Banned Books Club discussion

Hi!
I am on chapter 9, almost toward the end of part 2. Wow! So many thoughts have sprung up just from the first quarter of the book!

How the women were treated just as unequal as Asian women of the same era (being Asian I have heard too many remarks about Asian women being oppressed throughout history); how the book isn't only racist toward blacks but Irish as well; how human nature will always segregate using any excuses to make themselves appear better, let it be social status, skin color, interests, and even accents!

Is it mean to think Scarlet is very superficial? Or excuse her for being so young?

Where is everyone else at?

True, it was more of the lack of family name and old money that Gerald was not considered a Southerner till much later. I really like the character Gerald, he's certainly my favorite male at this point. I like his earthiness and his background-how he is not part of the old money gang.

I think it was the word "shrewd" that's constantly applied to him that led me to feel he was also discriminated upon.

You're right about Ashley. I couldn't figure out why Scarlet's so obsessed with him (no, she did not love him), but of course! It's the fact that he was unattainable! And that presented a challenge for her!

It's funny you mentioned the role of woman and how she represents the slaves. I will just say briefly that the third paragraph at the beginning of chapter 6 had me staring wide eye in disbelief! Mitchell had managed to cram in "hoecakes", "chitterlings", "that dish of hog entrails so dear to negro hearts", and "watermelon" in one sentence! Lol!! Few chapter before that, she had used "unerring African instinct" in the tale of Gerald. I was alarmed but just thought it strange...

Oh, I think Gerald got Tara in a card game in a saloon in Savannah...

Hi Satia!
I think what is missing in Scarlet and is present in Gerald is his good-heartedness and his always trying to help fellow human beings behind people's back. Scarlet does not have that, and that mainly was what I meant about his earthiness. He did not acquire it, I do not think, but was born with it, I believe. She's certainly just as head-strong as Gerald in the goals that they set for themselves (And I find that neither attractive nor ugly. It's just a trait of dedication). But she lacks the generosity and fellow-love that Gerald has; it also exists in Melanie. Of course, his ideas about the South and such prevent him from extending the same onto all people, for example, the Yankees.

Hm... The parallels I see with how women were treated in the Civil war era and the Chinese women of the same time. I will try to make this as coherent as I can. :)

• Corset-footbinding: we all know the horror of footbinding in Qing dynasty. But I did not know the horror of corsets until I read how the ladies had to carry around smelling salt in case they get a little excited and suffocate from lack of air intake! I am sure it's not good for the digestive system as well.

• Mannerism: same as the Southern belles, the Chinese ladies were not supposed to counter anything the men said. "Smile, nod and agree" was the preferred way of behavior. Girls were not allowed to chase after boys.

• Upbringing: girls were brought up in "training" to "catch" a husband. Although in Chinese society, the unmarried girls were kept much more hidden than the Southern belles. Also in the "training", they were required to learn literature, music, painting, poetry... Because no reputable men/family wanted ignorant and illiterate ladies for wives.

• Reputation: this I consider the most twisted horror. Women turned on each other brought on by the rules set by men!! This is a global-wide thing, every society place a much harder chain on the female sex all because men saw women as things they own, and they want the things they own to be pure and angelic.

• Widowhood: the practices right after the death of the husband were similar. No bright dresses, avoid all public events. Chinese widows at certain dynasty were not even allowed in the same room as brother-in-laws.
But the difference in widowhood was, Chinese widows were allowed to remarried throughout most of the history.

That's all I can think of for now. Lol!

What are the thoughts you have about Gerald?

Yes! My doctor has these old prints in his office that were cigarette ads with images of doctors telling people the awesome benefit of cigarettes!

Interesting point you raised about how Mitchell showed Gerald's compassion. I remember reading that and felt uncomfortable at the 3 categories she presented. But I thought, perhaps what she meant to illustrate was that Gerald felt the need to protect the weak ones, such as children, small animals, and black people (it's very obvious Mitchell herself had huge problem connecting to/and understanding African Americans in any way. She didn't see them as a human race, or a human race she could ever understand). The nature of the status "slaves" also include weakness, for if you are weaker, you are supposedly easily enslaved. I assume Mitchell did not include 'women' in the categories because she's writing a feminist novel and logically could not place women under such light.

