The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

More drama this week! If you didn't hate Hester's sanctimonious brother before, you will now! He is hypocritical, narrow-minded and cowardly. Interestingly, Cholmondeley gives us a very different religious figure in the Bishop, who supports Hester and admires her work. Of course, the defects in the clergyman in Hester's book come from her real-life observation. The Bishop is also wonderful at talking to children, which Mr. Gresley isn't.

Victorian writers often used "the sympathetic fallacy" by writing weather that matches the mood of the story ("it was a dark and stormy night"). Also Regency and Victorian heroines seem to get sick a lot from getting chilled, wet, etc. (Jane in Pride & Prejudice, for instance, whose mother is actually happy that Jane then has to stay at Bingley's house.) But walking 10 miles in snow without proper clothing, after getting serious burns, would have an effect. Even then, Hester's real problem seems to be emotional - grief about her book and guilt about Reggie. Once Reggie has appeared, she is able to begin healing. The psychology of the sister-in-law is fascinating and very realistic. She wanted Hester to help with the children, but she resents her presence because Hester doesn't follow her brother's precepts, and maybe she is jealous of how the children favor Hester. Instead of asking her husband to send Hester away, she goes along with his actions, knowing that will drive Hester out.

Meanwhile, Hugh goes through a period of gloom, seeing himself as a coward. But when he finds out that Newhaven is dead, he realizes nobody has to know about the challenge. I could identify with this in that if I have made a mistake or done something I wasn't proud of, but nobody else knows about, I can sort of pretend to myself that it didn't really happen. He resolves to be a better person, but when he later has a chance to tell Rachel everything, he chickens out.

I loved the scene where Lady Newhaven, supposedly a grieving widow, is imagining her future life, including where she will get her wedding dress. She is annoyed that Rachel comes to bring sympathy, interrupting her daydream. And when Rachel says she likes Hugh, the response is, "He's mine!" I do feel a bit sorry for Lady Newhaven. It sounds like her husband didn't respect or care for her, and Hugh only used her as a diversion. Or maybe she is so irritating that both men got tired of her quickly!

Robin P wrote: "If you didn't hate Hester's sanctimonious brother before, you will now! He is hypocritical, narrow-minded and cowardly."

I think he is not a hypocrite, which is worse: he means every word of what he says. Cholmondeley herself called the likes of this character type "prigs" - see my post in the Background thread.

Regarding the wager-duel-suicide topic, I sometimes feel like in one of those boulevard comedies of errors (only it's not a comedy ...). It is not easy to keep track of who knows what and who believes what, correctly or not; with the additional complication of what they believe the others know or know not.

At the moment, the women believe that Newhaven drew the short lighter, and that he killed himself. While Hugh knows that Newhaven drew the long lighter, and believes his death was an accident. Therefore he feels redeemed and like he has been given a second chance by his good fortune. It may well be that his unconscious suppresses what doubts he might have on the "accident". - The epitaph to chapter 37, which is about Lady Newhaven, applies to him too. In English, it is sth. like "The number of beings who want to see true is extraordinarily small. What dominates man is the fear of the truth, unless the truth be useful to them."

Robin P wrote: "Victorian writers often used "the sympathetic fallacy" by writing weather that matches the mood of the story ("it was a dark and stormy night"). "

But this technique as used by Cholmondeley does not leave a deep impression, she is not very good at it. So far, I think that the sceneries she paints in Diana Tempest are much better. They are not just mentions of nature, but vivid social scenes, often in so stark contrast with what is going on in the story that they become unforgettable, maybe just because they are so "unsympathetic".

Poor Hester, I hope she will be able to rewrite the book, maybe with help from someone who can write or type (I'm not sure how common typewriters were) while she dictates. Today, there is almost always a backup copy of everything, but of course then, that copy would have been the only one.
Showing Mr. Gresley's conversation with the Bishop from the Gresleys' point of view was an interesting choice, and it worked well, both to further reveal their characters and provide some light comedy in this serious situation.

sabagrey wrote: "Robin P wrote: "If you didn't hate Hester's sanctimonious brother before, you will now! He is hypocritical, narrow-minded and cowardly."

I think he is not a hypocrite, which is worse: he means eve..."

Good point, my thought was that he was hypocritical in not following what the Bible actually says as far as kindness and humility, but of course he thinks he is, and that everyone else should do the same. Thanks for the note about prigs and the author's autobiographical elements.

sabagrey wrote: "Robin P wrote: "Victorian writers often used "the sympathetic fallacy" by writing weather that matches the mood of the story ("it was a dark and stormy night"). "

But this technique as used by Cho..."

