The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

First week's comments are entered here.

Thanks Deborah. Can we also have a background thread please? I've put some bits in the Reading Schedule section but I will have some more when I come back from Devon.

Thank you, Deborah!

The first ten chapters were pacted with action and some very interesting characters. The most important one is Ruth, whose moral decline we have all witnessed.
1. What do you think about her decision? Do you think she could have avoided the fate she chose? Is Gaskell sympathetic or critical?

2. Gaskell's voice is very lyrical in this part of the novel. Do you think the descriptions of nature and beautiful landscapes play a certain role in the novel? Why do many crucial events take place in the idyllic background?

3. What are your thoughts about other characters? Are they multidimensional or predictable and represent stereotypes in literature? Is Ruth the only character you find likeable?

4. Elizabeth Gaskell focuses a lot on social issues. Are they still important in today's world? Are we, modern readers, able to relate to the issues of the nineteenth century?

5. So far, we have read several missives and letters in the novel. Why does Gaskell rely so much on the epistolary subgenre in her novel?

These are very general points of reference to stimulate the discussion. Feel free to share your thoughts in any form you like. I hope you are enjoying the novel. Personally, I find Gaskell's style unassumingly beautiful and elegant. So far, the novel is quite intriguing and charming in its rustic style and simplicity.
It also conveys a message of a societal responsibility when it comes to the most vulnerable - the orphans, the fallen women, people without friends in high places.

I also find interesting to see the other side of life. We often follow the trials and tribulations of our favorite characters without paying attention to the manual labor and how the small businesses are run. This novel offers several interesting forays into the world of inns, guest houses, seamstresses and the apprentices.

I found Ruth's naiveté in the opening chapters surprising. While her loneliness on Sundays and her delight in Mr Bellingham's company at church was understandable, once she took the step of agreeing to go with him on the long trip back to her old village, she must have realized that she was placing herself in a dangerous position. Gaskell is unclear at this point of whether Ruth considered herself in love with him, however no doubt he would be the only gentleman she had any relationship with and she would certainly be at an age in which most young women were susceptible to falling in love. Later, even if Ruth truly believes she cannot go back to her employer, she could have asked to be returned to her friends in her village-they seemed to love her and might have taken her in, if only temporarily, until she could contact her guardian. Another example of her naïveté occurs when she is so surprised and taken aback when the young boy yells at her for being a "bad woman", as if she hadn't realized how she would be regarded by the villagers. I think this speaks to how multidimensional Gaskell's characters are, in that Ruth is good and kind and gentle with deep and sensitive feelings, and yet she has acted in a way that could only be considered immoral at the time this was written.

I do think that Gaskell is entirely sympathetic to her, and is pointing out the unfairness of the very unequal treatment of Ruth and of Mr. Bellingham.

Frances wrote: "I found Ruth's naiveté in the opening chapters surprising. While her loneliness on Sundays and her delight in Mr Bellingham's company at church was understandable, once she took the step of agreein..."

I agree, her naivete is astounding. She is also the character who does not interact with others and does not have foil characters, as a result, she is quite opaque.

On the other hands, because other characters interact, we learn more about their motives, nature and aspirations.

I couldn't figure out at first how old Ruth was, as she is called a little girl, I thought maybe only 10 or 12. Eventually we find she is 15. I would have thought that even though she is naive, she would have heard warnings in church about how to behave, or gossip from other girls at the millinery. On the other hand, even with some sophistication, a young woman can easily convince herself that this is "true love", especially when she had no other choice.

She built up Bellingham as a hero with his rescue of the child, which was a good deed. He seems the type drawn to the dramatic but not as good with everyday life. Obviously he lets his mother make decisions for him, and uses that as an excuse to escape anything unpleasant.

I guess it's a sign of the time that Ruth goes with Mr. Bellingham and then is found at the hotel without more than a kiss being depicted. His abandonment of her reminded me of Fantine in Les Mis, who is deserted by a young gentleman with no thought of her future.

