Victorians! discussion

For discussion of these chapters

(view spoiler)[Just finished chapter 4, which I liked because it was a terribly poignant story - could've been the plot of a much longer book - but told succinctly, with great style. (hide spoiler)]

Ugh - we're not actually supposed to be discussing these until next week, are we? Okay, I'll just make notes as I go so I can join in at the appropriate time.

Alex, if no one really objects and if it's not against the rules, you can just hide your comments in the spoiler code:

< spoiler> comment < /spoiler> just take out the spaces

(view spoiler)[ comment (hide spoiler)]

You can remove the spoiler code when the discussion "officially" starts.

Ah, what a good idea Shay. Thanks, and done. (But I'll still stick to taking notes for later from here on out.)

I feel like anyone who has started reading Cranford should be able to discuss a little now as long as we participate with everone else later. This may help get the discussion going quicker when everyone else joins. Also, most people will wait to read the comments after reading the chapters for each thread.

I agree the story in Ch 4 could have been turned into a book and I thought it would play a part in getting the plot started but I am still unsure where things are going. The book is still funny!

Not only Chap. IV, but also the story of Matty's brother could be a novel of its own; it reminded me of North and South and in particular of Frederick Hale, Margart's brother. Is it possible that something like that happened to Elisabeth Gaskell herself?

The general impression of the book is that of a sort of Quilt blankett: so many little different stories that could be developed or not as chance could come out ...
It reminds me, generally speaking, of some Lucy M. Montgomery books: a lot of women together, sowing, or cooking and discussing things happened years before ...

I can add some context to that: many of the things in the book are sorta autobiographical - Gaskell had written about them in an essay called "The Last Generation," about her experiences growing up. To my knowledge, nothing about the brother is autobiographical, but my knowledge is limited.

And I have an answer to why the book feels episodic and perhaps light on plot: it was actually commissioned - by some guy named Dickens - as a series of essays for his magazine Household Works. He'd been impressed enough by her first novel, Mary Barton, to ask for "a short tale, or any number of tales" (emphasis his). There were eight in all, enormously popular, which she then decided to novelize as Cranford.

I'm also looking forward to discussing whether Cranford has a plot or not. I think it does almost in spite of itself, although it's hardly as plot-driven as, say, Jane Eyre. But again, a topic for later.

In the notes to my edition of Cranford I believe it said that something similar did indeed happen to Mrs. Gaskell's brother.

It also mentioned where the novel refers to Charles Dickens as an example of "modern" writing, in the version published in Household Works it mentioned another writer (for obvious reason).

I kind of fell behind my own buddy read - :(

Here I was waiting until today to start commenting. :o

I knew nothing going in either, Jackie. I love going into a book totally cold like that.

Happens a lot; you'd be surprised (or maybe not) at how many books I know zilch about. I was also recently surprised to find out that Heathcliff is kindof a jerk.

I'm with you Alex...so many books I never read that I am just getting into. Great stuff and I feel like I am discovering a whole new world of reading.

I'm here for exactly this reason: find and discover new authors, books, reading people!

Alex wrote: "[spoilers removed]"

I like the fact that the story lightly trips along strung together with episodes that could each have been expanded to form, if not an entire book, then at least a substantial back story in a much longer work.

The book feels surprisingly modern in that way, in inviting or demanding the reader read actively and construct so much in the way of story.

At least my stereotype of Victorian literature (much as I love it) did not recognize the airy openness of a work like this.

I'm still grieving over the deaths! (and I'm up to chapter 5)

I'm sure I would suffocate in a community like that but it's fun to observe. Such a tiny group of women would have to suck the life out of everything & everyone in order to keep going. Sometimes I think of gossip as the major source of interest in my life (gossip is after all the stories that we are surrounded by!)-if I had to amuse myself with the workings of only, what? 50 other people? For a lifetime? I'd be bored stiff.

I love it though. "Emotional vampire" lol.

As an American, its hard for me to imagine how the railroad was changing these communities in Britain. How tragic and ironic that Mr. Brown was killed in the process! Is Gaskell implying that he might not have stumbled if he hadn't been reading just before he snatched the little boy to safety, or is that just a bit of depth and irony to the story? (I am inclined to the latter view.)

Her books sound inviting Patriziabr. Is their one you particularly recommend.

This is my first read of Cranford although I've seen the series twice. I was surprised at the Captain's death as it seemed so much more abrupt in the book. I knew Mr. Holbrook's was coming, but it was still so sad. Didn't care much for Chapter 5, but it did serve to introduce Peter to the story and give us some insight into their parents.

The death was stunningly abrupt-it changes the whole experience from me. But I can see how this would be difficult to listen to in the car. It's the narrative continuity that sustains the break in reading. In this, the continuity is the ongoing life of a town.

In 19th century Britain, death was often abrupt and unexpected.

The advent of the railroad was a stunning blow in many American communities out west as well. There were major wars between cattle barons and the railroads. The railroads were up there with banks as enemies of the people.

But it's an interesting point-the abruptness of Mr. Brown's death is a fairly exact parallel to the abrubtness of change in life style brought about by the railroad. That and enclosures were 2 major events that abruptly (at different times) changed an entire way of being and mark a new era. Most eras don't have beginnings and ends quite as clear as those 2.

End of feudalism. Beginning of the modern era.
Beginning of the industrial revolution.

Anna wrote: "Ellie, I am enjoying the read this time much more than when I listened to Cranford on cd. I think the lack of easily discernible plot made it a difficult to listen to in short bursts in the car and..."

