Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.12 AVERAGE
4.12 AVERAGE
Borrowed book from sister. Free download on Kindle.
For the first half of this book I dreaded the picking up. It was so dark and heavy and dreary. I completed the book on Kindle and ended up enjoying it tremendously.
A study in contrasts ... North and South, Man and Gentleman, Man and Woman, masters and "hands", past and present. Margaret Hale's world is turned upside down and inside out, death and difficulties surround her, trouble and conscience confound her, and she learns to be self-possessed and self-controlled. She sins and repents and is forgiven. She learns to live with a world that ever changes even as she seeks that One who is constant.
There are several plot similarities and parallels to Pride and Prejudice, but this book is very different in tone and theme.
I'm glad I have more Gaskell works to explore.
2021 - still wonderful. I love how Gaskell sees and presents both sides and works toward reconciliation; how talking and listening and befriending makes a difference in relationships that start contentiously. May we all take those ideas to heart more in this day of angry yelling and no actually communication.
For the first half of this book I dreaded the picking up. It was so dark and heavy and dreary. I completed the book on Kindle and ended up enjoying it tremendously.
A study in contrasts ... North and South, Man and Gentleman, Man and Woman, masters and "hands", past and present. Margaret Hale's world is turned upside down and inside out, death and difficulties surround her, trouble and conscience confound her, and she learns to be self-possessed and self-controlled. She sins and repents and is forgiven. She learns to live with a world that ever changes even as she seeks that One who is constant.
There are several plot similarities and parallels to Pride and Prejudice, but this book is very different in tone and theme.
I'm glad I have more Gaskell works to explore.
2021 - still wonderful. I love how Gaskell sees and presents both sides and works toward reconciliation; how talking and listening and befriending makes a difference in relationships that start contentiously. May we all take those ideas to heart more in this day of angry yelling and no actually communication.
I read this after Pride and Prejudice, so I feel like in a lot of ways, I couldn't help but compare. I'm an avid fan of the latter, having watched the 2005 movie to obsession - it does miss out on the prose, but to be honest, Joe Wright's direction more than makes up for it - but North and South pretty much blew it out of the water. There's higher stakes that exist in this novel due to the setting and the starker class differences, and I really enjoyed the humanitarian and political discussions which arose from that. It felt like where Elizabeth and Darcy were mostly only barred from each other due to piled up miscommunications, the barriers that existed between characters in North and South were far more and much harder to overcome, so the change that we witnessed in Margaret, Thornton, and Higgins was more significant.
I also found that Pride and Prejudice plot points tended to wrap themselves up rather conveniently; Elizabeth and Jane were luckily able to marry people they loved, Lydia and Wickham were saved from disgrace, we know of no backlash from Lady Duberg despite her original threat to Elizabeth, and even Charlotte ended up in an agreeable marriage. While there was a degree of blind optimism in North and South as well (evinced by the tendency of problems to be solved so long as people talked them out face to face), the story line did not cater to its characters nearly as much and still painted a mostly apt portrait of industrial society and its side effects on people. Although Margaret and Thornton did end up together in the end, it took years and significant change from both of them for this to happen, and I liked that.
I didn't really have any complaints other than that the novel was exhausting to read. I'm a huge fan of prose in Victorian literature, but at the same time, sometimes it can get to be overwhelming, especially when we're waiting until nearly the last page for the biggest plot resolution to finally occur. I devoured the first three quarters of the book, but as I reached the end it got harder to keep my attention focused. It might be better read as an audio book.
I also found that Pride and Prejudice plot points tended to wrap themselves up rather conveniently; Elizabeth and Jane were luckily able to marry people they loved, Lydia and Wickham were saved from disgrace, we know of no backlash from Lady Duberg despite her original threat to Elizabeth, and even Charlotte ended up in an agreeable marriage. While there was a degree of blind optimism in North and South as well (evinced by the tendency of problems to be solved so long as people talked them out face to face), the story line did not cater to its characters nearly as much and still painted a mostly apt portrait of industrial society and its side effects on people. Although Margaret and Thornton did end up together in the end, it took years and significant change from both of them for this to happen, and I liked that.
I didn't really have any complaints other than that the novel was exhausting to read. I'm a huge fan of prose in Victorian literature, but at the same time, sometimes it can get to be overwhelming, especially when we're waiting until nearly the last page for the biggest plot resolution to finally occur. I devoured the first three quarters of the book, but as I reached the end it got harder to keep my attention focused. It might be better read as an audio book.
emotional
hopeful
lighthearted
reflective
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Character
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
Complicated
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
dark
emotional
reflective
sad
tense
slow-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
N/A
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I loved the BBC miniseries of this book so I wanted to give it a try. I enjoyed the writing a lot. I liked getting to know the characters. The ending didn't quite have the on page payoff I was hoping for, but I enjoyed it as a whole.
emotional
medium-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
A mix
Strong character development:
Yes
Loveable characters:
Yes
Diverse cast of characters:
No
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Yes
I was familiar with this story through watching the miniseries, which I loved. The relational dynamics are similar to Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice" where the characters often hold prejudices based on class and other social dynamics. It's interesting to see the impact of those misunderstandings on the relationships and how beliefs change as the characters grow and learn more about each other and the community around them.
