North & South discussion
North and South group read
>
Chapters 25-27
date
newest »
newest »
These are tough chapters. Margaret is confused and upset and still not ready to grow up. I especially like when she realizes that Thornton respected her opinions as an individual, even though she disagreed with him. I love him for that and my heart bleeds for him when the story switches to his POV. He needs someone to love him and comfort him. Are there any men here who can comment on John's feelings and the tears in his eyes?The conversations between Higgins and Mr. Hale are difficult to understand. First we have religion: is there an afterlife? Did God predestine Bessy for such a hard life? Is there a God? Such heavy questions that were foremost on people's minds at this time. Darwin was working on his theory of evolution and having the same sort of crisis as Higgins. Next we have econommic theory which is well beyond me. I barely made it through high school econ 101.
This section of the book really shows Elizabeth Gaskell's Unitarian beliefs. This may be a good spot to discuss those beliefs and how her life influenced her novel writing.
Qnpoohbear wrote: "First we have religion: is there an afterlife? Did God predestine Bessy for such a hard life? Is there a God? Such heavy questions that were foremost on people's minds at this time."Still are! :/
I think Mrs. Hale must have cancer or some real illness. I thought she had a wasting disease but now she's feverish and craves fruit. I love how Thornton overcomes his wounded pride to please Margaret by making her mother comfortable. He's conversation with the doctor is so revealing but the doctor seems clueless LOL! These chapters are so heavy and sad. Is everyone busy crying into their books?
This is definitely going to be depressing for a while, everyone is suffering their own personal torment!But Mrs Hale, even sick, how awful to tell your daughter that her older brother was a much more attractive baby and everyone loved him… even if it’s true!
Mod
Yes! I was at the bus station when I was reading this... and I did start crying. In public. *sigh* In particular it was the moment John and Hannah were talking of Margaret's rejection. The combination of John's terribly wounded heart (his saying "No-one loves me - no-one cares for me, but you, mother"), and Mrs. Thornton's conflicting emotions... Oh, she feels his pain so keenly! I love the relationship the two of them have, but this scene makes me cry every single time, both in the series and in the novel. And then of course, there's everything that's going on with poor ill Mrs. Hale, and we learn that Bessy has died... *sniffles*
Louise wrote: "This is definitely going to be depressing for a while, everyone is suffering their own personal torment!But Mrs Hale, even sick, how awful to tell your daughter that her older brother was a much ..."
That broke my heart for poor Margaret. It tells us a lot about what Mrs. Hale was like as a mother and what kind of life M would have had if she had stayed in Helstone. I think her father would have tried to make up for her mother's lack of love a little bit.
The pass few days have not been good for Margaret at all have they.
"Was he bewitched by those beautiful eyes?...her arms had been round him, once -- if never again....he saw her in every dress, in every mood..." Oh poor Thornton has it bad!The thing that saves my regard for Margaret in this part of the book is realizing all the horrendous emotional pressures she is under: her mother is dying, she has summoned Fredrick, perhaps sealing his death warrant, and her father and mother are saying all the wrong things ('Fredrick was such a beautiful baby', and how the Admiralty hunts down mutineers).
While I admire Mr. Hale for following his conscience, I do not think the Hales are good parents. They make Margaret bear all the emotional baggage by herself without trying to comfort her. Her father is very kind and loving but he has his head in the clouds or in the sand and doesn't think about how his actions and words affect others. I wonder if Mrs. Hale would be so fond of Frederick if he had stayed home and followed in his father's footsteps? Maybe distance increases fondness?
Mod
I completely agree with you, Qnpoohbear. I think that Mr. Hale at least is a very loving parent, if not a particularly good one, and he looks upon his children with equal fondness, just as he treats all humanity with the same kindness and consideration. But Mrs. Hale saw Frederick as her most precious first-born child, her brave and honourable son that had suffered for the sake of doing what was right. I do believe that Frederick having stayed away certainly increased the love that she held for him, and the reason that he stayed away only added to that impression.
