Victorians! discussion

I'm posting this a bit early as I have to go out of town to check on my father. I will have my iPad with me so will be checking in. Just didn't want to get busy and have the thread posted late.

In this segment we find out M. Paul's true feelings for Lucy. Also, who and what is the mysterious nun. I'm not going to pose any questions this week, as I feel the discussion will likely take care of itself. I also won't be posting my opinions on the book until later. Don't forget comparing/contrasting to Jane Eyre is okay.

I finished this awhile ago, but was just curious - analysis aside - about what others thought of this book in general.

Because for me, I thought the writing was beautiful, plus it had interesting themes, atmospheric scenes and it left you with plenty to think about.

But despite all of that I can't really say I enjoyed the book and I had to force myself to get through it most of the time.

I really liked the book and I think it was the character development that drew me in. It was like the draw of a mystery. What is going to happen to Lucy? Is M. Paul her love in life? He is not necessarily likable and rather dark, scary, but yet a deep character. Dr. John Graham Bretton is more shallow. M. Paul reminded me of Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre.

This book may not be for those who are hopelessly romantic. As in Jane Eyre, Lucy had to become independent and not dependent on any man. While it is M. Paul that helps Lucy achieve true independence, she is not dependent on him at the end. She is free to love him of her own volition.

I am going to have to re-read this book sometime. I read the second half so fast that I missed a lot. But I had find out what was going to happen to Lucy and M. Paul.

Dee wrote: "I finished this awhile ago, but was just curious - analysis aside - about what others thought of this book in general.

Because for me, I thought the writing was beautiful, plus it had interesting..."

Dee I had a hard time getting through the book too. I didn't feel connected to any of the characters, and the plot didn't grab me either. It felt disjointed to me.

I, too, found Villette to be a struggle. Perhaps I have been spoilt by Jane Eyre which I found to be a wonderful read. Lucy Snowe was (and excuse the pun, but I think it is appropriate) too aloof and too cold to connect with, or have much sympathy with, in the novel. It's not that I need to like a character to enjoy a novel, but I need to have some connection with the person. With Lucy Snowe, I found no connection.

In Chapter XL we learn that it was a "remarkable Midsummer night." Did anyone else feel any slight connections to Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream?

The last section of this novel brings our main characters' lives and loves together, Lucy finds herself drinking a potion and having a subsequent swirling experience and visions that link previous events in the novel together, and ultimately there is a clear promise of love between our two principle characters.

We find that the three visions of the nun were in fact true. There was a nun. The symbolism of this episode runs deep. After Lucy finds the nun's clothes on her bed, she "tore her up-the incubus! I held her on high-the goblin! I shook her loose-the mystery! And down she fell-down all around me ... And I trod upon her." The use of the dash creates an urgency, a rapid series of thoughts and actions that have been missing in Lucy's earlier life. By destroying the nun's clothes, Lucy destroys what has been her doppelgänger. Lucy has lead a repressed life. Her desires and emotions which she has controlled, even guarded, is now finally unfolded. As Ginerva Fanshawe is finally released to realize her future, so Lucy can now be released to experience her future as well. Bronte shows this release as Lucy "bundled together stole, veil and bandages, thrust them beneath my pillow, lay down [and] deeply slept."

Did anyone get to the end yet? Don't want to spoil, if not.. But I wonder how you guys feel about the ending.

I found it hard to connect with Lucy at first too, and it takes a looooong time to even understand where the book is going at all. But the ending.. I don't know what to make of it.

In an earlier week I referred to "a Rochester moment" but did not want to give a spoiler comment.

To me, as I compare the two novels, Rochester and M. Paul share many characteristics such as their Byronic appearance and moods and the tension and desire that obviously draws both Jane and Rochester and Lucy and M. Paul towards each other.

In JE the first meeting of Jane and Rochester occurs when Rochester suffers a fall from his horse. He rejects the aid of Jane. Rochester's second, and much more serious injuries, occur during the fire. It is only after this incident, where he is both disfigured and blinded that he is truly set free. This is what I referred to as his Rochester moment. Pained, altered, humbled and alone, he finally is able to see his life and his future. M Paul. does not have such a physical trauma to make him realize and act upon his feelings towards Lucy, but he does share with Rochester the anguish of separation. Both men are drawn towards Jane and Lucy because of the reality of separation.

