Jane Austen discussion

In his conversation with Mr. Bell, Henry Lennox shows that he does not understand or admire Mr. Hale's decision to leave the church. He trivializes it, and seems to think it shows a lack of intellectual sophistication. In this conversation, Henry shows one of the qualities which Margaret dislikes in him and which she recognizes make him an unfit mate for her.

Alicia wrote: "In his conversation with Mr. Bell, Henry Lennox shows that he does not understand or admire Mr. Hale's decision to leave the church. He trivializes it, and seems to think it shows a lack of intelle..."

Alicia, I completely agree with you; I think Henry generally only thinks of how he can improve his situation.

Do we feel that there is anything that is fairly creditable in Henry Lennox, let's say in comparison to the rest of the London family -- who all seem to be kind of background furnishings to me? My answer to this question alludes to a spoiler of the end though. This item from the end of the story --and the fact that there may have been enough uniqueness or weightier qualities to Henry for Margaret to single him out as a friend in her earlier days.

And I believe many people of that era would have not understood a minister leaving his place due to matters of his own views.

Henry was a good person. During her time in London, he was the person she could have a serious conversation with. Later, he was generous and helpful in Frederick's legal case and with Margaret's own affairs. His remarks about Mr. Hale show a lack of humility. He's also worldly, a bit jaded. He's blind to things that Margaret is sensitive to, and doesn't value things that are important to her.

I agree with Alicia. Henry was a good person but that doesn't mean he was right for Margaret. As for the rest of Margaret's family, Edith only values Margaret for what she does for her. Edith was kind but so selfish. I can see why Margaret was lonely and why Henry was the person to whom she could most relate.

Margaret's cousin and aunt are wrapped up in themselves and their family and little social circle. They live for pleasure. Margaret and Henry were more aware of and interested in a wider world. They think more seriously. But Henry is more ambitious for recognition, social status, and money than Margaret. Margaret is more concerned with moral and spiritual matters.

exactly - you said is just right(so much better than I would have said it).

I know what you are saying about Henry. I wasn't speaking of him as being a worthy suitor for Margaret, but it is interesting to me that Gaskell in the end makes him someone slightly different, although he is still hoping to be her husband. As her legal adviser he comes to share at least a part of the understanding that Margaret has developed of the worth of the Milton people. He still has an eye for success and money, but at least a respect for Milton society and ultimately John Thornton I think.

One of my favorite parts of the story is Henry at the beginning of the last chapter -- ok it is a SPOILER--

Henry leaves the house suddenly but first asks Edith to let the back drawing room be undisturbed for their meeting next day with John. Henry never returns. So John is alone next day with Margaret. Henry has learned the truth but looks out that Margaret and John have time to be alone to finally have the conversation they need to have.

I just think that is a subtle beautiful way to give credit to a character -- saying that he hasn't always been perfect, but he has value. I like that this is a part of the last chapter of the story.

You're right. And even if Henry had developed into someone who was suitable for Margaret, by that time, Margaret was already in love with John Thornton.

What do you think are the qualities that make Mr. Thornton a good mate for Margaret? He's pretty ambitious, but the fact that he wants to study classics with Mr. Hale, and the fact that the two men have so many things to talk about, show that money is not the only thing he cares about. I don't think he wanted an education in order to improve his social status, because in Milton, that wasn't necessary; I think he valued learning for its own sake. He is a loving son and a good brother. He has the highest integrity. I think he has the qualities of humility and compassion all along, but these are heightened by the events of the book.

How do you think Margaret will get along with her mother-in-law? Do you think Mrs. Thornton will ever like her? Is it possible that they could grow close?

What do you think about the fact that Margaret can't look Mr. Thornton in the face when he tells her he loves her? Elizabeth Bennet also could't look Darcy in the eye when he asks her if her feelings have changed. These are not shy women.

Alicia wrote: "What do you think about the fact that Margaret can't look Mr. Thornton in the face when he tells her he loves her? Elizabeth Bennet also could't look Darcy in the eye when he asks her if her feeli..."

Alicia, I have just been going back over the novel and made a comment relating to this in the Ch 24 section. I think Margaret deals with guilt about her own being as a woman. You are right in that she is not shy in so many things. But she seems to not be able to reconcile her sexuality. I think by the final scene, she knows she has screwed up by not reaching out to John more rationally and ultimately that she could have confided in him about Frederick the whole time. I think she is ashamed, but my goodness weren't women conflicted in that day -- now too really? I think that is why it was so important to her to reach out to help him with the investment. Even if it was true what he told her earlier, that his feelings had died, she was trying to make amends for not being to John who she could have been all along.

