The Readers Review: Literature from 1714 to 1910 discussion

**I apologize that I had an extra week in the original schedule. This week wraps it up, but of course feel free to comment on any section when you get there.

Were you surprised by anything in this last section? We get a lot of melodrama here - The Confrontation, The Sacrifice, The Madness, The Touching Death Scene. I felt it was a different tone from some of the very realistic scenes earlier in the book.

The Bishop remains my favorite character of the book. He presents a very positive image of a churchman, as opposed to the horrible Mr. Gresley.

The Epilogue tells us that Rachel and Hester have abandoned English society to travel independently. Luckily for them, they have money. Otherwise they would have no options except marriage or living with relatives.

I was somewhat disappointed by the closing scenes of the novel. I felt the Hugh section was not handled particularly well, and I would not have expected Rachel to act as she did-throwing him off for his lie so completely, without any time to think or live with her change of feelings and disappointment in his dishonour. Perhaps with the disappearance of duelling we no longer feel the emotions that must have been held at the time, but I struggle to understand why anyone would believe a man was obliged to kill himself-kill himself!-on the basis of a drawn straw, or would condemn him for being less than truthful after the fact about not killing himself.

While i agreed with the Bishop that Dick was probably the better choice for Rachel, I am sorry that it happens "off-camera" and that we don't see their relationship develop.

I also struggled to understand why Lady Newhaven would go through with the marriage to Pratt-in her place I think I would have "toughed out" the scandal, rather than allow myself to be blackmailed into marrying a man who would threaten and blackmail me in the first place.

So despite a great set-up and wonderful interplay of issues around women, art, poverty, and freedom, I was left somewhat less satisfied by the denouement.

Frances wrote: "I was somewhat disappointed by the closing scenes of the novel. ..."

I agree with you. Some things seem hurried, some questions remain unresolved, some new puzzles turn up. (oops, this risks to be long ... )

One is Newhaven’s character. He is praised repeatedly as a good man, honourable, gentle, etc. etc. But his letter from beyond the grave is pure, concentrated malice and revenge. Is that what he died for, is that how he died? - his mind filled with thoughts of revenge and humiliation and hurting people until the last moment? What is “good” about him?

A second puzzle is the bishop’s sermon to Rachel - should I take his voice as the author's opinion?

It is women like you who do more harm in the world than the bad ones. The harm that poor fool Lady Newhaven did him is as nothing compared to the harm you have done him. You were his god, and you have deserted him. And you say you loved him. May God preserve men from the love of women if that is all that a good woman's love is capable of.

grrrrrrr…. the woman idealized, likened to god, and cursed in consequence because she does not live up to the ideal of all-forgiving, all-redeeming, etc. etc. love. … and he goes on:

You can do nothing when you are responsible for a man's soul? God will require his soul at your hands. Scarlett gave it into your keeping, and you took it. You had no business to take it if you meant to throw it away. And now you say you can do nothing!

Now he gets closer to Rachel’s core problem, her helper syndrome. I’ve asked myself before whether the novel would show how problematic this is for herself. There would have been lots of ways in which she could get to the root of it, and put this obsession of hers into perspective. But no, it is never put into question as such - only Rachel is when she cannot live up to it. The woman-missionary-saviour remains the undisputed ideal. The epitaph to ch. 51 points in the same direction:

I thought, "Now, if I had been a woman, such
As God made women, to save men by love—
By just my love I might have saved this man."
—ELIZABETH BARRETT BROWNING. *

Considering the strange relationship between Hugh and Rachel, his death seems to me the neat solution. I have no idea whether Cholmondeley suspected that this marriage would be as disastrous as I think it would be (and maybe other readers too): tidying Hugh away in a nice fever dream certainly seems more charitable than the prospect of protracted unhappiness for both.

Hester, we hear, is motivated to return to life through Rachel’s broken heart and the necessity to help her. And we hear that she writes more books. But we are not told anything about the process by which she returns to writing, nor whether the terrible experience has any lasting consequences, or lessons (at least she will make copies in future??? ;-))

More on Rachel’s relationship with Dick would have been interesting from the point of view of the development of her character - whether and how she can overcome this compulsive part of herself in the presence of the eminently practical, “normal” Dick. But that would mean to see the noxious side of her helper syndrome, and that is not what the author wants. - In this, and given its publication date, the novel seems to me both the apogee and the swansong of the Victorian heroine, the self-sacrificing, naturally altruistic, always helping “angel”, but who now is also apt to wreak havoc in other people’s lives.

