The Old Curiosity Club discussion

“‘[…] Isabel has never given me the slightest cause for displeasure. I doubt whether there is a better creature in the world living than Isabel. She deserves everything. But as you are the male heir, I think that you should follow me in the property — unless you show yourself unworthy.’”
-Indefer Jones to Cousin Henry

Welcome, dear Curiosities, to the first weekly discussion of Cousin Henry. Unlike in our Dickens discussions, I am not going to summarize the events of the novel in detail here but will concentrate on either giving some background information or suggesting some questions and discussion points. With regard to the latter, you are, of course, invited to come up with your own suggestions.

Trollope jumps right into the action in this rather short novel by giving us the conflict of Squire Indefer Jones, who would actually like to bequeath his property to his niece Isabel Brodrick because of the personal merits he sees her endowed with. On the other hand, however, he feels that the estate should go to his nephew Henry Jones, son to his brother Henry, because it has always come to a male heir, a Jones, and Uncle Indefer had rather keep up with the Joneses, if you pardon my pun.

The background of this seems to be the legal practice of entailment that was typical of the Victorian era, a practice that Trollope’s contemporary readers were undoubtedly familiar with. Since one cannot assume that modern readers have the same knowledge, I’d like to give some layman information on it: To entail an estate meant that a person held a property as a life estate, i.e. he – usually it was a “he” – could use it in any way he wanted, live off rents that arouse out of it and so on, but he could not sell it, neither in its entirety or in parts, or settle it on whomever he wanted. The heir apparent, usually one of his sons, or, if he was childless, one of the sons of the next of his brothers, got a life interest “in remainder”, i.e. he could be sure to follow into the life estate on the present life estate holder’s death.

This was common practice in Victorian England, unlike in some parts of the continent, where an estate used to be divided amongst the testator’s children, and it had the positive effect that an estate would remain intact over generations and passed down in the family in its entirety, whereas on the continent, estates became smaller in the course of time.

However, an entailment could be barred if the life estate holder (father) and the estate holder in remainder (son) agreed to do so, and then the father could sell parts of the estate. It appears that this has been the case with Uncle Indefer and his own father, who sold some parts of the land appertaining to the estate – because we learn that Indefer Jones saved some money, originally with the idea of having Isabel benefit from it, but then spent it in order to repurchase the land his father parted with. At the beginning of the story, and the end of Indefer’s life, the estate seems to be complete but no longer entailed, and Uncle Indefer, who has spent the money intended for Isabel to complete the estate, could well bequeath it to his niece Isabel, if only he did not regard it as his duty to choose a male relative as a successor.

I hope I got it right and neither Kenge & Carboy nor Dodson & Fogg can find fault with my explanation here.

Now over to my questions for this week: We are clearly not supposed to like Cousin Henry at all but to like Isabel instead. What is your opinion on Isabel? I have two things that bug me about her, thing number one being her way of dealing with Mr. Owen, who proposed to her. If she cannot accept his offer as the heiress to the Jones estate, she could surely do so under the seemingly new circumstances of no longer being the heiress, couldn’t she? To me it seems as though it were only her pride, her tendency to worry what others might think of her, that makes her forestall a change of mind. I’d then ask myself what is stronger – her pride or her love for Owen.

The second thing that made me doubt about Isabel is her preoccupation with the old man’s testament shortly after he died. One would suppose that she’d be mourning him, and that she would feel sad and bereft but instead she gives a lot of thought to the testament. Her uncle’s dying words, “It’s all right. It is done” could mean a lot of things. For instance, they could refer to the life the uncle lived and his readiness to let go now that his favourite relative is at his deathbed. But nay, Isabel thinks that these words must refer to a change of the will to her cousin’s benefit – even before she learns from the housekeeper about other evidence to the effect of the existence of such a will. For a woman who repeatedly protests that she is not after the estate, she seems to think quite a lot of that will, doesn’t she?

I’d be happy to read about your first reactions and hope for a fruitful and lively discussion.

Tristram wrote: "I’d be happy to read about your first reactions and hope for a fruitful and lively discussion."

The following falls under 'first reaction', but perhaps not the 'fruitful and lively' categories.