In our early discussions we wondered about Lucy's origins and the nature of her family. Clear and distinct references were in the text that pointed towards some form of sailing disaster. This was Lucy's first separation from those she loved. The ending of the novel presents a tragic parallel to her life. As she was young and looking forward to a life with parents she lost them; at the end of the novel she is waiting for her future husband to come to her and there is yet another great storm. M. Paul is killed in another storm at sea. The stoicism that we have observed from Lucy throughout the novel could thrust her back into a world of self-imposed isolation. I like to think the oppose is true. Lucy recounts the future lives of some of the other characters in the novel, but does not give the reader her own biography going forward. This deliberate decision on Bronte's part allows us to write the future story of Lucy. We will not read another version of Jane Eyre's comment "Reader, I married him." Lucy, however, has her school that M. Paul created, she has her career and she has known the love of a man. Given Lucy's personality as we have read the book I think of the lines from Keats' "Ode on a Grecian Urn" 'Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard/Are sweeter;'. For a person of Lucy's character and temperament the love she has and will have with M. Paul is perfect.

Interesting symbolism concerning the nun's part in this novel, Peter. It's highly ironic that the 'nun' in question was actually a front for a very real and vibrant love relationship.

I found the ending actually patronizing. I felt Bronte was leaving the ending up to the reader in suggesting that the reader was allowed to imagine that M. Paul survived the storm somehow and came home.

I didn't catch the inference to her previous history with tragedy at sea. I was consumed with wondering how this story was going to end. And it was an utter disappointment to a traditional romantic like me.

I still loved the slow-developing intimate relationship between Lucy and M. Paul. The scenes where their care for each other showed are my favorite gems from this novel.

Here's my brief review:

There are portions of this novel that are rich in feeling and insight, and the developing passionate bond between the narrator and another character is brilliant.
This is not an easy novel to follow, it requires the reader to discover the motives, aspirations and sorrows of the narrator by discerning the behavior of the characters and the selective observations shared with the reader.
My enjoyment of the book, however, was aggravated by the meandering plot. Perhaps the plot was perfectly constructed, and one brick taken from the foundation would topple the whole, but I felt the concentration of the text was too-long focused on other characters.
Certainly worth a read, I prefer the tighter plot and romantically intense drama of Charlotte Bronte's most famous plain and silent-suffering orphan-turned-teacher: Jane Eyre.

Evelina wrote: "Did anyone get to the end yet? Don't want to spoil, if not.. But I wonder how you guys feel about the ending.

I found it hard to connect with Lucy at first too, and it takes a looooong time to eve..."

Yes the ending. I'm interested in what everybody thinks. Bronte wanted it to be one thing, her father another. She decided on ambiguous with leanings toward what she wanted.

Trudy wrote: "Interesting symbolism concerning the nun's part in this novel, Peter. It's highly ironic that the 'nun' in question was actually a front for a very real and vibrant love relationship.

I found the..."

She did want each reader to decide whether M. Paul survives or dies

Deborah wrote: "Trudy wrote: "Interesting symbolism concerning the nun's part in this novel, Peter. It's highly ironic that the 'nun' in question was actually a front for a very real and vibrant love relationship...."

I liked the quote from Bronte's letter in my edition, 'It is not pleasant, and it will probably be found as unwelcome to the reader as it was, in a sense, compulsory upon the writer.'

I liked the ending as I think it suited the novel which is almost a Bildungsroman, except we are told nothing about Lucy's past, and she is an unreliable narrator, so there can be no certainty in her emotional growth.
I think Bronte presents that we get moments of happiness in human lives, that fates don't always get divided out due to people's worth, but in a way the happiest ending for Lucy is independence. She isn't reliant on other people, she doesn't have to be a shadow, or be spied on, she can make her own way based on her own skills in teaching.

The motif of sea and journeying was interesting, I didn't realise in truth how it had been running all the way through the novel leading up to the ending.

Polly is introduced because her father is going on a journey to mourn his wife. The one allusion to her family is to them being wrecked at sea. Lucy travels across the channel and meets Ginevra on the way. She compares herself to Mrs Bretton being a stately ship, and herself as a lifeboat kept 'in an old dark boat house' and only setting out on stormy seas. It is subtle imagery but glimpsed throughout the novel, and significant as the protagonist is writing of a past knowing how her love will die.

The ending also links up with the scene where she is caring for the old woman who retells how her own love died. As mentioned above, Polly's Dad is grieving for his wife in the opening chapters. Mme Beck doesn't have a husband, neither does Mrs Bretton. There is M Paul beloved's portrait, and of course the ghost of the nun. This novel is full of death and widows. It seems such foreshadowing now that I wonder why I was expecting a happy ending!