Ruth is very attuned to nature, she hates being shut up and responds to beauty in all forms, so I think that is why the nature descriptions are so important. They are a huge contrast with her closed-in work environment.

I found this to be a very realistic portrayal of the young girl. It is quite believable that she might not have paid attention to 'appearances' or understood their significance. I see this all the time with young people today. This is just part of the naïvety of being young, with her mind further clouded by passion. The man, on the other hand, must have been acutely aware as he was very much about appearances. Unfortunately, in those days this sort of situation was less likely to ruin his reputation as it was hers.

The book has taken off nicely with the first few chapters. The action and drama have not slowed, and many interesting situations have been presented. All the while, the author has provided elegant descriptions pertaining to the scenes. There is a lot of foreshadowing in this part of the text, and this adds to the element of suspense. I think I will finish this book quickly.

I'm enjoying this book. Ruth is very naïve, and I feel that she is a bit simple-minded as well. I got this impression when Mrs. Mason picked her to go to the ball to wait on the ladies, and Ruth went up to her and protested that she had not been diligent enough to win the spot. She can't understand others' motivations or social conventions. When she is called pretty, instead of the modesty that most would expect, she states that she knows she is pretty. Later, Bellingham is frustrated because she cannot learn a card game. She doesn't realize that others will look down on her for living with a man until it happens, and then it slowly dawns on her.

Ruth is also a child of nature. She feels most at home outdoors, and doesn't mind being out in the rain or snow. I notice that when she is inside, she is always drawn to the window.

Bellingham is thoughtless and selfish, but I don't think he is entirely bad. When his mother insults Ruth, he sticks up for her and says that it is he who led her astray, and asks his mother to do 'handsomely' by her. However, for his own comfort, he is ready to just leave her. His mother, while looking down on Ruth, does give her fifty pounds (which I imagine was a huge amount for Ruth), and gives her what she feels is good advice - to enter a penitentiary (the notes in my book say that this would be a place that helps fallen women learn a trade), and later even offers to help her get into one. Even Mrs. Morgan has to admit that even though she is in the habit of being scornful of such women, she found it difficult to do with Ruth.

This section ends with Ruth under the care of Benson, the hunchback, who has managed to save her from suicide. I hope that he can get the fifty pounds from Mrs. Morgan, who conveniently forgot to mention it to him when he went to her for information! He also seems to feel that she needs saving from this life of sin.

Frances wrote: "Later, even if Ruth truly believes she cannot go back to her employer, she could have asked to be returned to her friends in her village-they seemed to love her and might have taken her in, if only temporarily, until she could contact her guardian."

Actually, after he went to get a carriage to bring them to London, she did think of that, and did ask him when he returned to bring her to her friends. He seemed to agree, but once they were in the carriage, had it take them to London. I wonder how long they stayed there, and how they ended up in Wales. He has obviously been there before, since Mrs. Morgan knows him - I wonder if he has brought other women there.

I just thought of the significance of the name Ruth, which is related to "rue", that is regret. I think she will come to regret her impulsive actions. So unfair that the double standard condemns her while her seducer is respected. The different class and educational backgrounds probably contribute as well. I like Denise's comment that maybe Ruth is just not that intelligent, certainly her education would have been minimal. We don't learn much about her family but she did seem to be pretty isolated.

Robin, an excellent point about her name.

Robin and Denise, I really like your characterization of Ruth as a 'child of nature' who is 'attuned to nature'. Her seeming simplicity is also accentuated by her inability to learn how to play cards, that is how to cheat and bluff.

Christopher wrote: "All the while, the author has provided elegant descriptions pertaining to the scenes. There is a lot of foreshadowing in this part of the text, and this adds to the element of suspense. I think I will finish this book quickly. "

Gaskell's style is always unassumingly beautiful, and she might not be as flamboyant as Dickens, but her quiet beautiful style has always mesmerized me

And yes, you are right, the novel's opening chapters are quite intriguing, but I am afraid they harbor more grief and sufferings for poor Ruth.

