Take a photo of a barcode or cover
kleonora 's review for:
North and South
by Elizabeth Gaskell
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.