Early on, I found the huge chunks of 'info dumping' interspersed between, what I considered, stilted dialogue, tedious to read. I have to admit, I was tired and reading late at night, so this may be an unfair assessment. I became more invested in the story once Uncle Indefer had died, which is where, I felt, the shape of a story started to form. Now the scene is set, perhaps I will be able to enjoy it more.

Tristram wrote: "What is your opinion on Isabel?"

It does seem we are getting conflicting information regarding Isabel. Whilst I understood her reason for not wanting to marry Cousin Henry (and thus losing the inheritance to the estate) because she didn't love him, I didn't, at first, quite understand how this same person, who seemed to live in accordance with her moral principles, refused an offer of marriage to a person she loved (because she thought she was about to inherit the estate). Whilst that may seem a contradiction to modern sensibilities, considering the context of the time in which the story is set, we must take into account that she considered herself bound to regard such an offer in reference to her future duties and to the obedience which she owed to her uncle.

Tristram wrote: "Her uncle’s dying words, “It’s all right. It is done” could mean a lot of things. For instance, they could refer to the life the uncle lived and his readiness to let go now that his favourite relative is at his deathbed. But nay, Isabel thinks that these words must refer to a change of the will to her cousin’s benefit."

I had put Isabel's assumption down to the fact that her uncle was obsessed with the inheritance dilemma. It seemed to be all he thought about towards the end, so the will was naturally Isabel's first thought upon hearing his dying words. I like the doubt you have raised concerning Isabel, it encourages me to be more alert in my reading henceforth.

I have two chapters still to read, but from reading the first four my impression is Isabel is a martyr. She's throws herself upon the cross every chance she gets.

Her uncle has screwed her over royally. He took on the duties of father to Isabel long ago, yet he reneges on his promise to give the property to her, giving it to his nephew instead. He's leaving her without anything. She made decisions based on his promise. Yet she's very noble about it all, determined to do the right thing, the right thing being to sacrifice herself to her uncle's wishes, even though he's acting against her interests. A sacrifice.

One decision she made was to turn down the clergyman's marriage proposal because she thought she owed it to her uncle not to marry a man he wouldn't approve of in return for receiving the property. Another sacrifice. Note that she never made such a promise to her uncle, yet she acts like receiving the property was contingent on not marrying the clergyman. She's made it up in her head. Another sacrifice.

Now that she is no longer getting the property and no longer feels beholding to her uncle, she still won't marry the clergyman because he might think she's settling for him because she needs the security a marriage to him would provide. Note that, again, this is all in her head. The clergyman understands the situation perfectly well and is still anxious to marry her. Another sacrifice.

My first impression is she's a martyr.

Well, I went back and looked, and the narrator calls Isabel a martyr. So I'm not being as smart as I think. But I agree with the narrator. The things Isabel does support such a description.

Xan wrote: "Her uncle has screwed her over royally. He took on the duties of father to Isabel long ago, yet he reneges on his promise to give the property to her, giving it to his nephew instead."

Yes, a martyr complex might explain Isabel's behaviour. Even though the uncle wasn't obliged to support Isabel, I felt he had a moral obligation to after he reassured her she'd be provided for. Not only did he change his mind about the estate, he even spent the money put aside for her, to buy back some land. Land which will also go to Henry. She's almost too good in the acceptance of her lot.

Yup!

I think that Isabel is utterly concerned with what other people might think about her, e.g. when it comes to her treatment of Mr. Owen and his advances. She is genuinely in love with him but could not bear the thought of anyone, not necessarily him, thinking that now she is no longer an heiress, she readily accepts his marriage offer in order to provide for herself. One should assume that as long as Mr. Owen himself is not of this opinion, other people's thought might not matter too much, but no, Isabel's pride will not hear of such a thing.

As to Uncle Indefer, his course of action is definitely deplorable: He is clearly more bound to his idea of the property and of restoring it to its old splendour than to the woman whom he has given reason to think that he will provide for her. Once he had set aside a certain amount of money for her future, he should never have touched it in order to repurchase those acres. Strangely, up to now, I have not come across any passage in which the narrator calls this decision into question.