And this goes along with my comment in the other thread -- relating it to Elizabeth Bennet -- she and Elizabeth both made cruel responses to the proposals of these men -- outbursts really. On later reflection, even with circumstances of misunderstanding in Lizzie's case, they knew they had been very harsh to these men. After all, even if Darcy or John had been ungentlemanly, these ladies knew by the end that the men were genuine and speaking from their hearts.

What are your thoughts Alicia?

Alicia wrote: "You're right. And even if Henry had developed into someone who was suitable for Margaret, by that time, Margaret was already in love with John Thornton.

What do you think are the qualities that..."

I have been looking at this point again too Alicia! When I read back through, in so many different parts of the book, you see this amazing constancy in John. Margaret harshly turns him down, he goes straight home and his mother says I hate her and he just says I love her more then. Later convinced that Margaret has another lover, he tells his mother that he will in no way speak against her character. And on and on.

I agree with what you said Alicia about his interest in education and thought. I think he has a good grasp on the world, but he has been blinded to the plight of others by the fact of having to work so hard as such a young man. But he becomes open to seeing things and part of that is due to the exposure to the Hales and Margaret's questioning things. She starts out as snobbish about it, but after a while he sees that she questions real problems. He knew she was right when she told him he must go down and talk to the men who were forming a riot. I think he is able to respect her and she starts to realize this too very soon after the proposal -- and she is devastated that he finds her in the lie about the incident at the train station.

Oh, gee I don't about Mrs. Thornton. She has had so much snobbery about her too. She is jealous of John. She has had a very odd relationship with her own daughter. I think she has too many issues -- I don't know how that will ever go smoothly. Let's hope they don't live next door to each other. And at least they live in the days before telephone.

What about Mrs. T and Fanny anyway? Mrs. Thornton is so opposed to weakness but it seems she has encouraged Fanny's weakness and spoiled nature. She has allowed Fanny to grow up without a respect for how hard John has worked to bring the family back up in life. She is really a complaining shallow person, but it seems much Mrs. T's fault.

I love this comment from John discussing the incident at the train station:
"I see a great deal of difference between Miss Hale and Fanny. I can imagine that one may have weighty reasons, which may and ought to make her overlook any seeming impropriety in her conduct. I never knew Fanny have weighty reasons for anything. Other people must guard her. I believe Miss Hale is a guardian to herself."

Thanks for responding, Sarah. I'm happy that this group read this book, because ever since I first read it, I have been longing to have someone to discuss it with. I hope other people will have some ideas about these questions too.

I think it's true that Fanny's weakness is due at least in part to her upbringing. Mrs. Thornton may have felt sorry that John has had to struggle so much at such a young age, and tried to shield Fanny from that. She may also have been more protective of her because she is the youngest child and because she is a girl. But John's struggles in his youth helped form his character. I think this is very true to life, and shows Gaskell's understanding of people. It's something for those of us who are parents to remember and take to heart! We may not be doing our children a favor if we protect them too much.

Interesting observations that both of you make about the Thorntons. Initially, the relationship between Mrs. Thornton and John seemed mildly oedipal; more from her side, than his though. She is quite attached to him. I think you are both right about her neglect in bringing up Fanny though. I wonder if she has expended all of her energies in ensuring that John can sufficiently provide for both of them. In other words, in that day and time, it would have been much more important to ensure that the eldest male is able to take his place and make a living. It was those early struggles that certainly shaped John and built his character.

It does seem that John has been encouraged in all his strengths and Fanny moreso in the areas of finery and charm. She has had the music lessons and the dance instructor and I guess the training to make her very marriageable. It seems that she has been matched to the man she married for some time according to something I had read in the book last night. Wasn't he described as a gray-haired older gentleman? Yes, I guess it was the difference in the male child and the female child of the family, Alicia and Chris.

I think you may be right that Fanny is more neglected than spoiled. John is the breadwinner and Mrs. Thornton is the parent and manages the household. The only role left for Fanny to play is the baby. She may feel that she is not of much value to her mother and John.