What I am saying is, I think Gerald's compassion and tenderness is an extension of Mitchell's own ideal of compassion and tenderness. And Mitchell being a racist, she had no problem saying these things out loud, which we find horrifying and I am sure, some people of her time as well.

I have heard about the "house slaves" vs. "field slaves" attitude before, also about the mulatto children. Although my boyfriend had put it much more crassly: "there are no African American now a days without white blood in them. They were slaves and the white men surely acted so, they OWNED these women."

I can see why this book had won the Pulitzer Prize. It is filled with history of that era, detailed culture, mentality...everything! I am learning a lot myself, and I can see how young adults can benefit from it. But I do agree with you on letting younger readers touch the book without guidance.

You know what just happened to me? I got on the subway the other day going to the Chinese consulate. I entered the train and sat down next to this older black lady with a nice hat on. As soon as I sat down I open the book and started reading it, she asked me: "Do you have to read that book for school?" My first reaction was: "crap. I am in trouble..." LOL!! I answered: "No, it's for a book club, a banned book club." She nodded, then proceeded to tell me how when she was a little girl, her parents had taken her to see the movie. And how her mother, her sister and her were simply crazy about Clark Gable. She went on and on about how handsome he was for awhile. Then she told me about a documentary about Margaret Mitchell, and how she was killed in a car accident and how I should read more African American writers... I really wanted to ask her whether she thought Mitchell was a racist, but the words never came out.

People have also been telling me about "The Wind Done Gone".

Lol!! Well, the nice black lady on the train also told me how each character in the book was based on someone Mitchell had known in real life, specifically Rhett Butler... Is that what you are referring to?

I know.., it was premature for me to start making comments since I am only 1/4 way in the book. But this is a very thought-provoking book, also very long, so if I do not post the comments while they are fresh, I fear I might lose the frame of mind and emotions stirred from reading certain parts. Which was what you were saying before about keeping this discussion open. Curses!

I will refrain from commenting, hopefully, until I am half way through the book. I do secretly suspect that Mitchell might soon give me the twist on events/people I find certain right now.

Yea. I do agree with you on whether exposing such racist rhetoric in a classroom is a good idea. It will take a very sensitive and caring teacher to guide the students right, and also will depend on the maturity of each student. Hmm... I supposed I do see now why this book was banned, like you've said, this is not a done issue.

Hi Satia, I started Part 3 this morning, but since I am going to China next week, I am hoping I will return home with Part 3 done and into Part 4 already... :)

I'd have called Margaret Mitchell a genius if she wasn't such a racist. It blows my mind that a woman with such sensitive insight into human nature can hold such base bigotry! And tried to justify it with the most twisted logics I've ever read! How she claimed the Yankees were even more racists than the Southerners because the Southerners "understand" black people, they know that "negroes had to be handled gently like children, that is, to be commanded, praised, patted, and scolded."

And what's wrong with Mammy?? Her crazy hate for "free-issued niggers"? Stockholm syndrome?

Now that I'm far enough in the book to actually contribute something, I want to join the discussion.

I am constantly struck by how smoothly Mitchell does her descriptions and set-ups. She is very subtle with them yet I feel completely immersed in the book. The only thing that jars me out of the flowing words is the awkward references to black people. I guess that it was a different time, but it just feels so strange seeing that in writing.

Hi Julie! Yes, I was shocked at first 50 pages or so whenever I encountered the word "darky" or the "n" word. After 500 pages, I realized those 2 words were nothing compared to Mitchell's ideas and what she thought black people were. I was constantly horrified. But yea, like you've said, different time...

Which, to answer Satia's question, is it excusable on Mitchell's part to use the 'n' word in comparison to Twain's Huckleberry Finn? My opinion is yes, it's excusable. It was curious to read that it already was the case back then that black people were allowed to use the "n" word while white people weren't. I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the "n" word was only used in conversations between black people in the book. Of course, ultimately the book was written by a white woman, but the word wasn't used as an attack, therefore I think it's ok.