From the introduction to the Oxford World's Classics edition:From the beginning Margaret is considered a physical presence who excites male attention and is given a passionate, physical responsive body but can not find an expression for “this physical body life” because she’s controlled by sexual dictates for middle-class women of the time. She’s ashamed of growing into a woman, her awareness of her self and sexuality. The Thornton’s maid expresses Margaret’s fears about her public exhibition. Public performance for women was considered shameful, undignified and sexually tainted. She was seen embracing a man i.e. manifestation of sexuality. She’s disgusted with herself for her behavior. (xxix)
Thornton’s proposal has forced her to confront her own sexuality. She prefers to think of her act as noble and pure (i.e. maidenly).
Interesting Qnpoohbear. I think there is definitely something in the idea that she is ashamed of becoming a woman, she seems almost apologetic about it earlier. These three chapters are, without doubt, the saddest section of the whole book. Misery piles onto misery. Margaret's reaction to the proposal is very interesting, it's a very passionate response, and I think she knows this deep down but she's not ready to acknowledge it yet. Poor Thornton though! It's so touching that he has to go off to grieve the loss of their future, and provides a good contrast to Henry, who knew her better, and for far longer and was able to carry on and be faecetious. I know people are different and react to things differently but it also seems that he felt far more deeply for Margaret than her other potential suitor. And the way he did it was so sweet
'he thought over every time he had ever seen her one again, by way of finally forgetting her.'
While he is off dealing with his feelings I felt so bad for his mother, waiting all day for the axe to fall. I like that she acknowledges Margaret's good qualities, it gives me hope that one day, even despite her possessive love of her son, that she would be able to genuinely love Margaret as daughter in law. I feel bad for Mrs Thornton in this section. Her son has no idea how she feels and no idea of the anguish his absence would have given her. As a mother myself I would say that though I've always known that my mother loves me I didn't know how strong motherly love was until I felt it myself, it's an unequal love, and it should be. Mrs Thornton and her son have gone through tough times as well and he has come through them in a way that has drawn them very close and made her rightfully very proud of him
'her son, her pride, her property'. I feel for her so much.
And then he has to tell her, what a touching scene! I may have got something in my eye when I was reading, it watered very badly :)
Now, the fruit basket. I think he believes he's doing it solely for Mr and Mrs Hale, but let's be honest, a portion of the act is for Margaret. Does he want her to see him as softer in feeling or is it just simply that he wants her mother to have something to distract her from her illness. I love this line:
'As if he did not feel the consciousness of her presence all over, though his eyes had never rested on her!'
I can't find the words to put this properly, but their reaction to each other has a lot of physical manifestation, which I really like, he can 'feel' where she is etc.
Poor Margaret, she really needs something to cheer her up, and instead she gets the stupid, tactless Hales. Firstly she is accused of never thinking well of Thornton, then she wasn't as pretty a baby as her brother, then she gets a guilt trip from her mother, and then her father tells her that Frederick will be in mortal danger (but to be fair to Mr Hale he puts no blame on Margaret for her actions). The icing on top of the hideously-bad-day cake is news of poor Bessy. Her last words were very prosaic, bless her, but very touching.
I just previewed this comment and it is so long, sorry for that :(
Mod
In regard to Frederick being the favorite, I think it's wholly natural in that time period that the first-born son is adored. Girls knew they were second in importance. It certainly feels very unjust to our modern sensibilities, but that's the way it was. Even in this age, certainly, there remain societies that reverence the male heir and treat the daughters as little more than burdens or servants. Margaret seems to take it very well. (And I can't help but think that there is someone in the story who reveres her - as an individual, not just a female!)
The aftershocks of the rejection are quite powerful for both Margaret and John. Margaret is stunned, unable to shake off the exchange and the passion involved in it - quite a difference from the proposal from Henry!