I think that Mrs. Thornton did neglect Fanny. John seemed to be her only focus and she was very possessive of him. It felt like Mrs. Thornton ignored Fanny because John was her favorite so Fanny didn't develop her own skills or gain much depth. There were times in the book when Mrs. Thornton acknowledged to herself that Fanny was lacking in depth, etc. I find it interesting that Mrs. Thornton so disliked Margaret when Margaret was obviously so superior a person to Fanny. Mrs. Thornton wasn't frivolous or flighty so it seems like she would appreciate Margaret - maybe if she hadn't rejected John - although she hated Margaret from far before then.

Linda wrote: "I think that Mrs. Thornton did neglect Fanny. John seemed to be her only focus and she was very possessive of him. It felt like Mrs. Thornton ignored Fanny because John was her favorite so Fanny ..."

Oh, I don't think Mrs. Thornton's dislike of Margaret had anything to do with Fanny. It had everything to do with that Mrs. Thornton perceived Margaret to be a legitimate threat toward removing John from the mother's nest. Her real issue was that she knew, deep down, that John liked Margaret.

christopher - you are EXACTLY right. I just think she should have at least respected Margaret for the kind of person that she was.

Linda wrote: "christopher - you are EXACTLY right. I just think she should have at least respected Margaret for the kind of person that she was."

You know, Linda, I do believe that Mrs. Thornton did respect Margaret Hale; quite a lot actually. I think it grew on her slowly, but she eventually came to realize that Margaret had grown herself and had matured and did understand what 'life' in the 'north' was all about. It took a while, but I think Mrs. Thornton also realized that Margaret was a lot tougher inside than she originally credited, and that Margaret was, in fact, ultimately true to herself. I think she continually measured Margaret Hale against herself and found Margaret not lacking eventually.

While she may have feared losing her son to Margaret, and she may never have ultimately 'liked' Margaret, I do think, at the end, that she developed a grudging admiration and respect for Margaret. Mind you, this is just my opinion and interpretation.

I just wanted to say that I adore Mr. Bell. Not only is he astute enough to detect the truth of Margaret and Thornton's relationship, a kind and dear friend, a wise advisor, and a generous godfather, but he is also hilarious. Here is a great example, in my opinion:

"Margaret fancied that [Mr. Bell:] could not be well; but, in answer to some inquiry of hers as to his health, he sent her a short note, saying there was an old-fashioned complaint called the spleen; that he was suffering from that, and it was for her to decide if it was more mental or physical; but that he should like to indulge himself in a little grumbling, without being obliged to send a bulletin every time."

Thank you Mrs. Gaskell--I adore this kind of droll humour!

Joy, we should discuss Bell's portrayal in the film when we switch over to that thread. The film makers saw some need to change his character, didn't they?

I just wanted to comment on everyone's thoughts on the Thornton family.

Chris I totally agree with you about the Oedipus thing with Mrs. Thornton. She overtly inserts herself and her thoughts into John's business. I think her dislike of Margaret definitely helped in John's heart staying true to her. (Her meaning Margaret) His mom had to constantly bring her up and how unworthy of a person she was and all that jazz - it just made John's feelings for Margaret stronger. (In my opinion)

I also see the argument on Fanny being either neglected or spoiled. I have to side on the neglected side of the argument. John is the apple of Mrs. Thornton's eye. I do however think that John does have a fondness for his sister. There is a line in there about Fanny's wedding saying that John spent too much money on the wedding. I think he realized that he was everything to their mother and wanted to send her off well.

In my message #12 I talked about what I thought was one of the strongest cases of John and Mr. Thornton at odds about Margaret. Even though he loves, respects, and is closely bonded with his mother, I think the more she tries to diminish Margaret, the more John sees this as a big flaw in his mother's nature.

I always think of feeling sorry for Margaret that she will have to deal with this woman for years to come, but maybe my sympathy should be with John because he will be in the middle of this and trying to adapt the way he deals with his mom. That's got to be very hard.

That is a good point about John spending the money on Fanny's wedding. He probably does much of that out of kindness toward her, his only sibling.

I also wanted to say - I had watched the mini-series first and then read the book. I think each ending fit their respective story well. I was exceedingly pleased with how the book ended. Fitting ending for both characters.

Kim, I have re-watched the movie more since spring too. and I agree. Each ending was fitting. The ending scene of the movie was visually interesting and of course the sites of sounds and just the symbolism of the train station -- you really can't beat that to help with a movie version of a story like this. I can see why they preferred it to the ending scene of the novel.

