The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

If this worked . Here's the area for the first four chapters of the work.

It worked!

I read the entire book, probably about a year ago. Really wonderful. Looking forward to the discussion.

I re-read the first two chapters, and I absolutely love her descriptions. They are .... intelligent!

The South Kensington Museum is now called the Victorian & Albert Museum:-

http://www.vam.ac.uk/page/a/about-us/

In chapter 1 Tom is taken to see The Gloucester Candlestick which he saw as a thing which was 'a whole world of secret stories, which his mother would like to see.' 'The candlestick stands at about 55 cm high, is cast in three sections and made of a peculiar copper alloy. Past analysis and recent research have shown it to be a brass with an unusually high silver content. This is very unusual. Silver is expensive today, but back in the early 1100’s silver was even more precious so it was unusual to mix it with other less precious metals.'

Here is a close-up and descriptions:-

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/...

The 'knop' on the candlestick which puzzled Tom is a decorative ornamental swell beneath the cup of a candlestick, from the Hebrew kapthor, as described in Exodus 25:31-36 and resembling the fruit of an almond.

Major Prosper Cain lived in Iwade House, an 'Elizabethan manor' probably modelled on Chillington Manor which is now a Museum. It has a long and interesting history and is reputedly haunted:-

http://www.visitmaidstone.com/things-...

The 'small tapestry' with 'greedy birds and crimson berries' given to him by his friend (William) Morris is probably this design:-

http://www.alexanderinteriorsltd.co.u...

Merton Abbey Watermills, Wandsworth, then on the outskirts of London, were acquired in 1881 by William Morris to use for textile dyeing and printing but they were later converted for the production of other arts and craft artefacts.

http://www.morrissociety.org/morris/m...

Bernard Palissy, a French potter, was renowned for the naturalistic work which fascinated Olive, which he modelled using 'life-sized replicas of amphibians, reptiles, shells, bugs and plants', supposedly without harming them.

http://www.strangescience.net/palissy...

http://www.antiques-furniture-online....

Great links! Thx Madge!

This is my second time reading The Children's Book, and it was interesting to pick up some of the foreshadowing for each of the characters.

I'm a bit afraid to write in-depth comments, because I don't want to accidently give away spoilings. Particularly regarding the characters themselves, who I see as more important than plot in this novel.

First, I felt out of my depth the first time reading the book when it came to the art, and this time, I didn't make myself crazy trying to really understand what the pieces might be trying to say. Yes, I can read Wikipedia links, but to really understand the mind of an artist, I don't think that way. I'm good at understanding literary work, not art work.

So while I enjoyed the descriptions of the Candlestick and the Toad plate, to me, like Olive, they spin off into possible stories.

Byatt loves playing on fairy tales, but obviously in a much more academic way than we see in popular novels today. (I read that she doesn't like the Harry Potter novels - says that they are too simplistic.)

Two, whether Byatt meant for her to be a sympathetic character or not, I like Olive. Maybe it is the aspiring writer in me, but I usually always connect with characters who are or who aspire to be writers. And I like that she is a bohemian, free spirit.

Or is she? And her husband. Do they try to hard to be anti-establishment?

Which leads me to Three - maybe I am biased, because I worked in business and dislike business, but Basil irritated me from the first sentence. He can't see the beauty in the make believe. Everything is black and white to him and people like him. They can only see and believe in things that are in front of them.

Four, Philip's character. After just watching Elizabeth Gaskill's North and South (the BBC mini-series) and having read numerous books - including Dickens - on what factories were like, it is easy to picture the life Philip comes from. I love how Olive and Humphrey take him in. (I have more to comment on this, but it would include spoilers).

Five, Tom's character. He wants to live in a story, not just read them. I can relate to Tom.

Six, I thought the passage when the children were asked what they wanted to do was interesting. Although I think that Byatt has Dorothy think far much older than her character should at that age (11), I thought it was interesting that Dorothy would answer doctor, and then we can see that she doesn't really know why she answered with that profession. Did it come from all the progressive thinking that she's been surrounded by her entire life? She's been told that women are equal and can do other types of work than what society tells her is acceptable. So why not a doctor.