I’ve read that the novel has been criticised for having the two plots and heroines - Hester and Rachel - run side by side, with no clear causal connection and mutual influence. But this is a point that I find rather interesting, because it makes me reflect on parallels and contrasts - they are both there - and the possible meanings that Cholmondeley gave this choice of a double plot.

Which in turn makes me puzzle again over the author’s stance toward her characters. It occurs to me that MC is very reluctant to let the narrator’s voice pass judgment on the handful of main characters. She has a sharp pen and she directs it mercilessly toward society, but she takes care to let character transpire through words and actions alone. - I admit this is just a hunch, and I would have to go back through the text to verify it. We learn about the main characters only when the story is told from their POV. As one’s own POV is never wrong, so every one of them has room to justify themselves. While the characters to which we never get “inside” access remain mysteries - such as Newhaven.

* the quote is from “Aurora Leigh” - I don’t know this verse novel; wikipedia tells me that the eponymous heroine is a poet struggling with her talent. hmm.

I enjoyed the story, but I agree with the above comments about loose ends, Rachel’s helper syndrome, and how Hester returned to writing. I also wish there had been just a little more about the possible relationship between Hester and Dick, which I think would have been an excellent match. Finally, I was not surprised that Mr. and Mrs. Gresley were no more tolerant at the end of the novel than at the beginning.

I enjoyed the book too, but would have like to see Hester rewrite her book before it ended. For some reason I got the idea that the Bishop was a young or middle-aged man who was interested in Hester until he referenced his age a few times.
I was also surprised that the drawing of lighters was taken so seriously.

My overall feelings about this novel are very positive, with particular focus on the excellent descriptive writing and use of poetic imagery.

However, on my first reading of this book I found the ending hard to take. With this second reading, I found it even harder.

I was disappointed that both Hugh and Rachel had to suffer so terribly because of their love for each other. Their love and their future was doomed by that Black Widow, Lady Newhaven and that revengeful ‘noble’ Lord her husband. Did Newhaven really have a right to interfere in someone’s happiness from beyond the grave and in so doing ‘help’ the woman who betrayed him? That really is nobility and honour for you.

That the Black Widow would move swiftly on to another victim after Hugh’s death was inevitable. But not before executing a vicious revenge via that terrible tableau involving the Widow, Rachel and Hugh, wrapping them in a web of doom which neither of the lovers could escape from.

Mary Cholmondeley succeeded in providing both a dramatic and chilling ending and yet even incorporated such exquisite tenderness in the death scene. I still get the feeling from the text that the author herself would have married Hugh despite his deceit about the drawing of straws. Rachel changed her mind pretty quickly too, after the bishop’s sermon, but too late, condemning herself to a life of interminable torment.

As for the bishop, he professed to administer wisdom to the girls (Hester and Rachel) yet they knew he didn’t really know how their minds were working at all. When kneeling Rachel tried to kiss Hugh back to life in the public glare of Dick and the Bishop, only then did they fully realise the tragedy of her loss.

Her empty husk might be useful to Dick or some other husband for providing children if she so decides, but I suggest that Hester and Rachel would be better off coping with the rest of their lives as loving companions, supporting each other and others.

Those author’s comments at the end felt like a different book.

The chapter describing the tragedy of Hugh’s drowning should have ended the book. Both the Conclusion and postcript felt hurriedly bolted on as if the author had been forced to add a little bit of context. It was insensitive to bring back that ‘wrecking ball’ pair to make glib comments about the aftermath. Hadn’t everyone had more than enough of them for one book?

To infer in the postcript that Hester, with her horribly maimed writing hand and, Rachel, the catalyst of her lover’s suicide, could eventually live ‘happily ever after’ was crassness in the extreme. Maybe it was rushed off just before it had to go the printers. Next time I read this novel ( and there will be a next time, I hope) I will not read those last few meaningless paragraphs.

Trev wrote: "My overall feelings about this novel are very positive, with particular focus on the excellent descriptive writing and use of poetic imagery.

However, on my first reading of this book I found the ..."

