Women's Classic Literature Enthusiasts discussion

Here is the thread for Week 1 discussion.

So to start off I'd like to know, I am the only one reading along who has never read Gaskell before? What was the first work you read by her?

Me too - I've never read anything by her before.

I've never read Gaskell either, although I've meaning to for some time.

Elizabeth Gaskell was a contemporary of Charles Dickens. The themes of some of their books were very similar, but their styles are completely different. Mary Barton by Gaskell and Hard Times by Dickens both deal with the horrors the workers faced during the Industrial Revolution before there were unions and laws to protect the workers. Mary Barton was much more realistic and moving.

Gaskell's best book and probably her most popular book is North and South with the most endearing heroine in Victorian literature. As you can tell, I love Ms. Gaskell.

BTW, she wrote the biography of Charlotte Bronte that this group read previously.

I've not read any Gaskell before either. I'm looking forward to this.

I read North and South first. I became so obsessed with it that I reread entire chapters, then I moved on to Wives and Daughters. I badgered my friends so much to read her they gave me Ruth and Mary Barton so that I would go read in a corner and leave them be ha ha.

That's a great story there Melanie - I'll have to try it and see if it gets me some new books too! ;)

Thanks for that run down, Emily.

Perhaps I should rephrase, I haven't read any fiction by Ms. Gaskell!

Mélanie wrote: "I read North and South first. I became so obsessed with it that I reread entire chapters, then I moved on to Wives and Daughters. I badgered my friends so much to read h..."

I love it when I find an author I can obsess over like this. Isn't it wonderful?

Wendy wrote: "Mélanie wrote: "I read North and South first. I became so obsessed with it that I reread entire chapters, then I moved on to Wives and Daughters. I badgered my friends s..."

Wendy, have you read Ruth before? I didn't enjoy it as much as Mary Barton and North and South.

☯Emily wrote: "Wendy wrote: "Mélanie wrote: "I read North and South first. I became so obsessed with it that I reread entire chapters, then I moved on to Wives and Daughters. I badgere..."

I haven't read it. I did read the first two chapters last night, and I'm enjoying it so far.

I've read through to the end of chapter 8 now and am quite enjoying the story and the writing so far. It seems to me Ruth and Henry Bellingham are both very childlike characters in different ways. Ruth is very naive and innocent, whilst Henry is very petulant and acts like a spoilt child in that he sees something and wants it (in this case, the beautiful Ruth) without considering the consequences.

Who's account got deleted....?

Normally I like footnotes - I love all the little details of a good annotated edition. But the very first footnote of this edition was full of spoilers! Why on earth can't an editor be more conscious of the fact that not all of us want to know how a book ends before we've even started it? So now I'm ignoring the footnotes!

In chapter 2 we have Jenny being removed from Ruth's place of employment. Jenny struck me as being an insightful girl who in a way was watching out for Ruth and could see the bigger picture. Do you think this is, in a way, removing Ruth from the only protection she would otherwise have in this strange, new place?

It doesn't seem like a huge deal at first but after finishing the chapter I'm feeling like it's almost a foreshadowing, like something bad is going to happen.

Alexa wrote: "Normally I like footnotes - I love all the little details of a good annotated edition. But the very first footnote of this edition was full of spoilers! Why on earth can't an editor be more conscio..."

What edition do you have?

Penguin Classic, edited by Angus Easson, 1997/2004

Mine is as well. Are all your footnotes in the back? Mine are.

Alexa wrote: "Normally I like footnotes - I love all the little details of a good annotated edition. But the very first footnote of this edition was full of spoilers! Why on earth can't an editor be more conscio..."

Oh, that sucks! I find that quite often with older books, there is an assumption that you already know how the story ends - often introductions to classics are totally full of spoilers but footnotes is a bit much!

Anastasia wrote: "In chapter 2 we have Jenny being removed from Ruth's place of employment. Jenny struck me as being an insightful girl who in a way was watching out for Ruth and could see the bigger picture. Do you..."

I think it is really serving to emphasise how very alone in the world Ruth is. She has no family and no friends. She is very vulnerable.

Viv wrote: "Oh, that sucks! I find that quite often with older books, there is an assumption that you already know how the story ends - often introductions to classics are totally full of spoilers but footnotes is a bit much!"

Yes, I've learned to save Introductions for works like these until the end, but here there was a spoiler in "A Note on the Text" (where one would normally only expect innocuous comments on miniscule editing decisions) as well as in the first footnote. Seriously! And even a work as well-known as, for example, Jane Eyre deserves to be read by the first-time reader with a sense of wonder as to where it will take you.