And John! Oh my, I don't think you'll find a more stunned and heart-broken hero. The way Gaskell takes the time to describe his pain and his dazed wandering is unique and brilliant. Again, he is physically affected by the power of his emotions as he takes a few hours - a few hours when he has a million important things to do back at the mill! - to recover from his blow.
I take special note that he calls himself a fool for doing what he often told himself would be the most foolish thing to do! That means, to me, that he's been longing to make known his feelings - or ask her to marry him - for some time! And how endearing and unvain (OK, that's not a word, but I'm struggling to describe this) that despite his feeling a fool, he's not going to hate her for pride's sake - he can't and he reinforces to himself the reason he can't - that there's no one like Margaret and there will never be anyone like her. Gah!
Hannah is also stunned. Just when she had convinced herself Margaret would be ok....
It breaks my heart to hear him announce his rejection with the sentence: "no one loves me - no one cares for me but you, mother." Sob!
Margaret's heart flutters when he comes in the room the next day. Now it's interesting to watch how much SHE is physically affected by his presence. These two put an electric charge in the air now whenever they're in the same vicinity. It's almost comical that her parents don't feel the vibes these two give off. They're clueless.
You wonder how her family misses it! Her parents are absorbed in themselves, poor Margaret!
Trudy wrote: "Long comments are allowed. :)In regard to Frederick being the favorite, I think it's wholly natural in that time period that the first-born son is adored. Girls knew they were second in importance..."
This is what appears to be true but it wasn't universal. I read a series of diaries by a 19th c. New England mill owner. He boldly proclaimed the birth of his third daughter in large letters and wrote "May she be virtuous and happy." He loved his three daughters and doted on his granddaughter. He also took care of his workers with schools and fire safety, insurance, etc. so maybe he was unusually kind? He had a deep respect for women, I think, because his father died when he was young and his mother died before he was grown. His eldest sister was his surrogate mother.
Mod
I always liked to imagine that John would have loved to have a daughter first and foremost! :)
Thornton has a great respect for women as well. His mother was a woman of unusual strength of character and determination. Fanny is another story...
Mod
I can't help comparing him to Henry, who seems to have an ambition to be seen as clever and is content to have a ground position in a respectable and traditionally esteemed field. (Actually, I should give credit to Henry who actually has a job and likes to at least feel useful, whereas his brother Capt Lennox is happy to live a life of leisure whenever possible.)
I think John has his vanities, he enjoys offering the elaborate dinner his mother pulls off every year, but mostly he's a man of thought and action. He lives to be thinking and doing. He's not about wealth or the fame.
I think part of the reason he and his mother like having those elaborate dinners is as a pat on the back to themselves for how far they have come. I thought the passage relating to how he was viewed was very telling too, Trudy, he's just getting on with it, and he doesn't see it for the compliment it is. It hadn't occurred to me before but you're quite right, it contrasts with Henry, who weighs how people think of him in his actions.
Mod
And, yes, Henry's seems to be more typical in that he seems to always be on show to some degree, always aware and thinking about how he/things appear to others. (Fanny and even Hannah can act this way.) And Gaskell contrasts that type of behavior with how John acts. He isn't trying to impress anyone, he's not wasting his thoughts on what others may think, he learned long ago to move forward on his own and think for himself. He's not playing the vanity game like most other people. He IS what other men aspire to be, so he's not going around trying to look like something he's not. His honesty, wisdom, and lack of vain posturing - his utter genuineness - is what Margaret can't help being attracted to.
You are SO good at putting it into words! I really struggle to pin down my thoughts but you've captured them so well there, I completely agree with what you've said, it's one of the things I love best about Thornton, he is the genuine article, not style over substance (or style in lieu of substance like some of his fellow mill-owners).
I think Henry is very London. He has London values and he puts himself and his ambition first. Though he does value work over the leisured life of a gentleman, I think he's secretly a bit jealous that his brother can loaf around. He wants to advance in his career not because it's meaningful, but because of the recognition and power it will bring. Perhaps the next step after rising to the highest he can go is retirement. John is more middle-class. He values hard work and work ethic. He's unpretentious and works hard. That's what makes him so well respected. The two men represent the North vs. South theme of the novel.
