The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

No questions this week. Open discussion of book in it’s entirety

I gave it 4 stars, rounded up from 3.5. Overall I enjoyed it. I think it was clear from several chapters ago that the book was not going to have a happy ending, so I didn't expect one.

I went ahead and finished last week. Turned out the myth with the melodramatic ending wasn't so far off.

Wow, Gaskell went full T. Hardy in this one! I expected, not a happy ending, but that Philip would return home, Sylvia would forgive him and they would patch together a life of raising Bella and supporting each other in their sorrows. I sometimes find it hard to accept the Victorian need to punish characters for one error, or, in Sylvia's case, never to allow a second chance at love if a mistake or a forced marriage occurs (I consider her marriage to Philip to have been forced in that she felt it was the only way she could support her mother and herself). I agreed with Lori's rating-I felt 3.5 stars as well.

I really enjoyed the setting and view of rural/seafaring life and learning about the whaling and the press gangs-what a hard life for such a large part of the population, and yet still with so many of the same joys and sorrows that are part of the universal human experience.

The book ended pretty much as expected. I realized this book was a tragedy and, as Ms. Gaskell called it her ‘saddest story,' I did not expect a happily ever after ending. However, despite anticipating it, I still had a few problems with the ending;
1) While I expect and enjoy the melodrama in some of the Victorian tales, this one seemed overly melodramatic. Some sad endings affect my heart, but the excess here elicited little sadness;
2) After finding the dialect unintrusive during the middle and latter stages of the book, I found the description of the threat to and saving of Bella difficult to visualize due to Kester’s dialect; so, at a key moment the dialect difficulty resurfaced to prevent my full appreciation of the scene depiction;
3) The deathbed scene went on longer than needed. This is in contrast to Gaskell’s more positive ending scene in North and South which was shorter than needed.

However, in two ways I could describe the ending as happily-ever-after:
1) Philip experiences being forgiven and cherished by Sylvia, albeit only for a few minutes, but it’s better than dying without experiencing it. Philip also dies knowing he saved the life of his child and will likely go to heaven a content man.
2) His child Bella gets sufficient funds by legacy to enable her to go to that heaven on earth, America. :)

Overall, I had difficulty with the dialect through the beginning of the book and would have rated it 2 stars at the one-third point. But, until the end scene, this difficulty went away, and I thought most of the plot developments during the latter two-thirds were quite interesting and well-thought out resulting in a more dramatic plot than most Gaskell novels. During this portion the book was operating at a 4-star level. However, despite the good plot, as a result of the dialect difficulty, slow beginning and the overly melodramatic ending, I rate the book as 3 stars. I am glad I read it.

Brian wrote: "While I expect and enjoy the melodrama in some of the Victorian tales, this one seemed overly melodramatic."

Yes, I agree with your assessment. The extreme melodrama, especially at the long deathbed scene but in a few other places as well, probably knocked off a full star for me.
I seem to remember reading that Victorians were suckers for deathbed scenes. I think in particular it was noted that the deathbed scene of (view spoiler)[Lucie's son (hide spoiler)] in A Tale of Two Cities went over very well with Victorian readers but tends to make modern readers roll their eyes.

I didn’t expect a happy ending, but also didn’t expect this ending. One of the themes throughout the book was death and resurrection.

I suppose redemption is another theme. Philip redeems himself twice over by saving Charley and Bella. The whole episode of that last rescue being offstage and recounted is a bad choice in my opinion. Forgiveness is another theme, Sylvia announces she will never forgive Philip and he never forgives himself.

Agree with the above, and I'm also glad that I read this. Gaskell continues as a favourite author, and having just checked I realize that I (and therefore we) have read quite a few of her novels.

I like Gaskell, an author I had not heard of until this century. This is the 6th novel of hers I've read, a few in this group. I think that this one, though overly melodramatic at times, had one of the more interesting plots of any of her works, maybe more so than even her best, North & South and Wives and Daughters.
However, where those two novels shine is in their extremely well-drawn characters and interpersonal relationships that really draw the reader into the story and into caring about the characters. Despite their dramatic plots, Sylvia's Lovers and Mary Barton do not have this quality and I felt more distance from their stories and characters.
I thought that Mr. Harrison's Confessions and Cranford had neither very interesting plots nor enticingly well-drawn characters and relationships. However, due to Gaskell's style and their charming setting, they were still pleasant reads, though their mundanity did make me put my planned read of My Lady Ludlow on hold.
I have a Kindle version of a 7th Gaskell, Ruth, on my Kindle (I-Pad) ready to read if an opening in my schedule for a Kindle read occurs. I may also try the novella Cousin Phyllis some day and finally get around to My Lady Ludlow.
Frances, I see you have read 8 Gaskell novels, so you truly "have read quite a few of her novels."