Another good point, you're right that the weather isn't that important, in this case it mainly advances the plot of Hester's reaction and illness. And it's not really described, Hester starts out walking and then arrives without us following the physical and emotional struggle.

It was interesting to me that what starts out somewhat comically-Mr Gressley inadvertently opening Hester's package, then sitting down to glance at it, then making some no-doubt ill-advised "helpful" corrections, then staying up half the night to finish reading it (therefore reinforcing to some extent how good her writing is)-quickly morphs into his horrific action of burning this work over which she has laboured so many hours and which is undoubtedly brilliant (as per the Bishop). His complete inability to understand his sister's talent and genius, and his condescending attitude to her never fails to shock.

His corrections are laughable, like when he assumes that "young enough to know better" is a mistake.

Robin P wrote: "sabagrey wrote: "Robin P wrote: "Victorian writers often used "the sympathetic fallacy" by writing weather that matches the mood of the story ("it was a dark and stormy night"). "

But this techniq..."

I actually think that the weather was important and the way she described it. But not the weather on its own. It was the juxtaposition of the freezing conditions outside that Hester struggled through and the burning book inside the fire that Hester tried to rescue.

Hester was caught up in a maelstrom of conflicting ideologies and personal vendettas (one of the reasons for the book being burnt was Mrs. Gresley’s jealousy.) Hester was consumed by ice and fire and it led to her to becoming seriously ill both in mind and body.

This is why I laughed when I looked at Project Gutenberg’s assessment of Red Pottage as ’ Reading ease score: 82.4 (6th grade). Easy to read.’ What a joke. The words may be easy to read but her meaning flies way above and beyond anything sitting in a sixth grade library.

No wonder she was admired so much and invited to numerous literary occasions by the so called giants of the writers social circle in the late nineteenth century.

There was more great writing in this week’s section. The two big elephants in the room were the burning of the book and the engagement/cry for redemption/continued deceit involving Hugh. Sandwiched in the space that was between was Rachel, whose two greatest loves in her life have both been seriously damaged, but for very different reasons.

Hester’s great novel has been smouldering in the novel’s background for a long time as the author built up the tension in the Gresley household.

Dick’s intervention ( although under orders from the Bishop/doctor) in taking Hester away, provided the fuse which was the opportunity for Gresley to take action. In Hester’s absence. Of course, Gresley himself was the mastermind of the explosion, but he involved all his family and the archdeacon in his contemptible desecration of Hester’s work. By using his children’s bonfire he even implicated them in his heinous crime. No doubt Regie unwittingly poked the burning book with his stick to the great satisfaction of his father.

Like many explosions, the book burning has done far more damage than Gresley could ever have imagined. It has left Hester clinging to a life she probably feels is not worth surviving.

Rachel’s flying to damaged Hester’s side has left damaged Hugh isolated and vulnerable. Their time together in London, even as an engaged couple, seemed extremely passionate and intense as if the rest of the world didn’t exist. Of course they were both love struck, but their intensity of feeling seemed to be the only thing holding them together. That was exhibited in the descriptions of their physical closeness. I imagined two koala bears hugging in a tree out of harms way.



Rachel leaving to be at Hester’s side savagely exposed Hugh.

’ And now he was suddenly left shivering in a bleak world without her. With her he was himself, a released, freed self, growing daily further and further away from all he had once been. Without her he felt he was nothing but a fierce, wounded animal.’

No matter how much he licks that self inflicted wound of his deceit, it will not heal, with or without Rachel.

Interesting that Mary Cholmondeley chose to begin the chapter detailing Rachel and Hugh’s engagement in London with a poem by Robert Browning (‘ If two lives join, there is oft a scar. —ROBERT BROWNING. From ‘By the Fire Side’ - https://allpoetry.com/By-The-Fire-Side) I am a fan of the poetry of both Robert and Elizabeth Browning , especially Elizabeth. Their relationship was initially a clandestine one and ended with a scandalous elopement. However I don’t think there is a connection here, although they might need to run away from the increasingly unpleasant Lady Newhaven.

Frances wrote: "then staying up half the night to finish reading it (therefore reinforcing to some extent how good her writing is)"

Didn't the brother even cry over a character at one point? That is powerful writing.
Also, blaming the fallen portico on Dick for removing the clamp. The reactions to the situation are so well done, so realistic.

I was captivated by this section!