I listened to this on Audible and just loved the narrator, Juliet Stevenson. She brought each of the characters to life. The book offered so much more than the miniseries in terms of understanding the motivations and beliefs of each character. It helped me understand some of the decisions made that weren't as clear to me in the movie. However, the movie had a much more satisfying ending than the book.
I listened to this on Audible and just loved the narrator, Juliet Stevenson. She brought each of the characters to life. The book offered so much more than the miniseries in terms of understanding the motivations and beliefs of each character. It helped me understand some of the decisions made that weren't as clear to me in the movie. However, the movie had a much more satisfying ending than the book.
... I don't know... Englisch war bisschen zu kompliziert für mich (insbesondere der fürchterliche Dialekt von den Bewohnern Miltons...), und irgendwie haben mir ne Menge Informationen zu der Zeit gefehlt (Was war das Problem mit Margarets Vater? Mit dem ganzen Streik?), aber hatte auch gute Momente... Margaret echt ne Menge Schicksalsschläge, aber irgendwie hat man trotzdem nicht sehr mit ihr mitgefühlt... Am Ende wurde kurz nochmal bisschen spannend, aber Schluss dann richtig unrund? Hatte mehr emotionalen Abschluss der Lovestory erwartet... Und fand Lennox iwie auch besser als Thornton, don't get the appeal....
fast-paced
Plot or Character Driven:
Plot
Strong character development:
Complicated
Loveable characters:
Complicated
Diverse cast of characters:
Yes
Flaws of characters a main focus:
Complicated
I was amazed at how easy to read this book was... I found myself unable to put it down at night. The themes are so timeless and the characters wonderfully written. I did feel the ending was bizarrely rushed and that kept it from being five stars for me.
Original review:
It was just after I finished my master's degree at the University of Edinburgh that I was introduced to North and South, having raided the Rancho Mirage Public Library's impressive collection of BBC adaptations as thoroughly as possible. My flatmate Jess had burned me a copy of the DVD before I left Scotland, but there was something wrong with it, and it wouldn't play. Which was just as well, pirating being illegal and all.
Elizabeth Gaskell's masterpiece, North and South, should never be read before Pride and Prejudice. I would like to get the comparison between these two novels out of the way as quickly as possible, because it's probably the first conversation anyone has about North and South. The premise of both is more or less the same - a man and a woman from two different walks of like meet; he finds himself unwillingly attracted to her and addresses a hasty proposal to her immediate and fiery rebuff; circumstances follow which make her regret her decision, and feel a sort of moral or social shame before him; happy ending. Or, to summarize the universal love story: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl. I hope no one considers this a spoiler.
Beyond these very obvious similarities, though, the books are remarkably different. Perhaps because one is a Regency novel and the other Victorian. I first read North and South after seeing the BBC adaptation with Richard Armitage and Daniela Denby-Ashe, which is still and perhaps forever one of my favorite costume dramas of all time. I defy you to reach the final scene and not feel flushed with romantic fever. Perhaps you are boys; even still.
The novel is just as romantic, and in some ways even more so. But it is also more religious, more colloquial, and more particular. You will see what I mean.
The main reason that North and South ought to be read after Pride and Prejudice is the difference in economic values. Economic might be the wrong word here, and I'm sure someone more intentional than I has written a well-researched essay on the subject. What I'm stumbling toward is the difference between their understood values in either land or industry. Edward Said's book Culture and Imperialism devotes an entire chapter to Jane Austen, examining the ways in which her narratives establish the English landed gentry as a kind of ideal (granted, one in need of some improvement) in the face of the inexhaustible borders of the empire. He points out the very distinct comparisons Austen makes, intentionally or not, between rural and urban life.
Elizabeth Gaskell makes the same comparisons in North and South with absolute intentionality. One might even suggest that her heroine, Margaret Hale, acts as a placeholder for all the thoughts and feelings of those who felt as Austen did in her day - that the closer one was to the simple and reliable existence of field and forest, the better and more "English" one was. I'm sure I could express this all better if I sat down and reread Culture and Imperialism, but I am not a student anymore. I will leave that to you.
Having exhausted the comparison between Gaskell and Austen, it's worthwhile to point out that I read North and South only a few months after blitzing through a large number of George MacDonald's Scottish novels. The man was none too fond of the city either, and his great city was only wee Aberdeen - a hamlet in comparison with the sweeping urban centers of Manchester and London. MacDonald frequently uses urban life as a literary type for sinfulness, and rural life as the ideal state of the flourishing Christian soul. It's hard to disagree with them, having spent my own brief moments rambling up a sweet Scottish burnie, sipping from fairy springs and looking out across the mysterious dark waters of a rich, haunting loch.
