This review of Mary Barton also appeared in John Bull. Does it seem to be an accurate summary of the novel? What does it see as the novel's objective or as its effect upon the reader? Does it perceive what we have defined as the novel's intentions, as they are laid out in the Preface? How does it read the conclusion of the novel and, in particular, John Barton's confession to Mr. Carson? Does it view this conclusion as a "success"?
The review is provides a fairly accurate depiction of the novel in terms of events. However, it misses Gaskell's point of illustrating the disparity between the working class and industrialists and their interdependence. Although the author of the review briefly mentions this concept at the end, it illustrates that to the reviewer, Mary Barton is rather a brilliant work of fiction which just coincidentally delineates situations that may parallel current industrial conditions at the time.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the reviewer seems to miss the novel's true objective, Gaskell and the novel are successful in obtaining it. Although the novel does not espouse lectures on politics and social class, it does implement the seed of thought into the minds of its readers. The novel provides a means by which the current situation can be viewed from novel class positions and fosters a sympathy between the upper middle and working class. Thus the novel's true objective of fostering the initial talks on class and society, without offending the upper middle class was achieved.
Like Ann, I believe this review focuses on the "melodrama" that we've discussed in class, not the larger commentary on class relations. Rather than see it as a work of social criticism, the reviewer still sees the work as a drama set against the backdrop of a manufacturing town. However, this may show that Gaskell's novel was not entirely a success (or maybe it wasn't meant to?) in communicating a strong social criticism. As we've discussed in class, Gaskell attempts to show this class contrasts in several ways, but if this reviewer missed that point, it shows that Gaskell was not entirely successful with her own audience.
ReplyDeleteEven though I agree with Ann that this may have been a success in that it started conversations about class, it's not a conscious conversation. They're talking about it because that's where the drama occurs, not necessarily because they're offended by it. I don't believe the novel would spur many to action to dealing with it. Therefore, the novel can only take its audience so far.
I agree with both Ann and Elena that the author of this review misses the main purpose of the novel according to Gaskell - to illustrate the simultaneous interdependence and disparity between the working and middle classes. Instead, it focuses on the romance of the novel as its central plot. However, it does not seem to me as though this is the mistake of the reviewer. Rather, I feel that this central purpose of the novel - introduced by Gaskell in her preface - is overshadowed and almost forgotten in the midst of the novel's melodrama. In fact, in reading the novel I found myself more anxious to discover the outcome of Jem and Mary's romance than in the rebellion of the workers. As such, I do not believe that Gaskell's novel successfully carried out her central purpose in writing.
ReplyDeleteThis review on Mary Barton is not exactly what I expected it to be. When I think of a review of a book or an article I think more of an analysis. This review, however, seemed to be strictly a summary. I do believe it is an accurate summary of the novel for the most part but I think it is lacking substance. As others have mentioned, the review does miss the main point that Gaskell is trying to convey through the novel. However, I don’t find that surprising. I think the change she is trying to convey between the working and middle classes is only understood if you are paying attention to it. As a reader that is just reading Mary Barton as a novel, I believe the “melodrama” of Jem and Mary takes over. To understand the true intentions of Gaskell the reader almost has to “read between the lines.”
ReplyDeleteI think the summary does a good job of reading the conclusion to the novel authentically. The scene of John Barton confessing to Mr. Carson is “powerfully portrayed and I agree that it is “one of the most striking in the whole book.” If there is any scene in the book that works to settle the disparity between classes and get Gaskell’s point across I think this is the more promising one. The review seems to hint that it was a success but I’m not sure if I fully agree. On page 274, the middle paragraph says that Mr. Carson remained “hard and cold” yet for the few who heard him speak there was a change in character and he really didn’t anyone to “suffer from the cause from which he had suffered; that the perfect understanding, and complete confidence and love, might exist between masters and men.” I want to believe he did change and made changes in reconciling with the poor but the problem is I just don’t know if it is whole-heartedly convincing.
I agree with all of my peers in some regards thus far, especially when focusing on how this article focuses on the melodrama in the novel. By doing this, Gaskell seems to undermine the point she's trying to convey in the Preface. As shown by this summary, the reader seems to be missing the broad theme of the disparity between the social classes in England, and the politics surrounding this.
ReplyDeleteWhat is stressed more heavily in the novel, and what both classes are able to focus on while reading while ignoring the issues Gaskell is getting at, is the relationship formed between Mary and Harry Carson, and with Jem Wilson. The reader has to keep consciously thinking about political issues in order to refrain from getting completely sucked into simply the melodramatic plot. However, I do agree that some of the most powerful scenes in the novel, such as when John Barton confessed to Mr. Carson, were successful enough in bringing about a degree of change in society.
