North & South discussion

~ Episode Three, Part 2:
Starting with Thornton’s leaving - “I see you have company already” – and ending at the end of the episode.

Now then, I simply must ask, what does everyone think of the first scene in this half of the episode? How far was Thornton's reaction justified? And, indeed, how far was Margaret's treatment of him justified? Again, I will hold my tongue on the topic until I find someone inclined for discussion, and only say that it makes me cringe with embarrassment and sympathy when Margaret just takes the book and fruit out of Thornton's hands - it does seem very rude, when he is showing such bravery and kindness in visiting them!

Awkward moment! I felt sorry for Thornton but I understood Margaret. She was bound by secrecy

Bound by secrecy indeed, but I can't help thinking there was some other way to do it, like, any way at all? Was there no way to get Mr Thornton into the house without encountering Frederick? Maybe into a downstairs tea-room or something, I don't know.

I fully admit that the dramatic tension caused by this scene is amazing. And having Margaret actually try to find a way not to insult Thornton might have been rather comical and out of place. But I just feel so, so badly for the two of them. Margaret no doubt knows how much she has hurt Mr Thornton already, and has no desire to hurt him any more, or indeed be seen as a petty, which is why she tries so hard to placate him. But you can't blame Thornton for taking it personally, can you? In fact, how could he take it otherwise, with the way Margaret acted?

That glance he directs towards the top window when Frederick laughs, and Margaret's guilty look... oh, it's all so very telling.

Talking of awkward moments: does Leonards creep anyone else out? Because he certainly does creep me out...

Totally! This is going to sound horrible but the only reason I was sad for his death is because Margaret had to lie. Not for a second did I think that that policeman believed her because you could plainly see that she's hiding something.

No, I completely agree with you! I was almost glad when Leonards died, really - and a little confused at how he got a fiancée in the first place, to be honest.

You're right about the policeman, he so knew something was up, but there wasn't much room for him to manoeuvre. Besides, I got the feeling that despite knowing she was hiding something, he was glad to have an excuse not to have to destroy the reputation of a young woman that was so clearly distressed. I felt really sorry for that policeman - if only because he had to repeat himself so much! Both Margaret and Thornton ask him to repeat almost everything he says, at least once. :P Did anyone else notice that?

Yes! Poor thing. :D

The scene of Boucher's death, when they bring him to his neighborhood. Of all those big, strong, smart(er) men none is brave enough to go tell his wife. Such p***ies (sorry for my language but this is the most approprite word :D). Margaret is always the strong one.

In the scene of her mother's death and after she shows such strenght so that everybody else can be miserable and she can be their support. She just can't let herself fall apart. I feel so sorry for her and can understand her completely because I went through the same thing and acted in the same way. It would be so much better for her if she had time to fall apart ( and that I know for a fact). The poor girl is surrounded by feeble characters.

Haha, your language is excused, Samanta, the word in question is very apt, if a trifle vehement. :D I understand both Mr Hale and Higgins not wanting to do it, but for the rest of them to leave it to the young woman was abominable cowardice. In their defence, however, I would say that Margaret could break the news rather more tactfully than any of them ever could, and I commend her bravery in doing so.

Margaret's strength is one of the best things about her character - and indeed, in the book I think there is a time when she does collapse under the emotional and mental strain of it all. But the key thing is that she does so when she is alone - she never allows her own troubles to affect the happiness of others. So unlike her Mother, who never cared about how her abject weakness and misery might be bringing sadness to her husband and child. Margaret stands utterly alone, always caring for others and never once thinking how unfair it is that she alone has no one to lean on, being so busy supporting others herself. What more can you ask of a heroine than that?

Margaret is definitely the strong one - and I think she knows her own strength, so I think she doesn't really mind having to do the hard things. She certainly is surrounded by "feeble characters"! However, I don't think I would call all those men p***ies, mostly because I don't think it is a good idea to disparage men by calling them womanly, it implies that there's something wrong or weak about being a woman, which M shows (and I'm sure you agree, Samanta) is clearly not the case. I think I might call them cowardly in the face of emotion, or even in the face of their own anger and guilt. Yes, cowardly would be my word choice.

Kate wrote: "Margaret is definitely the strong one - and I think she knows her own strength, so I think she doesn't really mind having to do the hard things. She certainly is surrounded by "feeble characters"!..."

She definitely does know her own strength - in fact, that's probably part of the reason she seems so wonderfully proud to Thornton, and appears to Mrs Thornton to be putting on airs and graces. I think cowardly really is the most appropriate word to use for all these men - all of us ladies know that there is nothing wrong with being a woman, and we can be extremely strong too. I'll stop before we get to advocating the girl power argument, but I do agree with you, Kate?

Speaking of women: what do you all think of Mrs Boucher?

I think I have trouble thinking of Mrs. Boucher at all, although I think she appears more than it is reasonable for me to ignore!

Well, I don't think about her too much, to be perfectly honest. The only time I really consider her is when her husband dies, and she follows soon after. I mean, I feel very sorry for the lady, believe me, as I do think she really loved her family and had a great deal to bear in watching her children go hungry. But I also thought that Mrs Bouchers love was, in a way, sort of selfish, in the same way that her husbands was. I think if either of them truly loved their children for the children's sake, Boucher wouldn't have killed himself, and Mrs Boucher would not have allowed herself to waste away.

I don't know... am I being at all unfair?

Playing devil's advocate to Becca: Do we know if Mrs. Boucher was sick or if she was giving the children food instead of eating herself? For the purposes of the discussion of the mini series, we don't really but it could be. It's sad she doesn't even have a name. Maybe Mrs. Boucher is meant to be the working class equivalent of Mrs. Hale? Mrs. Hale allows herself to waste away instead of living for her children. You would think she might cling to hope that Frederick would be allowed to come home. She could have had a wasting sickness but it's not stated whether she does or if she just gives up.

