Wrong email address or username
Wrong email address or username
Incorrect verification code
back to top
Search tags: Victorian-literature
Load new posts () and activity
Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
review SPOILER ALERT! 2019-02-10 18:07
does the rich man share his plenty with me, as he ought to do, if his religion wasn’t a humbug?
Mary Barton - MacDonald Daly,Elizabeth Gaskell

This was Elizabeth Gaskell's first book, and is the second book by her which I've read. It's really two books in one - the first, concentrating on John Barton (father of the titular Mary Barton) is a screed about structural inequality and capital versus labor, and the second, a literal courtroom drama focused around Mary Barton's romantic travails.


As is often the case with Victorian melodramas, Mrs. Gaskell took her time getting going - about the first third of the book, focused on John Barton and the plight of the laborers is fascinating, but not precisely action packed.


I can't overstate how relevant this book is to the conditions between capital and labor today - it's disturbing how so much has remained the same between the excesses of the industrial revolution and today.


At all times it is a bewildering thing to the poor weaver to see his employer removing from house to house, each one grander than the last, till he ends in building one more magnificent than all, or withdraws his money from the concern, or sells his mill to buy an estate in the country, while all the time the weaver, who thinks he and his fellows are the real makers of this wealth, is struggling on for bread for their children, through the vicissitudes of lowered wages, short hours, fewer hands employed, &c. And when he knows trade is bad, and could understand (at least partially) that there are not buyers enough in the market to purchase the goods already made, and consequently that there is no demand for more; when he would bear and endure much without complaining, could he also see that his employers were bearing their share; he is, I say, bewildered and (to use his own word) “aggravated” to see that all goes on just as usual with the mill-owners. Large houses are still occupied, while spinners’ and weavers’ cottages stand empty, because the families that once occupied them are obliged to live in rooms or cellars. Carriages still roll along the streets, concerts are still crowded.


We are quite literally having the same conversations in 2019 that Elizabeth Gaskell was describing in 1848 when this book was published. The single distinction is that there is at least a minimal safety net now, that didn't exist then. John Barton had a little boy, Tom, who starved to death because his father couldn't afford sufficient food to keep him alive.


She reminds us:


Remember, too, that though it may take much suffering to kill the able-bodied and effective members of society, it does not take much to reduce them to worn, listless, diseased creatures, who thenceforward crawl through life with moody hearts and pain-stricken bodies.


I've often thought to myself that "Conservatives" (at least as they self-identify in the U.S.) should better be called the "New Victorians." They are fine with this type of extreme economic winner vs. loser scenario, and with government policies that are intended to ensure that this economic Darwinism proceeds apace (so long as they are among the winners). I think often of Dickens and Gaskell when Republican politicians talk about dismantling our barely existent safety net - because history tells us what happens when we dehumanize the poor. Rich people most emphatically do not step into the breach to ensure that children don't die of starvation and anyone who believes otherwise needs to pick up a book written during that time. 


Wealthy Victorians treated the poor and vulnerable with a harsh inhumanity that negates their very right to exist. Period. #notallrichpeople, whatever.


When we move into the second half of the book, Elizabeth Gaskell has written a pot-boiler and it becomes unputdownable. The only son of the mill owner, Henry Carson, is murdered and it looks like a completely different story. The motive is believed to have been over Mary Barton, who has been keeping company with Henry Carson, but who has spurned him when she realizes that he had no plans to marry her. Jem Wilson, the man she truly loves, is accused of the murder, and goes on trial.


It's hard to really talk about the genius behind this book without spoiling the story. Also, I am of a mind that people who object to spoilers in a book written in 1848 are a bit unrealistic, so here I go. Ignore what follows if you plan to read this book - and I do recommend that you read this book - and you want it unspoiled.




It isn't Jem who has murdered Henry, it is Mary's father, and the murder is in retribution for the mill owners ignoring the plight of the working men. The decision to murder one of the owners is a decision by a group of men who have just finished degrading themselves and begging the mill owners to put them back to work because their families are starving.


John Barton began to speak; they turned to him with great attention. “It makes me more than sad, it makes my heart burn within me, to see that folk can make a jest of earnest men; of chaps who comed to ask for a bit o’ fire for th’ old granny, as shivers in th’ cold; for a bit o’ bedding, and some warm clothing to the poor wife as lies in labour on th’ damp flags; and for victuals for the childer, whose little voices are getting too faint and weak to cry aloud wi’ hunger. For, brothers, is not them the things we ask for when we ask for more wage? We donnot want dainties, we want bellyfuls; we donnot want gimcrack coats and waistcoats, we want warm clothes, and so that we get ’em we’d not quarrel wi’ what they’re made on. We donnot want their grand houses, we want a roof to cover us from the rain, and the snow, and the storm; ay, and not alone to cover us, but the helpless ones that cling to us in the keen wind, and ask us with their eyes why we brought ’em into th’ world to suffer?” He lowered his deep voice almost to a whisper.