Tristram wrote: "Once he had set aside a certain amount of money for her future, he should never have touched it in order to repurchase those acres. Strangely, up to now, I have not come across any passage in which the narrator calls this decision into question."

And yet Cousin Henry is held in 'disgust' due to a rocky adolescence, having since become a steady young man of business. You would think, coming from a troubled background, some compassion would be shown to the young man. Cousin Henry's father had been altogether odious to his brother Indefer. One wonders whether Uncle Indefer's penchant for handing down unto the male heir extends to animosity, too!

I think Isabel is pretty vapid. She is most concerned with what others think. She is also the martyr. I realize that I am supposed to like her but I do not. She has no money, no assets, no anything but turns down all offers. And she says she cannot go back to Daddy. There is an old saying that my family used to use, "cut off her nose to spite her face." I never thought about it much but while reading this, it came to me. Disfigure yourself, maim yourself in order to spite yourself. ???peace, janz

Entailment and entitlement, moral and social expectations, and duty and desire. Trollope is establishing these conflicting ideas in the early chapters of ‘Cousin Henry.’ In many ways, Trollope is a much more modern/forward thinking author than many of his contemporaries.

Isabel can be seem as being too timid. On the other hand, her stance regarding her social and financial situation I find quite refreshing. She is willing to accept the antiquated precedent of entailment rather than expect special consideration because her uncle likes her best. She is certainly not a gold-digger or hypocrite towards anyone. Her conflict between her duty and desire is a central concern of the opening chapters.

Trollope’s development of her character is certainly more modern than the fate-destined Tess of Thomas Hardy. In this novel the reader is given much more insight and information into each character through their dialogue than we have seen in such authors as Dickens.

I think Trollope is one of the earliest novelists who provides both detailed motivation and psychological insight into his characters.

Peter wrote: "In many ways, Trollope is a much more modern/forward thinking author than many of his contemporaries."

As Richard Evans pointed out in The Pursuit of Power. Europe 1815-1914, Henry James once paid Trollope what Evans called "a rather backhanded compliment" by saying that Trollope's "inestimable merit was a complete appreciation of the usual". That sounds as though Trollope was boring but, of course, he isn't even though he spurns playing for dramatic effect and working with larger-than-life villains like Wackford Squeers or Steerforth. Instead, he gives a very realistic picture both of Victorian society and of the human psyche, and his heroes and heroines are usually more believable than Dickens's. I think that such a strait-laced young woman like Isabel is absolutely plausible.

In some ways, Trollope's way of telling a story reminds me of Thackeray's - minus the cynicism.

If I'd picked this up not knowing when it was written, I would have thought it was Edwardian rather than Victorian. I'm not sure why. Perhaps because I find it easier reading than some other Victorian novels, without lots of long descriptive passages, for example. Or perhaps because of Isabel's seeming lack of concern about her fate once she not longer has Llanfeare - quite unlike, say, the Dashwoods. It just seems more modern.

So far, it's proving challenging for me to connect with any of the characters. I don't particularly like or dislike any of them (despite Trollope's or the narrator's intentions). And I'm not sure what it is about Henry that everyone finds so "odious" - a word that's used repeatedly (and to his face! Rude!) in describing him, other than being obsequious, which, under the circumstances, seems like a natural response to the awful reception he's getting from his relatives. I think Jane hit the nail on the head when she said, "One wonders whether Uncle Indefer's penchant for handing down unto the male heir extends to animosity, too!" Having all these people against him without showing cause is putting me, for now, on Team Henry. Perhaps that will change over time, e.g. if we learn he was in the library searching for the will with the intent on destroying it.

As for Isabel, I, too, am having trouble understanding her actions towards Mr. Owen. We're told there is love between them, but I don't see it. Do you? Trollope failed to show any passion or depth in their relationship, and the narrator thought it not important to delve into Owen's thoughts. This lack of care in portraying their courtship, along with the missing will, make me think that Isabel is not leaving Llanfeare. What role, if any, will Mr. Owen play as the story progresses? The same question can be asked of Isabel's father and his second family.

