The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

In this section, Ruth’s secret gets out. How does it happen?

How does Jemima react to the story of Ruth’s past, and how does her attitude change during the time between the time she finds out and her father finds out?

How do you think Victorian readers would have reacted to the conversation between Mr. Benson and Mr. Bradshaw?

How were things smoothed over between Jemima and Farquhar?

How are Ruth and Leonard being reintegrated into the community?

Any final predictions before we enter the final stretch?

Contemporary Victorian readers, I have wondered that too. Did some agree with each side?

It is SO unfair that all the blame rests on Ruth for being "depraved," when she was orphaned and poor and 16 and had absolutely no clue at all.

Lori wrote: "How does Jemima react to the story of Ruth’s past, and how does her attitude change during the time between the time she finds out and ..."

I think Jemima's initially hard and judgmental attitude toward Ruth was a useful plot device as it allowed for her to return to her old self, a character that most on here have come to enjoy, even more so than Ruth. Everyone appreciates a good redemption story, though, and a story of resisting temptation of 'sinful' urges, in this case 'jealous urges.'
While the transition may have been a bit overdone, I appreciated it anyway. I really didn't want Jemima to be a villain.

Lori wrote: "In this section, Ruth’s secret gets out. How does it happen?..."

I thought it interesting that Gaskell chose not to portray scenes of the process of how the the shop owner's rumor about Ruth spread, culminating in its revelation to Bradshaw. It's something I might have expected from a Victorian author, though it wouldn't have been necessary. I was surprised that it progressed enough to Bradshaw without anyone else in the story hearing about it and warning Ruth.

I was also very worried for a while that Jemima was going to become a villain. Glad to see she actually does have emotional intelligence and critical thinking skills, both of which her father seems to lack.

Before I make any comments about this week’s chapters, the extract below might provide an insight into how Victorian readers would have reacted to the conversation between Bradshaw and Benson (and the novel as a whole.)

It was written by Katie Baker (details below) and attempts to explain how courageous the author was in publishing this novel.

I have hidden a small part of it because it contains a spoiler for anyone who hasn’t read Mary Barton.

The full article, part of a much longer thesis, can be found here -

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/1...

’ Introduction

Three or four men have written to approve, – some – one or two at least high in literature, – and two with testimony as valuable as fathers of families, – grave thoughtful practical men. I think I have put the small edge of the wedge in, if only I have made people talk & [sic] discuss the subject a little more than they did. (Gaskell, Letters 226).

These words were written by Elizabeth Gaskell in response to Anna Jameson, who had written to the author in praise of her second novel Ruth. With its controversial subject matter depicting a young seamstress, seduced, made pregnant, and abandoned, the book’s publication in 1853 had been met with less than favorable reviews. Banned in many households, and in Gaskell’s own words, “not a book for young people, unless read with someone older” (Letters220),

In Ruth she had again dared to venture into the world of the “fallen woman.” Many of Gaskell’s contemporaries felt that she had chosen a hazardous and inflammatory subject. Despite such opposition, Gaskell was not afraid of confronting what others considered to be one of the most dangerous social evils. Five years earlier, she had published Mary Barton. One of the novel’s key characters, Esther, (view spoiler)[has all the hallmarks of the “fallen woman”, a prostitute who had previously been seduced by an officer, made pregnant, and later forced to turn to a life on the streets. In Esther, (hide spoiler)] Gaskell did not shy away from controversy.

Through such characters as Esther, Ruth Hilton, and Lizzie Leigh (in her short-story of the same name), Gaskell demonstrated her discomfort regarding the unfair treatment of apparently “fallen women” and proved that she was determined to “put the small edge of the wedge in” in a bid to highlight what she felt about their increasingly desperate plight. Gaskell believed these women had individual stories to tell, and she was not prepared to ignore those whom others were dismissing as depraved and dangerous. Importantly, through both Esther and Ruth, Gaskell began the important work of educating her young female readers about sexuality and how sex should be considered as a natural part of women’s lives.’

(CONTACT Katie Baker kat.bak88@gmail.com

Extract from - 00497878.2021.1895161
“‘To whom shall the outcast prostitute tell her tale?’” (Elizabeth Gaskell, Mary Barton): Elizabeth Gaskell: Rewriting Fallenness
Katie Baker
University of Chester, Chester

This article has been produced from sections of the author’s thesis, “From Fallen Woman to Businesswoman: The Radical Voices of Elizabeth Gaskell and Margaret Oliphant” (University of Chester, 2018).
© 2021 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/b...), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.J)

Thank you, Trev. There were a couple of interesting points in the introduction of the edition I read, but I'll probably post those next week since they contain spoilers.