Beautifully stated Trudy! It is one of the reasons that Thornton is such a remarkable character!Qnpoohbear, you make some excellent points. All in all, Henry is a decent guy, as he displays in the last few chapters of the novel. He, not unlike Margaret has been raised within the value system of the south, which defined a man by his lineage rather than by the man himself. This particular topic is covered beautifully in the conversation regarding 'gentleman vs man' between Thornton and Margaret at the Thornton dinner party.
However, one thing I think we need to keep in mind is that much of the "North & South" theme of this novel is mainly played out in the development of Margaret's character. (which might have been more clear if Gaskell had named the book as she originally planned, Margaret Hale). For example, Thornton's character has no issues with the south, one of his struggles lies in bridging the gap between he and his workers, which is not a north and south issue. As Trudy points out, even Fanny and Hannah struggle with the pretentious tendencies that were common in the south, so it was not just a southern trait. Thornton's self image was not formed by his middle class status.. but rather by the extraordinary man that Gaskell created him to be. He is a man of his own making!
You are correct however, that because this issue is so strong in Margaret's character arc and development, it does show throughout the book and therefore why Gaskell, at Dicken's urging, changed the name to North & South.
Mod
Are we sure that Thornton's character has no issues with the South? "I would rather be a man, toiling, suffering - nay, failing and successless - here, than lead a dull prosperous life in the old worn grooves of what you call more aristocratic society down in the South, with their slow careless days of ease. One may be clogged with honey and unable to rise and fly."
While Mr. Thornton's issues with the South are not as prominent or determined as Margaret's, I think it's pretty clear that he does still have certain problems with the South. As both you and Trudy pointed out, his own family has to struggle with pretentious tendencies, and as such he doesn't overly condemn the South for such things.
What he does condemn the southern people for is their slow carelessness, for his perceived idea of their lives which contain nothing to strive for, nothing of particular importance. He does not see the South as a place where a man can work hard for and rise to his rightful position in life, as a reward for that hard work. I also find it quite interesting and ironic how his statement that he would rather be "failing and successless" in the North than living in the South is rather severely tested - in a way - at the end of the novel.
LoriBear, you also said that one of Thornton's struggles "lies in bridging the gap between he and his workers, which is not a north and south issue." But to a certain extent, I think it is a north and south issue. The conversation between Mr. Thornton and the Hales shows clearly the difference in opinion over the treatment of workers, engendered by living in the North and South respectively. John believes that the workers need a strong hand to guide them and yet should not be interfered with outside their working hours. Margaret believes in keeping the workers informed and treating them with the utmost humanity, taking an interest in them as people beyond their working life.
In truth, by the end of the novel we see that the best way in which to relate with the workers in the mill is somewhere in between these two views. Mr. Thornton eventually comes to understand what Margaret was speaking of, and manages to mould some of his own attitudes to further the workers interests without losing his own integrity as a Master.
So while on the surface the issue of Thornton bridging the gap between him and his workers may not appear to be a "north and south" issue, it appears to me to be another facet of the differences between North & South - another facet of the story showing how completely Margaret and John become reconciled to the merits of the others opinion. The comparison between the North & South is so often present in the novel that I completely agree with the change in title. The "North & South" theme does not seem to me to be one-sided, and to have called the book "Margaret Hale" would have been to undermine Mr. Thornton's own journey throughout the story.
Some really good points Becca. I agree with you regarding all of them, but particularly the treatment of the workers, North v South. Margaret says that in the South there is much less conflict between the workers and employers, firstly because of the perishable nature of the product rules out industrial action, but also because the physical work exhausts the worker, not giving them sufficient energy to challenge their employer.
