The Obscure Reading Group discussion

Week #2 of discussion moves to the middle portion of The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, in which the short digression into the Tenant's diary becomes the entire section.

To avoid spoilers that might ruin the reading experience of others, be sure to confine all comments to events in Volumes I and II only.

Why do we go into a marriage thinking we can reform, or mold someone to our liking? Which is what Helen did. Helen made that mistake, and She realized it too late. I did admire her for telling Big Arther, that she loved him, but to be careful, because it could turn to hate.

Arther does not win any points in my book. Too self-centered, and an all around bounder. Helen rationalizes he does care for her in his own way, boy lady , I hope the blinders come off soon.

Her blinders seem to be slipping, but I haven’t finished these chapters yet.

The blinders come off alright. Anne Bronte, I think, has portrayed a wife and child caught up in a husbands possessiveness, neglect, selfishness and abuse very brilliantly. Domestic abuse (I read) can begin psychologically and this is what happens here. Nor was it easy for Helen to just walk out with child, divorce was expensive and not often granted ... and Arthur would very likely have been given custody of Arthur jr in any case. Helen is in a nasty bind, and the format of diary entries is a very effective way of conveying her increasing realisation of her situation.

In the previous week's discussion thread someone mentioned narcissism in describing Arthur which I think is spot on.

Yes, women were not allowed to own property, have custody of their children. I think it was The marriage Property Act 1880, 1882 revision. Up until then women lived under the coverture ,of spouse, or male relative. After Parliament passed these laws, they could buy, sell, inherit and keep any wages earned, plus rights for raising any child equally with her spouse.

These were not available to Helen. She is stuck so to speak, let’s see how Anne gets around this.


I am still struggling with the book. I almost want to chuck it. So I am a little behind in my reading . I need to read 10% more to catch up, so I will be back later.

I've put a comment on the different senses of "grooming" on the the previous thread, as it related to the discussion there.

Having finished this next section, we can now see how Helen has matured - and also how much power gentlemen had, and how ineffective the women were. And what a misnoma the term gentlemen is. Chapter 31 was staggering to find in a Victorian novel! Bravo Anne Brontë!

Annabella Wilmot appears to exert her power, in a devious manipulative fashion, but in fact even she is thwarted in what she most desires.

By the way, just an an example of how carefully naunced Anne Brontë's writing is ... did you spot the reference to Helen's pregnancy? (Blink and you'd miss it!)

It was strictly not respectable for Victorians to mention this. Even "an interesting condition" would be thought rather bold, although this may be used. In one novel by Charles Dickens, the only mention of the pregnancy of a disappearing character is when someone refers to "them clothes as has to be made"!

In The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, Helen's pregnancy is "outed" by Arthur Huntingdon in chapter 25, when he is persuading her - i.e. exerting moral pressure - not to go with him on one of his long jaunts:

"you must go home Helen ... remember your situation, dearest Helen; on your health, you know, depends the health, if not the life, of our future hope."

Early on in the first week's discussion, someone mentioned the Brontë family, specifically how the lone son was a failure compared to the three sisters.

I wonder if Anne's insight into alcoholism is based entirely on watching her brother. All the scenes with Arthur, Sr., and his "pals" reek of college-aged behavior now (though I suppose, even today, some "men" carry on this way with their drinking pals well past their late teens/early twenties).

Honestly. Reading the scenes where the men are drinking and giggling at each other's antics is difficult. I might be hypersensitive because I gave up alcohol altogether in 2004 and now, when I'm around heavy drinkers, I see things from an entirely different lens, starting with how LOUD they are and how funny they THINK they are (but aren't).

Is this Branwell's claim to fame? Insight for sister Anne?

These chapters were horrific in showing us Helen's growing awareness of the mistake she made in marrying Arthur. It builds slowly, but I think is realistic in her denial of what is right in front of her nose. Those wild house parties lasting weeks would have done me in. Plus the utter humiliation of having everyone (even her maid) in on the knowledge of the affair with Annabella, and doing their part to enable Arthur by keeping her occupied made me cringe for her. She and her son were owned by Arthur, so there was little she could do. I can understand Helen's fear and resentment of her son's admiration and love for his father, which would have been natural at his young age. I'm not sure why he wanted to marry her in the first place, but his need for control was the reason he wouldn't free her.
Bionic Jean, I did pick up on the veiled pregnancy reference in Chapter 25.
The last 4 years in the U.S. have left me with little patience for a narcissistic, selfish, cruel man who destroys everything in his path just because he can. I am hoping for Arthur's demise, but if that happens, it will have to be in the next section.