I agree with you, Brian, about North & South and Wives & Daughters having the best characterization. To me, Mary Barton seems too didactic, trying too hard to make its political points. North and South is much more nuanced about relations between owners and workers. Cranford is fun but a different style altogether. This group read Ruth a few years ago. You can find the discussion in the archives if you end up reading that and want to see what we thought. I think those are the only Gaskell books I have read, although I do have a copy of Cousin Phyllis.

I thought that the plot in this book was phenomenal and surrendered totally. The ending was perfect to me. We have followed a long and windy development of these characters and changed our opinion about them along the way, so I think Gaskell owed it to them to have a long goodbye and a thorough passage of absolution. I was deeply moved.

I have read quite a bit of Victorian melodrama these last two years and knew what to expect. The melodramas in the other books I read irritated me, all of them. Perhaps because I didn’t buy into the plot of these books in the first place? Or the characters in this book are more relatable to me and my life in specific? So different characters might influence us readers in different ways.

My favorite so far by Gaskell has been Mary Barton, probably because I tend to enjoy books that show injustices and class struggle. I haven't read North and South yet, though, so that one might be better. Wives and Daughters did have great characters, but I don't think the plot interested me as much and I don't remember much of it. (And I probably read it at a time when I was reading a lot of books rather quickly and they kind of blended together later.)

The story held my attention throughout and I had to find out how it ended. Indeed, it reminded me too of Hardy, especially The Mayor of Casterbridge. As a realistic portrayal of a bleak world with no second chances, I felt the resolution appropriate. If I’d been Philip, I expect I’d have stayed at the alms house and read Peregrine Pickle. One of Smollett’s heroes would have had no qualms about sending his rival in love to the devil, much less the navy. In that sense, Sylvia’s Lovers is a very Victorian take on the 18th century.

Aristotle specified in the Poetics that the best sort of tragic hero was an otherwise good man who committed a ‘hamartia’ which led to his downfall. I thought notion fits Philip quite well. Scholars argue about the meaning of ‘hamartia’, which in Greek can cover the whole range from pardonable mistakes to serious crimes. (In Jewish and Christian Greek used to translate the Hebrew word for ‘sin’ as well.) Whether Philip’s silence regarding Charley’s impressment was morally reprehensible may be open to question, but sufficiently ambiguous to give Philip grounds to quiet his conscience at the time. From the outcome though, it was definitely an error. Charley’s return destroyed his marriage. So as a tragedy, Sylvia’s Lovers works.

But I did not find the novel a classic. A true classic is universal; it should exemplify the values of its own time and the concerns of future generations too. Though these days the Riot Act has a certain contemporary relevance, I doubt the press gang was still an issue in Gaskell’s day, much less in ours. (I can image a 20th century version of the story set in an American college, where Sylvia’s a cheerleader, Philip a nerd, and Charley an athlete who gets drafted and sent to Vietnam.) I quite liked the regional dialect, just as I do with Robert Burns and Mark Twain, but then I’ve read Beowulf in the original and love the way Yorkshire preserves older English forms. It amuses me how contemporary English people ridicule us Yanks for saying ‘gotten’- notice how Yorkshire also features ‘getten’.

Bill wrote: "Indeed, it reminded me too of Hardy, especially The Mayor of Casterbridge..."

That's the one I kept thinking of too, as both stories involve (view spoiler)[ a man making a big mistake in judgement that comes back badly on him and the return of a person thought lost at sea. (hide spoiler)]

Bill wrote: "Aristotle specified in the Poetics that the best sort of tragic hero was an otherwise good man who committed a ‘hamartia’ which led to his downfall. I thought notion fits Philip quite well. Scholars argue about the meaning of ‘hamartia’, which in Greek can cover the whole range from pardonable mistakes to serious crimes. (In Jewish and Christian Greek used to translate the Hebrew word for ‘sin’ as well.) Whether Philip’s silence regarding Charley’s impressment was morally reprehensible may be open to question, but sufficiently ambiguous to give Philip grounds to quiet his conscience at the time. From the outcome though, it was definitely an error. Charley’s return destroyed his marriage. So as a tragedy, Sylvia’s Lovers works.."

Thanks, Bill, that is really interesting to learn, and exemplifies so much of why I found this novel so compelling. I liked and in many ways was rooting for Philip as he fought his losing battle to win Sylvia. His struggle to live with his one wrong deed was recreated in a small way in my struggle to reconcile how I felt about him overall with the sense of what a great wrong he had done to Sylvia and Charley (Charley's happy ending elsewhere notwithstanding).