Mod
I think Margaret would be happy in Lark Rise to Candleford. She could have her idyllic country but also some passion and action. By the end of the century, the workers are challenging the upper classes. Brendan Coyle plays Robert Timmins, who is basically Higgins light. Brendan Coyle seems to like that sort of character. Bates is no meek and mild working class man either.
Mod
To me, the meeting of minds in the story is more tradition vs innovation. If the paternalistic viewpoint of keeping people in their positions and helping the poor with charity is representative of the South, then I see that Margaret represents the South to some degree. The Harley Street set don't give a whit about the poor. The urge to help the poor and struggling seem to be a specific tendency of the Hale family. Not sure it represents the South as a whole. But Margaret has a lot of "North" in her, too, if by that is meant a desire to break from the mold and be a free-thinking and -doing individual.
And Thornton and Higgins prove to have more compassion in them than would first seem. Is that meant to be "South?"
The story seems also to be compassion/heart juxtaposed against strict logic/mind.
I just wished Gaskell had found a different title. Dickens got to use "Little Dorrit" for his tome, when a great deal of it was about Arthur. Go figure.
Mod
However, I don't really believe that a title could ever encompass in a few words the many issues and complexities embodied in this novel. It follows a beautiful, blossoming love story and simultaneously undertakes an incisive social commentary, also dealing with manifold other ideas. The impression conveyed by the title "North & South" seems to me to be the best way to convey that one thread that is woven through most aspects of the novel - that contrast between and the coming together of Northern and Southern ideals. True, that's not everything the novel is about, and as you pointed out it can be difficult to figure out where to draw the line sometimes. But I still believe the title is right for the story, the most beautiful and concise way of expressing in a few words what the novel is about.
Besides, I've always thought that "North & South" was a beautifully-sounding title. I don't know why. :)
Becca wrote: "Are we sure that Thornton's character has no issues with the South? "I would rather be a man, toiling, suffering - nay, failing and successless - here, than lead a dull prosperous life in the old worn grooves of what you call more aristocratic society down in the South, with their slow careless days of ease. One may be clogged with honey and unable to rise and fly.""I guess this all comes down once again to perspective. My thoughts are just that, my perspective brought from years of studying this amazing story and it's characters. Webster's dictionary defines prejudice in this manner: an unfair feeling of dislike for a person or group because of race, sex, religion, profession, social status, etc.
For me, this is not found in Thornton's thoughts regarding the south. In fact, looking at his words that come just before the quote you shared, you can see a part of what leads him into that statement. 'It is no boast of mine,' replied Mr. Thornton; 'it is plain matter-of-fact. I won't deny that I am proud of belonging to a town—or perhaps I should rather say a district—the necessities of which give birth to such grandeur of conception." Thornton was speaking more of his passion for the world he was living in, the industrial world that inspired innovation. Basically, he just states that the "worn grooves" of life from the south and the past was not the life he desired. This is not prejudice but preference.
Margaret is actually quite different. Many of you, might say that Margaret's dislike of Thornton is not unfair but based a what she saw he was and represented. Yet when you look at the entire picture, Gaskell shows us long before Thornton enters the story that Margaret held "unfair feelings of dislike" for the middle class. (See the early chapters and her comments about the Gormans) Margaret's prejudice against Thornton is fed by not just one thing however... it's rather complex. This topic has been covered in detail in other chapter discussions, so I won't go over it again.
Again, though Thornton displayed strong differing opinions with the southern way of life, I don't feel that he held a prejudice against them. Hannah, however, held a very strong prejudice against the south.
I also have some thoughts to add concerning the opinions towards the poor. I will post that shortly.
Mod
Indeed, most discussions about novels such as North & South do - to a certain extent - come down to perspective. But you must forgive me; in my reply to Ceri I used the word "prejudice" somewhat carelessly, and in fact it was not quite the point we were debating. Rather we were discussing whether John Thornton had "issues" with the South, and whether the change in title to "North & South" was appropriate considering the many layers the novel has.
