The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

Welcome to the story of Ruth, by Elizabeth Gaskell. In the first section, we see the town of Fordham and meet Ruth, Mrs. Mason, Jenny (briefly), Mr. Bellingham, and a few other characters.

We start with a description of the city and streets. What do these physical features tell us about the life of our heroine?

What do we learn from Ruth’s visit to her old home?

What do you think of the characters so far?

Why do you think Bellingham took Ruth to Wales?

Here is a bit of information from the endnotes in my edition:

Gaskell doesn’t specify the timeline of the novel, but events in the book suggest the story (a total of 13 years or so) took place during the late 1820s and the 1830s.

There is a reference to a Mrs. Brownrigg. “Elizabeth Brownrigg was executed in 1767 for torturing her female apprentices to death.”

Ruth’s visit to her old home was both happy and sad. Sadden by the changes. Happy to see old friends. The house becoming desolate and ill kept must have been like a dagger to her heart. I don’t think she’s really had a sense of home since leaving the old house.

Bellingham is a villainous type. Self centered and wants her as arm candy, not caring about any impact on Ruth. He manipulates her fear, and ignores her choice to stay at the old home. She’s like a toy he wants to possess, but, I think, will soon tire of.

This is my first group read and it’s my first Gaskell in about forty years so I’m very happy to be reading along.
I find Mr. Billingham to not be a very nice person and I guess we will soon enough learn why. It is so wonderful to be back in the world of the nineteenth century novel-I have missed these books for a very long time.

Yep, Bellingham does give off "slimeball" vibes!

Bellingham initially appears to be a nice young man, but Mrs. Gaskell quickly gives us hints that all is not well. He rescues a drowning child and provides for his care, but he is also horribly uncaring to the boy's grandmother in complaining about the dirt and smells in her home. He insists he must leave, but he doesn't mind leaving Ruth in the hovel. He makes disparaging comments about anyone he believes is his social inferior, including Ruth's beloved Thomas and the little hunchback she meets on her walk through the Welsh countryside.

Thomas has great instincts about Bellingham, and I so wish Ruth had insisted on returning to him. I hope she encounters the hunchback again and that he helps her in some way.

When we read this before, some of us wondered if Ruth was what would have been called at the time "simple". Certainly she was naive and innocent.

I don’t think she’s simple - just very young, feeling unloved and alone, with no money and no hope. She has had no experience with romance and so is vulnerable to Bellingham’s slow seduction.

I also wondered that sometimes.

His actions today might be called "grooming".

I wonder if we will ever find out more about Ruth's guardian or is that always off-screen.
This is the best they can do?!

I find some resemblances between Belllingham and the character Steerfoth in David Copperfield by Charles Dickens. Both are young, handsome, well-off, and utterly charming most of the time. But they both let the mask slip sometimes, and neither has a conscience about ruining a young woman. Of course, it’s early in this story, so perhaps Bellingham will surprise us all by having a conscience.

When Bellingham first meets Ruth she is fifteen years old. He is twenty three and described as completely spoiled by his mother who only complained to him about his minor indiscretions in order to avoid facing the fact that he had already committed major wrongdoings because of his selfish and irresponsible attitude.

Bellingham’s softly, softly approach towards Ruth is correctly described by Robin P as grooming. From the start he had only one thing in mind, and the fact that his plan was helped by the almost equally irresponsible Mrs. Mason, left the vulnerable Ruth with no other option but to take the bait that Bellingham dangled.

I have no qualms in accusing both Bellingham and Mrs. Mason of child abuse. Mrs. Mason would in fact be ‘in loco parentis’ whilst Ruth, still a child, resided and worked at her premises. Mason really should have had no right to turn her out on the streets.

Even if it was only a threat, it was enough to become the catalyst for Bellingham to seize his opportunity and manipulate Mrs. Mason’s actions to abduct Ruth. It was abduction even if Ruth did go with him willingly. Her lack of understanding of the world and having literally no one to turn to except her abuser led her to say…..

“Yes;” the fatal word of which she so little imagined the infinite consequences. The thought of being with him was all and everything.’

The fact that Bellingham totally ignored Ruth’s plea to return to Thomas at her former home revealed his complete mastery over her. Naive Ruth was hurried to London, away from anyone who could protect her, so that Bellingham could possess her entirely.

Their time in London was not even mentioned, but in North Wales, Ruth seemed to be living in a dreamworld, with Bellingham as her God, revelling in her new found (what she believed to be)‘freedom.’. It struck me how skilfully Elizabeth Gaskell juxtaposed the absolute beauty of nature with the sordid, scheming actions of Bellingham. However, Ruth seemed more intoxicated and excited with the natural environment than she ever was of Bellingham. Ruth’s beautiful bubble is bound to burst, but it should never have been allowed to develop in the first place.

"Grooming" is definitely an apt way to describe his behavior.

I am very curious (and somewhat apprehensive) about where this story is going and what Gaskell's purpose in telling it was. (My apprehension is because I simplistically want a happy, or at least not tragic, ending for Ruth.)

I assume that Ruth will eventually realize the compromised situation she's in, and then what? Ruth's naiveté is currently core to her personality, so how will she react?

Or has she already figured out at least some of what's going on and it somehow doesn't bother her?

