North & South discussion

A thought that has occurred to me lately is this; most books, even Jane Austen's novels, seem to have a "villain", or a character that is evil or fundamentally self-centred, thus causing harm to others. However, in North & South there appears to be no such character that falls distinctly into such a clear cut category. What are you thoughts? Is there a real villain in North & South? Or were we, the readers, meant to look a little harder to discover the true malevolent forces that drive the novel, as villains do in others?

The villain is death.

I never thought of it that way before! But I suppose in a way that's true. And so much the worse for it, I would say, because death is pretty much the hardest villain to fight against.

Most of the deaths I was saddened by, but not necessarily shocked. The one that surprised me was Mr Hale - I never really expected him to go, especially after he was feeling so happy at Oxford.

However... would it be fair to say that in some ways - though of course awful - the death of some characters actually opened doors for other characters? For example: Leonard's death at the station gave Thornton the opportunity to hide what he knew of Margaret meeting a stranger at the station, thus causing Margaret to feel grateful to him. And Boucher's death caused Nicholas Higgins to look after Boucher's children, which in turn gained him more respect and understanding from Thornton.

I have realize that sometimes good comes after death of someone. It is actually strange though. I remember when my greatgrandmother by my mother side died, it brought the family together. However, death also splits some family up like it did for a part of my family when someone else died. Death send Margaret back to the South alone but it also saved Mr. Thornton's factory.

So it is true Becca death could be both a villain and a comrade (ok that is so weird and evilish to think of death as a comrade).

Yes, I do think that death can sometimes bring people together as much as it pulls them apart. Even the death of Mr Hale brought Margaret and Mr Bell closer together. But as you say, it did also cause Margaret to leave for the South, and I would call it rather lucky that it eventually helped Margaret save Thornton's factory.

:D It does sound evilish to think of death as a comrade, doesn't it? It makes it sound like we're just waiting for the opportunities to come around when someone drops dead. Personally, I find it better to say that life sometimes takes you places you weren't expecting to go, and the same is sometimes true - especially in North and South - of what happens when death claims a loved one.

When you put it that way, it sounds better.

:D *phew*

There are so many deaths!!

There are, aren't there? I hadn't thought about that when I posed the question, but there really are! There was George Thornton (earlier), Bessy, Boucher, Leonards, Mr and Mrs Hale, Mr Bell... and probably many others of the workers that may have died from illness or starvation.

That is a terrible lot of deaths, though they're all significant. Have I missed anyone pertinent?

Too many! Poor Margaret :(

I know right! It's so hard on her because she knew every single one of them, and they just kept coming and coming. Even Leonard's death, who she didn't like, gave her trouble through the possible inquest. Poor, poor Margaret. :(

Have we any other ideas as to who the "villains" might be in this story? I personally was contemplating whether certain aspects of society had caused enough trouble to be called villainous.

I was thinking about the poverty. There were a lot of poor people who needed everything. That's why they fight for their rights, start the strike and afterwards their lives get worse. Hunger is a great villain.

Another one I hadn't thought about! This ones a little more chicken and egg, though. While poverty was admittedly a problem for a lot of workers - especially those with a lot of children - hunger is a harder one to place. It was because of the strikes that (more) people went hungry. But I suppose hunger is definitely a villain. :)

(Did any of that make sense? :D Not sure I expressed myself too well in that one...)

Hunger can turn people's heads and make them not think straight - so yes I would say it is :)

Okay then, what about certain aspects of society being "villainous" as well? For example, how Frederick was persecuted for mutiny even though he was morally correct in what he did.

Oh certainly. If all that hasn't happened Fred would have still been with them and so wouldn't have resulted in having to come secretly to his mothers death bed, leading to Leonard's deaths (and poor Thornton seeing them together!)

All right, so if we agree that the aspect of "persecution of mutineers" was a bad aspect of society, do you think there are some other aspects that could be considered that way as well?

(P.S. Like the new picture. :) )

This is an enlightening thread. Poverty in general as a villain especially - since in the South it starved people of motivation for change and in the North drove them to put their children to work, ultimately killing some (Bessie). Ignorance, too, is a villain - both the ignorance of the poor (that killing-the-cat lady) and those who ought to know better. Ignorance of most of the people of the world (Edith).