Seven, the Cinderella story. No fairy tale, no happy ending. Very grotesque. People like Olive and Humphrey are trying to build a world that fair. But life isn't fair, and never will be fair. The real world isn't a fairy tale, there is no happy ending, and people can be brutal and mean.

And lastly, I wish I could have lived in this time period. After centuries of restrictions on thought, in the 1800s, we see an explosion of ideas and free thinking. The beginnings of real progressive thought. I would have joined all the societies!!! :-)

I personally think that the Wellwoods produce a successful but spurious impression of a happy family. And poor Olive, she was pregnant all the time, but she still managed to balance her career and the vocation of her motherhood. Or is it only an impression? Is actually everything 'well in the woods'? Excuse my decomposition and resolving into constituent parts of the Wellwoods' last name. But I know Byatt used the trick of antonomasia and speaking names in her previous novels.

And the name Olive represents goodness and purity and has a number of spiritual meanings in the Bible:-

http://www.biblemeanings.info/Words/P...

So far all is well but can anything be that good? Woods age and decay....

Zulfiya wrote: "I personally think that the Wellwoods produce a successful but spurious impression of a happy family. And poor Olive, she was pregnant all the time, but she still managed to balance her career and ..."

As Madge said, for now, all is well. We'll see if it stays that way.

And she is always pregnant. Yikes - poor Olive! Thank goodness we live in an age where there is birth control. ;)

This was the period which saw the birth of democratic socialism in the UK (and Europe). From Chapter 3:

'...1881 was a year of beginnings. A number of idealist, millenarian projects and groups were founded. There were the Democratic Federation, the Society for Psychical Research, the Theosophical Society, the Anti-Vivisection Movement. All were designed to change and reinvent human nature [I see that as a cynical A S Byatt comment].....In October 1882 Edward Pease founded the Fellowship of the New Life and the younger Wellwoods went to its meetings...they discussed...the organisation of unemployed labour, the feeding of board schoolchildren, nationalisation of mines and railways, the construction by public bodies, of homes fit for the People'

BUT 'In the winter of 1882, in Christmas week, Peter came down with croup, and died. In the same week Thomas Wellwood was born. In 1883 Olive Wellwood was seriously ill. Violet managed the little house. Karl Marx died. Attempts were made to explode local government offices...Basil took Humphry to his club, and told him very firmly that anarchism just would not do. A Bank of England officer could not be seen hobnobbing with anarchists.....In 1884 the Fabian society branched out of the Fellowship of New life, Humphry and Olive, - now restored to pale loveliness - joined...Olive knitted through the meetings, head bowed, clicking her needles.' [I have seen many such knitters at such political meetings:).].. Humphry invested in bicycle shares and 'suddenly found himself more than financially comfortable' when the Dunlop Tyre Company was floated. 'He engaged a Maths tutor with a view to entering Tom for Eton' - an early 'champagne socialist'?

These paragraphs sum up that era very well but there is an inordinate amount of name dropping which IMO spoils the flow of the narrative.

I agree it spoils the flow, but I have to admit that I've highlighted many of the names and organizations so that I can go back and look them up later, if it is something I am interested in. Great for an education, not so great for the flow of reading.

Lynnm wrote: Two, whether Byatt meant for her to be a sympathetic character or not, I like Olive. Maybe it is the aspiring writer in me, but I usually always connect with characters who are or who aspire to be writers. And I like that she is a bohemian, free spirit.

Or is she? And her husband. Do they try to hard to be anti-establishment?"

I like Olive too, but I do sense some disapproval from Byatt in regards to the Wellwoods and their circle of friends as MadgeUK pointed out. There is something about the way Chapter 1-4 are written that has a tone of disapproval or maybe is even a little bit condescending.


I don't think Byatt entirely approves of Olive, but maybe that's just me. We'll have to wait and see.

One of the things that I really like about the opening chapters is the sense of something going on beneath the surface, the idea that there's more to these people than meets the eye. As for the information about the period (referred to in Madge's message 11 above) I really don't mind the level of detail. In general terms I'm opposed to info-dumps in historical fiction. However, I think that the way Byatt does it - both in those paragraphs and elsewhere in the the chapters I've listened to so far - gives the sense that the novel is about more than the story of the characters. Rather,it's as much about the period and the ideas as it is about the people.