But I still prefer the novel ending -- it seems to affect me more and it really allows you to see that Henry was a better guy than the movie portrayed him -- I didn't think they needed to portray him as antagonist. North and South isn't a good guy-bad guy story. The whole story is about the transitions of our feelings and assumptions, so I like that Gaskell's original story showed an imperfect but redeemable Henry.

I agree, I didn't like how the movie portrayed Henry as spiteful when in the novel he was kind and one of Margaret's only friends in London. I felt bad for Henry in the book whereas in the movie I disliked him and felt he was mean.

As for the endings, I loved the movie ending until I read the book and the book ending was so powerful and so romantic. That being said I have watched the movie ending more than once. I am always a sucker for a good movie kiss!

Me too Linda!

I have to agree with you. I watched the mini-series before reading the book and I kept saying to myself, wow John is such an angry guy, and Henry is a huge jerk. As I read the book I kept saying everyone is so different.

They definitely didn't need to make John violent and punch that guy in the beginning of the film. Henry didn't need to be such a jerk, Mr. Bell didn't need to be creepy and ask Margaret to marry him!

I do have to say I thought the Hale's in the movie were a lot nicer than the book. I think they treated Margaret better in the movie than the book. Mr. Hale took more of an interest in Margaret and her mother, and her mother wasn't so ugh about everything in the movie. Book Mrs. Hale drove me crazy. I got the sense that she really did love Mr. Hale more in the movie than I did the book.

I totally agree with you. When i read the book I thought mrs. Hale was the worst but she was much better in the movie.

Mr. Bell asking Margaret to marry him was the worst. What was that? He was like 80!

I know - It literally came out of left field. I was like didn't you just tell her dad that you'd make sure she was taken care of. I'm pretty sure he never thought you were going to ask her to marry you!

When the film script just adds too much and makes the story go off base, I don't really care for it, like in this example of Bell. Because he essentially withheld telling John the secret of the night at the railway station due to being aggravating and jealous. It doesn't happen like that in the book, thus totally changes the personality of the character of Bell. Several of the elements in this script do that.

Jeannette and I were just talking about script changes like that. Some are just scene and set changes (which apparently I don't always catch, right Jeannette? ha ha) But some of a different type just throw me off -- just like how John also didn't have another girl he was courting or being matched with -- Miss Latimer or whoever. So that was rivaly/jealousy in two more cases, I didn't think it really helped.

Are the film makers just tryihg to keep us readers on our toes!?! Maybe they are laughing behind studio doors!

I studied film in college so I can understand the need to change/add things to a film to make it translate on screen better, but I personally feel that none of the changes they made (besides the end) were necessary or needed.

I agree Kim, I am a most liberal movie viewer of books-to-film because I honestly love to see artistic changes even of the most classic stories. But those North & South changes we mentioned didn't seem as enjoyable.

So have you, Linda, or others seen the Wives and Daughters film? You may have seen it is on the new movie list for this group, to be discussed this fall/winter. Maybe we can compare our thoughts on that one then. I have to catch up because I haven't even read the book yet!

I have seen Wives and Daughters! I watched it like a day or two after North and South. I have the book to read, just have to start it.

I'd love to start a discussion of that novel as well!

Loved wives and daughters but i haven't read the book yet. Just finished cold comfort farm and am waiting for the DVD!

There is also Cranford by the same director who put out Wives and Daughters. Saw Cold Comfort but it left me cold. Did not read the book.

I really enjoyed cranford. It is definitely slow. Haven't read the book.

The book is more detailed. I thought the film had the perfect pace. Another dvd to see is Bleak House, Little Dorrit.

Robin, thanks for the movie suggestions. Let's keep this thread to specifically discuss Gaskell though, just so we keep the threads organized. But sure to keep your movie suggestions coming in the movie thread in the other folder though, we always appreciate your comments!

Here is the direct link to that thread here in the Jane Austen group, Robin. If you look for it later, it is in The Tea Tray folder.

Lots of our group members have added movie suggestions in there and please feel free to do the same.

Must-See Classic Movies

I loved the adaptation of Wives and Daughters and am looking forward to discussing it with the group later. Unlike the adaptation of North and South, it sticks very closely to the book.

I have a feeling I'm going to be disappointed with Wives and Daughters the book. I understand Gaskell died before being able to complete it, so the ending is a bit unfinished.