Great review, Trev, my only quibble is that I think Lady Newhaven is the victim in her new marriage-she is clearly afraid of Pratt and I’m assuming has been forced into marriage by fear of exposure, has been married for her fortune and position, and he will treat her abominably, and I don’t even feel she deserves that-she only deserved seeing Hugh and Rachel happily married.

Trev wrote: "It was insensitive to bring back that ‘wrecking ball’ pair to make glib comments about the aftermath. Hadn’t everyone had more than enough of them for one book?"

It didn't feel like that to me: I read it as a sarcastic comment on how certain people will never change, on the overwhelming power and persistence of stupidity and self-righteous meanness in our world.

I did not dislike the ending as much as you did. It does sound glued-on, ok, but maybe it is also meant as an afterthought for readers like me for whom the story is way too melodramatic. The hint to an "afterlife" for Rachel and Hester puts the drama a bit into a much needed perspective in that, after all, it is only an episode in their lives, and humans - most humans - are resilient enough to live on after tragedy.

So both men who drew the lighters ended up dying for "honor". it seems quaint today when there are few deeds that anyone is ashamed of. Same for Lady Newhaven, today her "scandalous" affair would make her a tabloid heroine.

The paragraph below came from The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Victorian Women's Writing

‘Red Pottage, by Mary Cholmondeley (1859–1925), was published in 1899. This sensational fin-de-siècle love story was the bestseller of the year. It was so popular in America that it was selling at a rate of 1500 copies a day. In the United Kingdom, it was equally popular: Mudie’s bought 2000 copies for their circulating libraries. This novel created a scandal on publication for its attack on both the clergy and middle classes. It can be seen to advance the cause of the New Woman with its representation of women’s desire for social and economic independence. It analyzes questions about sibling relationships, female friendships, and marriage while also providing a dramatic and sensational storyline concerning an ill-fated affair. Cholmondeley succeeds in intertwining both of her plots through the central relationship of her characters Hester Gresley and Rachel West.’

My own enjoyment of the book centred on the quality of the writing rather than the plot but there is no doubting that Mary Cholmondeley wrote a novel that made everyone sit up and take notice.

It is a shame that the early 1920s film adaptation has not survived ( or at least doesn’t seem publicly available), because the novel seems to have all the ingredients needed for a gripping ‘weepy’ movie.

If it had been made from the 1980s to the early 2000s I could imagine a great cast of actors. Here are some of my choices.

Rachel - Meryl Streep
Hester - Helen Bonham- Carter
Hugh - Hugh Grant ( although he ought to be taller)
Lord Newhaven - Hugh Bonneville
Lady Newhaven - Nicole Kidman
The Bishop - Robert Hardy
Dick - Harrison Ford
Mr. Gresley - Alan Rickman
Mrs. Gresley - Prunella Scales

I am sure many would substitute their own favourite actors.

Also my imaginary film would have a different ending. I have thought about two possible scenarios. One would be even more tragic and the other much happier but just as dramatic.
Both involve Rachel following Hugh to the frozen lake in a bid to reconcile. (I prefer number 2)

1. She gets to the lake shore just as he crashes through the ice. A strange impulse makes her glide slowly out onto the lake and fall through the broken ice after him. They are found later beneath the ice with her arms wrapped around him.
2. Despite the cracking ice, Rachel rushes out towards the drowning Hugh and reaches out a hand of forgiveness. With superhuman strength she pulls him out, resuscitates him and then carries him back to safety, with Dick and the Bishop looking on astonished at the lakeside.

Mary Cholmondeley’s novels and short stories seem to have that quality to set my imagination racing every time I read them.

My problem with your wonderfully melodramatic ending no. 2 is that I can't see the relationship between Rachel and Hugh work out.

A happier ending I could live with would imply that Hugh survives, but Rachel travels round the world with Hester anyway, for at least a year. She leaves Hugh to finally grow up to some degree of emotional and moral autonomy, while she acquires a bit of common selfishness and learns to enjoy herself. On that basis, I will allow them to meet again and to find out whether their love can survive the stage of obsessiveness and grow into something more sustainable.

What about Dick? - He is pragmatic, after all, and will find himself a woman eventually.
What about Hester? - We know she has a bit of money of her own, and she will find the courage to live independently to write new books without interference. She will live in London, and like her author, she will somehow cultivate the image of the quiet, lonely country spinster, while actually being well received and connected in London literary circles.

