The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

We have come to the end of our read-here is your forum for discussing the final chapters as well as the entire novel.

First, the ending. Was it ambiguous, or did M Paul perish at sea? How did you feel Bronte wanted her readers to interpret the finale?

Second, Lucy now has a school of her own. What do you think a school run by Lucy would be like? Do you think she has the qualities to make a success of this venture?

Third, what did you think of the other principal couples and their futures? Bronte provides a "happily ever after" ending for Graham and Polly, a tempestuous future for Ginevra and du Hamel. Thoughts?

Finally, how well did you think the novel worked as a whole? For those who have read other works by CB, do you think thatJane Eyre is rightfully her most celebrated novel, or do you agree with the author (in our background and resources section I believe) who felt that Villette was the superior book?

Unfortunately, I don't think M. Paul made it, otherwise there would be no need to tell the reader to "imagine" a happy future.
A few times in the book Lucy has told us that some people are destined to have happy lives with few problems, and a happy future, but has made it clear that she is not one of those people. I think she was right. That said, I think she will have a happier future running her own school and having the memory of being loved, than she would have had by just staying at Madame Beck's.
I'm glad I read this book, but I don't think it will ever be a favorite. I can't really compare it with Jane Eyre, as I was in high school when I read it. I think I enjoyed it at the time, but Wide Sargasso Sea made me take a more critical look at the characters. I might re-read it at some point, as I'm sure I'd notice more things now than I did in high school. I may even give Wuthering Heights another try, even though I hated it with a passion the first time.

I also don't think M. Paul survived the shipwreck. November is a treacherous month on the North Atlantic.
I know that Lucy's school will do a much better job at educating the students than Mme Beck's. I can't see her spying on anyone. She will lead by example--by being honest, fair and sincere. She is in control of her own destiny and will strive to live up to what M. Paul would want her to be.
The less said about the Graham/ Polly life story, the better. There is still too much of "perfection" if that is the right word. It doesn't ring true somehow. As for Ginevra, she is a survivor, and she knows how to enjoy herself.
The book is uneven in parts, but overall I enjoyed it.
My favourite Charlotte Bronte book is Shirley. It takes place in the industrial part of England, so besides the personal plot lines we get an idea of what life was like for the working men.

I agree that M. Paul did not survive: otherwise Lucy would not have said that the three years spent waiting for his return were the happiest of her life. I thought the ending, though abrupt, was very moving: Lucy takes pity on the reader who is expecting a conventional happy ending.

However, I think Lucy herself will survive (I seem to remember there are previous hints of this in the book, as if she's looking back from old age, though I can't put my finger on them now.)

I much preferred Jane Eyre to Villette. Call me shallow, but I like a happy ending. M. Paul and Lucy's ending was much too ambiguous for me, and in jolting contrast with the endings for the other characters that were wrapped up for us rather abruptly and in a tidy bow.

The novel followed the Bretons, Lucy, and the Homes through the book. Why did Bronte feel the need to use coincidence as the device to bring them together as adults? For me, it was a poorly executed device to try to add unnecessary and unrealistic drama and surprise. I'm trying to figure out how Dickens makes it work while for Bronte it fell flat. Perhaps because Dickens has so many stories going on with so many characters, whereas Lucy's life and interactions seem so limited. Why did Bronte think it was necessary?

The nun story was a letdown to me, also. Again, having more and better developed characters rather than spending so much time inside Lucy's head might have helped here, but du Hamel was barely part of the story, and there weren't enough other options to make it a true mystery, the results being a big, "so what?" from me.

All in all, if Bronte had done a straightforward dramatic love story without the poorly executed coincidences and mysteries, or had just done a well-plotted mystery/ghost story within the confines of Madame Beck's school, I think I would have enjoyed it much more than this amalgamation. I'm so glad I read Eyre first -- had this been my first Bronte novel, I wouldn't have bothered with another.

Lori, you were right about the ghost. Bravo.

Rosemarie wrote: "Lori, you were right about the ghost. Bravo."

Thanks; it was a lucky guess :-)

Mary Lou wrote: "if Bronte had ... just done a well-plotted mystery/ghost story within the confines of Madame Beck's school, I think I would have enjoyed it much more..."

I agree: I found the revealing of the "ghost" a big let-down. It was much more effective when I thought it might have been a real phantom, or else a manifestation of Lucy's distress.