Tristram wrote: "his heroes and heroines are usually more believable than Dickens's"

I agree that they're much more believable, but Trollope, thus far, does not seem to have the knack Dickens does for making his characters interesting and memorable. I admit, I miss the quirky characteristic and vivid descriptions Dickens gives his characters. The housekeeper, for example, is just the housekeeper. Is she old? Young? Strict? Does she walk with a limp, or have heavy eyebrows? Even with Isabel, we're offered little, visually, and she's so worried about protocol that we've really been shown nothing else about her personality. I'm having to rely almost solely on my imagination, God forbid!

Everyone is so hard on Isabel! I like her. I'm trying to work out why I like her, since I also agree she is being ridiculous when it comes to Mr. Owen, and unnecessarily rude to Cousin Henry. It would be soooooo easy for her just to keep with 'I'm not in love with you'--why ramp it up to 'I find you odious'? Did she witness him killing a puppy in their childhood or something? So weird.

But I still like her, I think because of the introductory discussion about conscience. Isabel has great boundaries! I like that she puts conscience first, and understands she and her uncle differ on the question of conscience, and that each of them must follow what they think best--and then she moves on.

Everyone's saying she's mostly worried about what other people will think, and I agree there's a lot of that going on, both with Mr. Owen and with her carefulness about how she looks and what she says after her uncle's death and before the reading of the will. But she also knows when to back off, and does so wholeheartedly.

(Including she was about to back off on the Owen proposal and accept it, when--DRAMA--she was interrupted by the news about her dying uncle.)

What does everyone think Cousin Henry did with the will? Clearly he has sold his soul (he wishes he'd never come to this place!!! ah, woe is me!!!!!)--but the will was in a locked drawer, or at least everyone thought it was in a locked drawer. Maybe he stole it before his uncle died?

Also--more on Isabel's side: of course she cares what people think! Look at how vulnerable she is: dead mother, father who leaves her to the mercies of a stepmother who makes it clear she's second-class in her own home, uncle who professes to love her but pressures her to marry against her will and can't even get his finances together enough to leave her a little money when she doesn't.

Of course she's going to guard her pride and reputation. And of course her heart is going to leap into her throat when she thinks her uncle might have come through for her after all and chosen her over his own family pride.

I don't mean to be hard on Isabel. I'm just having trouble connecting with her. He sense of duty is admirable, and her predicament with Owen is lamentable, though I don't quite understand it. And I envy her self- control and circumspection! But Henry, too, is being asked to marry someone he doesn't love, and who clearly loathes him. Until he shows me his reprehensible side, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Mary Lou wrote: "But Henry, too, is being asked to marry someone he doesn't love, and who clearly loathes him."

That's a good point, and both uncle and niece are very rude to him. I can even feel sorry for Henry for the lack of social know-how that leaves him flopping so badly in his efforts to impress his uncle.

But I guess we can hold against him that he is willing to do anything to get an inheritance, including marrying someone he is indifferent to, and that he assumes Isabel will behave the way he would behave himself, which is badly:

Why should Isabel have given him disinterested advice in opposition to her own prospects? Must not Isabel's feeling about the property be the same as his own?

Doesn't this place Henry himself among those who would condemn him?

I was quite ludicrously impressed with Henry's listless and casual marriage proposal, something along the lines of, "Say, why shouldn't we get married?" How hardened must a woman's heart be not to melt in the glowing light of such romantic warmth, and how flattered would any woman feel to get such a proposal!? That proposal scene was, up to now, the only scene which made me laugh. Henry, you surely know how to play your cards, you do have a way with women!

And yes, Julie, he is distrustful of Isabel's advice, which shows that he, in her situation, would not think twice of giving poisoned advice. I also remember that in the first or second chapter the narrator mentions that Henry was once invited to the place years ago, as a teenager, and left a bad impression because of his tendency to dishonesty. Nothing more was said, but the reader is given the hint that Henry is somewhat shifty.