However, I am perfectly happy to divert slightly to the topic of prejudice, and again I apologise for my careless use of the word. I completely agree Mr. Thornton is not prejudiced towards the South, but it is very clear that he has certain problems with the way of life there. Furthermore, though prejudice may not be clearly present in his views or stated outright (as they are with his mother), it seems to me that his comments still hold a tinge of judgement and even disdain. A couple of examples of this include the "clogged with honey" quote that I brought up earlier, and also this:
" '...We have a wide commercial character to maintain, which makes us into the great pioneers of civilization.'
'It strikes me,' said Mr. Hale, smiling, 'that you might pioneer a little at home. They are a rough, heathenish set of fellows, these Milton men of yours.'
'They are that,' replied Mr. Thornton. 'Rose water surgery won't do for them.' "
I also find it interesting that when you examined the topic of prejudice, in the case of Mr. Thornton you looked at his views of the South, while in Margaret's case you looked at her views of Mr. Thornton himself. In light of that, I believe it is fair to say that neither Margaret nor John are prejudiced in their views against the North and South - merely blinkered. The two of them begin the story seeing only the drawbacks of the others society. But their judgements and assessments of these limitations are entirely fair.
Margaret's own prejudice is actually against "shoppy people" and against Mr. Thornton as the perceived embodiment of everything she dislikes about Northern society. Her feelings are rather complex, but in essence they are unfair. John treats her character fairly, and thus is not guilty of prejudice, while Margaret treats him unfairly, and as such can be accused of prejudice. But her prejudice is against John, not the North; her views on the harshness of Northern society are almost entirely reasonable.
Throughout the course of the story, Mr. Thornton and Margaret each come to appreciate the strengths in each other's places of origin. By the end of the novel they no longer maintain an antagonistic position to each other by focusing on the weaknesses and the negatives of the different regions. Though the fading of Margaret's prejudice does also play a part, her and John's romance shows the coming together of the best of the North and the South, a cooperation of views that will help them move forward together.
You said earlier that: "...this issue is so strong in Margaret's character arc and development, it does show throughout the book and therefore why Gaskell, at Dicken's urging, changed the name to North & South." I believe rather that Margaret's character arc and development is singular only insofar as she learns how wrong she was to be prejudiced against Mr. Thornton. In the reconciling of the North & South - and the part that plays in their romance - the characters of John and Margaret evolve in equal proportion to one another.
Because of this, the naming of "North & South" as such appears to me to be perfectly logical. As I said before, a short title cannot encompass every facet of such a complex and beautiful book. But the differences between the North and the South are issues that are continually evident throughout the novel, and therefore I again state my approval of Gaskell's choice of title.
Becca wrote: "Indeed, most discussions about novels such as North & South do - to a certain extent - come down to perspective. But you must forgive me; in my reply to Ceri I used the word "prejudice" somewhat carelessly...".No need to forgive, it happens to all of us. (use of a term that may carry a much stronger definition that we indented)
To keep with the topic that you were discussing, I hold a tender affection for the title "North & South", because it represents a beloved story. I don't dislike the title however I do understand why Trudy and some others struggle with it. The title lends to the notion that the heart of the story is based around the conflict between North and South, when as Trudy beautifully explained, its MUCH more complex than that.
There is another element of your comment Becca that I would love to respectfully respond to. It's not a major issue but its one that I feel many readers tend to lend too much emphasis on. (please understand that I am NOT implying that you are doing this) Often times, readers will label Thornton as a cold hearted master, in dire need of Margaret's more socialistic perspective. Though Margaret chooses to see him in this manner early in the story— it does not mean that it is what he was. Margaret does not see him clearly, for a lot of complex reasons I won't get into now. It is articulated very plainly that Margaret feels that Thornton is void of feeling. ...I don't feel quite so sure as you do of the existence of those feelings. Ch21 Yet Margaret's "feeling" on this matter is not a verification. Let's also be clear that Margaret lumps all masters in with Thornton.
