This article, which is rather long (and of which only one page is posted here), first appeared in Fraser's Magazine. What type of reader would be interested in this description of Lancashire cities? Is the representation of the poor sympathetic? Does it objectify the poor? What types of elements are emphasized in the description? Compare the language here to that in Mary Barton -- is it the same? Why or why not?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would suppose the readership for an article like this would include politically-invested men and their do-gooder wives. To my knowledge, at the time sympathy for the poor was very fashionable, with charity being a prevalent topic for discussion among the upper classes who could afford to contribute to 'causes'. This representation of the poor seems to play into stereotypes, generalizing the daily activities of people of the working class. While the language emphasizes the differences between classes, and the devastation of poverty among the unprivileged, I would say that the voice is attempting to be sympathetic towards its subjects, yet fails to truly connect to their misery. While it identifies itself as one of the working class, the language used suggests rather an educated observer attempting to adequately convey the misery of factory dependents' lives by claiming experience. Elements emphasized in the description are those of abject poverty, as well as the privilege of the rich who would not identify with such a way of life.
ReplyDeleteI would say the language in Mary Barton and the article are different: I believe Gaskell identifies with the lives of her characters, even though twice in our reading the narrator suggests being of higher birth, and yet attempts to portray their lives optimistically. While she takes pains to describe the pleasant aspects of her working-class characters' struggles when possible, though admittedly also including desperation, this article de-personifies laborers' while focusing on their seemingly hopeless existence.
The author of this article does directly address the reader at the beginning of the passage, which is definitely meant to be someone of a higher class. It almost seems as though the tone of the article is a bit sarcastic to such a reader, telling them "not to run away" and warning that the atmosphere may not suit their "well-bred nostrils" or "delicate taste." This is surprising because it would seem to turn off this kind of a reader from the article, and they may not be interested in it.
ReplyDeleteThe language here seems far simpler and more sarcastic in tone than that of Mary Barton. Mary Barton is written more as a third person account of events than the article, which uses second person to directly address the audience. I think this creates a more intimate, inside view into the lives of the poor in Mary Barton, whereas the article comes across as more of a detached documentary of what poor life is "really" like.
Reading this article was a bit like taking a trip to the zoo with the author as my tour guide. He (although it very well may be a “she” – I am using “he” for simplicity’s sake) illustrates the lives of the impoverished as one would narrate a safari or a trip to the jungle. The poor are likened to specimens (literally – the author allows his audience to see a “fair specimen”) being observed in their natural habitat. The children that “sprawl” in the streets are dehumanized in their comparison to asparagus plants; the overall characterization of the working-class poor depicts them as less than human, as creatures below than and apart from the author and his audience. The salient feature of the article is the accumulated filth that permeates this neighborhood slum. This calls to mind Davenport’s house in “Mary Barton” – here, too, the dirty and abominable living conditions pervade the narrative.
ReplyDeleteI do think there is a difference in tone between the article and the novel, for the article depicts the poor as animalistic and gives no account for their circumstances. Gaskell, on the other hand, takes a much more sympathetic stand because she goes beyond merely describing their condition; she explains the ever-widening gap between the rich and the poor by stating that the wealthy have accumulated their fortunes off of the backs of the working-class. The rich exploit the labor of the poor, and the poor gain nothing from this. Explaining the circumstances surrounding the poor enables the reader to feel more sympathy for them, whereas the author of the article does not appear to be eliciting such sympathy.
Just as John Barton complains about the idleness of the rich, and how he'd never want his daughter to become a "lady" instead of working for a living, the author of this article implies that the reader also has "nothing to do". If the author is correct, that the only reason for the rich to take interest in the poor is out of boredom, then I think it makes sense that the author would want to make a caricature out of the poor, which is what he or she does. He or she needs to grab the attention of his readers, so he paints a very stereotypical, condescending picture of the poor. More so than being condescending, the author renders the poor completely foreign and bizarre, doing things entirely different from his readership.
ReplyDeleteAs others have pointed out, the reader was likely to be rich and perhaps was interested in reading about the poor in the same way that people were reading about Italian women in the London Pioneer – as an insight into “the other.” Although the piece is somewhat sympathetic, generalizations are by their nature objectifying. The description of the population as “a nomad character” that changes residences regularly may be true of many, for example, but the exaggerated characterization that “the young people go out from their old habitation in a morning, and return to dinner at a new one…” is obviously an exaggeration.
ReplyDeleteThe language differs from that in Mary Barton, then, in that the poor are described as something very different in this piece, while in the novel, the reader is expected to sympathize with the individual circumstances of the characters. Here, they are a nameless group, while in the novel they are actually people. Although the reader is also mocked in this article, as when he is told not to “run away because the town is in Lancashire” or is presumed to be offended “at the idea of a family of eight having only one bedroom,” it is in fact expected that the reader will not be able to relate or understand these circumstances.