As others have noted, the review is mostly an accurate summary (though it focuses on Mary’s romantic storyline exclusively, ignoring the Davenports, the Chartists and Alice Wilson) of the action of the novel but misses the larger themes involved. The review sees the novel as aiming to illustrate life in a manufacturing town and to question the relationship between masters and workmen, but the review does little to expound on these aspects of the novel. In doing so, it somewhat hints at Gaskell’s intentions of engendering sympathy, but not exactly one based on kinship. The author’s descriptions are called “deeply and painfully instructive,” but the review does not specify why the novel is so affecting, except that the story is “well-imagined and well-executed.”
ReplyDeleteThe review sees the final scene between Barton and Mr. Carson as “striking” and as a success in engendering feeling, but it is uncertain which feelings are stirred up and toward whom. The review doesn’t specify whether one is meant to pity or empathize with either or both characters.
This review speaks to what we have been discussing in class about the melodrama vs. social tragedy. This review, or more like a summary, seems to be one that is grounded in a read of the melodrama, as my classmates have stated. As we discussed in class, the melodrama may be and might have been something more interesting for readers to read, more widely-understood because a lot of people can relate to the feelings of being in any kind of relationship.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this review does not include much about the social tragedy aspect of the novel that we have focused on in class, I believe it is still an accurate depiction of the novel because it is stating the actual elements of the plot.
When I read this I related this to something that a classmate said in class. When we talked about the killing of Harry Carson, we talked about how people seemed to miss the point behind it by turning it into a feud about two men fighting over a woman and the one killing his enemy. This aspect is so tightly linked with the overbearing aspect of the melodrama on this story that it takes away from the actual motive and actual point that is trying to be made about the social aspects of the world they live in. With that said, I relate this review to just that. This review has gotten so tied up with the melodrama that it has omitted or missed the social tragedy aspect of the novel that is so very important.
I'm in agreement with many of the other commenters in that I think this article focuses on the romance and personal melodrama of the Harry/Jem rivalry over Mary. If this reading represents the views of the average Victorian reader, I don't think it's too difficult to say that Gaskell failed in her attempts at social commentary: though, as other commenters have pointed out, the commentary is definitely present (if not overzealous) in the novel, the Victorian critic seems to toss all that aside as interesting coloration to the novel (relegating the only mention of this social commentary to an afterthought-sentence at the end of the review).
ReplyDeleteI think this 'missing the point' is most obvious in the confession of John Barton: the reviewer describes the 'agony of repentance' and 'guilt-stricken conscience' of John Barton, but I don't really buy that sentiment. Though John Barton confessed, I wouldn't say he apologized. He's certainly sorry for the death of Harry Carson, but he does not repent his views on social politics. By playing up the guilt and repentance in this scene, the reviewer seems to have remembered only the emotional, personal side of the conflict, while completely forgetting about the deeper (and, as I would have imagined, more important) conflict.
As many have pointed out, this review falls short of capturing Gaskell’s ambitious attempts at social commentary and understanding. I actually think the review has potential, as it mentions “passages in these volumes, of surpassing beauty and power;” but then leaves off from any specific discussion in favor of a gloss of the “story”, which as many have pointed out is focused on the romantic melodrama. Specifically, I think the review errs in calling the Union a “secret society”. This casts the murder in a more scandalous light, and undermines Gaskell’s discussion of the Chartists.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, Gaskell does widen the perspective of her novel greatly, in Chapter XV, shortly before the decision to murder and the act itself. For example, the narrator asserts, “It is a great truth that you cannot extinguish violence by violence” (176). This truism, directly addressed to the reader, transcends the political climate of the narrative itself and seems to act as a warning, lest history repeat itself. Gaskell’s novel, I think, is meant to be instructive, and the review captures this aspect, if only as a frame for plot summary. Before mentioning the heavy use of pathos, “and of woe”, the review first mentions that the “present tale” is one “of sin”—people have done wrong. There is also the suggestion of “the present state of the population in the manufacturing districts”, just as Gaskell mentions “events which have so recently occurred among a similar class on the continent,” in her Preface. Certainly, the melodrama is the most captivating in the moment—it is what propels the trial at times, and generates the “rage and revengeful feelings” which make the final scene so powerful. But ultimately, I think the review is right to mention the useful lessons, which might be gleaned from the novel in retrospect.
This must sound like an old record by now, but it is nonetheless true. The article merely focuses on character relations rather than the situation of social disparity in which they live. There is little mention of social situation at all, except to the extent that it makes the summary of the drama more interesting- essentially 'rich suitor' vs 'poor suitor,' but with no more descriptive quality than that. It entirely misses the social critique presented by Gaskell. For example, the assassination of Henry Carson is presented as the work of an angry secret society- completely missing the political activism behind the group.
ReplyDeleteThe article regards John Barton's confession as a soul-saving reveal rather than going on to explain the motives behind the original assassination. It makes the conclusion seem way more of a moral and possibly religious success, and does not address the social aspect at all- the consolidation between classes. In short, it misses all of the social commentary on class distinction and poverty lines, while focusing primarily on the drama.