North & South discussion

I have to wonder if Gaskell's great novel is one of the most misunderstood classics.

She weaves two main threads through this story: the love story (Margaret and John's personal development) and the social-economic divisions (encapsulated by the workers vs masters conflict). The love story accentuates and elucidates all the social messages Gaskell conveys. Readers who don't see the developing respect and regard between Margaret and John in the love story, are often also missing the resolution of the larger social and economic aspects Gaskell touches on.

I love the book because Gaskell is able to tell such a tender and vivid tale of personal experience and growth with the same finesse that she uses to bring to life many of the turbulent issues of the day.

Here's a sample of a recent Amazon review of Gaskell's North and South. And this is by no means uncommon:

"I loved the story. However, in the kindle edition, I found a lot of typos. I also did not like the ending, as it did not flow well. All of a sudden, you knew it was going to happen (she was going to fall in love; I won't spoil it and tell you which one she picked), she falls in love. The story didn't seem to fully build up to the falling in love scene. I didn't follow how she came from being not in love to in love. It was a quantum leap. I almost wondered if the kindle edition left out a chapter, as it seemed like it was missing a piece."

I can understand how many modern readers miss the developing love story. The way Margaret comes to realize her feelings is written with such a subtle hand that it can be overlooked, especially in direct comparison with the striking passages of Thornton's passionate feelings!

But I still think the clues of her meekness, remorse, and sadness are all still there to be found.

I can't tell you how many people I find still think that Margaret has a few things to 'teach' Thornton by the end of the novel! Many finish the book thinking these two have much still to be ironed out between them. They believe the resolution to the introduced conflict was never written. In fact, they believe Gaskell failed to completely develop her story.

In a way, yes it is highly misunderstood. Nothing against anyone who loves YA, but I think popularization of young adult series so publishers can try to jump on the next film franchise, is part of the problem. There is usually little to no characterization, characters are black and white to fall on the "good" or "bad" side of the plot, and everything is explained to death in the most basic way possible. All ideas of complex, grey characters and subtlety are gone. Subtlety is so important to Margaret's character.

I will say, for me, Thornton is the strongest character in the book. As many times as I've read it, I still have a few reservations for Margaret. I appreciate the subtlety her character is handled with, the strength shown through many of her circumstances, and especially that Gaskell showed Margaret feel remorse for her actions. I just felt like John deserved more after everything she put him through. Unfortunately stories always seem to go easier on women in those matters. Regardless of social restrictions of the time, I don't see Thornton having been allowed to get away with so little if the roles were reversed. I still say Darcy never really did anything wrong, and he practically had to grovel at Elizabeth's feet.

Is it the most misunderstood, maybe of the more popularly recognized novels. But there a lot of beautiful romances that are disregard as depressing tragedies. Annabelle Lee is my favorite poem, and most people consider it horribly depressing. I can't think of many things more beautiful than someone lying on their wife's grave because they can't bear to be without them, especially since Edgar Allen Poe nearly froze to death lying on Virginia's grave more than once. I think it's all down to interpretation, and most of those people can't see beyond anything other than what they're told.

I think the way everything is spelled out in many current novels is definitely a factor. A good deal of readers aren't trained to look beyond given narrative summaries and dialogue. So much of deciphering Margaret is realizing what her frame of mind and what her situation is when she says or thinks things. You can't take what she says at face value. For example "I will never marry" isn't some feminist manifesto that I've seen some academics stumble over. Taken into context of the times she declares this, she means she will never marry anyone but Thornton. Both times she says this, she is convinced he couldn't love her.

Margaret longs to apologize to Thornton. And she does so in some way by claiming she isn't worthy at the end. I can't think of anyone who could be better for Thornton than Margaret. She has a fierce devotion to those she loves; she didn't mean to put him through the agony she did. Much was out of her control after the rejection.

I don't mind a good tragedy myself. Loved Tess of the d'Urbevilles.

Oh I definitely agree, like I said, I like the majority of how Margaret's character was handled. I get the impression much of John and Margaret's conversations after the book ended were along the lines of "I'm sorry. No,I'm sorry." :) Perhaps saying I have reservations is wording incorrectly, more I wish we had seen it in the story. John had gone to such lengths for her, even when most would have felt she didn't deserve it without knowing the truth. I would have liked to have gotten the chance to see her say more to him once she felt in a position where that was appropriate.

I think many of today's audience (my age - at twenty-nine - and certainly the ones coming behind) are going to miss out on so much of what made these books classics. And I do love my tragedies, they have their own beauty, and take risks a lot of authors won't take today. Thomas Hardy is my favorite English author. I can't see many people willing to write some of the scenes from Jude now.

I'm about a third of the way through your book. I'm usually reserved about companion novels or sequels, but you really have done Gaskell's novel justice. It feels like a natural continuation of the story.

Trudy wrote: "I think the way everything is spelled out in many current novels is definitely a factor. A good deal of readers aren't trained to look beyond given narrative summaries and dialogue. So much of deci..."

I think you've hit the nail on the head there, Trudy. I also think that it doesn't help that so many adaptations (and modern historical romances) are made too expressive so people don't notice subtleties because they are expecting obvious signs that realistically wouldn't have been there.