Yes, Anastasia, the footnotes are in the back, which makes it physically easy to ignore them, but for a footnote lover, like myself, it doesn't make it emotionally any easier!

Viv wrote: "Anastasia wrote: "In chapter 2 we have Jenny being removed from Ruth's place of employment. Jenny struck me as being an insightful girl who in a way was watching out for Ruth and could see the bigg..."

And therefore she is taken advantage of by unscrupulous people.

I think Gaskell does a marvelous job crafting this whole setup. From the outside Ruth is viewed as an immoral woman but Gaskell's portrays her sympathetically and we can easily see how she is taken advantage of. Instead of judging her I wish people had tried to step in and help!

It was heartbreaking to read how devoted she was to Bellingham and his response when he was recovered enough to know who she was. To him she was like a little toy, amusing for a time but irritating once it would have cost him something to treat her like a person.

What did you all think of how he was able to essentially just send her away? He'll go forward with no consequences for his behavior while she's branded for the rest of her life. I noticed Gaskell made a point of remarking through her characters on how Bellingham's behavior is just dismissed as 'what young gentlemen do'. It doesn't really affect their lives, just the lives of the women they ruin.

Elizabeth Gaskell and her husband, who was a preacher, encountered many poor people in their work. This is what Wikipedia says: "In 1850 the Gaskells moved to a villa at 84 Plymouth Grove, where Elizabeth wrote her remaining literary works, while her husband held welfare committees and tutored the poor in his study. The Gaskells' social circle included writers, religious dissenters and social reformers such as William and Mary Howitt. Charles Dickens and John Ruskin visited Plymouth Grove, as did the American writers Harriet Beecher Stowe and Charles Eliot Norton, while the conductor Charles Hallé, who lived close by, taught piano to one of their daughters. Her close friend Charlotte Brontë stayed there three times, and on one occasion hid behind the drawing room curtains as she was too shy to meet the Gaskells' other visitors.

In early 1850 Mrs Gaskell wrote to Charles Dickens asking for advice about assisting a girl named Pasley whom she had visited in prison. Pasley provided her with a model for the title character of Ruth in 1853."

Elizabeth Gaskell met many people who were downtrodden and her sympathy for their plight was shown in her books. She gently exposes the hypocrisy of the wealthy and religious of her day.

Anastasia - yes, I thought it was shocking how easily Mr Bellingham was able to dismiss her, once she became something of an inconvenience. Ruth was very vulnerable and naive and so it was totally incomprehensible to her that he could do such a thing, but presumably it wasn't all that uncommon for young men to get away with what, as you say, would ruin a young woman's life in Victorian society.

Emily - thanks for the background information. Gaskell is certainly exposing the hypocrisy of the wealthy and religious of her day in this book.

Yes Mr. Bellingham is the scum of the Victorian age. Poor Ruth was 17 and without decent parenting or any family, probably was totally ignorant of how to protect her dignity when beginning an intimate relationship.

As a Christian it really bothers me that her mistake at 17 basically ruins her life. I'm not talking just about how society treated her but how she felt about herself. She felt guilty and that she deserved "nothing" her ENTIRE LIFE. It's so sad to see her feel like she is worthless. The bible teaches forgiveness and redemption but apparently not in Victorian times. The religious "nuts" really held themselves better than others and beat up on poor Ruth. Thank goodness some people found a way to love and forgive her.

Watch out Bellingham, you know what they say about Karma!!!

Hello all! I'm jumping in here mid-month (with both feet so to say) as the group's theme is engaging. I must admit that I have never read Gaskell before, but I dug up a copy of "Ruth" to remedy the situation. :)

Welcome Haaze! We LOVE folks who jump in with both feet! So glad to have you join us in this month's read!

☯Emily wrote: "Elizabeth Gaskell and her husband, who was a preacher, encountered many poor people in their work. This is what Wikipedia says: "In 1850 the Gaskells moved to a villa at 84 Plymouth Grove, where El..."

I can totally see Stowe and Gaskell getting along. Stowe is more preachy than Gaskell (at least in her fiction) but they both seemed to have the same intention, open the eyes of the more privileged to the plight of the less privileged.

Viv wrote: "Anastasia - yes, I thought it was shocking how easily Mr Bellingham was able to dismiss her, once she became something of an inconvenience. Ruth was very vulnerable and naive and so it was totally ..."

It leaves me wondering, what happened to these women back then? Where did they go? Did they all end up having to become prostitutes?