As to Isabel, I realize that I am being hard on her, and this is for two reasons. First, being the moderator of these threads on CH, I consider it my duty to play the devil's advocate from time to time and to kick against the pricks, thus providing fodder for discussion. It seems to work ;-) And secondly, I can't really say that I like her. Not only do I fail to connect with her since she is so cold and self-possessed even in things that ought to move her, but I also dislike her for being so rude and condescending to a man she has not seen in years. I agree with you who have said that instead of calling Henry odious, she could simply have said that a marriage is out of questions because there is no love. But no, she places herself on the moral high ground.

Mary Lou wrote: "I agree that they're much more believable, but Trollope, thus far, does not seem to have the knack Dickens does for making his characters interesting and memorable. I admit, I miss the quirky characteristic and vivid descriptions Dickens gives his characters. The housekeeper, for example, is just the housekeeper. Is she old? Young? Strict? Does she walk with a limp, or have heavy eyebrows? Even with Isabel, we're offered little, visually, and she's so worried about protocol that we've really been shown nothing else about her personality. I'm having to rely almost solely on my imagination, God forbid!"

Yes, Trollope's descriptions and characters are rather pale. We can all imagine what Dickens would have made out of the side characters. His Mrs. Griffith would probably have had a limp, and a penchant for liquor, maybe, his Mr. Apjohn would have been rotund, ruddy and benevolent, with a thundering voice, and very intimidating to Henry, and his Dr. Powell might have been a wizened, short-sighted man, playfully misanthropic, spicing his language with Latin quotations and given to bickering with Mr. Apjohn. Nobody could do these things better than Dickens!

Tristram wrote: "Mary Lou wrote: "I agree that they're much more believable, but Trollope, thus far, does not seem to have the knack Dickens does for making his characters interesting and memorable. I admit, I miss..."

We might have to rename our reading group "Not as Good as Dickens." ;)

Julie -- I agree. "Not as good" is accurate. I think history has demonstrated that. Most folks who even go to high school know of Dickens - maybe can't remember the story but can remember a person. My brother (71 years old) can always remember Great Expectations and the characters. Trollope ?? who?what? a fox trot? a pony trot? peace, janz

We are six Chapters into a novel which I think can be fairly classified as one of Trollope’s minor works. While Dickens is generally seen as being a great novelist- a thought I fully endorse - it may be premature to bury Trollope before we praise him.

Trollope will not give us the vibrant exuberance of Dickens’s characters. We will not encounter the violent excesses of the weather Dickens gives his readers nor will we find such a profound parade of characters which greeted us in a Dickens novel.

What will be found, I think, is a novelist who uses dialogue in a wonderful, subtle, and insightful manner. His characters may well be more rounded, more reflective of themselves and more aware of the world that surrounds them and challenges their right to exist.

Isabel, I believe, is a good example. She is determined to lead an honourable life. She is willing to speak honestly, regardless of her station in life or the roles that are assumed for women in the late 1870’s. Indeed, she may think and speak in a much more candid and honest manner than most of the female characters of the 19C. We may find she is willing to stand up for herself or others in a way that is a refreshing breeze as the 19C begins to lurch itself towards the future.

Is Dickens better than Trollope? Yes. Does Trollope push the novel into the future more than Dickens? I believe so.

You're quite right, Peter - both these writers have different merits, and on the whole, Dickens has probably more of them. The last part of the sentence, though, is something I would only utter if pressed very hard to make a value judgement. In other cases, it might be harder to say which is the "better" author - Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky ? Melville or Conrad ? Blake or Coleridge ? Is there a "best" amongst the Bronte sisters ? These discussions will probably lead nowhere.

And you are also right in saying that CH is a minor work of Trollope's. Those who want to experience Trollope at his best ought to read the Barset novels or the Palliser series.

Having started this book later than most, I have run across many spoilers in this commentary. I just got my copy from the library a couple of days ago but am already very intrigued after the first three chapters. As for Henry and Isabel, I seem to prefer Henry so far but I am seeing hints of this stealing or hiding a new will. I am anxious to get on with first section. As for Isabel, I agree with a couple of readers, especially her rude behavior toward Henry. Why call him odious for no reason? She is also turning down a man she seems to care for just because of his place is society. They neither seem wonderful candidates for marriage.
I must read on before making a real decision.