The introduction to my edition, emphasises the important of M Paul journeying to Guadeloupe, saying that he'll be managing a slave plantation, that Mme Walvern clinging on to her jewels is a sign of the wealth made off the back of slavery. Guadeloupe had apparently been the site of slave uprisings and territorial battles between England and France. It's implied that Lucy gets her security from the exploitation of others, in the same way that Rochester and Jane benefit. So it adds a backdrop of imperialism to the domestic narrative of Lucy coping with her lonely life.
Did anyone else pick up on these things?

Clari wrote: "The introduction to my edition, emphasises the important of M Paul journeying to Guadeloupe, saying that he'll be managing a slave plantation, that Mme Walvern clinging on to her jewels is a sign o..."

My edition also included those notations

The ending (or the possibility of the ending) tied nicely with the beginning of Lucy's aloneness in the world -- shipwrecked love. I did, however, think that the ploy at the end to not reveal what happened was cheap and easy, and disappointing.

I think Bronte could have brought us closer to Lucy if she had allowed Lucy to finally express her anguish over these loves, and all her hope, lost at sea.

Bronte gave Lucy some wry observations about the people around her, which I thought were enjoyable, but I agree with others who say they never felt connected to Lucy. I was glad at the end she had a livelihood, and I was very glad she knew someone had loved her. But this was no Jane Eyre.

That was an interesting piece of information Clari, I liked it. It is nice to think M Paul contributed to Lucy’s emancipation, both emotional and professional.
(Spoiler alert!)
I put down my Tablet this afternoon after having read in one gulp the last 3 chapters which I enjoyed for they kept me clinging to the next page until the end, although at the same time I was almost afraid of what I would find once I read it. And of course, ending proved how right I was for being a little concerned. I dreaded it but hoped to be wrong. I almost cry when I realized I was not. I did not give up, the ambiguity in the ending made me wonder: Can it be….? Then I made a quick research and found out that Charlotte B. described Villette’s ending as just “a little puzzle”.
So, she did it, what I feared the most. I should have known, after all Lucy warned us from the beginning:
“After a calm winter, storms were ushering in the spring….Three times in the course of my life, events had taught me that these strange accents in the storm—this restless,
hopeless cry—denote a coming state of the atmosphere unpropitious to life.”

Janice George (JG) wrote: "I think Bronte could have brought us closer to Lucy if she had allowed Lucy to finally express her anguish over these loves, and all her hope, lost at sea."

Maybe Charlotte would have ended it in grief, but I think it was one of the amendments she made on her publisher's advice.
Although it may not be how she would have originally planned it,I like the ambiguous ending, as it leaves it open ended which is more like life, and I find the emotional sense of Lucy not wanting to write it clearly very powerful. I imagine her as a French Lieutenant's woman, always waiting, always hoping.

If like some critics and biographer's say, M Paul and Graham are based on people Charlotte had unrequited feelings for, perhaps the uncertain ending reflects the sense she had herself, of yearning for someone you can never had.

Peter wrote: "In an earlier week I referred to "a Rochester moment" but did not want to give a spoiler comment.

To me, as I compare the two novels, Rochester and M. Paul share many characteristics such as their..."

what do you think of M Paul as the romantic hero of the novel?

Clari wrote: "Peter wrote: "In an earlier week I referred to "a Rochester moment" but did not want to give a spoiler comment.

To me, as I compare the two novels, Rochester and M. Paul share many characteristics..."

I was disappointed with M. Paul as a Romantic hero. Indeed, as many people have commented already, the novel seems to fall short of a satisfying read in many aspects. It was interesting to read your posts and others on Bronte's own feelings and satisfaction with the novel. As Janice George in message 16 comments "this was no Jane Eyre."

I wonder how much Jane Eyre casts its grand shadow over Villette. To me, Jane Eyre is exquisite. In terms of characters, variety of settings, symbolism, themes and on and on it seems to be a novel that offers everything to a reader. Well, ... perhaps I should amend that and say that like the ending of Villette, the final paragraphs which discuss St. John Rivers have always befuddled me.

In the end, in my mind, M. Paul is no Rochester.

I think I am in the minority in thinking that 'Villette' was a great novel :)

Peter wrote: "I wonder how much Jane Eyre casts its grand shadow over Villette."

I think it's Charlotte's loneliness that influences Villette most. In contrast to 'Shirley' where she gave her fictionalised sisters happy endings, in Lucy Snowe she gave her fictionalised self grief.

