s) to be almost totally different entities as well. I was in a Gaskell kick but hadn't read Cranford yet when I first watched the show. I loved the show..."

I have A House to Let on my shelf. I am really looking forward to reading it.

Good for you to keep trying...let us know how it ends up. I'd love to hear your reaction to "Sylvia's Lovers." It seemed more morbid and less enjoyable in a way than her others.

Clari wrote: "I haven't tried to read Cranford yet, but loved North and South, there was a good BBC adaption of that too a few years ago. Wives and Daughters and The Life of Charlotte Bronte were also both very ..."

I loved the BBC adaptation, which in turn, made me want to read the book. I have read North and South twice now and each time I was close to finishing it, I became a little sad because I didn't want it to end. I love Margaret and I love how she grows so much throughout the novel. Thornton is also wonderful.

As for Cranford, I've always been hesitant to read it because it seems so different from N&S and this thread has just confirmed that.

Glad you ended up liking Cranford, Miss Matty is adorable in book and movie. I can't wait to hear what you think of SL--That was the hardest Gaskell for me, especially to get into.

Have fun watching! And not that it's important, but just an observation and possible topic of conversation: if I could make an admittedly non-scholarly generalization--I might stick Gaskell novels into categories, I would put Cranford etc., North & South, Wives & Daughters in the more lighthearted Austenesque category, while I'd stick Mary Barton, Ruth, & Cousin Phyllis right down the middle of Victorian melodrama, and then I'd have to place Sylvia's Lovers almost into the Thomas Hardy physchological dramas.

Of course, she's all her own, and that's as it should be. I just discovered her about 3 years ago and just love her works.

Oh my goodness, how did we not have an Elizabeth Gaskell thread set up before? Thanks, Anna, for starting one!! And good for you for plowing through a book you wanted to set down earlier on.

I must admit, I've only read N&S, but it's easily in my top 10 favorite books of all time. I started watching the BBC adaptation and would read one section, watch it, etc., and it was intoxicating. I must say, while at first I wasn't sure about the casting choice for Margaret, the romance portrayed in that movie beats any 'modern' movie I've seen. Plus, Richard Armitage is extremely easy to watch. I just loved Gaskell's writing style, as well, but I needed to visualize the grit of 'Milton' more, so the movie helped.

I have W&D and MB on a shelf, patiently waiting for me, along with Tales of Mystery and the Macabre which is a compilation of 9 of her short stories. It seems perfect to read in the fall, so I'm waiting on that one until we get closer to Halloween.

Yes, Anna, you're right. It was a very big generalization, and I think I meant it more in "tone" and "feel" than in theme and purpose. All of Gaskell's novels that I've read (except maybe Wives & Daughters) seemed very much more full of a "cause" than anything in Austen.

Like I said earlier, just wait till you get into Mary Barton!

I was so thrilled to discover Gaskell and I am still in love with talking/thinking about her works! It's so fun! The thing I truly, truly love about her is the fact that she is smooth, clear, beautiful reading--but WITH that cause added in. I know some people despise Ruth--Gaskell's treatment of a "fallen woman"--I would LOVE to discuss that one someday.

Paula, that mystery compilation sounds just right for the upcoming season. I'll have to see if I can find it! k

My first Gaskell was Cranford, and I truly enjoyed it and the film adaptation, which benefited greatly from the inclusion of other Gaskell stories.

About a year after that I read Ruth, and that cemented my love of Gaskell. I'm not sure why so many people do not like Ruth, (well, Ruth the character might be easy for some to despise, but the overall book is certainly not) as I thoroughly enjoyed it. There is so much to the idea of the 'fallen woman' and this novel is certainly an excellent contribution to that discussion.

I agree, Anna; it is really a fascinating subject for study. Ruth is an interesting commentary on the fallen woman as it portrays both a typical and an atypical treatment/experience of a 'fallen woman'.

On a side note, I think it would be very interesting to to a read of many different 'fallen woman' stories all together; like Ruth, Tess of the D'Ubervilles, etc. I would love to be able to directly compare and contrast the heroines' experiences and reactions.

Wow, Joy, that would be SO fun! Ruth and Tess are worlds apart in how they dealt with their situations (or, rather, how their authors dealt with their situations :). I'd be up for a fun project like that some time. I'll have to think if I can recall any other books suitable for the category.