Ken, I was wondering about Branwell's being a role model for Anne's portrayal of Arthur. Certainly she wouldn't have been exposed to this type of behavior anywhere else.

Yes, it was. Good catch Ken (and Diane). Patrick Branwell Brontë was the model for Arthur Huntingdon. It's been acknowledged by various curators of the Brontë Parsonage museum, and elsewhere.

This novel, The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, was partly Anne Brontë's catharsis, trying to deal with what her adored brother had become, and partly a brilliant social comment, or "persuasive" novel. Of course there is nothing new in any of this behaviour, as you said before Diane, but Anne Brontë was incredibly brave, and one of the first to set it down in such a way for all to read.

I talked about Patrick Branwell Brontë in the pre-reading thread, Ken, (and posted a picture of the Brontë Parsonage Museum, which is a real treasure trove) but to reveal more would have been a spoiler at that point! And I have to say that he was only the starting point for Arthur Huntingdon ...

Patrick Branwell Brontë was a talented artist and author, much admired by all 3 sisters and his father. They considered him a genius! He wasn't a failure by any means - except in that he was damaged by not being able to cope with losing those he loved, so he took to drink.

As I recommended before The Infernal World of Branwell Brontë by Daphne du Maurier is a scholarly examination of his life and works, without just thinking of him in the context of the others. (Or you could just read my review to get the gist!)

Also, what's noticable is how much society has changed in its tolerance of "drinking behaviour". As you say Ken, it's miserable to be surrounded by a lot of drinkers who, in their intoxicated state, think everything is funny. So Lord Lowborough is much to be admired, in sticking to his resolution. We know he is an alcoholic, so it must have been a continual temptation for him.

But look at how impotent the females were, at this time, and in this society! They simply could not leave the parlour, but had to sit and wait. They were owned by the gentlemen, and could not express an opinion. Move forward a century, and well-bred females still would not drink in public places - perhaps the odd glass of wine at home (or secretly!) It's only from the later decades of the 20th century onwards, that women have been accepted in pubs - and even more recently on their own (without a male companion) - except for those of a dubious reputation.

Chapter 31 really was very poignant.

As a modern woman, albeit an older one, it's inconceivable to me that a woman could be so controlled by a man that she would have no options when things got bad. I guess that's why parents and guardians were so insistent about making a good marriage, there really was no way out. Although, after reading the first section, we know that Helen chose to flee and hide. I'm left wondering how Lawrence came into the picture. He's obviously instrumental in her getaway, but so far no mention of him in Helen's diary.

I would like to mention how well Brontë portrays Helen’s predicament-a woman with a child-trapped in a disastrous marriage with few options of escape. Times have changed, but I am aware that this entrapment still exists. How profoundly sad. Yet, Helen remains her own person, which is a great testament to women’s strength.

I am reminded of Charlotte Brontë’s famous quotation: “I am no bird; and no net ensnares me; I am a free human being with an independent will, which I now exert to leave you.” This is Helen, too.

Agreed with all the comments about entrapment. Although Arthur has not struck Helen physically (at least so far), the psychological abuse reminds us that there are more women than we even know stuck in abusive (of both varieties) relationships like this today -- some that want to get out and can't, some that DON'T want to get out because they still "hold up hope of changing him," and some that will be happy to tell you, black eye and all, that they are in love.

To that I can only say, Oh my God.

For me, the most shocking moment in the book--and it really occupies just a moment of reading--is the stark account of Hattersley physically abusing his wife (Helen's friend) Millicent. This passage made my blood run cold, when he grips her arm and she reminds him they are not at home, i.e., that his physical abuse can only be conducted in private. I imagine Anne Bronte witnessed a great deal of familial and marital dysfunction during her governess days, and of course, there was her brother's sad example, as well.