I'm going to second the idea that Mrs. Boucher probably gave her food to her babies - either by giving them and Boucher whatever food there was or by nursing the babies without eating enough. And she could be a parallel to Mrs. Hale.

I'm actually surprised I have had less sympathy for Mrs. Boucher than Mrs. Hale. Seems like a pretty classist attitude on my part - and of course, like Mrs. Hale, Mrs. Boucher could well have cancer or another wasting disease. And goodness knows she has an excuse to wail as she does and to break down. So do the filmmakers have sympathy for Mrs.B, and does Gaskell? Or does she become undeserving of our sympathy by virtue of breaking down over B's death and dying leaving her children orphaned?

Actually, I'm glad you asked this, it is proof I need to work a bit on my moral compass that I have so little sympathy for Mrs. Boucher.

I think you two are probably right, in that Mrs Boucher probably gave up the food to the children, but - and I'm not trying to be cruel here - surely she would have been doing that even before her husband died? I don't know, I just don't think it's coincidence that she dies so soon after her husband, and maybe it's naïveté, or an error in outlook, but I still think there must have been some way for her to carry on.

I also think it's a very reasonable parallel to compare Mrs Boucher and Mrs Hale - they're in similar positions for the side of the social divide that they are on. I actually probably need to work on my moral compass as well, as I think I have less sympathy for both these women than I should sometimes, though I think Mrs Boucher did have more reason to break down than Mrs Hale.

I have more sympathy for Mrs Boucher than Mr Boucher certainly.

Btw, I'm sure Boucher said his wife was ill when he first mentions her.

Louise wrote: "I have more sympathy for Mrs Boucher than Mr Boucher certainly.

Btw, I'm sure Boucher said his wife was ill when he first mentions her."

You're right, he does say that she's sick, in that first Union meeting. And I agree with you that Mrs Boucher deserves more sympathy than her husband.

Leonards is creepy! And annoying! Glad he died as well!

And I wish Margaret has handled Thornton's visit better! I felt so sorry for him :(

Oh Boucher.... I do pity him and his wife to a certain extent. When he is arguing with Higgins easier he is so desperate. He does let himself waste away which sends his sick wife to her grave leaving so many children homeless which was a but selfish, but I think he was beyond the point of rational thought and consideration for anyone else by that point.

Just out of interest: is there actually anyone that cares that Leonards died, outside of the difficulties it created for Margaret? :P

You know, one day - just for fun - I should try and rewrite that scene in a plausible way, a way that doesn't see Thornton striding off with such hurt feelings. I'm determined to find a way she could have handled it better, though I don't deny it would be tricky.

Interesting point about Boucher, Soph! I hadn't really considered how he might have been "beyond rational thought"... too busy being pissed off at him for being so selfish and weak, I suppose. *shrug* Maybe I should cut him a bit more slack, but he does irritate me so.

Becca wrote: "Just out of interest: is there actually anyone that cares that Leonards died, outside of the difficulties it created for Margaret? :P


Negative. He didn't deserve to die but he did deserve to go away for a very long time and not cause trouble for the Hales.

Not sure if this is the right thread but it is at least close: can we talk about Mrs. Hale's funeral? I was thinking of all the reasons I have a tendre for Higgins and the funeral is one if them - the characterization of this working class family that cares so much for a young woman they had initially found presumptuous that they will attend her mother's funeral out of respect for her and her father...it fits so well with my experience of real people but one doesn't often come across fictional people who are poor and high mindedly empathetic. I love how Gaskell portrays the poor as philosophical and thoughtful and capable of acting with middle class values and not just in their own interest.

This is the right thread! :) I always found it really sweet how Higgins and his family cared enough about Margaret to go to her mother's funeral - I mean, did they ever even meet Mrs Hale? In any case, it does show the moral capability of the workers class; we're shown that (some of) the workers do have values and principles and - as you touched on - real empathy for others, despite the hard lives that they live.

Of course, being who I am, I'm always busy thinking during that scene how sad it is that Margaret never saw that Thornton came to her mothers funeral...

I think the whole some-points-in-history-women-don't-go- to- funerals thing is tough for filmmakers and novelists because it is so far from normal acceptable behavior now (well, really any time outside the Victorian era). We don't even question it - so what is a screenwriter or director to do? We would think a character weak or callous if she didn't attend her mother's funeral, and we can't appreciate the characterization given by the author when she has her character attend a Victorian funeral.

I'd never thought about that! I know I'd heard somewhere that Victorian women were advised against attending funerals, but the significance of that in terms of North and South never really clicked until now. So thank you, Kate, wonderful point! But really, even if if wasn't 'normal acceptable behaviour', can anyone actually imagine Margaret not attending her mothers funeral? If only because Mr Hale probably wouldn't have got through it without her at his side.

Right, Becca, it's really a comment on Margaret's strength that she attends the funeral - although we didn't need more reminders that she is strong and somewhat unconventional, we get to see her bravery in the face of real life, the small cadre of friends she has gathered to her, and the contrast between her and her father. Mr. Hale is engaged with the esoteric and the philosophical and his own grief. Margaret is brave and acts how she seems Right, despite her grief, and she is practical too - as you say, Mr. Hale would not have been able to do without her.

I think this is a major turning point in the series too, where Margaret decides to accept her own strength and to shoulder the burdens of adulthood. Or maybe that is such a gradual process there is no turning point. But I think this is the toughest part for Margaret - her mother's death being a signifier that she is responsible for herself and others. Even if she had been taking on those responsibilities before, many of which ought to have been her mother's, now she is truly the one in charge. In this episode I always feel anxiously impatient for the time when she will decide she deserves happiness and freedom in exchange for those responsibilities.