Very interesting, Satia! You are right about Mammy, and why she thought the way she did. She had to identify with the family who kept her as slave and adapted to their thinking, to justify the existence of her being. Yes, it all makes sense now...

I did notice besides Dilcey and Prissy, there was no mentioning of other slaves at 12 Oaks. And it was ambiguous where the Wilkes (and Melanie) stood on the issue of slaves. I don't think (or remember) Ashley or Melanie had admitted to wanting to free their slaves regardless of the outcome of the war. Now come to think of it, I can't remember any incident or scene that described either character ordering a slave about.

Ahhh... I see. My memory is worse than I thought! :)

The Wilkes were a interesting family. Ashley lamented the loss of the good old days, and he went off and fought for the South. Yet his ideas and upbringing were so different from those of his Southern neighbors and friends. They were those of the Yankees whom he fought against. They were seen by their Southern friends as queer and almost incestuous, and yet they were a big part of the community...

I started watching the movie last week, I finished disc 1, which ended after Charles's death. I noticed there was no mentioning of little Wade Hamilton. I will continue with disc 2 to see whether he'd appear somehow... The movie certainly lost lots of sensitivity and finesse of the book; although Clark Gable as Rhett Butler was the most perfect casting I've ever seen!

Serena,

I think you're right about the blacks being the only ones that used the n word. I'm still early in the book (I got so distracted by other books *blush with some embarassment*), but so far I think that Jeems was the only one to use it. He was complaining about another family's slaves because he saw them as poorer and lower than he was.

Lol! Satia, it all depends on how one defines "useful".

I thought it was interesting the first sentence of the book was "Scarlett O'Hara was not beautiful." And yet Vivien Leigh was considered one of the most beautiful actresses of her day. It was difficult for me not to have Leigh and Gable on my mind as Scarlett and Rhett throughout the whole book. I do sort of wish I could imagine them on my own as I did with Melanie and Ashley. Oh well.

I was a bit confused the first time I saw Judy Garland as Dorothy: "what a GIANT child she is!" Lol!!

Julie, thanks for reminding me of Jeems. I've forgotten about him being the Tarlington's slave. Which also supports Satia's observation of only the Tara slaves were named "inhumanly". And sorry if we have not tagged our discussion with a "spoiler" note! Apologies!

I'm not upset because to be perfectly honest, I only skimmed the comments that looked like they would have spoilers in them. I intend on actually reading fully when I'm a bit further in the book.

I'm starting to see why this is a controversial book...

Hi Julie, good good. I still can't find the function to flag a discussion with "spoiler alert". Perhaps Satia knows?

We do want to keep the discussion of this book ongoing, since it's such a big book and it contains many controversial points for discussion. :) So when you do get deeper into the book, please don't hesitate to join in the discussion!

(view spoiler)[ It's possible to hide spoilers.


Just write the "spoiler" in front and enclose it in <> brackets, not quotes like I did. (hide spoiler)]

Thanks to Julie. D'uh to me. :)

Satia, I think that's a good idea, breaking the discussion down and organize them in a more coherent way. I am pretty bad at organizing anything, my boyfriend's always screaming at me about my messy desktop; and my work inbox has over 300 email that I really need to go through and chuck. Lol!

Anyhow, why don't we do this for the next book then?

It would make sense to break it up if our next book is also long.

So I really dragged my feet on Gone With the Wind, but I finally finished it. Just a few months too late, huh? :)

This book was not difficult to read. For all the racism and outdated ways of thinking, the characters felt very modern. While it was not hard to read, I'm finding it difficult to digest. It was one of those books that when I closed the back cover, I just stared at it for a minute, trying to make my brain catch up.

I have no idea how I will end up rating this on GoodReads. I think that I will have to revive some of the discussions and let the book simmer in my mind for a while. I really appreciate this book club and the chance to read what you all have commented on the book even if I am so behind.