This week’s chapters were both thrilling and at the same time excruciatingly depressing. Bradshaw’s reaction to the gossip about Ruth was entirely predictable, as was his attitude to Benson during their ‘conversation.’ The man who lived in a glass house, having turned a blind eye to fraud and championed a devious abuser of the vulnerable, threw stones as hard and swiftly as he could.

Benson’s quiet heroics ought to be applauded for the way he stood up to Bradshaw and calmed a desperately anxious Ruth. His actions probably saved her a second time, this time from a fate worse than death. Allowing himself to take a financial as well as social battering from Bradshaw only helped this diminutive man to grow in stature.

What a clever device it was for the author to use the capricious Jemima as the architect of Ruth’s exposure. It was rather naive of her to discuss Ruth’s origins with a storekeeper and then tell her to keep quiet about their conversation. A large banner in the town square would have served the same purpose.

Once Ruth’s past was known, all the friction caused by one corner of the lop-sided love triangle seemed to just disappear in a puff of scandalous smoke. Farquhar and Jemima’s love talk just left me feeling that Ruth had been their punch bag in the middle of it all, just used to relieve their frustrations.

Benson seems to be hoping that it will only take a short time for the scandal to be forgotten about by the majority of the townsfolk, and by laying low, taking only tentative steps, Ruth and Leonard may be reintegrated, albeit living considerably different lives.

I hope he is right. As we know, even today, ‘decent’ people love to wallow in somebody else’s sleaze.

I feel certain we haven't heard the last of Leonard's father, now a "respectable" member of Parliament. Perhaps he will be exposed for what he is and take Bradshaw with him. This topic really must have been scandalous to the Victorian mind, especially since Mrs. Gaskell makes it so clear that Ruth was the wronged person; it showed great courage on her part to write this novel. Despite their failings, I applaud Mr. Farquhuar and Jemima for standing up for Ruth and for the Benson siblings. I do wonder how a marriage between the two will work out. Jemima is somewhat of a free spirit, and Mr. Farquhuar is a bit of a stick. Maybe he less so to Jemima, who has spent her life with a self-righteous and complete;ly rigid father.

Yes to us reading this in 2024, it does seem rather tragic than the blame would fall solely on Ruth. But it also makes me think of how things have changed in my lifetime of 63 years.
When I was a child, I never knew I’d anyone who had a child outside of marriage. Even when I was a teenager, I knew if I was to become pregnant (little activity & protection used) I would be disowned by my father.
Even when I did get pregnant- on purpose- with my fiancé at age 42, I was still a little embarrassed that I wasn’t married. Not a construct of my beliefs, but of the culture I’d been raised in.

On my phone I wasn’t able to see the last few sentences of my previous comment, so please forgive my grammatical error of that last preposition.

The overarching issue for me is how they were supposed to be such religious people- and a reformed church at that- and they can so easily forget the forgiveness Jesus taught. I’m wondering if they failed to read the New Testament? (Kidding, but really!)
Except for a few, such as the Benson household- thank God they were there for Ruth & her little boy. She really lucked out the day she met Mr Benson!!!
That hypocrisy of most of them really burns me up!
I’m enjoying the book very much and my heart breaks for Ruth & even more for Leonard.

Nancy wrote: "I do wonder how a marriage between the two will work out. Jemima is somewhat of a free spirit, and Mr. Farquhuar is a bit of a stick."

I kind of got the idea that Farquhar "thought" he wanted a quiet, submissive wife, but then when Jemima stopped arguing with him, he started to realize he wanted some "spice."

What I wonder about, though, was how Sally was saying near the beginning of the novel that Farquhar was interested in marrying Jemima, but at that time she was probably 15 at most.

Amy wrote: "The overarching issue for me is how they were supposed to be such religious people- and a reformed church at that- and they can so easily forget the forgiveness Jesus taught. I’m wondering if they ..."

Yes, Jesus notably consorted with "fallen women" but that seems to be forgotten. Not to get into a political issue, but in all the talk of abortion politics today in the US, the man's role is never mentioned, it is the woman who is blamed for getting pregnant, not wanting a child, having the child, etc.