I've been enjoying the book so far too. As previously mentioned by many of you, I immediately liked olive for her creativity, her disregard for the social castes, and her empathy for the budding boy artist. I also feel that there is so much more going on beneath the surface. I'm looking forward to seeing what exactly that is.

You ae right Kim, it is as much about the period and its ideas as about the people and I think Byatt dislikes both.

This is a very interesting interview with her although less about The Children's Book than about her views on modern life (SPOILERS):-

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/video...

I'm in chapter 3 this morning and am struggling with understanding how Byatt is creating this book and where she is going with it. The number of characters she has introduced so far, how she has clothed them, the relationships she has described or not described, the sexual tidbits, the dead, the food, the trees, the art, the social institutions arising at the time, the gossip regarding Oscar Wilde's trial, .... -- is that an accurate list of what has consumed the majority of the words so far, and, more significantly, what am I as a reader supposed to be doing with them? What is the construction (structure) I am looking at thus far? Why is Byatt writing this, or perhaps better, what is she intending to do with it? We have lots of children, but best guess is that alone is not why it is called The Children's Book -- good guess or bad guess?

In the interview above Byatt mentions how many children belonging to authors commit suicide and seems to infer that they are invariably unhappy because the authors look care more about their writing than their children; they are too self absorbed. Is this a clue to the construction/structure I wonder?

MadgeUK wrote: "In the interview above Byatt mentions how many children belonging to authors commit suicide and seems to infer that they are invariably unhappy because the authors look care more about their writin..."

Thx, Madge. The Wiki article says much the same thing, I realized when I went to check for the character list after I posted (looks like that will be very useful). I'm not sure yet what all that about Chicken's Book authors (in particular) and their children's unhappiness means in terms of a theme for a novel, but I am willing to hold my peace for awhile. Look forward to hearing other reactions, both now and as we progress. (Some of you probably already have, as I skim back over the posts.)

Kim wrote: "However, I think that the way Byatt does it - both in those paragraphs and elsewhere in the the chapters I've listened to so far - gives the sense that the novel is about more than the story of the characters. Rather,it's as much about the period and the ideas as it is about the people.
"

I agree. It is definitely a postmodern novel. Plot, characters, aren't important. It has to do with ideas and place.

In this section we are introduced to the runaway working class boy Philip Warren who comes from Burslem, an area of England known as The Potteries, in the Six Towns. Here is an old photograph of the area which he describes as 'horrible... full of 'chimneys and bottle ovens, and furnace flames and smoke' where 'you can't breathe rightly':-

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images...

This horrible, dirty area of Staffordshire, in the Midlands, was responsible for producing some of the finest pottery and china in the world - Wedgwood, Spode, Royal Doulton. Out of that horror came incredible beauty which is perhaps going to mirrored in the Children's Book and/or Olive's books.

We see the middle class households of the Wellwoods through Philip's eyes as he is introduced to their gothic home at Todefright Hall, their 'arty' artefacts, their children, who 'mingled with the adults, and spoke and were spoken to', and their weird but famous friends in the Arts & Crafts movement, 'socialists, anarchists, Quakers, Fabians, artists, editors, freethinkers and writers..'. 'These were people who had evaded the Smoke [London], and looked toward to a Utopian world in which smoke would be no more. Significantly, he is introduced to Bernard Fludd and his family who is modelled upon Eric Gill, a famous potter and sculptor who was also a paedophile (see Background information). There are some sexual innuendos in these early chapters which perhaps give us a hint of what is to come - Philip masturbates in ecstasy at his good luck in being taken in by the Wellwoods, Dorothy is sexually aroused by her bicycle rides, in old fashioned Freudian fashion when she felt 'the usual, delightful tightening of her insides'. Olive is writing fairytale like books for each of her children at a time when children were down the mines and up chimneys and when childhood was often overtaken by death. '[What about] your dead ones' her children ask Philip when they have offhandedly told him about their dead siblings.