So far I have been liking cousin Henry better too, but ...
I don't like how Isabel has to remind him, several times, to look after the tenants instead of buttering his uncle's behind. After all, as things are at that point, he will be the new squire. He is the heir. It is his job to look after the tenants and to start becoming familiar with them. Instead he seems to see the estate just as money. From that point I also understood Isabel in that she is annoyed, but her station and the times make that she can't really do anything about it but tell him to do his job.
That's the point I could relate to her. During the last year we had an 'apprentice manager' working with our manager, someone who might become a manager of a team like ours, and he seemed more interested in the job title than the job itself. He was on effing Instagram between 'bilateral meetings with xyz' all day, every day, and he didn't do his job at all. At least my manager and the director were very clear that he'd never get a job as a manager that way, but I was one of the people having to drag him from behind his phone to do his job all the time. I can imagine Isabel must feel like I did, and as frustrating as it was, at least I knew that we'd be rid of him in a couple of months/weeks and he'd not inherit the place so to say.

Although I wanted to shake her over Mr. Owens too. On the other hand, while they clearly love each other, I can also imagine some fear that he might always remember how she only said 'yes' when she basically needed him. Pride might not be a good reason to spurn the one you might become happy with, but I think becoming completely dependent on someone who might resent you for that at some point, even if he seems to understand now, is potentially very scary.

I believe that standing for one's values is a worthy attribute. But Isabel has to have money to LIVE. All persons do. She is an arrogant jerk. Get an education, get a job, find a place in life to survive -- then stand up for what you believe. This is like my 14 year old nephew deciding he will support Israel - he has no money, no place to live expect his parent's home, no food unless his parents pay for it. He understands (as Isabel does not) that one must be able to survive before one can spout such grand ideas. I just can not like Isabel. Her values do not bother me; it is her arrogance. peace, janz

Mary Lou wrote: "And I'm not sure what it is about Henry that everyone finds so "odious" - a word that's used repeatedly (and to his face! Rude!) in describing him, other than being obsequious, which, under the circumstances, seems like a natural response to the awful reception he's getting from his relatives."

I'm pretty much the same way about the characters, Mary Lou.

Isabel called Cousin Henry rude, and I find that interesting because she was being quite rude to him, unnecessarily so I think, when she told him how she felt about him. What she was really doing was telling him how she felt about him inheriting the property -- stealing it from her -- so I think her nobility is more managed that authentic.

Was Henry doing something a thousand other men his age weren't doing by asking her to marry him so they would both have the property and all disputes regarding ownership would end? By doing his uncle's bidding and asking her to marry him was he doing anything different than a thousand other English men his age would do at the bidding of the patriarch of the family?

No spoilers, because I haven't started the next installment yet. But it seems to me a solution to this would be for Henry to inherit the property, then have Isabel stay on to manage it. He can live his separate life elsewhere, and she can do pretty much what she's been doing. It's obvious he has little interest in the day to day running of the place, but just wants the title (if there a title?) and the $$. Would a woman running the estate be too shocking in the 1870s?

Of course, a simple, logical solution would make for a very short, dull book!

Mary Lou wrote: "No spoilers, because I haven't started the next installment yet. But it seems to me a solution to this would be for Henry to inherit the property, then have Isabel stay on to manage it. He can live..."

I guess that Isabel might have had good chances of being accepted as a manager of the estate by the tenants because everyone there has known her from her late childhood and she has always taken a vivid interest in the estate and its inhabitants. So, her managing it would have come naturally. Even legally, it might not have been too much of a problem, although I think that she would have fallen under the tutelage of her father until she was married. But then, in the 1870s women's rights became more of an issue; in 1870, for instance, the Married Women's Property Act was passed, which entitled a woman to keep any income she had for herself. Twelve years later, this was also extended to the property she brought into the marriage.

So, Mary Lou, your idea sounds sound.

Xan wrote: "Was Henry doing something a thousand other men his age weren't doing by asking her to marry him so they would both have the property and all disputes regarding ownership would end? By doing his uncle's bidding and asking her to marry him was he doing anything different than a thousand other English men his age would do at the bidding of the patriarch of the family?"

