Victorians! discussion

Published in December 1864
For discussion of these chapters

I so enjoy the relationship between Bella and her father. Poor Mr W, he has had a lot to put up with in his wife as well as with Lavy. Mrs W and Lavey are certainly a pair of quite haughty women! To think that neither likes the Boffins is awful. They are being so good to Bella and treat her like a daughter. You would think the mother and sister would be so happy for Bella.

I thought it interesting that Bella has decided to marry money. She detests being poor and thinks money can solve a lot of issues. She and her father fantasize about it, but so happy that Sloppy will be taken care of. What a sweet child!

So sad about little Johnny. So sweet of him to give his toys away.

Mrs W and Lavey are simply gelous of Bella's fortune. Not a nice sentiment, but a really common one, I'm afraid. And as such Dickens depicts it!!

And about Bella marrying money, well, is is not easy nowadays to be poor, but at that time it was even worse I think, especially for women; we'll see if she'll stick to her resolution... she's a too nice character for that I think.

I think Bella is one of Dicken's better portrayals of romantic heroines, flawed but loveable.

LauraT wrote: "And about Bella marrying money, well, is is not easy nowadays to be poor, but at that time it was even worse I think, especially for women; we'll see if she'll stick to her resolution... she's a too nice character for that I think. "

Interesting. Nice is not a word I associate with her -- a gender difference, perhaps? Not a young woman I would want to be married to, at least at this stage of the book. Her relationship with her father is good, but with her mother and sister -- not so nice, IMO.

I don't think it is necessary to say that our views of a character have anything to do with our own gender? if that is what you are saying. I think not.

Laura is possibly referring to the fact that Bella, a poor young girl, is succumbing to the opportunity to change her fortune through a monied match. Plus, she has just been "widowed" from an arranged match. She is bound to be experiencing some complicated feelings about her double reversal of fortune. I think I am looking more at the circumstances rather than specifically the actions or behavior of the person.

I think that in Bella there's more than we can see at the beginning; at least this is what I feel: she's there to understand and develop into a beautiful butterfly!
I think that Dickens is usually very "simple" in the way he depicts his characters: she is too beautiful to be "ugly inside" - like Rebecca of Thackerey for instance. She thinks herself "mercenary"; but will she be so?

SarahC wrote: "I don't think it is necessary to say that our views of a character have anything to do with our own gender? if that is what you are saying. I think not."

I do think that in some, perhaps many, cases, the gender of the reader does play a role in the way the reader sees the characters and how much a reader likes or dislikes books. Not deliberately, I agree, and certainly not universally, but I do often find such differences.

For example, in my experience may more female than male readers love Jane Eyre. Ditto for Little Women. And I don't find many female readers who appreciate John Buchan as much as my male reading friends do.

I'm not suggesting at all that this is universal, nor that readers necessarily deliberately judge characters based on gender. It's much more subtle and much less universal than that. There are probably as many male as female readers, for example, who love Jane Austen.

But I do notice, from teaching literature to many students and from the book groups I have been in, that there do sometimes -- perhaps even often -- tend to be differences in the way readers view characters depending in part on the gender of the reader (and in great part, of course, on many other things; general philosophy of life, personal history, experience with other books, etc.)

But in the Victorians group, where the thread for introductions suggests that new members list their favorite books, it's interesting, to me at least, to notice some broad but fairly consistent differences in the favorite books listed by female and male members.

So yes, I am suggesting, though not at all insisting, that for a number of readers, their views of the characters do often have something to do with their gender.

Everyman, the original comment was on how the character of Bella was seen. You have expanded your reply to included also that women and men lean toward separate favorites among their chosen novels.

So this is probably too broad of a subject to fit within this thread. I will say I disagree in the sense that you seem to be pointing to the idea that there would be a feminine interpretation of a piece of literature and a male interpretation of a that same piece -- and even of a particular character within a work. I can't agree with that at all.

I am not sure if your students have been seasoned readers or readers just starting out into more demanding literature. At a young age, male and female students are often told what they should read and what they will like -- so younger readers may not have found their individual stride yet, so to speak. In post graduate level courses, I can't imagine making that conclusion of dividing preferences by gender. Nor in the classics discussion group I have attended for years.

SarahC wrote: "I will say I disagree in the sense that you seem to be pointing to the idea that there would be a feminine interpretation of a piece of literature and a male interpretation of a that same piece -- and even of a particular character within a work. I can't agree with that at all. "

Well, we've amicably disagreed about things before, and I expect will again. I do appreciate discussing books with you, and realize that if we all agreed about everything there would be little of interest here!

I agree that this isn't the place to continue this, so will end just by saying that if you're right that there aren't feminine interpretations of a piece of literature, either I've badly misunderstood the whole field of feminist criticism, or they're all simply wrong. Either of which could easily be true.

Everyman wrote: "SarahC wrote: "I will say I disagree in the sense that you seem to be pointing to the idea that there would be a feminine interpretation of a piece of literature and a male interpretation of a that..."

What I disagreed with is that a person's opinion of a character would be more due to being a woman than anything else. That is a separate subject from that of feminist interpretations.

Men or women can investigate Bella's place in life and the affects of her behavior or attitude. Yes, this would be a feminist examination even if you looked only at what I mentioned in message 6. However, a man or woman could look at these aspects, it would not have to be only a woman reader to examine Bella's issues. You mentioned a gender difference, so I thought you were implying that due to being a man or woman, you might call Bella something different. That is the part I disagreed with.

I enjoy discussing literature with you as always, Everyman, and yes our differences make it interesting. Thanks for understanding I was bringing out my viewpoint and it was certain meant calmly and as a friend.

I was saddened at little Johnny's death. Poor child! I was also surprised that Sloppy was brought back into the story.

Bea wrote: "I think Bella is one of Dicken's better portrayals of romantic heroines, flawed but loveable."

Agreed. I like Bella more after each scene that she's in.

SarahC wrote: "I don't think it is necessary to say that our views of a character have anything to do with our own gender? if that is what you are saying. I think not.

Laura is possibly referring to the fact th..."

Sarah, I agree with your assessment of Bella's desire to marry money. I think that the "double reversal of fortune" that you so aptly phrased is spot on and how I viewed the reasons behind her comments about finding a wealthy husband.