You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
4.12 AVERAGE
4.12 AVERAGE
Loved this book so much. Not only the story, but also the allusions that are woven into it (to name a few: Bible, Odyssey, Don Quixote, Faerie Queen). This story is like a mix of Austen and Dickens in the best way possible.
I am also thinking of Milton’s Paradise Lost, based entirely on only knowing that it’s an Adam and Eve/garden of Eden and Fall story (as I haven’t read it myself yet). It didn’t occur to me until someone said “Milton” out loud at book club, but then the thoughts started to germinate.
I am also thinking of Milton’s Paradise Lost, based entirely on only knowing that it’s an Adam and Eve/garden of Eden and Fall story (as I haven’t read it myself yet). It didn’t occur to me until someone said “Milton” out loud at book club, but then the thoughts started to germinate.
Wouldn't have picked this up had I not seen the miniseries, and I think I would have found it a bit tough to get through if I hadn't seen the miniseries. I don't know that I'll pick up any more Gaskell books, but I enjoyed this one well enough.
Verdict: Time has only served to further confuse this undoubtably bold attempt to address relationships in a time of social upheaval. Knobstick.*
It’s popular to describe this book as Pride and Prejudice with Socialism. That’s not wrong but it should be noted it is diluted forms of both. Especially the socialism element which starts promisingly, devolves into how genteel folk can solve everything with their good sense then disappears entirely into a deus ex machina inheritance at the end.
The basic story is that a girl from the South of England every-village ‘Helstone’ goes to live in Northern every-town ‘Milton’ and the differences are commented upon. There are various side stories; mutinous brothers, Irish scabs, everyone dying – arranged around the inevitable opposites-attract tale of romance.
The protagonists are Margaret Hale and John** Thornton. She’s a country lass raised in London who’s poise and good sense came come off as haughtiness. He’s a self-made titan of industry with a terrifying mother who is easily the best character in the book. I won’t say much of their relationship as it is pretty beside the point and familiar with anyone who has read Austen. They hate each other, they love each other but out of sync, misunderstandings complicate matters, it all works out they marry.
I suppose you could class the events running alongside this romance as social commentary, they are certainly the meat of the story. Margaret strikes up a friendship with a family that works in the mills and it is through them we get the perspective of the proletariat, such as it is. The dynamic that emerges is the rough, striving and somewhat short sighted worker pitted against the equally rough, ambitious and entrepreneurial boss with Margaret as a beacon of genteel good sense attempting to show them that their interests are the same.
On the whole, it’s not aged well. Members of the working class are quick to be dismissed as ‘undeserving’ and are generally godless and disgusting. There is general understanding that gentlefolk are naturally a better breed of human which clashes with whatever clear-sighted critique of structure of capitalism manages to come through in the text. Also, ‘pungent’ clearly meant something else in those days, judging from context clues.
I didn’t hate the book. It was a bit of a slog and I think even Gaskell was sick of it by the end, judging by her inelegant erasure of a third party in order to allow Margaret and John enough time alone to get engaged and bring the book to a close. It has its moments of humour, intentional and non***. It has an impressive body count which helped to keep things moving.
People’s deaths were generally to prove points, i.e. how much they hated living in manufacturing towns, how factories kill people, how strikes kill people, how being a slimy tattle-tale weasel kills people, so they tended to happen quickly and for very little reason. Towards the end people started dying so Margaret could inherit some money, which, by the way, fixed everything, and which, again, is an odd way to close your social critique of capitalism.
Despite generally fond feelings for this book, I don’t think I’d recommend it. If Gaskell ever had a firm handle on the point she was making I certainly could it grasp it through the mists of time and, literarily, the uneven pacing means the payoff doesn’t justify time spent reading.