Ironically, both Henry and Isabel are allowing themselves to be guided by the old man's wishes - Henry in proposing to Isabel, and what a proposal it is!, and Isabel in turning down the marriage proposal of the man she genuinely loves. Both are acting on the same principle, and yet we are supposed to despise the one and admire the other for doing it.

Peacejanz wrote: "I believe that standing for one's values is a worthy attribute. But Isabel has to have money to LIVE. All persons do. She is an arrogant jerk. Get an education, get a job, find a place in life to s..."

Sheer idealism is the privilege of the young, and also the reason why they are often so annoying and so tiring. I find myself quite often these days bringing my son's feet down to earth again - and my two main tools are playful irony and the not so playful suggestion that he should put his money where his mouth is.

Bobbie wrote: "Having started this book later than most, I have run across many spoilers in this commentary. I just got my copy from the library a couple of days ago but am already very intrigued after the first ..."

Bobbie,

Sorry about the spoilers - but we all try not to spoil things that are not mentioned in the respective reading for the week. You can rely on that!

Jantine wrote: "So far I have been liking cousin Henry better too, but ...
I don't like how Isabel has to remind him, several times, to look after the tenants instead of buttering his uncle's behind. After all, as..."

Thanks, Jantine, for pointing out some things that speak on Isabel's behalf! As yet, our sympathies are more or less decidedly against her, and she has well deserved an advocate.

Tristram, your interactions with your son put me in mind of two quotes I quite like. The first one from novelist Sarah Blake:

"I am old, and tired of the terrible clarity of the young."

And the second from the movie, "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington":

"I wonder if it isn't a curse to go through life wised-up."

Despite being somewhat contradictory, I feel then both deeply.

The deck is stacked against Henry. Even the narrator portrays him in a guilty light. I wonder if the narrator is unreliable — prejudiced in Isabel's favor? Are there many instances of omniscient narrators lying or exaggerating to favor one character over another?

We don’t get many opportunities to hear Hanry’s inner dialogue. It’s either filtered through the narrator or through Isabel who is not an objective observer despite her protestations to the contrary.

Henry cringes in compliance when Isabel tells him of her desire to remain master of the house until the reading of the will. "Cringing compliance," what a nice phrase to seed our minds with animosity towards servile Henry. But couldn’t he just as easily be acquiescing to her wishes to avoid conflict? All will be settled in a couple of days, anyway. And then there is Henry's sweating forehead during the meeting about the will. Someone has it out for Henry.

Meanwhile, Jane is treated quite well by the narrator. She has the highest moral standards. A pillar of the community. I don't know. There just seems something off about her character. I feel like I'm being led by the nose to a certain conclusion, not by facts but by inuendo.

Xan wrote: "Jane called Cousin Henry rude, and I find that interesting because she was being quite rude to him, unnecessarily so I think, when she told him how she felt about him."

That wasn't me. The only overt rudeness I noticed came from Isabel and Uncle Indefer. Speaking of which, as Uncle Indefer had no qualms about being rude to Henry, I'm surprised he didn't just tell him to eff off when he felt oppressed by his presence in the morning room.

I'm sorry Jane. I meant Isabel.

I think I made all the necessary changes.

Well, we are certainly being led by the narrator. Uncle Indefer doesn't care for Henry so neither does Isabel. Isabel's stubbornness is another way we are being led. She is SO certain that there is another will. A few words from a dying man leads her. I still don't like her but I suspect she will get the land in the end. This is not Dickens but I am beginning to sway with the wind as to who and when. peace, janz
p.s. Tristram, thanks for reminding me about putting one's money where one's mouth is. That usually stops my folks when I can remember to use it. peace, again, janz

Xan wrote: "The deck is stacked against Henry. Even the narrator portrays him in a guilty light. I wonder if the narrator is unreliable — prejudiced in Isabel's favor? Are there many instances of omniscient na..."

Yes, Xan, one could easily gain the impression that the narrator is overdoing his criticism of Henry in order to make us sway the other way, but I can't really think of any novel in which an omniscient narrator was unreliable at the same time. I am afraid we are really and truly supposed to dislike Henry from the start.