Does anyone see any biblical significance in the name Ruth? And is there a reference back to this verse from Keats' 1819 Ode to a Nightingale:-

Thou wast not born for death, immortal Bird!
No hungry generations tread thee down;
The voice I hear this passing night was heard
In ancient days by emperor and clown:
Perhaps the selfsame song that found a path
Through the sad heart of Ruth, when, sick for home,
She stood in tears amid the alien corn;
The same that oft-times hath
Charmed magic casements, opening on the foam
Of perilous seas, in faery lands forlorn.

I think Robin mentioned the semantics of her name in her post, but no one has alluded yet to the biblical meaning. This might become more obvious further in the novel.

Thank you for an inspiring quotation from the Ode.

MadgeUK wrote: "Does anyone see any biblical significance in the name Ruth? And is there a reference back to this verse from Keats' 1819 Ode to a Nightingale:-

Thou wast not born for death, immortal Bird!
No hung..."
I agree, I always associate Ruth with the Biblical story of Ruth and Naomi. Beautiful quotation Madge.

Yes, good point about the Biblical Ruth, an exile. Gaskell was the daughter of a minister and the wife of a minister so she would have known the Bible well, and of course the Bible formed part of popular culture at the time.

There are similarities in the naivette of Ruth and Tess of the D'Urbevilles - another 'fallen woman' story. I wonder if Hardy got the idea from Ruth, which was the first of the genre. Bellingham, like Alec, was an aristocrat and Tess was a simple village girl. Both authors were drawing attention to the unfair way in which such women were treated by Victorian society.

As you know, I am traveling, and this is one of the rare opportunities I can post. I am going to open a thread for the second part. Feel free to share your impressions. I will be able to post and comment in a day.

MadgeUK wrote: "There are similarities in the naivette of Ruth and Tess of the D'Urbevilles - another 'fallen woman' story. I wonder if Hardy got the idea from Ruth, which was the first of the genre. Bellingham,..."

I agree, Madge - I see similarities between the stories, and the heroines. I also wondered if and how much Hardy may have been influenced by Gaskell. They are both innocent and gullible. The difference I see is that Tess knows to beware of Alec's intentions and advances, while Ruth doesn't seem to know what she should avoid. Both authors draw a veil over the actual act, Gaskell even more than Hardy. In her case, Ruth and Bellingham are on their way to London, and the next time we hear, they are already in Wales. Although I believe that Tess was raped (as I'm sure some of you know from some famous discussions in various groups about the 'rape vs. seduction' question!), I assume that Ruth submitted willingly to Bellingham, as the notion of its being wrong doesn't seem to have entered her head until the little boy struck her. She happily stays with Bellingham, while Tess flees from Alec.

I have to say this may in some ways become one of my favorite works by Gaskell. I find the writing to be so beautiful, and more poetic I think than in other works by Gaskell. I love the landscape she paints, and all the dreary beautiful winter scenes.

I do find I struggle a lot with Ruth's character. On the one hand I was at first quite intrigued by her. I can relate to her own preferences in weather. Her taking delight in the bleak winter, and walking out within the rain. I was rather dawn to her in that, but on the other hand I also find her completely frustrating at times.

She is so "pathetic" and while she does not have a lot of options open to her considering her state as an orphan with no real protection, on the other hand, she has no real fight within her. She is portrayed as someone who is pretty and yet does not have much else going for her. She is not the most clever or witty girl, and she does not have a great deal of will power or backbone. Her complete innocence, and naivete is irritating to me. It seems the only emotions she truly has are melancholy and utter despair.

To address some of the questions posed by Zulfiya:

I believe that the scenery does play a significant role within the book. The gloom and cold of the winter, and its direct connection to Ruth and her moods I believe also reflects that fate of which it seems awaits her if she continues to be lead down this path which she has been set upon.

I think it can be seen in the reactions of many of the characters towards Ruth, such as Mrs. Morgan that Gaskell means to view Ruth in a sympathetic light. Particularly being that she is often referred to as being innocent, in spite of what the Victorian view would have been of a girl within her position.