Anna, whatever you choose, if you're a Gaskell fan, you'll end up having a great experience. I personally founf SL to be a bit harder to get into (although I can't remember exactly why--duh--but I seem to recall difficulty with the colloquial language and that I didn't "love" Sylvia herself all that much, at least at first) but ended it up a great reading/pondering experience for me.

SL deals with the press-gang question from the point of view of the woman-left-behind thinking her man is dead (or just not knowing what happened to him). The other press-gang type books I've read are from Marryat and he deals with it from the impressed-man POV--it's interesting to read both sides.

I love classic British lit., especially Victorian, but I am not familiar with this author. Can someone give a recommendation or two of titles I should consider? I feel like I've missed out on some great works.

You have! The two titles would depend on what you like. If you like heavier themed books that make you ponder life etc. I'd go for Ruth for sure and then choose between Mary Barton and Sylvia's Lovers. If you like more romance and sweetness, go for North & South and Wives & Daughters. Good luck!

Linda, I certainly recommend reading Gaskell's North and South. It is an amazing novel. I wouldn't categorize it as romance and sweetness as K did however. I am afraid that will give you wrong expectations of the book. There is a love story in the novel, but there is much more - it is not a light read at all. Whichever novels you choose, enjoy!

I really should take the time to clarify my statements eh? Because, earlier in this conversation, we briefly discussed my categorization of Gaskell novels (and I was had to state what I really meant by them), I left out that info here--which is that North and South, to me, has the *feel* of romance and sweetness--more of the *tone* of an Austen, although Gaskell is usually working with some type of cause, thereby adding to the reading experience no small amount of food for thought. North and South has been sometimes called a type of Pride & Prejudice, but with more to it--things to actually think about and ponder over.

Added to the themes of first impressions and pride (i.e. Pride and Prejudice), you get the plight of the worker, the rise of a self-made man, the "fall" in circumstances of some gentle-folks, the pride of overlooking or ignoring another's point of view, the politics of trade, true friendship among those of differing classes, and others. That's what I love about it. As much as I love Pride and Prejudice, I'd take North and South any day!

Exactly!!

So far, I've only watched the miniseries for North and South. I really liked it, but have not read the book yet. I'm going to watch Cranford this week.

I do want to read Mary Barton too.

North and South is an amazing novel. I just finished it yesterday..I loved it. I plan to read Wives and Daughters next..I've seen the adaptations for both, and loved both, so I have high hopes.
I think it might be a mistake to compare North and South with any of Austen's work. Don't get me wrong, I see a few similarities. However, they were written by women in two rather distinct time periods (Hanoverian and Victorian) for perhaps two separate purposes. I don't think of Mrs. Gaskell's work as sentimental fiction, like I do Jane Austen's. Not to diminish Jane Austen's work..not at all. I love it as well.

Elizabeth, get back to us on that after you read Wives and Daughters! I would liken that one more to Austen than North and South, which reminded me more of Dickens in its social commentary (although with a non-Dickensian love story thrown in, which is also a major part of the plot). So far, I have read those two, and Cranford (and I have all the miniseries). Oh, and I also read the biography of Charlotte Bronte many years ago, when I was studying the Brontes and didn't realize that Gaskell also wrote novels. Wives and Daughters is my favorite so far, so I hope you enjoy it! The only problem is that Gaskell died before she completed it, and her editor wrote some additional material to tie up the plot ends, so the ending can be a bit of a letdown.

As to some earlier remarks on Cranford not having much of a plot, I think that one of Gaskell's intents in writing it was to record a way of life that she felt was fast disappearing, and she wanted to preserve what it was like for future readers, so I think that is why it seems to be more anecdotal than plot-driven. As for the miniseries, my favorite plotline was My Lady Ludlow, but I haven't read that one yet.

I read Shirley by Charlotte Bronte shortly after North and South, and found some of the same industrial themes in that novel. I believe that Dickens also touched upon them in his novel Hard Times, which was was working on at the same time that North and South was being serialized in one of his publications.

Elizabeth wrote: "North and South is an amazing novel. I just finished it yesterday..I loved it. I plan to read Wives and Daughters next..I've seen the adaptations for both, and loved both, so I have high hopes.
I ..."

I was glad to see posting in our authors topics, especially Gaskell. I was wondering about your term, "sentimental fiction." For example, that was how you defined Austen, when critically she is largely viewed as an anti-sentimentalist writer. The straightforward nature and actions of her characters seem to speak against the overly emotional situations of the more sentimental novels through history.