Thornton was a good and fair master, who went beyond what his contemporaries did. He offered higher wages for this workers in comparison to other mills. He improved the working conditions for his workers and the environmental impact of his mill. Now, granted he did so only under the conviction that it was good business sense, but it never be discredited that it was also to the strong advantage to his workers. He even purchased better equipment to make the process better for himself and that of his workers. There is more that can be said here but I will leave it at that.
Thornton's real challenge did lay with his general opinion of his workers. This opinion, as he explains to Mr. Hale, was built from a frustration of seeing their lack of drive to take advantage of the opportunities available to them. He is guilty of forming his general view of them on this frustration and failing to see that they were not all same.
It was Margaret's influence that helped him expand his view. The evolution of Thornton's character settles on the factor that Margaret awakens his heart, something he had buried when his father had died so many years ago. You make the statement,the characters of John and Margaret evolve in equal proportion to one another. This is somewhat true, however, John's evolution is more internal, where Margaret's is both inward and outward. Margaret's change does not just involve her opinion of Thornton, she evolves to see the world around her more clearly. It changes with her views of the south and the old moral standards of society (see her trip to Helstone later in the book) And it also changes with her view of the workers and the union (see her conversations with Higgins after the strike.) Again, you are correct in that by the end of the book, much of the elements that stood between them have fallen away and so their evolution happens simultaneously. Yet I will state, that Margaret did have a farther road to travel.
To extend this thought to Margaret's prejudice, yes her prejudice does manifest itself to Thornton. I spoke of that directly because of that fact. Yet, her prejudice was more centrally focused on the middle class. To the general social standing of the day, "shoppy people" and the industrialists were part of the same social class. Translation, they 'work' for their income and are not men of leisure. Thornton takes the brunt of her prejudice, as well as her frustration and grief over being taken from her paradise. Though it may not appear to be so by some of my comments, my heart aches for Margaret during this time period. She has little other avenue for expressing these feelings. Thornton never discourages her outbursts, he always responds frankly but with gentleness and respect. (It was not considered ladylike to challenge a man as Margaret does!)
[This topic is so extensive I could continue but this comment is already long enough. Becca in the end, though, on occasion, I might see things a bit differently than you do, never doubt that I respect your perspective and always give it serious consideration.]
Right when John gets on the 'bus because it's too much effort to explain he didn't want the 'bus to stop is when I fall in love with him. And then he brings Mrs. Hale fruit and talks to himself. And I fall in love with Gaskell again right there for making characters R E A L and lovable and not over-acted, for want of a better word.
That line about him knowing her presence even without looking is as good as Colin Firth's melting look at Jennifer Ehle. I read it over and over and go gooey every time. Better even than those bracelets (!) were.
I would like to hear what others think of Bessy's death. It seems to me like Margaret tries to hide her feelings here - she is nearly blasé when told and really has to gird herself up to agree to go see the body. It is an impressive bravery and really seems to me she accepts adulthood and the responsibility to do the right thing at that moment, whereas in the past she has seen the right and found it easy to do, this time it is not easy and she realizes she has the strength all the same. The series lacks this change in Margaret, but series Margaret is more grown up than book Margaret and acts less like a good Victorian miss. But Bessy is far more likable in the series so I guess it is a toss-up as to which I like better here. Anyway, I feel dreadful that Bessy died alone.
Bessy's sister was with her I think, a neighbour fetched her when they realised how bad poor Bessy was.
Mod
First of all, I'm sorry to have taken so long to reply to this! I have just been busy and tired the last few days, so I've been unable to gather my thoughts well enough to contribute properly to this conversation. :)
Thank you for understanding - I really did use the word carelessly, I know!