I have to say that so far Mr. Benson is one of my favorite characters. I rather like the idea of him and Ruth as being outcasts of society in their own different ways finding companionship and compassion for each other and I like him as a unlikely knight in shinning armor so to Ruth.

Silver wrote: I think it can be seen in the reactions of many of the characters towards Ruth, such as Mrs. Morgan that Gaskell means to view Ruth in a sympathetic light. Particularly being that she is often referred to as being innocent, in spite of what the Victorian view would have been of a girl within her position.


The secondary title of Tess was 'A Pure Woman' so that is another similarity. I think that both authors wanted to emphasise the innocence of such girls, who knew nothing about sex or the ways of the world, something which it is difficult for us to imagine in our times. Both authors felt that Victorian society treated such girls harshly.

Gaskell's poetic descriptions of scenery were also followed by Hardy and he seems to owe much to her.

I'm not very far, but I do want to read this novel, since in general I like Gaskell as a writer and want to tackle more of her oeuvre.

But, a rather minor detail in the first or second chapter that has bothered me -- do we ever learn how Ruth gets her skirts wet from the river dried in time to prevent frostbite or sickness?

I don't think of it as like Gaskell to overlook such practicalities, and if she does here, I think I demerit her for it.

Denise wrote: "MadgeUK wrote: "There are similarities in the naivette of Ruth and Tess of the D'Urbevilles - another 'fallen woman' story. I wonder if Hardy got the idea from Ruth, which was the first of the gen..."

Denise and MadgeUK, an excellent point about these two novels. I would say, Hardy's novels are perpemeated with the feeling of impending doom and tragedy - it is virtually palpable. In Gaskell's novels, on the other hand, the mood in general is more serene and tranquil even when she deals with very serious issues, like suicide, familial loss, or even death.

Silver wrote: "I have to say this may in some ways become one of my favorite works by Gaskell. I find the writing to be so beautiful, and more poetic I think than in other works by Gaskell. I love the landscape s..."

Robin, Ruth does not seem to have an inner struggle, as you have noticed. She just makes this decision and hopes the life will lead her to the situation that is comfortable. I can not say that she is shallow, but she does not think about future. I think it is attributable to her age and lack of decision making - she was first raised by her parents; then she was sent to work as an apprencise and all the decisions were made by someone else and she had zero experience of making decisions and dealing with the repercussions. Even now when she has been abandoned, she is still in the sheltered situation due to Mr Benson's care and kindness

Lily wrote: "I'm not very far, but I do want to read this novel, since in general I like Gaskell as a writer and want to tackle more of her oeuvre.

But, a rather minor detail in the first or second chapter th..."

Lily, do not be too harsh:-) It is Gaskell's least popular novel and possibly it did not go through the row of editors. Besides, I do not know how the editing and publishing business works. Nowadays, reputable authors do get a lot of help from professional editors. They are the ones who spot the irregularities among other things. I do not think it was possible at the time when the novel was written and published. Just a comment:-) Thank you for noticing such things, though. Good and attentive readers are the best ones authors could hope to get, IMHO

Perhaps Ruth was hardy enough to withstand wet skirts - most poor women regularly got their clothes wet and did not have the facilities for drying them as we do today. They probably suffered badly from rheumatism in their old age as a result:( There was a craze for tartan in the early 1800s when Queen Victoria began wearing plaid and woollen tartan is quite waterproof. There are examples in the painting 'Eastward Ho' showing women seeing their partners off to the first Indian Mutiny in 1857. Women working in the fields in the rain would have been wet all day. Woollen shawls were their only protection, wool being the most waterproof of fabrics made then.

http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/arch...

http://www.superstock.co.uk/stock-pho...

Thx, Madge. One recognized Ruth couldn't go and plug in that handy hair dryer! [g] And it didn't sound like she had been asked to sit by the fire for awhile -- or been offered a change of clothes -- or hastened home, for she still had errands to do.

Happy Mothers Day to all who celebrate this memory day.

Zulfiya wrote: "Lily, do not be too harsh:-) ..."