Marie - Thanks, glad you think my story does the novel justice. It goes heavy on the happily ever after, so it doesn't appeal to all who like more conflict-ridden stories.

Ceri - Margaret's real feelings are far from obvious, so if the reader takes everything Margaret says and thinks as absolute reality they will be lost. Margaret spends a lot of time trying to justify herself or bolster herself when under emotional duress. What she says to herself isn't always honestly addressing what is causing her to be upset.

Often I think too many attribute too much self-assurance and worldly knowledge to a rather sheltered girl of 19. Margaret, although intelligent and perceptive, is still quite innocent and naive. Margaret herself is confused about all she is experiencing and encountering when she arrives in Milton. She barely knows her own mind and heart, so the reader is required to step back a little to gain a more omniscient perspective of what's really going on. She's never fallen in love before, she has no idea how powerful and involuntary the feelings can be! The reader, however, should know the clues to watch for when people are smitten.

This is only the love story aspect. Many also don't see the unfolding changes Margaret and John go through in their views regarding business and labour management.

The reason I propose that "North and South" is the most misunderstood romantic classic is quite simply because in this particular work of literature there is a regular percentage of readers who come away from their reading of the book with the complaint that Gaskell never finished her work well. I don't see anything similar happening to the works of Austen, Bronte, Hardy, or Dickens.

Something about "North and South" gets some people tangled up and they don't see both threads of the story working out to a natural and complete resolution. I think Gaskell's work was brilliant and beautiful. And complete. She could have gone on to show us the reactions of Hannah and the Harley Street set, but the real resolution of the story was complete by those last two pages. Nothing more was needed, however much we longed to see the lovers move forward in their tender and strong unity.

Trudy wrote: "I have to wonder if Gaskell's great novel is one of the most misunderstood classics.

She weaves two main threads through this story: the love story (Margaret and John's personal development) and ..."

My take on this Trudy, is not the novel itself that is misunderstood but the author herself!

When Ruth was first published, I read that it received a mixed response. A lot of the (church-going) folks, in her own congregation mind you, who strongly disagreed with what they thought was the sensationalization of the unwed mother, burned the book in protest.

Perhaps this early reputation hampered in the popularity and therefore misunderstanding of another of EG's books.

Yes, Gaskell wasn't afraid to touch on subjects that were scandalous at the time. It takes a great deal of courage to put a human face on something deemed so sinful. The disgrace many victims wore was a sin of the society's making, ensuring that these girls were properly shunned and neglected. Neglecting or utterly dismissing the welfare of others is never acceptable in Gaskell's view.

I'm sure that if a novel is misunderstood, it also means the author is not understood. I agree that Gaskell is misunderstood. What surprises me is how many modern-day readers miss the underlying messages the author is trying to convey.

Trudy wrote: "I'm sure that if a novel is misunderstood, it also means the author is not understood. I agree that Gaskell is misunderstood. What surprises me is how many modern-day readers miss the underlying messages the author is trying to convey.
"

I don't think a misunderstood novel generally means the author is also misunderstood. I don't think one automatically implies the other.

But I do think Gaskell on the whole was not very popular during her time because of the material she chose to write about and the way she wrote about it. I think that is why she continues to be not so popular although there was a mini-resurgence with the recent adaptations of Cranford and Wives and Daughters.

Even then, it is almost always acknowledged that those remain her best works. Her working class novels are ignored.

In general, when most talk of Victorian authors, Gaskell is nearly always overlooked. Be it in 1915 or 2015; that hasn't changed.

I took a course in Victorian English in University over a decade ago, and Gaskell was not mentioned in any way or form. When I chose to write my final paper on Gaskell, my prof looked at me confused and asked me why I was doing it when there were so many other things to ponder over as per class discussion. Since we talked in great detail about male writers like Dickens and discussed social novels, I thought it would have been interesting to explore the same scenarios but from a female perspective.

But I bungled it because I should have concentrated on her social novels rather than on all her works in general. In my defense, I didn't have the proper guidance. ;)

If only I knew then what I know now, I think my focus for my paper and subsequently my grade would have been a lot higher! :P


Regarding modern day readers, well, I think a lot of folks don't have the patience or find the subject or the writing style much too dreary. I am equally shocked by viewers who don't have the patience to sit through the series or claim it was much too boring after they somehow bite their way through it.

I can't understand it.
I don't know why Dickens and Hardy get away it but Gaskell does not. Sad, really.

So glad you at least tried! I think individuals should be able to choose which novelists of an era speak to them most.

Thanks in part to the BBC, I think Gaskell is having something of a resurgence. I know professors who use Gaskell in their curriculum.

Why her work is buried under the fame of Dickens, Bronte, Eliot and others, I would like to know. Wished there was a study of this done by someone.

It may be that later generations recognize her works better than the first century and a half. In any case, I can only imagine her fame increasing, not decreasing.

Lois wrote: "Trudy wrote: "I took a course in Victorian English in University over a decade ago, and Gaskell was not mentioned in any way or form."

Wow crazy! I took a class on Victorian literature before you and we read North and South. (We also read Hard Times, Jude the Obscure and umm maybe one other book I can't remember. I also took women's literature and Gaskell was not mentioned in that course.