That and the coincidences apart, though, I did enjoy this novel (if enjoy is the right word) as a depiction of loneliness and despair. When I started it, I was feeling pretty gloomy myself, so maybe that put me in the right frame of mind to sympathise with Lucy's struggles and appreciate Charlotte Bronte's insights. I think your own mood can have a big influence on how much you enjoy a book (or don't)

Emma, you're right about the mood you are in affecting how you read. I used to read fantasy novels whenever I was stressed. I remember reading the David Eddings series the Belgariad-second five novels, one after the other while waiting for an acceptance letter for teacher's college.
For me, the novel lacked flow. Many random incidents seemed to occur,but most of them are resolved. Lucie even receives a small legacy from Mrs Marchmont(?) the old lady who didn't have time to change her will.

I took a detour into contemporary fiction; I've reversed my e-reader and will get back on course to finish.

I took a detour to finish Emma with another group, and I am finding it very hard to get back to Villette. I've read Villette before, though, and I remember really disliking the ending when I first read it.

I've been finished for while but have been silent because I don't quite know what to say. Sometimes after I finish a book, I can feel like I've missed something, so I try to keep an open mind, in case I can be illuminated later on. I don't think a later illumination is going to happen with this book, however; there were just too many flaws.

On a positive note, Lucy was certainly a complex character. While being quiet and conservative and almost lifeless, there was also a wildness to her narrative at times. I didn't feel that it was suppressed by anything though, only that it came out in the narrative, whereas her conversations and actions were rather staid and reigned in. Some of Brönte's writing was lovely; obvious evidence of her talent. Overall though, the crafting of the story I found rather weak. There were too many coincidences, and too many inconsistencies to follow and tie together to make it believable. The disparity within the personalities of characters were often too much to overcome: Polly is grumpy and petulant and dislikes Lucy, then later she is a paragon of virtue and loves Lucy, all with little explanation; the priest is admired at first and then reviled; Madame is tolerated and even liked in the beginning and then despised, etc., etc. There were too many wild "one-eighties" for me to stick with the story as plausible and cohesive and the more lost I became, the more reading it began to feel like drudgery.

I believe that certain reviews claim that this book is a psychological masterpiece, and Brönte certainly seems to play with psychological aspects of both the characters and the readers' perceptions of them. As a reader I felt that she was often saying, "oh, so you'd like to see this scenario play out? Well, too bad, I'm deliberately going to give you this." I felt she was not only playing with her characters, but playing with the reader. I could go along with this if, as I've mentioned above, this experiment was not conducted in an unnatural way, one that is ripe with preposterous manipulations and improbable fluctuations in both personalities and circumstances. I was psychologically exhausted after finishing the novel, not for its fine crafting, but in an effort to grasp its implausibilities.

It was a mildly interesting read but for 572 pages, it was alot of time to commit for the benefit received. I've heard that both The Professor and Shirley have received better reviews so I'll be interested to read them. If anyone is interested, a read-along of Jane Eyre is coming up near the last week of May. You can keep an eye on this blog for details to follow: http://theedgeoftheprecipice.blogspot.ca

Cleo, the plot of Shirley flows more than in Villette, and Shirley is a more likeable character. I admired Lucy for overcoming so many obstacles in her life, but
I couldn't get near her because she was generally so detached.

Oh phew! Thanks, Rosemarie! :-)

While it would have been helpful to connect with Lucy, for me it wasn't necessary. What was necessary was a reasonably cohesive text that hung together which Villette didn't. I'm happy to know that it's all up from here though .... :-)

Cleo wrote: "While being quiet and conservative and almost lifeless, there was also a wildness to her narrative at times. I didn't feel that it was suppressed by anything though, only that it came out in the narrative, whereas her conversations and actions were rather staid and reigned in. "

I agree with your review, Cleo. The bit I quoted above is a classic part of being an introvert - quiet on the outside, but can't stop all the noise in their minds. Lucy certainly would fit that definition, though there was obviously depression on top of the introversion.

Based on Rosemarie's comments, I would probably much prefer Shirley. I think it will be awhile before I read anymore Charlotte Bronte books. I have yet to read Wuthering Heights, though, so I may give Emily a try eventually.

I agree with many of Cleo's comments, particularly about the unevenness of the book. As to characters for whom Lucy seemed to do a 180 in her affections, I wondered if some of the change was supposed to be due to Lucy's perceptions being colored by her own mood, but there was nothing I could pin down.