Clari, you are not alone in liking Villette. I liked it very much also. Jane Eyre is my favorite classic novel and I find similarities between the two novels and the characters in them. However, it is not to the point that Charlotte Bronte plagiarizes herself as some authors do when they start writing series. I do not want M. Paul to be exactly like Mr. Rochester. There share similar characteristics, but differ enough so we do not know what to expect next.

The first time I read Villette a few years ago, the ending was a shocker. It seemed sudden and out of nowhere. I read the last sentence and just went "Well. That's depressing." The ambiguity didn't help at all, as I knew exactly what Charlotte intended with the tone she was going for. Ironically, this was for a Victorian Literature course, where I had written a paper about the high value that Victorians placed on marriage. I wished that more characters could find fulfillment outside of that scope. Then came this novel, and I had got what I wanted ... I then told my professor that I was slightly regretting my paper's theme, haha.

In retrospect, I should have known that a happy romantic ending wouldn't fit with Lucy's character or the themes of the novel. And that Miss Marchmont's story was foreshadowing. But the last chapters built up so much hope, that I didn't see the actual ending coming. After everything Lucy had been through, it felt needlessly cruel to bring her to the edge of happiness and then yank her back. Truly a reflection of the hopelessness that Charlotte felt for herself.

In spite of all this, I do really like Villette. It's not my "favorite" novel per se, but it holds a unique and interesting spot. A large part of this is because I feel a connection with Lucy (which really puts me in the minority here!) I was always a quiet person who felt like more of an observer than an active participant. Lucy was even a sort-of role model for me at one point, because I was in a situation that was very similar to something in the novel, and her thoughts and coping methods were just like my own. I won't forget this novel anytime soon. George Eliot said that there was "something almost preternatural in its power." I understand that many people won't feel that way, but it did happen to have that effect on me.

I liked this novel very much, but in many ways because it was a novel of unrequited, lost and/or unfulfilled love. Even Graham and Polly suffer the loss of at least one child (and how many times is this sort of detail added to the "and they lived happily ever after"?). Every other character has lost someone they loved as an intimate partner and goes through a period of mourning. Ginevra loses Graham, Mme Beck and the Parisian teacher both tried for and lost M Paul, Mrs Bretton and M Home are widowed, Mme Walraven lost her daughter, and so on and so on. There is a pervading sense of loss and isolation and desolation throughout-everyone seems to go through the novel alone. Even in Lucy's relationship with M Paul, when we reach its consummation-the mutual assurance of their love for each other- there is an immediate separation of 3 years, with promises exchanged in the full knowledge that there is a great chance that they will never see each other again. No doubt this reflects the desolation that Charlotte Bronte was feeling in her life at this time, which lends an additional poignancy to this sorrowful novel.

And don't forget to go back and read the Guardian article that was in the Background and Resources if you skipped it at first to avoid spoilers-it really sums up the power of the novel brilliantly.

Frances wrote: "I liked this novel very much, but in many ways because it was a novel of unrequited, lost and/or unfulfilled love. Even Graham and Polly suffer the loss of at least one child (and how many times is..."

I appreciate you listing all the incidences of loss that pervade the novel. I had never focussed on that point of view.

France's, I went to the intro and background thread to read the suggested article. It was well worth reading. Makes me appreciate the book even more.

This book.. at first i didn't like it for at least half its length, but then i realized that even though it might not satisfy, it makes me go through interesting emotions and it really does shake me up. Literature doesn't always satisfy, and it shouldn't. It's there to make us think, search inside ourselves, and this is particularly why this was a great book. While it didn't satisfy, i'm not sure i'll be able to forget it for a really long time, maybe even never.

Jaq-Lin wrote: "The first time I read Villette a few years ago, the ending was a shocker. It seemed sudden and out of nowhere. I read the last sentence and just went "Well. That's depressing." The ambiguity didn't..."

i hope that you don't feel so much like Lucy anymore Jaq-Lin. I think Bronte really captures the sense of loneliness that I think most people feel at some point in their lives.

Clari wrote: "Jaq-Lin wrote: "The first time I read Villette a few years ago, the ending was a shocker. It seemed sudden and out of nowhere. I read the last sentence and just went "Well. That's depressing." The ..."

Yeah, Villette was a really effective novel from that standpoint. I'm not very much like Lucy in terms of life circumstances, but personality-wise, I felt similar to her. The way we think and how we approached problems were generally the same.

Heheh. I've got some Lucy in me, too.
More so when I was younger.

I'm about to archive the Villette threads in the 2015 Archive folder. Just to give you advance warning in case you want to add anything and can't find it!