North & South discussion

I thought since there's a John vs Fitzwilliam thread we might like a North and South vs Pride and Prejudice (or other Austen thread. Any takers?

Definitely!! I will post my opinions shortly!

So to start: issues of class. Austen seems to me to be writing about a higher caste in a different class structure than Gaskell. But are Elizabeth and Margaret of the same class? Would Margaret, like Mr. Collins, feel that religious men were equal to the greatest in the land? Or has the class structure changed so much between the books that you can't compare?

And thinking about poverty: Margaret's Southern experience with the poor seems to harken back to Emma, very paternalistic. But in the North she is willing to see the poor as friends rather than responsibilities, more along the lines of Anne Elliot in Persuasion. And P & P doesn't address real poverty at all, although perhaps the threat of poverty drives the plot.

One more: education. I prefer the North to the South in N&S as the poor seem to be better educated. And on this point I prefer N&S to P&P because the Bennet girls could choose to be ignorant, if they might. N&S suggests greater opportunities for women to be educated.

Lovely idea for a thread, Kate! I think I'll wait to post my ideas until I've read the N&S book (very, very soon!), but I'm sure this will prove to be a very exciting discussion. And I'm sure Soph and I will end up discussing the balance of humour in the two at some point. :D

Yes we will! and the only comment I will make for now is that there is no balance of humour to discuss as it is not balanced! BUT if you must phrase it such than Pride and Prejudice has all the weight on its side of the balance!

Haha, okay, my poor phrasing is noted. :P

Yes, I agree that P&P has faaaaar more humor, and especially the biting humor and absurdity that Austen excels at. N&S's humor is more about self-knowledge. And, perhaps someone who is a stronger student of period literature could correct me, but I have the sense that where Austen brings in ridiculous characters to make social commentary, Gaskell brings in pathetic characters for the same reason. So Mrs. Bennett is absurd, venal, and desperate to marry off her daughters to save them and herself from poverty; Boucher is pitiful, whiny, and desperate to save himself and his children from poverty. Both lack logic and the ability to see the big picture, both behave in a way that drives the plot forward but sets one of the main characters back, but one is funny and the other tragic. I feel like Gaskell's tragic focus and Austen's humorous focus are more common in the times they were writing than yhe reverse would be.

Yes, Margaret as a clegyman's daughter is gentry, same as Elizabeth and even Darcy.

There's a reason why N&S has a social conscience and Jane Austen doesn't.When Jane Austen wrote her novels, she was one of the few female authors and pretty much the first to write a more realistic novel than what was popular. She wrote for a very small literature population. By the time Mrs. Gaskell wrote her novels, the middle class had grown, more people were literature, books were cheaper and reform was popular.

I noticed that Margaret thinks a lot about Christian charity and that's how she develops her ideas about reform and her attitudes towards the local working class population. There are very long, boring passages in the novel. (The conversations between Bessy and Margaret are pretty dull if I can remember correctly).

Pride and Prejudice is light, bright and sparkling. It subtly pokes fun at society at it was. N&S has an agenda.

I prefer the shorter, lighter, fluffiness of Pride and Prejudice. It's fun to read and funny too. N&S gets bogged down by preachy passages and northern dialect. I liked it but it isn't a book I've reread in full since then.

I think you are right, Qnpoohbear. But interestingly, I started rereading P&P a while back and actually stopped because I felt like it wasn't important enough, which I've never felt before upon rereading. So at the moment I'm finding Gaskell's preachiness more re readable. Odd how one's current state of mind colors one's perception of even a beloved book.

I agree with you Qnpoohbear!

Right, it's high time I added my opinion to this thread, I think. I personally find it very hard to decide between to two, and in the end it probably comes down to my mood. Each novel has it's own merits, each story is beautiful, and each does perfectly well for me at different times. Pride and Prejudice is a little lighter, indeed, but North and South has qualities that make up for that. In any case, I've only read North and South once as yet, whereas I've read Pride and Prejudice several times, so I'd have to read North and South a few more times before coming to a final decision. :)

I know what you mean. Mine will always be pride and prejudice however , when in a certain mood I would choose North and South over P&P. But P&P will always be my favourite.

Soph wrote: "I know what you mean. Mine will always be pride and prejudice however , when in a certain mood I would choose North and South over P&P. But P&P will always be my favourite."

I would expect no less from you, dearest Soph. :) Whenever I figure out whether I have a favourite or not, I'll be sure to tell you.

Hmm, this is two novels that I cannot compared because they address different economic issues in different eras. I agree with many of the views that P&P looks on a life that is more Upstairs where as N&S encompasses a holistic look of Upstairs and Downstairs. I agree with Soph, that P&P although brings about serious issues of primogeniture, Love & Family Relationship, Class Structure etc, it is laced with humour thereby making the novel lighter. However, N&S is dark especially when the North appear, Gaskell descriptions are deliberate to make us feel the plight of the North.

Having said all that yadi da, I must confess that I find P&P as the most overrated Austen novel. At the same time, N&S was not zealous to me because I saw the series first and I unfortunately went in with preconceived notions.

P&P will always have a place in my heart, as it was the first book in English that I read and opened the doors for Jane Austen, that I still love. And I agree that both women have completely different styles.
That being said, I loved how Elizabeth Gaskell can paint a very dark and realistic picture of her world, of her characters and, with all that, still makes me love that dark world and the flawed people.

I prefer P&P because Austen's writing style is more to my taste.

I agree that Gaskell's message is heavier and she is much keener to make it clear to the reader directly, through long, heavy discussions, but I liked them, and I think it is the mark of a good writer when character development can be conveyed at the same time as 'the message' is made clear (we learn that message with Margaret who is a little bit different each time she talks about the differences between the two parts of the country).

Yes, you get more of a glimpse of what people of various classes and circumstances did from N&S, but then Austen famously only wrote what she knew - she did not ever, for example, write conversations between men where women were not present. That is not to say that you don't get a good glimpse of people who were not part of the peerage or whose circumstances were unenviable from Austen's works, it is just much less direct. I agree that that's probably the product of the times when these novels were written.

What strikes me as most important is that, personal taste aside, the novels are vastly similar. When I first read N&S it appeared to me almost like a modern (to Gaskell's times), intelligent reinterpretation of P&P. The character arcs are still the same, the final point is the same. It is no coincidence that P&P's last sentence is about the Gardiners, in other words, the genteel tradesman's family, who were so very loved by Elizabeth and Darcy. Gaskell retells a very similar love story only to make a point about her own times.

So it's kind of hard to pick one over the other - if you love one, you will probably really like the other.

I don't know which one I like better. Probably N&S because I am in love with Mr. Thornton! P&P is a lot happier than N&S but there are way too many characters that I can not stand. The only people I like are Elizabeth and Darcy. I do, however, like Elizabeth better than Margret. But Mr. Thornton has won my heart. :)

I don't even think the two novels can be compared. If Jane Austen had written about the Luddites or the plight of chimney sweep climbing boys it would have been considered treasonous. Remember Jane Austen lived her entire life (minus a few years) when England was at war. The French Revolution had a profound impact on the royalty and nobility who were terrified of a rebellion. Parliament passed laws prohibiting freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. By the 1850s, the reform acts had changed things up a bit but not enough. Elizabeth Gaskell had the freedom to write this novel because of the changes and because more changes were needed. She also wrote the story as a magazine serial and when paper was cheap and books easier to come by. Perhaps if Jane Austen had lived longer, she may have written something a bit more radical than Masnsfield Park.