In other words, all is not as it seems; there is a sinister undercurrent to the idyllic lives Philip at first perceives. As on the large jar made by Fludd, which intrigues him, there are snakes in this Garden of Eden.

Byatt seems to see a sinister undercurrent in the way that Olive and Humphry, and their friends met, which was when they were Fabians, working with the poor: 'Benjamin Jowett and T H Green, who believed they were educating leaders of men, but also felt strongly what Beatrice Webb...described as a growing 'class consciousness of sin' or guilt. This sense of sin led this generation of young men and women to go out and do good to the poor in person. They went to the East End and managed tenement buildings. They conducted university extension classes for workers. H M Hyndman, who founded the Social Democratic Federation in 1882, was sceptical about the motives of these high-minded people. ...He remarked that 'many a marriage in high life was the outcome of these exciting excursions into the unknown haunts of the poor'.

After describing the varied lectures Humphry gave to poor students in the East End, Byatt writes, echoing Hyndman: 'He [Humphry] was helpful to eager women, after the class was over' and one project of his (a production of a Midsummer Night's Dream) was 'entirely inspired by two particular young women who came to all his classes, asking clever questions...They spoke with broad Yorkshire accents and 'were certainly not condescending lady visitors...They were the deserving poor - their gloves were threadbare, their shoes creased and worn - but there was something loose and wild about them under the respectability, that appeared to something wild in Humphry.' It was there, amidst his wild imaginings about these young women, that he met 'the elder Miss Grimwith', Olive, whom he cast as Titania to his Oberon and at the end of the play 'he whirled her into the wings and took her into his arms', later to marry her (when she was seven months pregnant...).

Their Midsummer's night is much more sinister that the Shakespearean one. No asses, but many sexual innuendos ... As we know, Shakespeare explores the battle of genders in his comedy. But in the novel, the play sounds edgier and coveys somewhat threatening and disquieting messages.

I have seen Shakespeare's MND played in a sinister way, there are certainly dark undercurrents there. Puck, for instance, was also known as Robin Goodfellow, another name for the Devil and the supernatural fairies in the play would probably have been perceived as sinister by Shakespeare's audiences. There is a great deal of eroticism and sexual innuendo there too, especially between Titania and Bottom.

Noted this on picking up the novel this morning:

"...Humphry turned his sharp mind to banking. He needled Basil [who had gotten him his entry job] by joining the arcane bimetallism dispute siding with those who proposed a double monetary standard. Silver and gold, both, should be basic monies, to the obvious advantage of our [note the "our"] Empire and traders in India. Basil, with most of the City, staunchly supported the Gold Standard. Basil felt, but did not say, that Humphry was shifty and ungrateful, as well as irresponsible." p. 45

Lily wrote: "Noted this on picking up the novel this morning:

"...Humphry turned his sharp mind to banking. He needled Basil [who had gotten him his entry job] by joining the arcane bimetallism dispute siding..."

This is where I'm having issues seeing where Byatt is coming from.

On my second read, I can see where Byatt isn't thrilled with the bohemian, socialist lifestyle, and is questioning the various movements of that time.

But while she doesn't spend as much time critiquing the other side - i.e., the capitalist structure - she doesn't paint a pretty picture there as well.

What type of society does she want? I think I can assume that she's on the side of the poor and those who have to work for the industrialists of that era. She just doesn't like the people who do try to help them? She doesn't like the way they help? Or the reasons why they help?

Or is she just trying to describe what she observed, with all its glories and all its follies, with as little judgment embedded as possible? Yet, somehow her interview didn't particularly convey that nonjudgmental mindset? But, you are touching on my questions about what was Byatt doing when constructing this novel.

The conservative mindset is one which thinks that the 'market' will right all the ills of society, rather like a god. No intervention is needed, especially from government. The early Fabians and other 'do gooders' were very much into persuading government to step in to help the poor and needy. The Webbs, for instance, took part in the large housing surveys run by Booth & Rowntree which led to the government building houses for the 'labouring poor', the forerunners of UK council housing today, and to the provision of free school meals for the poorest families:-

http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=...

There is some fascinating information on housing and poverty in the Charles Booth Archive. :-

http://booth.lse.ac.uk/