(I don't know all the actors you propose, but I love your choice of Alan Rickman - he could have done a wonderful Mr. Gresley. Maybe the script writers would have shown some mercy and invented some light at the end of his tunnel of bigotry. Helen Bonham-Carter would be way too pretty for Hester's role, though.)

Yes, I think Bonham-Carter would be Rachel, and Streep would be Hester. Meryl Streep isn't as traditionally pretty.

Alan Rickman played another sanctimonious churchman in the (I think BBC) production of Barchester Towers from Anthony Trollope.

Robin P wrote: "Alan Rickman played another sanctimonious churchman in the (I think BBC) production of Barchester Towers from Anthony Trollope."

Now that you remind me - yes! I think that's why I could see him in the role of a clergyman instantly. But the Trollope character was more scheming than sanctimonious, wasn't he?

sabagrey wrote: "Robin P wrote: "Alan Rickman played another sanctimonious churchman in the (I think BBC) production of Barchester Towers from Anthony Trollope."

Now that you remind me - yes! I think that's why I ..."

That character was sanctimonious on the outside but knew he was scheming, while Gresley sincerely thinks he is always doing right.

I am a great admirer of Mary Cholmondeley's work, both her novels and short stories. The only novel I haven’t read is Notwithstanding which, for some reason, I am saving because I don’t want to finish them all.

Reading Red Pottage with the group has been really enjoyable, especially this second time accompanied by all the thought provoking and insightful comments. Thanks to Robin P. for leading us all so adeptly through each section.

I have recently been made aware that Mary Cholmondeley kept a diary. These journals have been scrutinised by Carolyn Oulton and she has produced a series of articles based on Mary’s work and the entries in the diaries. They are fascinating and provide an insight into her very lively mind. For example, close to her eighteenth birthday, Mary wrote this…..

’ It would raise me very much in my own estimation to have someone who could love me enough to ask me to marry him. But that seems such a difficult case to imagine, when I think of what I am. I could not fall in love with myself if I was a man. I have nothing outside to fall in love with. I know I could love truly and steadfastly in return, but who on earth is to find that out. No no! Miss Mary I shall remain to the end of my days; see if I don’t you poor old book, which so many years have only been able to half fill. ‘(undated, summer 1877)……..and this……

…..’ I must strike out a line of some kind, and if I do not marry, (for at least that is hardly likely, as I possess neither beauty, nor cleverness) I should want some definite occupation, besides the home duties, though they certainly do engross far more of my time than I could have anticipated. (16.5.1877)

These and other diary extracts are examined by Carolyn Oulton in this article.

https://lifewritingannual.openlibhums...

This article and others like it can be found here……..

https://lifewritingannual.openlibhums...

Unfortunately I can’t find any links to the actual diaries which would be really interesting to read.

Thanks for this info, Trev! I didn't know anything about this author before but plan to read more.

Thanks to everyone for the great participation in this read!

this group re-reading has given me a lot of new thoughts and insights about the book. Thank you all.

... if I like the book not more after this reading than I did before, at least I now know better why!

PS: I will go on to read Moth and Rust Together with Geoffrey's Wife and The Pitfall. Moth and Rust has not even got a blurb in GR, only 10 ratings and one review. I will try to find out whether the lack of interest and readership is justified, and maybe I'll add another review?

(so far I've read, beside Red Pottage, Diana Tempest, the two Danvers novels, Notwithstanding, and a few short stories of which I don't remember much, alas)

PPS: ... I've read Moth and Rust already. It is short, but it also was gripping and I could not put it down. Another story with two heroines, less complex characters and more contrasted this time. And we get a long quote from one of Hester Gresley's novels ;-) - very poetic. I wonder whether Cholmondeley secretly wished to write in such a style - but did not because she knew she would lose her readers.

I thoroughly enjoyed the book. Additionally, I enjoyed reading everyone’s comments and took on board that some feel the ending was a bit of an enigma-we don’t really know what exactly happened to Rachel, Hester and Dick.

My ideal ending would be that Rachel and Hester should stay together as they go back a long way, but what about poor Dick? He was one of my favourite characters too. I propose a Bloomsbury solution. For those of you who haven’t guessed already, I mean a ménage à trois!

Nice! They can safely manage it out in the remote Outbacks, can't They? :-)

Good point Bonnie - but they may face a kangaroo court
Should they be discovered 🤨