The book is so far ahead of its time in its frankness compared with the fiction of the era. I forgive Bronte the awkward structure of the book; she drew on known literary conventions to convey decidedly fresh and daring material.

Diane wrote: "Ken, I was wondering about Branwell's being a role model for Anne's portrayal of Arthur. Certainly she wouldn't have been exposed to this type of behavior anywhere else."

I think Huntington and Lowebough character’s are combined to give an accurate portrait of Bramwell.

Amy, I’m not finished with this section yet but I do agree with you. I have been noticing a feeling of contemporary sentiment in the words and thoughts Bronte gives Helen. And the section about the party at their house and Lowborough joining the ladies was so well done and so sad. His wife is “a piece of work”. It’s scary, and educational, to be reminded just how recently women gained any rights.

Welcome, Amy.

I cannot recall that Hattersley scene. Which chapter is it?

Ken, it's in Chapter XXXI, "Social Virtues," and yes, I agree, it was chilling.

This whole second section, for me, builds suspense; I haven't moved on into part 3 yet but am eager to learn how Helen gets from here to Wildfell Hall on her own with little Arthur.

I've just got to the end of part 2 and am enjoying it slightly more now. I am struggling to read large amounts at once because I find the writing quite bland; I think Ken previously said about "poetic" language and what that meant for him and I agreed with it: none of the lines here stop me and make me want to read them again. It's entirely dialogue and only small mentions here and there of movement, or else internal description. As my own preferences go, I prefer more poetic language and without it, everything else suffers a little in my mind.

Had Anne lived longer than she did, I have no doubt that some of the very interesting themes in this novel would come out again in a better novel, one that is more mature, and written far better.

I agree. The book is primarily “talking heads.”

Amy wrote: "that his physical abuse can only be conducted in private ..."

Yes, that certainly rang warning bells. And I agree that Anne Brontë was so ahead of her time. It is a great shame that she did not live to write more. What treasures we have missed out on.

Sara - I very much like that quotation. Thanks for sharing it :)

Carol - Yes, Patrick Branwell Brontë's sensitive side came out as Lord Lowborough. Great observation!

I found this part much more of a slog than the first part. I admire Anne's technical skill and love how she's portraying women's hardships. But I don't love her writing style. As Matthew said, it is on the bland side and as someone said earlier, overwritten. I forgive her all of that for what she is bringing to light here, but it is a bit of a chore to get through.

I remembered Jean's post about Branwell, so was thinking he was the inspiration for Arthur. But I know she loved her brother, so expected her to give Arthur some redeeming qualities. I said in the last section that I like all the characters. He is an exception!

Like Diane, I'm very curious about Lawrence and what his role will be. In spite of my struggles with the style, Anne's plotting and tension is excellent.

And Amy thanks for bringing up the Hattersley wife abuse. Chilling. Like Sandra said, I love how Anne has made Helen steadfast to her principles, and so strong in the face of all of this persecution. She's a remarkable character.

Sorry for the long post, but one last thing. My favorite line in this section was when Helen's having it out with Annabella, and says she doesn't want to look at her but she can have her husband for all she cares. Love that! "...you are welcome to him, if you like him, as far as I am concerned ..."

There is an old saying, I forget where it came from. "In any given situation, the one who cares the least wins". It sounds as though Arthur has finally killed Helen's love and she no longer cares what he does. However, there is still her son to consider.
Does anyone have any thoughts on Hargrave's love for Helen and his proposition to her? I can't decide whether he is a good guy or a bad guy.

Nick wrote: "The blinders come off alright. Anne Bronte, I think, has portrayed a wife and child caught up in a husbands possessiveness, neglect, selfishness and abuse very brilliantly. Domestic abuse (I read) ..."

I literally wrote 'narcissist' next to the lines in Chapter 18 where he said "if you don't value me, I must turn to somebody that will"

I am still not he early chapters of Volume II but I can smell where this is heading.

Yes, it is all rather predictable as far as the narrative goes.

Diane wrote: "There is an old saying, I forget where it came from. "In any given situation, the one who cares the least wins". It sounds as though Arthur has finally killed Helen's love and she no longer cares w..."

In line with Helen's moral code, Hargrave is a bad guy, but not the worst of the bunch. He is wrong to proposition her--which he does multiple times--knowing she is a married woman. Moreover, he proposes at one point that the two of them should have an affair to get back at Huntington. That's a moral non-starter, in Helen's book.