But Gaskell knew Manchester best, and her religious sympathies as well as her experience lay within the harsh hustle and bustle of a manufacturing city. Though both Gaskell and MacDonald shared what was then considered "schismatic opinions" relating to the Church of England, they took slightly different approaches to the religious nature of their fiction. I would suggest Gaskell is more ecclesiastically generous than MacDonald, who himself felt the consequences of removal from the church a bit (though only a bit) more directly than Gaskell.
If Gaskell is more ecclesiastically generous, MacDonald is more spiritually generous. Though I suspect you'd have to read them both to know what I mean. A hint in that direction - and this is my last point, I promise - might be found in that Gaskell's great literary friend was the monumental Charles Dickens, while MacDonald's was Charles Dodgson - better known as Lewis Carroll.
Having said all this, the best of North and South is the most obvious part of it. The love story, though I have minimized it to the point of formula, is better than all its careful arguments about industry and urban life. When I reread the book, it's those portions I read most carefully. Though they are not as crisply and carefully written as Austen's famous Darcy-and-Elizabeth romance, they are somehow more human and unarguably more passionate.
It was just after I finished my master's degree at the University of Edinburgh that I was introduced to North and South, having raided the Rancho Mirage Public Library's impressive collection of BBC adaptations as thoroughly as possible. My flatmate Jess had burned me a copy of the DVD before I left Scotland, but there was something wrong with it, and it wouldn't play. Which was just as well, pirating being illegal and all.
Elizabeth Gaskell's masterpiece, North and South, should never be read before Pride and Prejudice. I would like to get the comparison between these two novels out of the way as quickly as possible, because it's probably the first conversation anyone has about North and South. The premise of both is more or less the same - a man and a woman from two different walks of like meet; he finds himself unwillingly attracted to her and addresses a hasty proposal to her immediate and fiery rebuff; circumstances follow which make her regret her decision, and feel a sort of moral or social shame before him; happy ending. Or, to summarize the universal love story: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl. I hope no one considers this a spoiler.
Beyond these very obvious similarities, though, the books are remarkably different. Perhaps because one is a Regency novel and the other Victorian. I first read North and South after seeing the BBC adaptation with Richard Armitage and Daniela Denby-Ashe, which is still and perhaps forever one of my favorite costume dramas of all time. I defy you to reach the final scene and not feel flushed with romantic fever. Perhaps you are boys; even still.
The novel is just as romantic, and in some ways even more so. But it is also more religious, more colloquial, and more particular. You will see what I mean.
The main reason that North and South ought to be read after Pride and Prejudice is the difference in economic values. Economic might be the wrong word here, and I'm sure someone more intentional than I has written a well-researched essay on the subject. What I'm stumbling toward is the difference between their understood values in either land or industry. Edward Said's book Culture and Imperialism devotes an entire chapter to Jane Austen, examining the ways in which her narratives establish the English landed gentry as a kind of ideal (granted, one in need of some improvement) in the face of the inexhaustible borders of the empire. He points out the very distinct comparisons Austen makes, intentionally or not, between rural and urban life.
Elizabeth Gaskell makes the same comparisons in North and South with absolute intentionality. One might even suggest that her heroine, Margaret Hale, acts as a placeholder for all the thoughts and feelings of those who felt as Austen did in her day - that the closer one was to the simple and reliable existence of field and forest, the better and more "English" one was. I'm sure I could express this all better if I sat down and reread Culture and Imperialism, but I am not a student anymore. I will leave that to you.
Having exhausted the comparison between Gaskell and Austen, it's worthwhile to point out that I read North and South only a few months after blitzing through a large number of George MacDonald's Scottish novels. The man was none too fond of the city either, and his great city was only wee Aberdeen - a hamlet in comparison with the sweeping urban centers of Manchester and London. MacDonald frequently uses urban life as a literary type for sinfulness, and rural life as the ideal state of the flourishing Christian soul. It's hard to disagree with them, having spent my own brief moments rambling up a sweet Scottish burnie, sipping from fairy springs and looking out across the mysterious dark waters of a rich, haunting loch.
But Gaskell knew Manchester best, and her religious sympathies as well as her experience lay within the harsh hustle and bustle of a manufacturing city. Though both Gaskell and MacDonald shared what was then considered "schismatic opinions" relating to the Church of England, they took slightly different approaches to the religious nature of their fiction. I would suggest Gaskell is more ecclesiastically generous than MacDonald, who himself felt the consequences of removal from the church a bit (though only a bit) more directly than Gaskell.
If Gaskell is more ecclesiastically generous, MacDonald is more spiritually generous. Though I suspect you'd have to read them both to know what I mean. A hint in that direction - and this is my last point, I promise - might be found in that Gaskell's great literary friend was the monumental Charles Dickens, while MacDonald's was Charles Dodgson - better known as Lewis Carroll.
Having said all this, the best of North and South is the most obvious part of it. The love story, though I have minimized it to the point of formula, is better than all its careful arguments about industry and urban life. When I reread the book, it's those portions I read most carefully. Though they are not as crisply and carefully written as Austen's famous Darcy-and-Elizabeth romance, they are somehow more human and unarguably more passionate.