Terry wrote: "Yes Mr. Bellingham is the scum of the Victorian age. Poor Ruth was 17 and without decent parenting or any family, probably was totally ignorant of how to protect her dignity when beginning an intim..."

Doesn't Bellingham's mother kind of remind you of the Pharisees in the Gospels? She looks down on Ruth because she is basically a 'sinner' and condemns her for life. Meanwhile she turns a blind eye to sins she is more comfortable with, like her son essentially seducing a vulnerable girl!

Haaze wrote: "Hello all! I'm jumping in here mid-month (with both feet so to say) as the group's theme is engaging. I must admit that I have never read Gaskell before, but I dug up a copy of "Ruth" to remedy the..."

Welcome, Haaze! This is my first time reading her fiction as well.

Such wonderful writing. I feel as if I am suspended in a web of words blending aspects of Charles Dickens and George Eliot. I am very impressed with how Gaskell paints her characters and describes the environments. It is also interesting how she subtly integrates Ruth's history and background as one turns the pages. I cannot quite believe that I have neglected Gaskell's works for so long!

Haaze wrote: "Such wonderful writing. I feel as if I am suspended in a web of words blending aspects of Charles Dickens and George Eliot. I am very impressed with how Gaskell paints her character and describes t..."

Yes she incorporates it very well. It doesn't feel like an information dump, we're slowly introduced to it and it flows well.

Elizabeth Gaskell is one of my favorite authors and very underrated and undervalued. I think she is light years better than Dickens!

☯Emily wrote: "Elizabeth Gaskell is one of my favorite authors and very underrated and undervalued. I think she is light years better than Dickens!"

That is indeed high praise!!!! *gasp* Since I am a Gaskell neophyte I will ponder that question after I have read a lot more of her works. They seem to be common staple among the groups at Goodreads which I presume is a good sign. :)

But..wait...you rated Ruth three stars? One of her lesser works then?

Gaskell really allowed me to see and sense the intensity of Ruth's working life. Having lost both of her parents and then be placed in a mentorship situation of this kind does not exactly seem to be a life of comfort by any means. The passage describing how she initially cried herself to sleep while conjuring up memories of her past was very touching. I liked how Gaskell directly exposed us to a day (or late night rather) of her life with all the girls literally working their socks off. It is difficult to imagine the type of labor (including child labor) that was omnipresent in Victorian England. However, I guess we only need to examine the reality of clothing factories in e.g. Bangladesh as a modern example of Ruth's life. Does the world ever change? Do you think about Gaskell as an early realist?

Haaze wrote: "☯Emily wrote: "Elizabeth Gaskell is one of my favorite authors and very underrated and undervalued. I think she is light years better than Dickens!"

That is indeed high praise!!!! *gasp* Since I a..."

Yes, I think Ruth is one of Gaskell's lesser works. I think North and South is her best book and Mary Barton a close second. Dickens and Gaskell both wrote about the working conditions of the workers; Dickens in Hard Times and Gaskell in Mary Barton. Compare and contrast the writing styles of both writers!

I have been reading a lot of classics but never came across Gaskell on any recommended "lists" of classics. Dickens is tooo long winded for me. I loved this book and will definitely read the two others suggested in this thread. Thanks ladies

Ruth is of course entering the downward spiral here in terms of how she is looked at by society. Anastasia mentioned earlier that the removal of Jenny was a foreshadowing as Jenny was the only adviser she had. Could one also argue that Ruth is a little bit naive. I guess Gaskell links this to her being without a female role model, but would not the other women at the work place be a resource in terms of "understanding" men? Or are they just as naive or unwilling to discuss such aspects of life? Mrs. Mason's rejection of her was also a bit farfetched. It is not like Ruth had a bad record with her by any means and her reaction is bizarre.

One thing I think is difficult about this novel is that I find it hard to understand the magnitude of the problem, i.e. I cannot quite relate to the "fallen woman" as viewed by Victorian society. Obviously a consequence of living in the present era in the Western world.
Sure, she is alone (and only 16) with a man at an inn, but the society around her makes her look like a demon. Besides, why is nobody reprimanding Mr. Bellingham for taking her there in the first place?

By the way, I love how Gaskell depicts Ruth's interests at the inn. Scenes with her staring at the falling rain and clouds moving across the sky as well as taking joy at all aspects of nature. Is this to make her seem pure and innocent in contrast to the humanity around her that is manipulating and taking advantage of her innocence?
The passage with Mr. Bellingham decorating her hair with flowers could perhaps be an example of this? He is mesmerized by her beauty but not her personality and views on life.