John posted in the other thread, for our first week's reading, a question about Gilbert. I started to answer him along the lines of now having read volume two, I'm seeing (maybe? am guessing) some foreshadowing of what's to become of his interest in Helen, based on what her experience was with her husband. Maybe she shared her journal with Gilbert as a way of telling him what she'd endured? a way of telling him indirectly to back off?

He's such a creep, behaves like her husband in some ways, so I certainly hope she doesn't encourage his attentions as we move forward.

Then I realized I shouldn't post any of that there, on that thread; it's a spoiler; John's just now starting to read the second section! Helen's only 18 and not yet married as the second volume opens! But I didn't want to lose that glimmer of an idea, so posting it here.

Now we have Lawrence, Hargrave, Huntingdon, and Gilbert all in play, potentially, for Helen's attention, as I move on into volume three. And she seems to just want to be left mostly alone to her relatively cloistered life with her painting and her son.

Thank goodness I wasn't born with great beauty. It seems to cause a lot of trouble.

Compared to others in town, Gilbert doesn't come off so bad. Yeah, punching out a rival is immature (and Gilbert talks about Fergus!), but it highlights the extent of his passion and just how slim the pickings are in this rural area.

Here's my complaint about Helen (please don't hurl brickbats): She's way too good to be true, almost to the point of being unbelievable.

Well Ken, she’s likely the idealized Anne, and far too advanced for her time too.

Amy, I agree with your assessment of Ralph Hattersley's behavior toward his wife, Milicent. He shows his propensity toward violence by grabbing her arms and insisting that she tell him why she has been crying. Bronte aptly calls him Milicent's, "tormenter."

If he openly abuses her in front of others, he probably does far worse in private. Ralph treats her as property that he owns. She will bend to his will by force if necessary.

In another section, Hattersley tells Helen he wishes Milicent would stand up to him once in a while. Yet, just a few pages earlier, when Milicent did try to stand up to him by walking out of the room, he refused to let her go unchallenged. I can only hope that Milicent escapes him in a later chapter but that's probably not going to happen. For Milicent, submissiveness has become a survival strategy.

I want to comment on another aspect of the novel--the relationship between Helen, Arthur, and little Arthur. There is a domestic scene where little Arthur is playing with his father's ring. Helen is seized with jealously that her son would prefer his father's affections to hers.

She tries to take little Arthur away justifying this action by saying to herself that his father is corrupting him. Somehow Helen feels little Arthur should not love his father as much as he loves his mother because Mr. Huntingdon did not "earn" his love.

In this passage, Helen treats love as though it were a transaction. She put all this effort into mothering little Arthur; therefore, he should love her more. She deserves it. She earned it, etc. While many readers may argue in her defense, that's not necessarily how love works. Children tend to love unconditionally whether their parents have "earned" it or not.

Little Arthur senses the friction between his parents. He knows if his mother says, "no," his father will indulge him and say, "yes." Bronte adeptly brings out how a child can be used as a pawn with each parent vying for the child's love and attention.

Ironically, Helen once loved her husband whether he "deserved" it or not. Perhaps little Arthur is behaving just like his mother. He refuses to *see* his father's imperfections and loves him unconditionally.

Ken wrote: "Compared to others in town, Gilbert doesn't come off so bad. Yeah, punching out a rival is immature (and Gilbert talks about Fergus!), but it highlights the extent of his passion and just how slim ..."

Haha, her husband said she was too religious and moral. I think Miss Goody Two shoes, will redeem herself, or maybe not. Just curious as to who in Anne’s life was like Helen.

I think I need to read more about the Bronte family.. I know a bit about Bramweell and the relationship of the sisters but I would like to know more. I think I have a bio on my kindle. Now to find it and see if it’s good.

I read some facts the other day and wanted to share: according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "cardboard" first appeared in this novel. I don't remember reading it, but that's quite the feat. On top of that, the term "tied to the apron strings" was also coined here, the quote from the novel goes:

"Even at his age, he ought not to be always tied to his mother’s apron string."

So a novel of new words, if nothing else, it seems.