* See ***
**All men in the North are named John. Jonathan and Jon are acceptable in a pinch.
***Margaret’s go-to conversation changer is to start talking about knobsticks. I’ll always have that.
It’s popular to describe this book as Pride and Prejudice with Socialism. That’s not wrong but it should be noted it is diluted forms of both. Especially the socialism element which starts promisingly, devolves into how genteel folk can solve everything with their good sense then disappears entirely into a deus ex machina inheritance at the end.
The basic story is that a girl from the South of England every-village ‘Helstone’ goes to live in Northern every-town ‘Milton’ and the differences are commented upon. There are various side stories; mutinous brothers, Irish scabs, everyone dying – arranged around the inevitable opposites-attract tale of romance.
The protagonists are Margaret Hale and John** Thornton. She’s a country lass raised in London who’s poise and good sense came come off as haughtiness. He’s a self-made titan of industry with a terrifying mother who is easily the best character in the book. I won’t say much of their relationship as it is pretty beside the point and familiar with anyone who has read Austen. They hate each other, they love each other but out of sync, misunderstandings complicate matters, it all works out they marry.
I suppose you could class the events running alongside this romance as social commentary, they are certainly the meat of the story. Margaret strikes up a friendship with a family that works in the mills and it is through them we get the perspective of the proletariat, such as it is. The dynamic that emerges is the rough, striving and somewhat short sighted worker pitted against the equally rough, ambitious and entrepreneurial boss with Margaret as a beacon of genteel good sense attempting to show them that their interests are the same.
On the whole, it’s not aged well. Members of the working class are quick to be dismissed as ‘undeserving’ and are generally godless and disgusting. There is general understanding that gentlefolk are naturally a better breed of human which clashes with whatever clear-sighted critique of structure of capitalism manages to come through in the text. Also, ‘pungent’ clearly meant something else in those days, judging from context clues.
I didn’t hate the book. It was a bit of a slog and I think even Gaskell was sick of it by the end, judging by her inelegant erasure of a third party in order to allow Margaret and John enough time alone to get engaged and bring the book to a close. It has its moments of humour, intentional and non***. It has an impressive body count which helped to keep things moving.
People’s deaths were generally to prove points, i.e. how much they hated living in manufacturing towns, how factories kill people, how strikes kill people, how being a slimy tattle-tale weasel kills people, so they tended to happen quickly and for very little reason. Towards the end people started dying so Margaret could inherit some money, which, by the way, fixed everything, and which, again, is an odd way to close your social critique of capitalism.
Despite generally fond feelings for this book, I don’t think I’d recommend it. If Gaskell ever had a firm handle on the point she was making I certainly could it grasp it through the mists of time and, literarily, the uneven pacing means the payoff doesn’t justify time spent reading.
* See ***
**All men in the North are named John. Jonathan and Jon are acceptable in a pinch.
***Margaret’s go-to conversation changer is to start talking about knobsticks. I’ll always have that.
I think I enjoyed it more the second time. It really is a lot like a grittier, more serious, Victorian P&P set in a Northern factory town. You have to wait a looong time for the romantic conclusion, but I found it worth it. I came to care very much about Margaret and Mr Thornton and how their characters developed.
Pro tip for the Penguin English Library edition: there’s a glossary for the dialect in the back. I didn’t find this until AFTER I’d spent the whole book puzzling out the dialect by context.
Pro tip for the Penguin English Library edition: there’s a glossary for the dialect in the back. I didn’t find this until AFTER I’d spent the whole book puzzling out the dialect by context.
I had a great time reading this book. Margaret is an excellent character, and I enjoyed the cultural differences the characters had to navigate. It was also pretty funny in certain parts (here's looking at how petty Mrs. Thornton is!). I will definitely read more by Gaskell.
adventurous
emotional
hopeful
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
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:
Complicated
felt like I waded through all that business language for a romance that was literally three sentences. Little bitter.
If you're jonesin' for a Pride and Prejudice story with less endearing characters and and even more anticlimactic ending, you're all set. I *liked* it, but I won't remember anything about it in 24 hours.
It was pretty fascinating how many things have not really changed between labor/management, left/right since this book was written.