Haaze, it is a sad reality that many times victims are blamed for their own demise. Women have often been viewed as walking temptations that exist to drag men down and that is the viewpoint you are seeing in this story. This is why Mr. Bellingham isn't blamed. He's a man so obviously it's her fault.

I like how you point out the contrast. Mr. Bellingham likes her beauty but he finds her personality irritating and vexing and takes it out on her.

Anastasia wrote: "Women have often been viewed as walking temptations that exist to drag men down and that is the viewpoint you are seeing in this story."

True. I just have difficulties in entering the mid 19th century mindset. Gaskell makes her point clear, but I feel so far removed from the times so I cannot quite fathom the world's reaction. Reading it today the situation almost seems burlesque. Don't get me wrong - I very much enjoy Gaskell's writing.The Victorian social world can be a bit bizarre in terms of what was allowed and not allowed.

☯Emily wrote: "Dickens and Gaskell both wrote about the working conditions of the workers; Dickens in Hard Times and Gaskell in Mary Barton. Compare and contrast the writing styles of both writers! "

@Emily
I definitely feel as if Gaskell has Charles Dickens's power of description but she also reminds me of George Eliot's ability to weave psychological interactions between characters. A great combination! :)

Yes, I agree. Gaskell resembles Eliot more than she does Dickens.

Haaze wrote: "Anastasia wrote: "Women have often been viewed as walking temptations that exist to drag men down and that is the viewpoint you are seeing in this story."

True. I just have difficulties in enterin..."

Hmmm. See I found it easy to visualize the age she was writing in. Have you read a lot of literature set during the Victorian era? Or perhaps it's because I find it easy to believe that people could be that cruel, it's easy for me to assume the worst in people.

Anastasia wrote: "Hmmm. See I found it easy to visualize the age she was writing in. Have you read a lot of literature set during the Victorian era? Or perhaps it's because I find it easy to believe that people could be that cruel, it's easy for me to assume the worst in people."

Yes, I am a great fan of the 19th century lit. I do visualize the Victorian era and the characters very well. Besides, Gaskell's writing does all the magic. I just had a hard time with the stubborn rejections of Ruth's character in this part of the book - they just seemed bizarre and difficult to relate to. A bigger question is that we are peering into very different worlds with a 21st century lens. I suspect that a reader in the 1850s may have had a very different experience with Ruth? What do you think?

Haaze wrote: "Anastasia wrote: "Hmmm. See I found it easy to visualize the age she was writing in. Have you read a lot of literature set during the Victorian era? Or perhaps it's because I find it easy to believ..."

I wonder if a part of it was motivated by fear. The culture at the time was not very accepting. As you move farther into the book you will see what happens to even people who are perceived as being 'soft' on this sin. It basically leads to ostracization (I hope that isn't a spoiler). Since fear is a powerful motivator it can lead to normally nice people being more intolerant than they would otherwise be. Perhaps it's less stubbornness and more fear of what would happen that leads them to be closeminded and uncompassionate.

That is definitely something to keep in mind. We are farther removed than a reader in that day and our culture is different. We look at it and we think 'no big deal, she's obviously sorry let's be nice people!' But someone raised in a culture where this was the norm might find the idea that such a woman could be deserving of compassion a great shock. They might find it more challenging than we do today. What are your thoughts?

@Anastasia

Time and culture are definitely factors. I suspect that I could experience the same phenomenon if I visited another culture today (e.g. the Middle East) or even within the US after having grown up in a very progressive culture. Adding the dimension of time makes it even more difficult. In Gaskell we encounter the religious aspects of the Victorian society. I presume it is forbidden to stray from the moral path fostered by the church as well as the great chain of being. It just seems so extreme to be unable to forgive a young girl that clearly is innocent in every way possible. I guess that is Gaskell's "weapon" as she is bashing Victorian norms in her novel. Why should not Christian compassion extend to women that are in this situation? I also seems as if Victorian morals (for men in particular) were not "snow white" considering the high degree of prostitution in London at the time.

Haaze wrote: "@Anastasia

Time and culture are definitely factors. I suspect that I could experience the same phenomenon if I visited another culture today (e.g. the Middle East) or even within the US after havi..."

What really gets me is that the men are forgiven and allowed to go on with their lives and it's viewed as 'oh that's just the way they are. Men play around." The problem is, they women they 'play' with are condemned forever. They seemed to forget that these women were people whose lives were forever ruined by the men's actions!