[g] "Demerit' is not harsh in my writing assessment scheme -- more, as you kindly suggest, observant. I've probably read too many Norton editions of things at this point, with their discussions of when Corn Laws passed or inheritance laws changed or what calendar Emily Brontë used or....

Zulfiya wrote: "Silver wrote: "I have to say this may in some ways become one of my favorite works by Gaskell. I find the writing to be so beautiful, and more poetic I think than in other works by Gaskell. I love ..."

Yes that is true. In some ways Ruth has been fortunate enough to always have someone else step in and take care of her, but this has also come to work against her, because it left her completely unprepared on how to deal with real life.

She allows herself to just be swept along with the tide and only hopes that somehow things will come to work out for her in the end.

This can also be attributed in part to her decision to agree to go with Mr. Bellingham. After she lost her place with Mrs. Mason, he was there willing to provide her with shelter, though of course his offer was a false one and would lead her to more harm then good, in the moment, when she was on the verge once more of beginning abandoned, once again someone stepped up seemingly willing to relieve her of her problems and take care of everything for her.

Robin wrote: "...His abandonment of her reminded me of Fantine in Les Mis, who is deserted by a young gentleman with no thought of her future.
..."

I have just started the novel and got to these chapters and had quite the same association as Robin. It reminded me of Fantine as well. Ruth seems, though, more naïve and unaware of the awkwardness of her situation.

You all have already discussed her in so much detail that I have not much to add.

However, Ruth seems a little too innocent and too unknowing about the situation she lets herself get into in my opinion. I guess she would not be the first of these young ladies to get into such a situation and you would expect that Mrs. Mason would have cautioned all her seamstresses of such a path away from virtue, as mentioned above about the church. So it seems a little too naïve that she does not consider the possible consequences. She seems to have a feeling that something is not right, but it does not get much further.
Furthermore, related to this development of the relationship I was a curious about the things that might have happened between the ride to London and the Wales scenes several months later.

I hope I will be able to catch up with the next chapters during the following days, then I might be able to contribute a little more to the discussion.

MadgeUK wrote: "Perhaps Ruth was hardy enough to withstand wet skirts - most poor women regularly got their clothes wet and did not have the facilities for drying them as we do today. They probably suffered badly ..."

Maybe Ruth also had built up a tolerance due to her fondness for going out in the rain and snow!

Hedi wrote: "Robin wrote: "Furthermore, related to this development of the relationship I was a curious about the things that might have happened between the ride to London and the Wales scenes several months later."

I have just started the novel and got to these ..."

Hedi, so glad to see you here.

I am sure you know that the Victorians were prudish when it came to intimate things:-) Elision was often used to omit mentioning the things that Victorians had no verbal tools to discuss. :-) Actually, elision was often used even by Shakespeare in his plays. Unlike Victorians, he was very sexually explicit, but politically turbulent and plot-wise important moments were often omitted to keep viewers guessing.

On a personal note, I am curious about this period, but I am only left to guess how Ruth was seduced and whether she had any qualms about her actions. She is, as you noticed, a child of nature, very sensual, but sexually illiterate and naive.

Zulfiya, thanks! It is obvious that the Victorians were not so open about intimacy, in my opinion less than e.g. the French of that period. I am thinking of Hugo, de Balzac, Flaubert. Anyhow it would be interesting how this all came about, esp. as Ruth seems so incredibly innocent and naive that you could almost think of her being sexually abused, even though she might not see it that way herself.

I, too, find it hard to understand (from the story) when and how Ruth became pregnant. At the inn, their relationship still seemed somewhat innocent and there was no description of any intimate time together. She still acted innocent and there was no real change that intercourse would have made apparent in the relationship, if a true story. Perhaps this is a failing of the novel because of the Victorian authorship. Obviously people do not just get pregnant from spending time together.

The same thing happened with Tess - such descriptions were taboo for readers then. Perhaps this is how myths emerged that you could get pregnant by just kissing or touching...