I'm so glad Anna. I think Cranford is really a pre-industrial read (despite the ominous rollings of the railroad!) & doesn't transfer well to the auto & cd! lol

Anna wrote: "...I can't tell if Gaskell wants us to find it amusing that a trip to Paris killed him, or be heartbroken? Her tone is difficult to read...."

That's rather how I felt about Captain Brown reading the most recent edition of Pickwick Papers just before he was killed!

The coming of the railroad was a huge change, socially speaking. Change accelerating rapidly. Railroad suburbs.

Patriziabr wrote: "Rebecca wrote: "Her books sound inviting Patriziabr. Is their one you particularly recommend."

I think "The Fifteen Streets: A Novel""

Thanks for the heads up. I had not heard of this author (Catherine Cookson) before.

Ellie wrote: "The advent of the railroad was a stunning blow in many American communities out west as well. There were major wars between cattle barons and the railroads...."

But it strikes me that those dynamics in the western United States must have been quite different than the impact of railroads in Britain. But maybe not. That is sort of what I am trying to imagine. America had vast agricultural distances and I don't think of early railroads as particularly being about bringing industrialization to an area, as it is my perception that railroads facilitated in England. I know that some of the early battles even with the colonies were where was weaving going to be done -- in New England, nearer the cotton of the South, or back in England; manufacturing originally not a value-added encouraged in India -- the British mill owners wanted those jobs and those profits; moving the wool from the farms of Great Britain to the mills, ...., problems and vested interests like those.

Ellie wrote: "...But it's an interesting point-the abruptness of Mr. Brown's death is a fairly exact parallel to the abruptness of change in life style brought about by the railroad. That and enclosures were 2 major events that abruptly (at different times) changed an entire way of being and mark a new era. ...."

Perceptive insight, thx! This is at least the second time in recent days that I have encountered the concept of "enclosures." Guess I'm going to have to do a bit of research:

"Enclosure or inclosure is the process which ends traditional rights such as mowing meadows for hay, or grazing livestock on common land. Once enclosed, these uses of the land become restricted to the owner, and it ceases to be common land. In England and Wales the term is also used for the process that ended the ancient system of arable farming in open fields. Under enclosure, such land is fenced (enclosed) and deeded or entitled to one or more owners. By the 19th century, unenclosed commons had become largely restricted to rough pasture in mountainous areas and to relatively small parts of the lowlands."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure

Two not terribly insightful sites on railroads in Britain et al:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_...

This is at least as interesting:

http://www.orenstransitpage.com/otplo...

Lily wrote: "Ellie wrote: "...But it's an interesting point-the abruptness of Mr. Brown's death is a fairly exact parallel to the abruptness of change in life style brought about by the railroad. That and enclo..."

I think this is the type of farm Tess and her family had in Tess of the d'urbervilles by Thomas Hardy. The plot was rocky ground from what I remember. Hardy wrote a few books that focused on industrialization and how it affected rural life.

I can't tell if Gaskell wants us to find it amusing that a trip to Paris killed him, or be heartbroken? Her tone is difficult to read. "

I found that a little confusing too. One of the many places in the book where I thought I had a handle on the plot and then got thrown for a loop. Maybe related to the autobiographical aspect - and it is realistic. In real life, there's no arc; the weirdest stuff just happens.

I was touched by the chapter where Miss Matty burned her letters. Through the letters we got more insight about her family how her father cherished her relationship with her mother. I felt very sad when I read about Peter. Chapters 4,5,6 were touching and emotional for me.

Rebecca wrote: "...I felt very sad when I read about Peter...."

Am I right in reading this as Mrs. Gaskell touching upon the topic of gender identity? If so, it must have been very daunting for her to have done so?

I wondered too Lily. If we think topic is difficult nowadays. I can only imagine it was much more difficult in the 1800's. How do we feel about Gaskells addressing it? I think well done.

Rebecca wrote: "...How do we feel about Gaskells addressing it? I think well done."

I shared the feeling of "well done," my thoughts are a bit more conflicted, but they tend the same way in balance.

Pat you're the usual mine of informations! I've just finished listening to She that you put in front of me something I had never heard of!!!! Do you do it on purpose?

Anna wrote: "I had the same thought especially when I read this passage. "Peter said he was awfully frightened himself when he saw how my father took it all in, and even offered to copy out all his Napoleon Buonaparte sermons for her - him, I mean - no, her, for Peter was a lady then." I love that Gaskell makes this distinction and it seems to me that she is saying that gender is based on appearance, which it truly is in many ways, but also on Peter's ability to perform like a woman."

I think perhaps the author was trying to say that Peter did have a problem with gender identity. He dresses up like a lady twice as a 'practical joke' I think to get his father's attention. It is mentioned earlier in the chapter that the father's 'favorite' was Deborah, so perhaps he unconsciously felt that his father would love him more if he was more like his sister. So he dresses up like her to get his father's approval? When this backfires, he runs away to do a very masculine thing of joining the navy. Definitely a struggle with gender identity. Does anyone else see this?

I was very surprised by that scene, Jenn. It certainly was an eye opening and perhaps a bit risque event in the book. It seemed odd that Peter did not think of the possibility of being caught. It is one thing to dress as a woman in private, but Peter brought it out into the open. Certainly, gender issues have existed for ever, but to point it out in a Victorian novel was risky I think for Miss Gaskell.

And she seems so casual about it-is there something in Victorian society that I'm missing? Of course, later Victorian was far more rigidly moralistic than the earlier years when it was still close to the more ribald 18th century and Victoria herself was young in years & in her reign and less rigidly autocratic as well as less powerful than she became.

I hadn't thought about that-I think you're right.

Me too!

Eddie Izzard also agrees.

lol