The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Hello and welcome to the opening of our latest Trollope Project read.

In this section we meet a number of characters, and get a front row seat to their thoughts and misinterpretations of each others actions.

What do you think of the match between Louis Trevelyan and Emily Rowley? Colonel Osborne is clearly a troublemaker, but what do you think of how each of the spouses handles his presence in their lives?

Next we have Nora Rowley and Hugh Stanbury. What do you make of Nora, both in terms of her position within the Travelyan household, and in terms of her relationship with Hugh? What do you think of Miss Stanbury, and her plan of action with respect to her nephew and her niece?

Please share your thoughts on this first section, even if just to let us know that you are reading along with us.

The first couple of chapters seem to be written in quite a light, ironical style; for instance when we're told that 2 years into his marriage Louis "began to think that he should like to have his own way completely." But this light tone conceals a mass of potential trouble as his wife Emily is very clearly set on having her own way too. In fact the title could just as well be They Knew They Were Right since Emily and Louis are both intent on proving to each other just how right they are.

Louis actually seems to have more self-awareness than his wife - he knows he should approach her with gentle affection; but he cannot bear to admit he has been wrong, and his pride and annoyance mean that he berates her instead. Although Emily seems innocent of any romantic attachment to Osborne, she too is so intent on having her own way that she ignores the views of society at large.

Trollope is, I think, extremely good at portraying the way this couple circle round each other each looking for the advantage. In the battle between the two, Emily runs rings around Louis - as in Ch 6, where she gives way to Louis "so cunningly that the husband received none of the gratification which he had expected in her surrender."

Miss Stanbury is obviously another one who likes her own way and is always right (in her own eyes), so whoever she takes in will have to be docile and submissive. So far Dorothy seems to fit the bill, but I can't believe it will be all plain sailing...

I found hints of ominousness on the second page, where Louis states that he doesn't care that Emily comes with no money. (too good to be true?!)
"It is my idea that girls should not have fortunes,' said T., 'At any rate, I am quite sure than men should never look for money. (!!!) A man must be more comfortable and, I think, is likely to be more affectionate, when the money has belonged to himself."

Strong suggestion there of Louis's streak of independence and stubbornness. And possessiveness, both of wife and of the means the marriage rests upon.

Perhaps ominous, too, is that Louis is SO perfect. ....the Rowleys find, in London, "that they had lighted upon a pearl indeed. LT was a man of whom all people said all good things." . . . . now, this isn't a fairy tale, so such a perfect individual -- in everyone's opinions--seems guaranteed to turn up with major flaws.

Interesting, that it's not EMILY, the betrothed (though briefly) who sees him as perfection (as young women so often do of their intended); it's society, 'everyone else.'

I am finding this opening section much more nuanced than I had anticipated from the blurb-i had expected a blameless wife and an ogre for a husband. Instead, as Emma says, Louis seems to be the one more inclined to trying to mend fences or right the situation than Emily, who seems to enjoy needling him.

As well, Louis never seemed to cast aspersions or show doubts about his wife's faithfulness, just dislike for an acknowledged "home-wrecker" in Colonel Osborne.

Both Louis and Emily have shown that, even though they profess to love each other, their own pride and selfish opinions will always attempt to take precedence. Colonel Osborne may be an old friend of the family but he is no friend of Emily's. Trollope tells us that Osborne enjoys the company of pretty, young, married women and top of the list, 'for now,' is Emily. No doubt his attentions will be benign for the time being, but isn't he just laying the groundwork for being a future 'shoulder to cry on' should the opportunity arise?

Louis is right to warn Emily about Osborne but he does it in entirely the wrong way. Emily is angered and insulted by what she considers interference in her affairs and good judgement. If Loius had approached the situation more tactfully she could have been flattered by his concern. As newlyweds with a young baby they are both naive in terms of dealing with the potential pitfalls of London 'society' but neither seem to want to look for or accept advice. Sadly, it doesn't bode well for the future.