Oh, I see! :) I'm glad that you hold the same affection for the title as I do, and I too can understand why some others have trouble with it. I only think it's a rather tough ask for a title to convey everything in such a complex novel. Trudy did explain it beautifully, indeed, I only thought that the title "North & South" represented many of the novel's complexities well enough to be admirable. :)
I have heard that view expressed sometimes too - I do not agree with it either. In my view Thornton is by no means cold hearted... only extremely focused. But to claim that he is devoid of feeling is completely and utterly unfair, even if to accuse some of the masters - with whom, as you say, Margaret places Mr. Thornton - of a lack of feeling is more or less a fair accusation.
I agree entirely with everything you said there - no matter the reasons for Thornton's actions, he was always a good and strong master, trying to make things easier for his workers and keep his mill running honestly and efficiently. True, he wasn't exactly communicative, but that was a common fault among the masters, and John was the only one to eventually work towards fixing that fault. The interesting thing is that he is able to move forward in communicating with his workers when he stops generalising the workers. That, as you mentioned, was his real challenge. He has experienced hardship and has risen from it to a position of power, and he is somewhat judgemental towards the workers as a group for not having the drive to do the same.
Coming into contact with people like Higgins and Margaret eventually lead him to change his view, to communicate with and help his workers without losing his integrity as a Master. As you said, it was largely Margaret's influence that first led him to try to do this.
Here we come to the issue of the evolution of these two characters - and we also appear to have reached an agreement! I concur with your statement about the evolution of their two characters; John's journey is largely internal (though not entirely, as shown by his adapted views of his own society), while Margaret's is both external and internal. I am grateful to you for saying I am correct in stating that their evolution happens simultaneously, and in turn I think you are equally correct in saying Margaret had further to travel.
So you see, we are in accord on essentially all points! I only orginally defended Mr. Thornton's evolution as a character in objection to your statement (and Trudy's), that the title "North & South" was justifiable because of this theme was present so strongly only in Margaret's character. I rather thought that their journeys were equally worthy of note and that both characters contributed a great deal to the naming of the novel.
(Message 23: "...because this issue is so strong in Margaret's character arc and development, it does show throughout the book and therefore why Gaskell, at Dicken's urging, changed the name to North & South.")
It is also very true that Margaret is generally prejudiced against the middle class "shoppy" people, and that Mr. Thornton bears the brunt of that prejudice. The reason why her prejudice comes to centre around him is a different and very involved discussion, but suffice it to say that from very early on in their relationship, John Thornton seemed to become an emotional and ideological catalyst for Margaret. You are very right however to say that you still feel sorry for Margaret during this time - as do I! She does have an awful lot to bear and I am fully aware of that, and it hurts to see her bearing so much so bravely. It's only that it's far too easy to be irritated with her over her unfair treatment of Mr. Thornton.
[It really is a very extensive topic, is it not! But I'm enjoying discussing it with you. :) Oh, do not worry, I know you still respected my opinion, just as I did yours! In any case, we do appear to have reached an agreement of some sorts in our views, I think. :)]
QNPoohBear wrote: "While I admire Mr. Hale for following his conscience, I do not think the Hales are good parents. They make Margaret bear all the emotional baggage by herself without trying to comfort her. Her fath..."Both Hales are quite contemptible as parents.
I think it's shameful the way that the two of have inverted the parent-child relationship. It's seems to me that they force Margaret into always bearing their burdens and shielding them.
(view spoiler)[Margaret reflects upon Mr. Thornton's proposal, somewhat frightened and confused by the sentiments he expressed. To calm herself she visits Bessy, who is worrying over her father now that the strike has been ended by the violence at Marlborough Mills. Mrs. Hale repines over the loss of her son, convincing Margaret to send a letter to Frederick. Meanwhile, John Thornton is experiencing intense pain upon such a resounding and painful rejection of his love. He tells his mother of the rejection, and the next day visits the Hales with a basket of fruit for Mrs. Hale, despite the events of the previous day. Margaret learns that her friend Bessy has died, and agrees to visit in order to support Mary, who explains that Bessy died minutes before their father returned home. (hide spoiler)]