I've always had the feeling divorce was impossible, but looked up a reference here--this is talking about Middlemarch, set in the 1830's, but this book wasn't long after. https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2018/02/mar...

At the time this novel is set, English law held that when a woman was married, she became, in a sense, her husband’s property. This common law doctrine was known as coverture, and allowed a married woman’s legal identity to be subsumed in her husband’s. William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Law of England, recognized husband and wife as one person in the law and that person was represented by the husband. Practically speaking, this meant a woman could not enter into a contract or write a valid will without her husband’s consent. A husband also gained rights to his wife’s property, both real and personal. Until the 1857 Matrimonial Causes Act, it was essentially impossible to obtain a divorce, no matter how bad the marriage or how cruel one’s husband. A couple could only be divorced by the passage of a private act through Parliament–remedy available only to the very wealthy.

I would imagine even an expensive divorce would have to be agreed on by the husband. I really felt this, for Helen, when she went to her husband and asked if he would release her, with or without her money.

Ken, the profanity and feeding little Arthur alcohol came up in a chapter after the middle section. It does explain Helen's protective behavior. There was also a scene where Arthur, Jr. is concerned that his father is "wicked" and will "go to hell." When parents can't work out their differences, it is the children that suffer the most.

Mea culpa. (Latin for "forehead slap") Had to return my copy to the library and I thought that note was Part II.

Sorry, Cindy. I deleted the remark as spoiler material and will return to it next week!

I haven't even read the third section yet, but I remember Helen saying something about the subjects of Ken's deleted remark, possibly to Gilbert, so I don't consider what he said to be a spoiler. Although I am sure we get a more complete version in the next section.

It's ok, Ken. I've finished the book and find myself not liking any of the characters much including Helen. (Except for the children who don't have a big role.)

I've just finished chapter 27 and I doubt I will ever catch up you.
I don't think though that Helen had ever been really in love with Arthur.
She was infatueted, but soon after marriage, when she discovered how he really was, she regretted her step.

Then she was married and tried to accept him, but it wasn't real love.
In "Wuthering Heights" Catherine loved Heathcliff being aware of his temper and that he was capable of cruelty.
Helen wasn't.

I think she tried to educate her child, as swe can see in the first chapters to became as his father should have been for her.

I'll start the last portion of the book today. Looking forward to getting some answers and getting back to the first scene of action before Helen's diaries.

Cindy wrote: "It's ok, Ken. I've finished the book and find myself not liking any of the characters much including Helen. (Except for the children who don't have a big role.)"

Yes, it's a particularly tricky book to keep track of what happens when, only because the "what" happens over and over again, but each time with a little more or a little less detail.

Not long into Section 2, every modern reader is suing Arthur for divorce and hating males of the species. I exaggerate, but....

Miriam wrote: "I think she tried to educate her child, as swe can see in the first chapters to became as his father should have been for her."

Yes, Miriam. Helen is laser focused on her child once she realizes all is lost with her husband. Admirable.

Not long into Section 2, every modern reader is suing Arthur for divorce and hating males of the species. I exaggerate, but....

Quite apt. I am on chapter 31.

Things I wonder about - the sense at which the aunt and uncle have abandoned Helena, one would have thought for more familial support, despite her rash decision? Just how much of a fortune did she possess for Arthur?

The structure is clunky and over-written. But we can still finds moments of talented writing in here.

It was interesting to see the drunken loutish behaviour give a distinct call out to opium, which was still prime substance for abuse in this era. (Think Thomas De Quincey)...Arthur's follies are a ..consequence of this imprudence... .

I like to enjoy my life at all sides and ends, which cannot be done by one that suffers himself to be the slave of a single propensity

the 'singe propensity' for Helena is her husband - she is shackled to this cursed man just as his own entourage are shackled to their material inebriations. The descriptive passages of Loughborough succumbing to his faults were engaging.

Somebody mentioned Middlemarch above, which I happen to be currently reading also. Plenty of overlap between Dorothea's decision to marry Mr Casaubon and Helena here with Arthur, though the male halves are different the naive young decision of immeasurable consequence is what stands out.

Perhaps it would be more engaging if, like in Middlemarch, although the match did not work, it does not paint Casaubon as the outright villain we see Huntingdon encompass.