Hugh Stanbury has made a bold decision to forego the allowance from his aunt and live on his own meagre earnings as a journalist. If Hugh and Nora are to get together it seems that their lives as they are at present will have to change considerably. Is it he, or Loius (or some other character not yet introduced) that the title of the novel is referring to?

Trev wrote: "If Loius had approached the situation more tactfully she could have been flattered by his concern. As newlyweds with a young baby they are both naive in terms of dealing with the potential pitfalls of London 'society' ..."

Yes, that's a good point. Louis and Emily are both young and can have little experience of the world. They are also naive about marriage and the compromises that it entails. And as Trev says, both think that they can solve their problems without taking advice.

I feel like Louis is presented more sympathetically than Emily. She seems to be dishonest with herself--the narrator tells us that far from being such an intimate old family friend, she hadn't seen him since she was one or two years old.....Her actions seem to stem solely from pride, fierce determination to have her own way or to not be told what to do. Louis at least has a principle in mind, whatever we moderns may think of it. Anyway, that's what I'm feeling this far into the novel. Perhaps Emily's behavior will be portrayed with more justification as the novel progresses.

I agree, Margaret, I don't think Emily is being honest with herself and with her husband in calling Colonel Osborn an old friend, and she is clearly trying to embarrass her husband by her actions.

We kind of have a hint that this is not the first time Louis has been imperious to Emily, and Trollope hasn't put the reader in her head as much as he has with Louis yet. Looking forward to see what's coming next. I wonder how Dorothy will get on with her aunt.

I'm not sure about the customs of visiting and receiving visits in Victorian England, but couldn't Louis have solved the Osborne problem by staying in the room during the visits? It's his house, so wouldn't that have been natural? If Osborne's intentions became dishonorable, he would stop coming since the husband was always in the way.
He didn't seem to have overtly dishonorable intentions toward her before, but now, with the way Emily behaved toward him outside and his reaction, it seems like he might be tempted to "play a game" with them.

Lori wrote: "I'm not sure about the customs of visiting and receiving visits in Victorian England, but couldn't Louis have solved the Osborne problem by staying in the room during the visits? It's his house, so..."

I wondered the same, as he was often home, but suppose that the visiting was a more female pastime and he would have appeared to be "watching" his wife.

I also wondered that no one felt that, if Colonel Osborne was being so paternal and protective of his old friend's child, that he wasn't equally interested in Nora Rowley-why were his visits and letters always specifically for Emily? Which suggests he enjoyed flirtations with young married women partly because he wasn't going to get trapped into marrying them!

Frances wrote: "Lori wrote: "I'm not sure about the customs of visiting and receiving visits in Victorian England, but couldn't Louis have solved the Osborne problem by staying in the room during the visits? It's ..."

Colonel Osborne's reaction to Emily's snub in the gardens after his 'provocative' whisperings to her sums up his 'paternal instincts.' It told me that he would use all his experience of similar events in his past to further his own dalliances with Emily. He knew things had got to a stage where he could enjoy himself even more. What a shame Louis couldn't step in and take advantage of the situation instead of, naively, becoming acutely embarrassed by the whole scene.

It is clever how Emily starts by saying How can you, family friend, older than our father! Then Trollope paints in more details:

Mrs. Trevelyan had described Colonel Osborne truly as far as words went, in saying that he had known her since she was a baby, and that he was an older man than her father. Colonel Osborne's age exceeded her father's by about a month, and as he was now past fifty, he might be considered perhaps, in that respect, to be a safe friend for a young married woman. But he was in every respect a man very different from Sir Marmaduke. Sir Marmaduke, blessed and at the same time burdened as he was with a wife and eight daughters, and condemned as he had been to pass a large portion of his life within the tropics, had become at fifty what many people call quite a middle-aged man. That is to say, he was one from whom the effervescence and elasticity and salt of youth had altogether passed away. He was fat and slow, thinking much of his wife and eight daughters, thinking much also of his dinner. Now Colonel Osborne was a bachelor...

And "Known us since we were babies!" turns out to be, ~he visited once twenty years ago so the last time we met him I was three and Nora was one~