Bill wrote: "But I did not find the novel a classic. A true classic is universal; it should exemplify the values of its own time and the concerns of future generations too...."

I like this definition of Classics. I was thinking about that earlier today, I looked at another GR reader's "SFF-classics" list and I complained to myself, [some of] those are older, but they're not Classics, and then, but how would I define one if I had to defend that?

Is Smollett reference the author Tobias Smollett? not familiar with him.

This is my second Gaskell after Wives and Daughters a few years ago. Next up for me would be North and South, and Ruth. Plenty of accompanying TV adaptations to go along with the former.

I'm giving it 3 stars, rounded down from 3.5. I did learn some things and it brought things to life, like the whaling town, country vs. town life, impression gangs, striving to improve oneself, etc.

I am in the "Philip did many things wrong not just one big thing" camp but he definitely redeemed himself. :-)

Bonnie wrote: "Is Smollett reference the author Tobias Smollett? not familiar with him."

I've read several Victorian novels, including Vanity Fair, David copperfield and Middlemarch, that reference a character reading a Smollett novel. Dickens was a big fan. Smollett's one of those 18th century humorous authors of picaresque novels, like Sterne and Fielding, but was Scottish.
I have used copies of The Expedition of Humphry Clinker and The Adventures of Roderick Random (though not The Adventures of Peregrine Pickle) and would hope to read one, probably Humphry C, in this group someday.

Bonnie wrote: "Next up for me would be North and South, and Ruth. Plenty of accompanying TV adaptations to go along with the former."

The miniseries of N&S, W&D and Cranford were all well done, and I watched all three before ever reading a Gaskell novel. The two seasons of Cranford were especially popular on U.S. TV, and served as my introduction to Gaskell in 2007.

I'd quite love to read Humphry Clinker with this group, but recalling that some of us found the behaviour of the characters in Burney's Evelina too coarse for our taste, I fear Smollett might be unacceptable.

Bill wrote: "I'd quite love to read Humphry Clinker with this group, but recalling that some of us found the behaviour of the characters in Burney's Evelina too coarse for our taste, I fear Smollett might be un..."

You can always add it our list in the books you want to read thread

Bill, I think I didn't quite enjoy the coarse characters in Evelina because I wasn't expecting them. I was expecting a Jane Austen-like novel of manners set in the landed upper class world. Also, the contrast in the behavior of the coarse characters to the aristocrats in the book was startling.
So my problem with Evelina's characters could be attributed in part to my mistaken preconceptions about the book, and perhaps in part to my sexism in not expecting such coarse characters from a female author.
In contrast, I would be entering a read of Humphry Clinker fully expecting coarse satirical characters. It still remains to be seen if I will enjoy their tale.

Bill wrote: "The story held my attention throughout and I had to find out how it ended. Indeed, it reminded me too of Hardy, especially The Mayor of Casterbridge. As a realistic portrayal of a bleak world with ..."

As far as Aristotle, I think he is the one who talked about tragedy involving hubris. The character has too much pride which leads to his downfall. Philip thought he had it made with his career and that Sylvia had to love him someday. Then he thought that he could get away with his dishonesty. He is reduced eventually to the lowest possible state.

This was a powerful, compelling novel which I do think resonates with society today and therefore should be regarded as a classic.

It is interesting that Elizabeth Gaskell dedicated this book to her husband .........with these words:-

‘this book is dedicated to my husband by her who best knows his value.’

At the time of publication she had been married 31 years. No doubt she was reflecting on the love that had kept them close throughout all those years. Not a ‘material love’ steeped in worldly aspirations, but spiritual, built on mutual regard and devotion.

The final chapters are full of poetry and symbolism, with a surge of emotion carried right to the end.

‘And in the stillness she heard the ceaseless waves lapping against the shelving shore.’

This metaphor which is repeated throughout the final chapter provides the background for Sylvia’s and Philip’s reconciliation. The ‘material love’ represented by ‘Captain Kinraid’ (and Philip’s carriage and fine dresses for Sylvia) is a here today, gone tomorrow type of love, a shallow base on which mutual respect and dedication does not thrive.
In the final reckoning, Philip and Sylvia reject materialism and ask for forgiveness, something only they can do for each other. How poignant it is that Philip’s last heroic deed involves saving his daughter, not long after Sylvia, thinking him a dangerous vagrant, advises that he should be sent away. The deliberate comparison between the comfortably off Sylvia and poverty stricken Philip only further emphasises how materialism often throws a shadow over compassion and spiritual love. How fitting that Hester, the woman whose spiritual love never wavered, should use her wealth to found homes for needy sailors and soldiers.