And so many wonderful scenes and touches! The flowers (Hester's and Rachel's), Regie's potato, the bonfire burning her dress, arriving with snow on her shoulders, the packet of cookies for Reggie, the Bishop coming up with a way of explaining to Regie (caught in a TRAP), the fox rug, Widow Newhaven in a black dress rising from the chair saying "Hughie!"

Very good.

I continue to think the scenes with the children are well written. Thank goodness they have a sensible nanny and at least have Hester for a while, since their parents seem cold and clueless.

Hey, thanks for all your comments- it has really added more depth than I would have gotten from reading the book alone.
I actually finished the book (returned the audiobook to the library, & since I’d already renewed it once, and there was a waiting list for it) and even if there hadn’t been a deadline I was so eager to know where the plot was going I couldn’t stop reading!
So I’ve been hesitant to say much in an effort not to reveal more than would be suitable.
Listening to this audiobook the chapters aren’t announced (unlike the LibriVox books I typically listen to) so I’m unsure what was in which chapter. I think this is OK:
Regarding the issue with the porch needing work & Mr Gresley is obviously not capable of fixing it, but acts as though he is - I think the porch being unsound is symbolic of the Gresley house/household being unsound. It literally needed to be propped up; wasn’t that the issue? A porch support or column? Dick’s offer to fix it (or prop it up) could that be a symbol of him being able to repair the household if he could marry Hester or at least remove her from the house?
Her brother & SIL didn’t want Hester there, & if she could leave it might restore some family harmony…

I am absolutely fuming! Mary C has wrote about the antics of the vilest, most despicable couple I have come across in a novel. You simply could not make up how they have treated poor Hester, which makes me think that the author may have known a similar couple in real life. Scheming together the cleric and his wife have committed the unforgivable sin against all lovers of literature (us included, of course).

I cooled off a bit when the bishop stole the show by stating that he had read the manuscript and commented on the merits of the novel. While the vicar was reeling from that, the archdeacon denied that he advocated that unforgivable sin.

Now I digress - did anyone notice that there is a reference to the Spectator? This happens to be my regular reading before dinner, I especially like the arts and literary criticism. As the magazine was founded in 1828 I assume that most of these Victorian authors must have read it too - therefore I feel connected to them while I am reading it!

I didn't expect much when we started this book, but I'm really impressed by the author's skill and the emotional depth of the story. Mr. Gresley is strict, narrow-minded, and not very intelligent, especially compared to Hester. His inexcusable burning of her book may stem not only from his narrow-mindedness but also from jealousy of his more talented sister. He flattered himself that his corrections would be welcome, but once he began to read the story, he became involved in it and somewhat moved in places. I was pleased that the archbishop revealed just which points he thought might be objectionable to Gresley. As for being a hypocrite, I'm on the fence. Certainly his queries to the archdeacon were manipulative, almost guaranteeing a more desirable result than the real truth would have produced.
I agree with Robin that I don't know what I would have done in Hugh's place, but I think I would have refused to draw one of the lighters and agree to kill myself if the choice went against me. I understand his relief that Lord Newcombe is dead (I liked Newcombe and don't like Hugh). But Hugh is still not being totally honest with Rachel, with himself, or with Lady Newcombe. If he is truly repentant and wants to be a better man, he needs to confess all to Rachel and bear the consequences; he also needs to be very clear with Lady Newcombe that their romance is over.

Yes, it does seem that Gresley is jealous of Hester's talent. He is sure the package contains his boring literary production. He is happy to find what he thinks are "mistakes" in her writing (as well as horrified by the subject matter.)

I like Amy's point about the house being unsound. So typical that Gresley thinks he knows everything about the house (and everything else) when he is an ignorant fool.

Neil wrote: "I am absolutely fuming! Mary C has wrote about the antics of the vilest, most despicable couple I have come across in a novel. You simply could not make up how they have treated poor Hester, which ..."

I am assuming that you know about the ‘Spectator’ archive, a relatively new online venture which gives access to Spectator articles dating back to 1828. As you say, there is a wealth of contemporary literary criticism that gives a flavour of how the novels of the time were received. I can’t find any references to ‘Red Pottage’ but I have found one about Mary Cholmondeley’s ‘Diana Tempest (which I thoroughly recommend) in an 1896 article about ‘The Old Nurse In Fiction’ …… (Warning - Spoiler Alert if you have not read ‘Diana Tempest,’)

https://archive.spectator.co.uk/artic...