Ignorance is a very good point, for all the reasons you say. Also, ignorance of the south of the north and vice versa - so basically Thornton's ingornace of Mrgaret and hers of him and his ways.

@Becca - thanks re picture!
Bad aspects of society - well the treatment of the workers by some of the masters - e.g. that one who like to keep his workers on their toes. Thornton was straight and honest with them, others not so much.

@Soph: You're very welcome. :)

You're right about the treatment of the workers - some of the masters are truly... I don't really know how to describe them. Idiotic? Dishonest? Annoying? I really liked how Thornton at least was honest, even if he knew that the workers wouldn't like what he was telling them. Which is also far braver than trying to keep the workers happy by lying.

exactly! i agree 100%

:D Which do you think? Idiotic, dishonest, annoying, or all three?

All three particularly idiotic!

LOL. Yep, we can agree on that one.

A friend pointed this out to me a while ago. Gaskell doesn't generally make villains. Her characters are realistically drawn with faults and nobler qualities. That said, she did use Leonards as somewhat of a plot-necessary villain. We don't get to know him, really. He's not a main character.
I think the villain is ignorance or apathy of others, and the custom of classifying each other by outward factors.

Interesting point Trudy. North and South is my only Gaskell read so far but it would be interesting to juxtapose it with her other books.

Haha, Leonards was a rather pathetic villain, wasn't he? Like Marren I've not read any other novels by Gaskell, but if I ever get around to one I will be sure to watch out for the villain - or lack thereof, in this case.

The mill owners who increase the speed of the machinery without increasing wages and cause illness and death by not providing a safe work space. Thornton tries hard NOT to be a typical mill owner.

Qnpoohbear wrote: "The mill owners who increase the speed of the machinery without increasing wages and cause illness and death by not providing a safe work space. Thornton tries hard NOT to be a typical mill owner."

Totally agree! I think the words Soph and I came up with for the masters were idiotic, dishonest and annoying - but some of them are more than that. Some of them are vile, uncaring, cowardly people who really take advantage of the poorer classes. I always admired Thornton for his principles, but I never thought about it in the way you described. I don't think it's so much that he tries not to be a typical mill owner, he simply tries hard to be the type of owner he thinks he should be.

This is a little random, but on the subject of principles; does it annoy anyone else when Lennox says, in the series- "He wouldn't have anything to do with it. Far too principled," in that obnoxious, satisfied way? I just hate that!

Okay, so I was just reading through a chapter on the Industrial Revolution for my History exam (you can imagine how pleased I was to find out I could do my essay on this period!), and I came across this small passage:

"People tended to live in the same neighborhood as others from their regions, such as the sooty "Little Ireland" in the midst of the largest factories of Manchester in which many of the 35 ,000 Irish of the city lived in cellars, or the infamous Irish "rookery" of St. Giles in central London. The discrimination faced by the Irish in London was reflected in Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South (1855), in which the villains are Irish."

Quite apart from the fact that I was delighted to see North and South mentioned at all... do we agree with this statement? I know (or I'm pretty sure) that Boucher had some Irish blood in him, but he or the Irish workers are hardly villains, are they? I'd like to know your thoughts, seeing as this brief mention of N&S seemed rather ill-considered to me.

Becca, I think the Irish were probably considered villains because they were strike breakers. The workers thought to protect themselves by strengthening their position and driving their points home with a strike. The Irish were brought in to replace them and weakened their position .... because the Irish came in the workers found themselves in a worse position as the strike went on longer than originally planned and they went without their wages which caused them even more hardship.

That's a very fair point, Clorinda! It could indeed be that incident the book was referring to. But in any case, the Irish weren't really the instigators of the break in the strike, not in my view, anyway. They were simply in the wrong place in the wrong time, so to speak. If the strike-break was anyone's fault it was Thornton's for bringing the Irish in in the first place, and Boucher and his lot for attacking the mill in spite of Nicholas' instructions.

Yes, I agree ... Thornton (and any Master at the time who employed strike breakers) was the true villain. I guess I don't perceive Boucher to be a villain because he didnmt attack out of maliciousness ... he was weak AND was driven mad by the circumstances (his ill wife, his six hungry children) .... he attacked out of fear and frustration. I feel bad for the Irish because they, also, were only trying to feed their families (was this the same period of the potato famine?).