Christopher wrote: "I, too, find it hard to understand (from the story) when and how Ruth became pregnant. At the inn, their relationship still seemed somewhat innocent and there was no description of any intimate tim..."

It is a Victorian mystery, Christopher. It also explains why an unabdridged edition of Lady Chatterley's Lover was published in 1960 THIRTY (30) years after its first publication, in Florence, Italy, AND STILL the Penguin Publishers were prosecuted under the Obscene Publication Act. Finally, the verdict of 12 jurors was 'not guilty'; as a result, we can enjoy the full version of this novel. But it was in 1960!!!

Christopher wrote: "I, too, find it hard to understand (from the story) when and how Ruth became pregnant. At the inn, their relationship still seemed somewhat innocent and there was no description of any intimate tim..."

It does come as a surprise when the pregnancy is announced because it is hard to fathom Ruth and Mr. Bellingham having intimate relations considering what we see of their interactions and relationship, as well as what we see of Ruth's general nature.

But I think it would have just been taken for granted that an unrelated young man and young woman staying in an inn room together would be engaged in a sexual relationship.

I think just what happens between Ruth and Mr. Bellingham behind closed doors is implied in the way others view and treat Ruth. As exampled with the mother and her children, and the fact that the gossip about her, and the boy striking Ruth when she tried to kiss the baby because his mom said she was a "bad" girl.

The idea that a man and a woman would be living platonically together is just not something I don't think that would ever occur to the Victorian mind set. So what was going on between the two of them would be a given without it having to be said, and of course as mentioned above such things were not something that could be openly discussed.

Maybe the obscenity laws weren't all bad. After 1960, came Playboy. And since then, much of the bandwidth for the internet has been devoted to streaming porn into homes. Your calls for liberty are juxtaposed with your cries against the victimization and objectification of women.

Christopher wrote: "Maybe the obscenity laws weren't all bad. After 1960, came Playboy. And since then, much of the bandwidth for the internet has been devoted to streaming porn into homes. Your calls for liberty are ..."

As far as I know, the trial of Penguin Publishers created a major precedent in the world of art and popular culture. Sex was not a taboo any more. I also think the decision of the jurors reflected the zeitgeist of upcoming social changes.

Silver wrote: "Bellingham behind closed doors is implied in the way others view and treat Ruth. As exampled with the mother and her children, and the fact that the gossip about her, and the boy striking Ruth when she tried to kiss the baby because his mom said she was a "bad" girl. "

Gaskell does an excellent job, showing stigma and pressure these women experienced. She also sends an extremely empowering message that compassion, innate goodness, decency and human kindness are NOT restricted by social prejudice. Unfortuantely, the point is only very few people are brave enough to do the same.

Yes, it was a landmark case and changed a lot of things in the arts world. I bought the Penguin edition of the book from a Nottingham bookseller just before it was withdrawn from sale and it is now quite valuable. From a Guardian report on the 50th anniversary of the trial:-

'...the Chatterley trial marked the first symbolic moral battle between the humanitarian force of English liberalism and the dead hand of those described by George Orwell as "the striped-trousered ones who rule...No other jury verdict in British history has had such a deep social impact. Over the next three months Penguin sold 3m copies of the book – an example of what many years later was described as "the Spycatcher effect", by which the attempt to suppress a book through unsuccessful litigation serves only to promote huge sales. The jury – that iconic representative of democratic society – had given its imprimatur to ending the taboo on sexual discussion in art and entertainment. Within a few years the stifling censorship of the theatre by the lord chamberlain had been abolished, and a gritty realism emerged in British cinema and drama. (Saturday Night and Sunday Morning came out at the same time as the unexpurgated Lady Chatterley, and very soon Peter Finch was commenting on Glenda Jackson's "tired old tits" in Sunday Bloody Sunday and Ken Tynan said the first "fuck" on the BBC.) Homosexuality was decriminalised, abortions were available on reasonable demand, and in order to obtain a divorce it was unnecessary to prove that a spouse had committed the "matrimonial crime" of adultery. Judges no longer put on black caps to sentence prisoners to hang by the neck until dead.'