Perhaps a better term would be a 'novel of manners' (I think I've heard that term). Of course, Austen's novels generally deal with relationships between men and women, and usually end with a marriage (or more than one), so I can see that being described as 'sentimental', even though they are not melodramatic or overly emotional.

Actually, in many critiques of fiction written during this time period, Austen is referred to point blank as being sentimental fiction. That is where I got that from. I took it to mean stories of love and romance, usually featuring life's little dramas not big sweeping events. I tend too see Austem's critique of certain upper class qualities as an aside, not the main focus. I believe her stories are far too human to be used as purely a satirical device.

I see we have been reading quite different critical works of Austen and come away with differing interpretations of her work. Austen has different appeal to many, but she also has many layers beyond relationships between men and women and a culmination of the plot with a marriage. She's a fascinating author.

Denise wrote: "Perhaps a better term would be a 'novel of manners' (I think I've heard that term). Of course, Austen's novels generally deal with relationships between men and women, and usually end with a marriage (or more than one),..."

From my reading in the history of the English novel, I believe that the comedic (meaning, in literary terms, not funny, but a work where virtue is rewarded and vice punished, and we get a happy ending, usually as you note resulting in marriage) was almost a requirement for English fiction from before Austen almost to Hardy, with only a very few exceptions. While Shakespeare and other playwrights could explore the depths of tragedy in drama, English novelists were for the most part not permitted by the publishers and, particularly, the booksellers to write non-comedic books. This was quite different from the situation on the European mainland, where Flaubert, Balzac, Tolstoy, and other novelists were free to explore much more tragic situations and endings. But for the most part, English novelists weren't allowed this freedom. It was mostly (though not entirely) Hardy who broke through this "comedic ceiling" and brought the tragic ending fully into the English novelistic tradition.

SarahC wrote: "I see we have been reading quite different critical works of Austen and come away with differing interpretations of her work. Austen has different appeal to many, but she also has many layers beyond relationships between men and women and a culmination of the plot with a marriage. She's a fascinating author. "

I agree with you. She suffers, perhaps, from the subtlety of her humor and of her insightful commentary on English rural society, but there is a great deal below her surface that underlies the romantic overtones which, as a novelist of her time, she was required to provide.

Everyman wrote: "Denise wrote: "Perhaps a better term would be a 'novel of manners' (I think I've heard that term). Of course, Austen's novels generally deal with relationships between men and women, and usually e..."

That is fascinating, Everyman, about the comedic tradition of Eng. novelists. Hmm...that sounds like a basis of a whole new GoodReads group-- I'm not kidding. Good food for thought -- especially when thinking of my post WWI novelists I am always reading - there were some obvious breaks from the comedic by that day.

Everyman wrote: "SarahC wrote: "I see we have been reading quite different critical works of Austen and come away with differing interpretations of her work. Austen has different appeal to many, but she also has ma..."

Yes, with Austen, when rereading her work time and again, her various ideas and revelations almost have a physical quality -- as if they are coming off the page at me. She will always be a favorite writer of mine.

SarahC wrote: "I see we have been reading quite different critical works of Austen and come away with differing interpretations of her work. Austen has different appeal to many, but she also has many layers beyon..."

I agree with you about the many layers - Austen is one of my favorite authors. Romance and marriage is certainly one of those layers, perhaps one of the outermost, since it is quite obvious, and my point was that the word 'sentimental' could be applied to this layer. But there is so much more beyond that, much of which is far from sentimental.

I agree, Denise. I do see similarities between Austen and Gaskell too, in the layers of the characters especially. Their characters were never the overly kindly or picturesque. Even if they began remotely in that category, these authors had them going somewhere else -- to a sharper destination, so to speak. Within the families were animosities and inner conflicts -- often as they pulled and tugged with (like Fannie Thornton) or against (Marianne Dashwood) gentility and class rules.

SarahC wrote: "Yes, with Austen, when rereading her work time and again, her various ideas and revelations almost have a physical quality -- as if they are coming off the page at me. She will always be a favorite writer of mine.
"

It's too bad she's not Victorian, so we can't read and discuss her here. :(

Everyman wrote: "It's too bad she's not Victorian, so we can't read and discuss her here. :("

I agree, Everyman! I always tended to categorize my favorite period as 19th-century, rather than just Victorian, so I have always thought of her in connection with the Brontes, Dickens, etc., even though technically she is earlier. But most of my favorite authors do fall in the Victorian period.

Hey, since Everyman is going to start that group about the English Comedic Novel, no problem Denise. We can discuss them all there :P haha Right, Everyman?