The owners respond, not just with a no, but with a hell no, fuck you, whatever your plight means nothing to us. They respond with mockery.



Mr. Carson responds to the murder of his son in exactly the way that you think he would - he is a powerful man who has had something he valued immeasurably taken from him. He wants vengeance, and he wants it now. And so Jem Wilson is fixed upon as the sacrificial lamb and Mary, who figures out that it is actually her father who is the murderer, is caught between Scylla and Charybdis, trying to navigate an outcome where she saves them both.


The ending of the book is almost unbearably melodramatic, but still effective. John Barton is a broken man - committing the murder of Henry Carson has destroyed him. This, yet again, demonstrates the deep humanity of the poor in contrast to the wealthy. He confesses to the elder Mr. Carson, and is truly remorseful for what he did, and then he conveniently dies. At no point, though, does he confront Mr. Carson with the argument that he was simply evening the score - that the exploitation of labor to the benefit of Mr. Carson was responsible for the death of his own beloved son. There is a symmetry there that is, I'm sure, intentional, but which is left unspoken. I really would've liked to have seen Mr. Carson wrestle with the reality that what he experienced was, in a sense, the "eye for an eye," which he was demanding. That an argument can be made that the murder of his son was a re-balancing of the scales. 




I plan to read more Elizabeth Gaskell this year. She is so very timely. 


In 1848, long before Ronald Reagan was born, she wrote this:


“We come to th’ masters wi’ full hearts, to ask for them things I named afore. We know that they’ve gotten money, as we’ve earned for ’em; we know trade is mending, and that they’ve large orders, for which they’ll be well paid; we ask for our share o’ th’ payment; for, say we, if th’ masters get our share of payment it will only go to keep servants and horses, to more dress and pomp. Well and good, if yo choose to be fools we’ll not hinder you, so long as you’re just; but our share we must and will have; we’ll not be cheated. We want it for daily bread, for life itself; and not for our own lives neither (for there’s many a one here, I know by mysel, as would be glad and thankful to lie down and die out o’ this weary world), but for the lives of them little ones, who don’t yet know what life is, and are afeard of death. 


Which is one of the most accurate responses against the arguments behind "trickle down economics" and "rich people are job creators" that I've read. Perhaps the Democrats should start tweeting out Gaskell quotes when the Republicans talk about more tax cuts for the (already obscenely) wealthy.


Read this book. And then weep.


Like Reblog Comment
show activity (+)
review 2018-12-02 12:24
Hot Flushes and Palpitations: "Persuasion" by Jane Austen
Persuasion - Jane Austen

(Original Review, 1981-02-25)

I think it's evident, once one steps back from an emotional response to the novel, that it would have benefited from some editing and expanding by Austen, had she lived.

I can see the flaws in it. It seems disjointed and overly episodic, and I think the excursion to Lyme is a bit forced into the narrative although I believe it’s essential to the novel. The trip to Lyme is essential: the flirtation between Wentworth and Louisa comes to a crash, he can see Anne's steadiness, and we can see her lack of romantic desperation—her grit in the teeth, not of poverty (bad enough), but of loneliness—… and it's all by the sea, place of both voyage and anchorage.




Like Reblog Comment
review 2018-12-02 11:54
D'Arcy is a Toad: "Pride and Prejudice" by Jane Austen
Pride and Prejudice - Jane Austen

(Original Review, 1981-02-20)

If Jane Austen had never become a novelist, what would have happened? What would have happened to the British? Have Jane Austen's works become an antidote to a harshness in the world? Are they a key to disarming totalitarian societies? To making the world decide to be happier and freer? People read Jane Austen's novels to be entertained, after all.




Like Reblog Comment
review 2018-12-02 10:44
Juxtaposing of Characters: "Agnes Grey" by Anne Brontë
Agnes Grey - Anne Brontë

(Original Review, 1981-02-06)

I read "Agnes Grey" after a visit to the Mosteiros dos Jerónimos, supposing I ought to try the lesser known sister after reading so much of Charlotte's work and of course “Wuthering Heights.” What a wonderful surprise. Anne had me at "...she would rather live in a cottage with Richard Grey than in a palace with any other man in the world."




Like Reblog Comment
review 2018-12-02 10:29
Plinky Plonky: "The Tenant of Wildfell Hall" by Anne Brontë
The Tenant of Wildfell Hall - Anne Brontë

(Original Review, 1981-02-04)

“The Tenant of Wildfell Hall” has received a lot of scholarly attention more recently, it has various depths beyond the exploration of domestic violence. She was partly not appreciated because her sister openly and strongly disagreed with the subject matter of the novel and prevented republication after Anne's death which left the novel behind somewhat.





More posts
Your Dashboard view:
Need help?