Tristram wrote: " but I can't really think of any novel in which an omniscient narrator was unreliable at the same time. I am afraid we are really and truly supposed to dislike Henry from the start."

And I don't like when Trollope does this. (Perhaps as the plot unfolds, I'll change my mind.) But if I'm being honest with myself, Dickens does the same, but when Dickens does it, I don't mind. Slo what's with that?

I guess the difference is when Dickens does it he's engaging, humorous, even satirical, and I like his wit. But when Trollope does it he just feels heavy handed.

I guess it is expected that comparisons between Dickens and Trollope would appear. I, for one, am enjoying them. Dickens and Trollope both are major Victorian authors.

As we read further into this novel we will, I believe, become more comfortable with Trollope’s style and presentation of characters. Whether we enjoy parts of Trollope better than Dickens or not is yet to be determined. At this early point of ‘Cousin Henry’ we have met Isabel, a character much different from the entire cast of Dickens’s female characters. I don’t think it is a spoiler to say that the cast of characters in ‘Cousin Henry’ will be very limited - because of its length - in comparison to a Dickens novel.

As for now, I’m firmly in Isabel’s corner. I like how she defines herself within the confines of the late 1870’s and how Trollope is able to look forward and anticipate England’s evolving social history.

I appreciate the way Trollope starts things right off in the first lines with a central conflict, two very defined characters, an anti-romance, and an ethical dilemma. As someone with a liking for the shorter Dickens novels--Hard Times, and especially Tale of Two Cities--for me the neatness and efficiency of Trollope is a bit of a plus.

I don't think he was talking about Dickens (a quick internet search suggests Tolstoy was his main example), but Henry James called 19th century novels "large loose baggy monsters with their queer elements of the accidental and the arbitrary," and even if he didn't have Dickens in mind with that, he might have. I still prefer those monsters to James's work, and I find the accidental and arbitrary to be entertaining. But I suppose I am a barbarian in that I would definitely have cut some scenes from certain Dickens novels had I been his editor, and I am hoping Trollope will land us somewhere in between Dickens and James, which is after all where Cousin Henry fits chronologically,

Anyway partly because of the speediness with which the plot gets up and running, I find I am looking forward to the next installment of Cousin Henry more than I looked forward to the next installment at the start of, say, Little Dorrit (who are these meandering people with the verbal tics? Why do I care?). Also I believe I will continue to like Isabel, who whatever her flaws does appear to be more capable of independent thought than your average lapdog, more than I liked LD or LN. Different writers have different strengths and weaknesses.

And no offense meant--you all know I love Dickens despite his drawbacks.

One last thought: it does seem one of the places all the women get to show independent thought, including in Dickens, is in refusing marriage proposals. On the one hand, that seems pretty limiting and sexist. But on the other hand, given limiting and sexist conditions (as you all know), it makes perfect sense. Getting married was how they established their entire future station in life, so even if it gets coded as an emotional decision in the books--"I love someone else" or "I find you odious"--it is in fact a lot more than that, and it does make practical sense as the one key moment when Victorian women should above all others be exercising whatever agency they are allowed.

It does make me wonder why it so often gets coded in books as an emotional decision. I know not everybody here is an Austen fan but I find Austen is way, way better at showing the multiple factors women weighed in picking a spouse.

Pride and Prejudice ignited my love of classics.

Julie wrote: "One last thought: it does seem one of the places all the women get to show independent thought, including in Dickens, is in refusing marriage proposals. On the one hand, that seems pretty limiting ..."

Hi Julie

There came a time in each of our explorations of Dickens when I wished we could beam ourselves to the specific novel’s pub and sit by the fire and discuss the characters, plot, and events of the novel together over a pint or two. Alas, we cannot.

It seems its time in our discussion of Trollope to visit a pub.

I agree with you concerning the women in Austen. They are able to make their selection of husbands with much more ease and reflection than women who come after them in the later novels of the 19C. Dickens’s women were much more constricted in their life choices.

Three cheers for Isabel.

Isabel exhibits the same kind of high mindedness that Dorothea Brooke exhibited in the beginning of Middlemarch. Of course I think George Eliot had them both beat.