Mary Lou wrote: "I agree with your review, Cleo. The bit I quoted above is a classic part of being an introvert - quiet on the outside, but can't stop all the noise in their minds. Lucy certainly would fit that definition, though there was obviously depression on top of the introversion. ..."

This may sounds strange, but I was thinking of Virginia Woolf's stream of consciousness writing. I was also wondering if Brönte's depression played a big part in this novel. Normally I really hate speculating about something without any evidence, but Lucy's wild flights of changing affections from one man to another, changing her perceptions of certain characters, etc. perhaps could be linked to it. Also the sense of her playing with the reader and definitely the ending. I really felt Brönte wanted to kill any possible happiness, at least for Lucy, or at the very least to show her readers that life wasn't fair and present a very obvious scenario as to how that could play out. The heavy-handedness took away any subtlety that the book could have had and therefore the plausibility in many instances. I'm rather disappointed because I so wanted to like this book, but just couldn't.

Casceil wrote: " ..... wondered if some of the change was supposed to be due to Lucy's perceptions being colored by her own mood, but there was nothing I could pin down. ..."

I felt the same and thought that it was another weakness that there often wasn't an explanation as to her actions or thoughts. I was also rather bothered with the Catholic criticism. I love debate as much as the next person, and while I was completely willing to accept Lucy's observations with evidence or explanation to back them up, but any evidence or even reason was completely lacking. The reader is required to believe and trust her explicitly. I was looking for a useful criticism and again, it fell short.

I was thinking about M. Paul and found he was an uneven character, too. For some one who had so much control in the school, he seemed to have been very easily influenced by his "spiritual" adviser, the priest. Also, he should have made some effort to get in touch with Lucy when the matter of their different religions came up.
Was Charlotte hurt in some way because of her being Protestant, since she brings up the Protestant vs Roman Catholic issue more than once?

What I liked about the ending was its ambiguity. And because I'm a pessimist, I guess I might as well call it "bittersweet", since I'm leaning more towards the possibility that M. Paul didn't survive. As I neared the ending, I actually was a bit disappointed at how seemingly predictable it all was. A happy ending, of course. Our dear heroine would find her own prince against all odds. But that didn't happen, and I was pleasantly surprised. I believe this ending is a lot more powerful.

Surprisingly I prefer this one over Jane Eyre (the latter being one of the first books that I've ever read, and has been in my favorites ever since; but I read it again recently, and although I still love it, Villette is, for me, more superior). The portrayal of sadness here in Villette really got me. I guess it's a personal thing. I was able to relate more with Lucy Snowe, and I loved her character. I also liked that it didn't focus on romance that much, if you get what I mean (it's subtly done, but how very powerful, indeed!).

Cleo wrote: "This may sounds strange, but I was thinking of Virginia Woolf's stream of consciousness writing. I was also wondering if Brönte's depression played a big part in this novel. Normally I really hate speculating about something without any evidence, but Lucy's wild flights of ..."

I think you've made some really astute observations, Cleo. I feel you're right about Charlotte Bronte's depression and its influence on the novel. Plotting certainly isn't the book's strong point, and maybe that's because Bronte was more concerned with describing her heroine's state of mind than with building a cohesive plot: hence devices like the ghost, which really serve no useful purpose other than to show us how Lucy reacts and illustrate her feelings of despair and loneliness.

Cleo's description of Lucy as "detached" is certainly appropriate. However, isn't it refreshing to have a main character who doesn't have a HEA or HFN?

I would not describe the ending as happy. Yes, she has her own school and lives in a house arranged for her by M. Paul, with access to the house next door. But, she has no one to age together with. I foresee plenty of exacerbations of her depression in her future.

If P&P is a story of second chances, isn't Villette the story of multiple chances that come to naught?

I totally agree that Bronte has used too many coincidences.

Jon wrote: "Cleo's description of Lucy as "detached" is certainly appropriate. However, isn't it refreshing to have a main character who doesn't have a HEA or HFN?


Okay... Happily Ever After and Happy For Now?

If I'm interpreting correctly, I agree... in theory. Mitchell did it brilliantly with Gone With the Wind. But Scarlett had spunk and gumption. We could all imagine what sorts of things she might do to shake things up when "tomorrow" finally arrives. How many people read Winnie the Pooh and wonder what adventures Eeyore will have the next day? A boring, introverted, depressed character like Lucy who doesn't have a happy ending might be realistic, but doesn't make for an enjoyable book for many of its readers.