Women's Classic Literature Enthusiasts discussion

Week 2 discussion thread.

Here we see Ruth starting her life with the Bensons and beginning her journey on motherhood. It seems a shame to me that there must be so much deception to allow a woman who made a mistake to live at least a somewhat normal life.

What did you all think about her initial interactions with Sally?

I think Sally personifies the sort of attitude Ruth is bound to come up against if anyone realises the truth about her. She seems unkind but not cruel.

I was pretty hateful of Ruth to treat Ruth so horribly.

I love how Gaskell completely omitted the "sexual" part (I guess this happened in the previous section). The closest she got to that aspect was in the "by the pond" scene in which she was decorated with roses. Was that a metaphor for having sex? LOL
Child birth was immediate. Suddenly the baby has arrived. I wonder if Gaskell was uncomfortable with the topic or if she securely maneuvered around them to ensure the digestibility of her novel to her Victorian audience?
This section also seemed very religious in terms of building relationships with the character and atonement for sin. It is a very strong and detailed discussion. Is Gaskell making a Christian argument for protecting and helping women that ended up illegitimately pregnant in the society? It is very interesting to follow Ruth's journey at this stage. I was quite disheartened at the end of the last section, but feel a bit better at this point after she was taken in by the kindhearted Bensons. Yay!

Haaze wrote: "I love how Gaskell completely omitted the "sexual" part (I guess this happened in the previous section). The closest she got to that aspect was in the "by the pond" scene in which she was decorated..."

I did not pick up on that, I took it at face value that she was being decorated with roses lol. Now that you bring it up though it leaves me wondering....

When we read Life of Charlotte Bronte we discovered that it was not a complete biography. Gaskell kept some things back because she knew the audience at the time was not ready to receive it. I would assume she did the same thing here. If she was uncomfortable with the topic I would think she would have avoided writing the book altogether.

I would say she is. Have you ever read Uncle Tom's Cabin? Harriet Beecher Stowe did something similar. She created this idealized character. The reader that generally fell in line with the view that slavery was okay who also happened to be religious would find their very preconceptions challenged. I would say Gaskell is doing the same thing (only she is way less preachy).

@ Anastasia
I still have to read Gaskell's Brontë biography as well as Uncle Tom's Cabin (endless volumes to read - ha ha).

Interesting thoughts Anastasia! I suspect you are correct. Victorian authors probably had to be very careful how they presented controversial topics linked to morality and religion (especially so being a female author!). I find Gaskell a bit preachy in this second section. Does Stowe emphasize that aspect even further?

I like your thoughts around "idealized" characters. Ruth definitely seems to be an angel on earth in terms of her personality and actions. She really does nothing wrong (ever - so far), but is simply led astray (or on a good path) depending on the characters surrounding her. She appears to almost completely lack judgment. Of course, after the fact (often much later) she reconsiders her action/s. There was one passage in the early part of this section where the author jumped forward in time, i.e. looking back on the story seemingly many years hence, allowing a sense of that things will turn out well. Is she trying to comfort the reader? I certainly needed the assurance as I have grown very fond of Ruth at this point in time.

Anastasia wrote: "Haaze wrote: "I love how Gaskell completely omitted the "sexual" part (I guess this happened in the previous section). The closest she got to that aspect was in the "by the pond" scene in which she..."

Harriet Beecher Stowe visited Mrs. Gaskell's home. Can you see these two women discussing how those who claim to be religious treated others? Can you picture them tossing ideas around as they considered their next book?

☯Emily wrote: "Harriet Beecher Stowe visited Mrs. Gaskell's home. Can you see these two women discussing how those who claim to be religious treated others? Can you picture them tossing ideas around as they considered their next book? "

I would love to have been a fly on the wall listening in to that conversation! :P

☯Emily wrote: "Anastasia wrote: "Haaze wrote: "I love how Gaskell completely omitted the "sexual" part (I guess this happened in the previous section). The closest she got to that aspect was in the "by the pond" ..."

I certainly can!

Haaze wrote: "@ Anastasia
I still have to read Gaskell's Brontë biography as well as Uncle Tom's Cabin (endless volumes to read - ha ha).

Interesting thoughts Anastasia! I suspect you are correct. Victorian aut..."

Stowe is veeeeeeeeery preachy. Likes pages and pages that read like a sermon. While I agreed with everything that Stowe was saying she did it so much that even I got a little tired of it. Compared to Stowe, Gaskell really is not that preachy. She more....shows than tells. Stowe is more tell than show. Does that make sense?

I picked up on that too. She edits it somewhat but this is still grisly reality in her day, I could see her readers needing comfort.

So I would need the patience of a mule then.....

Haaze wrote: "So I would need the patience of a mule then....."

It's worth reading at least once but it does require some patience, yes!

Ha ha! Then I will definitely wait until it shows up in a group and will swallow my "bitter pill of patience" at that point in time. I suspect I will need emotional support....

Haaze wrote: "Ha ha! Then I will definitely wait until it shows up in a group and will swallow my "bitter pill of patience" at that point in time. I suspect I will need emotional support...."

I believe it will soon be eligible for rereading in this group, perhaps you will be able to read it then!

I don't think UTC is that preachy. Oh, there are a few parts that need patience, but it certainly is not as bad as a Dickens book or the horrors of Moby Dick.

I discovered that my patience varies depending on where and when I read my books. It is very peculiar! Does that happen to you as well?

It varies for me too. I can wade through a lengthy Victorian story regarding family relationships but I knew I could not be interested in the tome of Moby Dick and skipped that one.
Although I did enjoy " In The Heart of the Sea" which was concise and interresting

Terry wrote: "It varies for me too. I can wade through a lengthy Victorian story regarding family relationships but I knew I could not be interested in the tome of Moby Dick and skipped that one.
Although I did ..."

I meant more in terms of place/location as I certainly understand how different books can create that phenomenon. :)

I think I know what you mean, Haaze. I find I can deal with much more "difficult" books in the winter when I can snuggle under a quilt with them and take the time to digest them better!

I can't really remember Uncle Tom's Cabin, though I did read it as a teenager. I think Gaskell, in this, got just the right balance of showing her readers the truth of their hypocrisies, rather than preaching in a sermony way. I think this was partly because Ruth was such a lovely and likeable character, although for modern readers, maybe a little too saintly.

☯Emily wrote: "I don't think UTC is that preachy. Oh, there are a few parts that need patience, but it certainly is not as bad as a Dickens book or the horrors of Moby Dick."

As I like to say, Melville used 50 words to say what could be said in 5.

I felt UTC was preachy but maybe I was just reading into it.