And was Bellingham a total "gentleman" in London, or do they already have a physical relationship? If they are I missed the clues, maybe because I was reading with my heart in my throat.

Jaylia3 wrote: "I am very curious (and somewhat apprehensive) about where this story is going and what Gaskell's purpose in telling it was. (My apprehension is because I simplistically want a happy, or at least no..

And was Bellingham a total "gentleman" in London, or do they already have a physical relationship? If they are I missed the clues, maybe because I was reading with my heart in my throat.."

Although their time in London has not been described and their present relationship has not been made explicit, the fact that they have taken rooms which probably consist of one bedroom and a sitting room, vacated by a couple like themselves, indicate that they have assumed the appearance of a married couple. Bellingham’s brazen attitude in front of Mrs. Morgan cuts no ice with her. She has obviously seen such things many times before.

’ These household arrangements complete, she (Mrs. Morgan) solaced herself with tea in her own little parlour, and shrewdly reviewed the circumstances of Mr. Bellingham’s arrival.

“Indeed! and she’s not his wife,” thought Jenny, “that’s clear as day. His wife would have brought her maid, and given herself twice as many airs about the sitting-rooms; while this poor miss never spoke, but kept as still as a mouse. Indeed, and young men will be young men; and as long as their fathers and mothers shut their eyes, it’s none of my business to go about asking questions.”

The attitudes of both Bellingham and Ruth whilst together in their rooms suggest an intimacy far beyond that of ‘brother’ and ‘sister.’
And Bellingham’s expectations of Ruth before she sets out on her walk reveals how physically close they have become.

’ “You’re pale, love!” said he, half repenting of his anger at her blunders over the cards. “Go out before dinner; you know you don’t mind this cursed weather; and see that you come home full of adventures to relate. Come, little blockhead! give me a kiss, and begone.”

I love the way Gaskell uses description to set the tone at the outset. The beautiful, opulent homes of one class abandoned; then divided, reshaped, and cut down to provide for another. I could feel the spaces getting smaller and more cramped. Yet there are still the markers of opulence… which seem more a reminder of abandonment than the lingering elements of beauty.

Then when Bellingham mentions that his family once lived there, it definitely made me raise an eyebrow!

Trev wrote: "Jaylia3 wrote: "I am very curious (and somewhat apprehensive) about where this story is going and what Gaskell's purpose in telling it was. (My apprehension is because I simplistically want a happy..."

Thanks Trev! I think I just didn't want it to be true.

Wow! Bellingham was quick to swoop in with his intention to leave her in her moment of destitution… and offer to take her away from it all. He’s a snake but he thinks on his… well, his slithery belly.

Trev wrote: " “Indeed! and she’s not his wife,” thought Jenny, “that’s clear as day. His wife would have brought her maid, and given herself twice as many airs about the sitting-rooms; while this poor miss never spoke, but kept as still as a mouse. Indeed, and young men will be young men; and as long as their fathers and mothers shut their eyes, it’s none of my business to go about asking questions.” "

That was one of my favorite parts so far. Hashtag MeToo " #MeToo " type observation by Ms. Gaskell, back in the 1850s.

I bought this book back when we read Sylvia's Lovers in this Group's read of it in early 2021. Since then I have avoided references to the book so I could read it without much knowledge of its plot.

Early on, I started getting Tess of the D’Urbervilles vibes with a haughty upper class gentlemen enchanted by the extreme beauty of a lower class lass. While I don't anticipate a Hardy degree of tragedy, I am anticipating a less than sunny story. The Penguin edition cover adds to this ominous expectation.

I am enjoying and empathizing with Ruth as a heroine. She is not simple. She is too aware of her surroundings to be simple as her skill at describing events and places she experiences is a secondary aspect of Bellingham's attraction for her. Yet despite this level of awareness, Ruth is overly trusting, naive and in need of being loved, characteristics which, at this point, seem likely to result in some future misfortune.

Gaskell was really out there with the subject matter of this book and many critics condemned her for it.

Brian E wrote:
Yet despite this level of awareness, Ruth is overly trusting, naive and in need of being loved, characteristics which, at this point, seem likely to result in some future misfortune.."

In the first few chapters, Ruth reminded me a little bit of young Mary Barton, the heroine of Elizabeth Gaskell’s first novel. The lives of Ruth and Mary could have followed a similar path but for one factor. (spoiler alert for those who have not read Mary Barton)(view spoiler)[ Mary Barton was surrounded by people who loved her. Even though Mary tried to keep her liaison with the mill owner’s son secret, the influences of her friends and family, as well as the shadow of her wayward aunt, made her realise her mistake just in time. (hide spoiler)]

It seems obvious that Elizabeth Gaskell had a great concern for the vulnerability of women when faced with rich, powerful, often aristocratic men. Another author who wrote (a couple of decades later) more than one novel about vulnerable women was George Gissing and I don’t think it was just coincidence that he was born about thirty miles away from Manchester and studied there at the fledgling university.

Trev wrote: "Brian E wrote:
Yet despite this level of awareness, Ruth is overly trusting, naive and in need of being loved, characteristics which, at this point, seem likely to result in some future misfortune..."

Sorry for interfering out of nowhere. I have read Ruth before and loved this novel. I am following this thread with interest, and I fully agree with you on your comparison with Mary Barton. I have read only The Odd Women by George Gissing.