Nancy wrote: "I didn't expect much when we started this book, but I'm really impressed by the author's skill and the emotional depth of the story. Mr. Gresley is strict, narrow-minded, and not very intelligent, ..."

I am not surprised that you don’t like Hugh and yet, unlike the majority of Victorian writers who would have probably condemned this weak, sinful man from the outset, Mary Cholmondeley seems to show great sympathy in the way she portrays him. I am surprised at how often the author reveals his inner thoughts to describe his agonies and anxieties. None of the other men in the story are afforded that luxury. At the end of the very last chapter in this section, she gets to the nub of Hugh’s dilemma…

’ He became more composed at the thought of Rachel. But presently his lip quivered. It would be all right in the end. But, oh! not to have done it! Not to have done it! To have come to his marriage with a whiter past, not to need her forgiveness on the very threshold of their life together, not to have been unfaithful to her before he knew her.

…..and then follows this with a comment directed at the seemingly large group of those who have had similar feelings of remorse.

’ What man who has disbelieved in his youth in the sanctity of Love, and then later has knelt in its Holy of Holies, has escaped that pang?’

Thanks to Trev regarding the Spectator archive: I am a subscriber to the magazine and get free access online but I didn’t know about the archive. Suffice to say my screen time is about to go up!

Neil wrote: "Thanks to Trev regarding the Spectator archive: I am a subscriber to the magazine and get free access online but I didn’t know about the archive. Suffice to say my screen time is about to go up!"

Let us know if you find anything written by our favourite authors!

To me, the kind of relationship that has developed between Rachel and Hugh sounds ... well ... unhealthy: there is this extreme imbalance between the helper and the help-seeker, and the mutual dependence on the other's role in the partnership. There seems nothing left of their existence as autonomous human beings. It rings all my alarm bells, but maybe it's just me who has seen examples of such relationships which invariably turned out disastrous for both parties.

Does Cholmondeley see the relationship as pernicious, or rather as some (Christian) ideal?

sabagrey wrote: "To me, the kind of relationship that has developed between Rachel and Hugh sounds ... well ... unhealthy: there is this extreme imbalance between the helper and the help-seeker, and the mutual depe..."

I agree with you. They're both happy with the arrangement now, but it doesn't seem like broken man + helping woman would be enough to keep them happy in the long term. Perhaps, though, if they both got past the codependence they'd eventually find other things to bond over.

sabagrey wrote: "To me, the kind of relationship that has developed between Rachel and Hugh sounds ... well ... unhealthy: there is this extreme imbalance between the helper and the help-seeker, and the mutual depe..."

Yes I agree, probably unhealthy because it is so obsessive. Rachel, suddenly released from the chains of the Mr. Tristram relationship, has now, as the author vividly put it, ‘jumped over a cliff.’ I will add ‘without a parachute.’

’ she shut her eyes, recommended her soul to God, and threw herself over. She had climbed down once—with assistance—and she was not going to do that again. That she found herself alive at the bottom was a surprise to her, but a surprise that was quickly forgotten in the constant wonder that Hugh could love her as devotedly as it was obvious he did.’

And Hugh now seems to have gained the strength he lacked in the past because of his blind faith in Rachel and her love for him, even when dogged by Lady Newhaven.

’ ………“when she (Lady Newhaven) sees my engagement to Rachel in the papers. Then she will get at me somehow, and make my life a hell to me, while she can. And she will try and come between me and Rachel. I deserve it. I deserve anything I get. But Rachel knows, and will stick to me. I will go down to her to-morrow. I can't go on without seeing her. And she won't mind, as the engagement will be given out next day."

Unfortunately their shutting out the rest of the world indulgence has already been shattered by Hester’s illness and no doubt more painful episodes will follow to test them.

I wonder what Rachel’s secretary thought about Hugh’s daily visits? I thought it was clever touch by the author to highlight the ‘conventions’ of the day in comparing the acceptable practice of Hugh’s visits to Rachel with the scandalous appearance of Lady Newhaven in Hugh’s rooms.

Trev wrote: "And Hugh now seems to have gained the strength he lacked in the past because of his blind faith in Rachel and her love for him, even when dogged by Lady Newhaven."

Sorry to have to disagree on that point: when does he show any strength? - If he had confronted Lady Newhaven and told her that their affair was over as soon as it was, that would have been a show of strength. He just hides and runs from her, and totally relies on Rachel to clean up his mess.

**Note on scheduling, somehow I added an extra week to the Reading Schedule that isn't needed. We should be able to finish next week and I updated the schedule to show that. But if you need more time, just continue to post as you get to each section.