A friend lent me Scarlett by Alexandra Ripley, which looks like an unofficial sequel to Gone With the Wind. It looks kind of interesting, and I'm wondering if anyone here has read it.

Hmm. I'm surprised to hear that this is official. Something about it just seemed like it was, well, to put it nicely, professional fanfiction. Not that I am saying that all fanfiction is poorly written, I'm just saying that it did not seem to be part of the "Gone With the Wind canon."

I started it last night, and it seems ok so far. She does not seem hesitant to kill off major characters early, so I'm wondering what direction she will take with the rest of the novel.

I don't know about either of those. Through this group, I know that Wide Sargasso Sea is an unofficial prequel to Jane Eyre, so maybe that's the one.

Jillian wrote: "Satia wrote: "I could say much more but it is a curious thing that that which we like and find charming in Gerald is potentially off-putting when it is also in Scarlett. If the qualities are enchan..."

Lol! Ok, let me try this take: This is how I'd paint both characters. Gerald, a short stocky male with lots of fire in him. Simple-minded, bull-headed, and will-driven. Within these simplistic traits, he is soft-hearted and compassionate. His love for Ellen demonstrates he loves because he loves, and full-heartedly. This is our archetype of simple manly men (I am refraining from using the phrase 'cave men', lol!).

Gerald's type does not think much, they don't think about whether it's wrong to be racist because that's just the way it is (and that's if they even are aware of what 'racists' are), they don't think about WHY they love or want to protect someone, and when they see something they want, they go and get it. And this is why we find Gerald charming, his intention of getting something/someone was never all that evil. He just wants it and go and get it. It's the combination of these simple manly men traits backed with a good heart that makes him charming.

Scarlett: a charming young female with the all sensitivities of the female mind, but devoid of all the nurturing qualities of female of the species. Her selfishness and her lack of empathy to those around her make her the archetype of the conniving scheming bitch. When Scarlett wants something, she goes and get it as well, but in the meantime wishes Melly dead, destroys her sister's hope, destroys Frank's reputation then got him killed.. She leaves a trail of destruction behind her.
Her similarity to Gerald's personality is only the trait of bull-headedness, and here is where she differs from Gerald and why she's off-putting, her intention behind her acts are mostly selfish and self-serving. Her gender really has nothing to do with it; but then again, her being a female, the gender more capable of being selfless love, does contrast her selfish bull-headedness lots.

Sorry, I can't simply take a trait out of characters and compare that trait alone without looking at the whole picture, because everything is connected.

Hmm... I am not sure whether I agree that Scarlett's negative behaviors stem from Ellen's upbringing and training. Ellen, like Marmee in Little Women, is an upstanding example of a strong perfect woman. Marmee more so than Ellen as she seems to have no blemish in her whole life. Ellen to Scarlett is the embodiment of the Virgin Mary, she wants to be a great lady like Ellen. But once her physical being is removed from Ellen-her marriage to Charles and move to Atlanta, she instantly gains the habit of "I will think about that tomorrow". She slowly begins to bury the conscience that Ellen tries to instill in her.

Her repeating nightmare of running in the fog seeking for something for me symbolizes her seeking of her soul, her conscience. It becomes reality when Melanie dies.

Rhett Butler. The male Scarlett really, would be a good comparison. Rhett has voiced numerous times that him and Scarlett are of the same creature, same mind, same immoralist. But even him, is amazed at Scarlett's ignorance on recognizing and appreciating basic human values such as honor, compassion, and unconditional love.

Hahahaha! I supposed I should stop dissing Scarlett. She just makes me so mad because she can be so much better, and I hate the fact that feminist movement's embodied in her because women are so much better than that! :) Especially when there're examples of other girls under the same environment and condition...

Hi there, that's interesting you see Ellen as an antihero. Never thought about that...

I personally think this book is impressive, certainly exceeds my expectation of it prior reading it. Like I've said before, I'd have considered Margaret Mitchell a genius if she wasn't such a bigot. :)