The black ribbon holding the coin that shall never be spent is again symbolic of the materialism that has been the downfall of both Sylvia and Philip. The two ribbons in the story are connected. The first one full of pretty pink roses bestowed on Sylvia by Philip, only for her to transfer it and her ‘material aspirations’ to the ‘celebrity’ that is the Specksioneer. It brings them both trouble and heartache. Finally the ribbon has become black, the coin made useless, and Sylvia will spend the rest of her life wearing it as a reminder of her mistakes.

The author could have created a happier ending, but it wouldn’t have been realistic. There are many people like Charley who sail through life becoming successful and wealthy without considering how many wrecks of lives may have been left in their wake.

A final slice of dialect before we say farewell to the North East of England.

’ An' she come to see thee?' said Kester, cocking his eye at Sylvia with the old shrewd look. 'That were summut queer, weren't it?' Sylvia reddened a good deal. 'He's too fause to have spoken to her on me, in t' old way,—as he used for t' speak to me. I were nought to her but Philip's wife.'

Fause means sly.

I rated the novel four stars.

Gaskell and her husband shared a commitment to improving society and they also seemed to be happy together, not a foregone conclusion at the time.

Gaskell had at least one book serialized in Dickens' magazine and when he was angry at her (I think for missing deadlines), he wrote "Mrs. Gaskell - if she were my wife, how I should beat her!" or something like that.

Robin P wrote: "Gaskell and her husband shared a commitment to improving society and they also seemed to be happy together, not a foregone conclusion at the time.

Gaskell had at least one book serialized in Dicke..."

Below is a short potted history of the Gaskells, taken from the Elizabeth Gaskell House site, which, in normal times, can be visited.

https://elizabethgaskellhouse.co.uk/a...


In 1832 Elizabeth married William Gaskell, the assistant minister at Cross Street Unitarian Chapel in Manchester. Their third home was a large house near open fields – 42 (now 84) Plymouth Grove. Here they grew flowers and vegetables, and kept a cow, pigs and poultry. The House was always bustling and the family entertained a stream of visitors, including many eminent people. Gaskell connections included such people as the Wedgwoods, the Darwins and the Nightingales, but girls from the Sunday School also came to the house regularly, as did William’s students and fellow clergy.
Elizabeth (known to her family as Lily)
Elizabeth’s diary and her many wonderful letters, show her as a conscientious mother, deeply concerned about her family. But she was also a prolific writer, a volunteer teacher and charity worker, a traveller (usually with a daughter but without William) and a very sociable woman. She would mix happily with people of all types and she used her experiences in her writing. She seems to have been a charming but independent-minded woman. Her enterprise is shown in the fact that she bought a large house in Hampshire without William’s knowledge, as a surprise present for him and as security for her daughters. She died there suddenly of heart failure on 12th November 1865, aged 55
William
William was born in Warrington in 1805, and went to Glasgow University at the age of 15. He was an exceptionally talented man with many interests, and co-founded the Unitarian College in Manchester as well as a journal which he edited. He taught at Owens College and in various working men’s clubs and institutes, and was active in the work of the Manchester and Salford Sanitary Association. He wrote hymns and poems, gave talks on poetry and Lancashire dialect, was chairman of the Portico Library and on the committee of Manchester Literary and Philosophical Association. He died in 1884, working to the end.

There was so much more to Elizabeth Gaskell’s life than her writing. The fact that her talented husband is largely forgotten in his own right only emphasises the importance of her work, which displays both their beliefs and philosophies, in this book and in others such as Mary Barton, Ruth and many of her short stories.

I just want to thank everybody for a great discussion.

Thank you too, Deborah, for taking us through it. I am so happy I read this book.

Thank you, Deborah! It was a good book with interesting discussions.

Yes, thanks very much to Deborah for leading us through and for all the comments that helped to enrich my reading of the novel even more.
Just a final piece of information. Although not always an indicator of quality, here is a list of the best sellers of 1863 (from the Victorian Web)
Henry Mayhew's London Labour and the London Poor
Margaret Oliphant's Salem Chapel
Elizabeth Gaskell's Sylvia's Lovers
George Eliot's Romola (serialised 1862-1863), il. Lord Leighton
Bulwer-Lytton's Caxtoniana
Harrison Ainsworth's Cardinal Pole

Cool!

Yes, thank you all

Lori wrote: "Thank you, Deborah! It was a good book with interesting discussions."

Yes it was. I can truly say that the discussion enhanced my enjoyment of the book. So thanks, Deborah, for your lead.
And thanks Trev too, for the information, opinions and enthusiasm. At times it felt like you were a champion for the book and, even if I wasn't 100% with you, your enthusiasm helped me appreciate the book more.
One more thing; I think Gaskell could take down Dickens. He looks like someone whose bark is worse than his bite. I'd certainly be rooting for her in any cage match.