Of course I hesitate to call Thornton a villain in any sense, but talking in terms of the strike, the Masters in general and Mr. Thornton and particular were the villains - I agree with you there. I don't see Boucher as a villain either, I'm only pointing out that he has to bear some of the blame for the break in the strike. And yes, those poor Irish! It wasn't their fault at all. In answer to your question, I believe it was around the time of the potato famine.

The only villain (literal, human villain, I mean) I've ever actually seen in North & South would be Leonards, to be honest... does he have any Irish blood in him? Otherwise I have to say I don't agree with what that textbook was saying about N&S at all.

Becca wrote: "The discrimination faced by the Irish in London was reflected in Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South (1855), in which the villains are Irish."

I would say this sentence is very much in error, it implies not only that the Irish feature prominently as the villains of the piece, but that Elizabeth Gaskell chose them as such out of prejudice or stereotype.

I agree that to the union they were villains because they broke the strike and took lower wages, I'm sure it does comment on that, Higgins opinion? But as far as I can see it was a reflection of actual circumstances and not inflating or misrepresenting their position in society.

That's exactly what I thought, Louise! I read the sentence and I thought "Hold it, hold it... what? Just... NO!" All the implications are certainly very wrong - and also, out of all the things North and South could teach someone about the Industrial Revolution... they chose that? -.-

I agree with you there, I'm sure that the Irish certainly weren't in Higgin's best books. But I don't think that the readers were ever supposed to perceive the Irish workers as the main villains; because, as you said, the Irish weren't being presented to us in one way or the other, their situation was what it was, and that's all there was to it.

Wait..."the discrimination faced by the Irish in London..."??? I mean, after talking specifically about Manchester that is a particularly absurd error. And Irish villains? No no no. I think you should be leery of this textbook. Can you point it out to the professor without sounding like someone quibbling for the thrill of it? Such an obvious error should make one suspicious about the quality of all the author's assertions. But, you know, sometimes not worth rocking the boat (says the girl always in hot water, mixing metaphors with reckless abandon.)

I am now trying to remember if any villains in Mary Barton are Irish Londoners...they do live in cellars, I remember that...

It was a rather sudden switch from Manchester to London, wasn't it? Though the book did mention the Irish 'rookery' in London before moving on to North & South. Unfortunately I don't see how I could point it out to my lecturer - after all, it's only one sentence in an entire chapter reading, and a point that someone would probably never use in an essay.

The rest of the textbook chapter seemed reliable enough, and it was very interesting too, I must say. It was just that brief and decidedly careless reference to N&S that really irritated me. As I said before - out of everything they could have chosen to mention about what North & South could teach you about the time period, they went with Irish villains? Unbelievable.

If you remember anything about the villains in Mary Barton, I'd like to know! I'm planning on reading it at some point. :)

(Oh, and I love your metaphors. :D)

I think the Irish might be considered villains by the ignorant and prejudiced masses. But they can't be considered the source of the trouble at all. They didn't descend upon Milton of their own accord in this story, so they can only be the scapegoats for the the already existent conflict between labor and management.
The textbook remark against the Irish does strike a chord, however, with Gaskell's book. I believe Gaskell was very forward and enlightened in her exposition of the prejudices of class, gender, religion, and position found in society of her day. However, she is a product of her time and doesn't seem to accord the Irish the same equality of estimation. Margaret pities them, but Gaskell doesn't have many positive words to describe them. Most references to the Irish in "North and South" are not particularly complementary. It would be an interesting study. Racial and national inequality was accepted as fact at that time by the majority of those who lived in the great empire of Victorian England.

Exactly, Trudy! To me, an important part of being a 'villain' (in the human sense, rather than the metaphoric sense that we talked of earlier in the year) is actually making a conscious choice to do something detrimental to welfare of others. The Irish were only trying to work to feed their families, and were certainly treated as scapegoats by the strikers.

I hadn't given this much thought before, but you are right in saying that Gaskell doesn't have many positive things to say about the Irish, despite Margaret's sympathy. As a group the Irish workers - through Gaskell's description of them - seem to be relatively insipid, a quality that is also present to a degree in Boucher. I suppose in that sense the textbook comment does strike a chord, as you said. But I think we can agree that the issue is far more nuanced than the textbook seems to suggest.