North and South by Elizabeth Gaskell (novel #243)

God help ‘em! North and South have each getten their own troubles. ~ Nicholas Higgins

North and South is…well I’d call it a Victorian Novel, but I guess it is more precisely a Social Novel from the Victorian era. It is set primarily in the fictional manufacturing town of Milton, England in the mid-19th Century and is based on Gaskell’s adult home of Manchester. Gaskell intended to title it with the heroin’s name, but at the insistence of her publisher, Charles Dickens, she agreed to North and South. Dickens didn’t care for the novel much either.

The social issue this novel addresses is ostensibly the plight of the working class during the industrial revolution: unhealthy working conditions, poor wages, no job security. However, I think there was another issue: prejudice and ignorance between the industrialists of the North and landed gentry of the South.

The tale opens on Margaret Hale who enjoys an idyllic life in Hampshire, Southern England until her pastor father has a crisis of conscience that causes him on his own accord to leave the ministry and move to Milton where he has found work teaching some of the families in the smoky manufacturing city. Margaret and her mother are distraught by the change in fortune, and even more so by the change in environment and society. However, Margaret supports her father and accepts their new situation intent to make the best of it.

One of Mr. Hale’s most notable and sincere students is John Thornton, a wealthy, self-made factory owner. Thornton and Margaret are intelligent and assertive and quickly develop a courteous antagonism regarding the merits and faults of North versus South. In one exchange Margaret opines…

“Now in the South we have our poor, but there is not that terrible expression in their countenances of a sullen sense of injustice which I see here. You do not know the South Mr. Thornton” she concluded, collapsing into a determined silence, and angry with herself for having said so much.

 

“And may I say you do not know the North?” asked he with an inexpressible gentleness in his tone as he saw that he had really hurt her.

Initially, they hold each other in mild contempt, yet they also have a restrained, perhaps even reluctant admiration for each other.

When Thornton is admonished by his mother that he thinks too well of Margaret, Thorton replies…

“Mother” (with a short scornful laugh), “you will make me confess. The only time I saw Miss Hale, she treated me with a haughty civility which had a strong flavour of contempt in it. She held herself aloof from me as if she had been a queen, and I her humble, unwashed vassal.

Conversely when Mr. Hale chides his daughter for being too hard on Thornton, Margaret declares…

“He is the first specimen of a manufacturer – of a person engaged in trade – that I had ever the opportunity of studying papa. He is my first olive: let me make a face while I swallow it.

You’ve probably read/viewed enough Gaskell, Victorian novels, Hallmark movies to guess where their relationship is going.

Margaret also encounters the working man, specifically Nicholas Higgins and his two daughters. Margaret and Higgins are also at odds initially, but it is merely from misunderstanding different customs. As they become friends, Higgins asks where Margaret is from and she tells him Hampshire.

That’s beyond London, I reckon? And I come fro’ Burnleyways, and forty miles to th’ North. And yet, yo see, North and South has both met and made kind o’ friends in this big smoky place.

Margaret Realizes... 

From that day Milton became a brighter place to her. It was not the long, bleak sunny days of spring, nor yet was it that time was reconciling her to the town of her habitation. It was that in it she had found a human interest.

Higgins is also a union representative, which puts him on no good terms with Thornton, and by proxy does not improve Thornton’s opinion of Margaret.

And yet…

There is reason to be hopeful. 

It's a marvelous read, masterful work. Gaskell is clearly sympathetic to the working class, but she is fair to portray vice and ignorance on both sides, as well as virtue and nobility. I was less aware of the prejudice in England between North and South. Again, Gaskell made what I believe was a fair portrayal of both. This is the second novel I’ve read by Elizabeth Gaskell, Wives and Daughters being the other. Both were very good, and I will certainly read more.

My rating:  4 out of 5 stars

 

This novel satisfies the “Cardinal Direction” category in the What’s in a Name? 2025 challenge. The title must contain a reference to a cardinal direction. I should get double credit.

 .

Martin Chuzzlewit by Charles Dickens (novel #225)

Oh, late-remembered, much-forgotten, mouthing, braggart duty, always owed, and seldom paid in any other coin than punishment and wrath, when will mankind begin to know thee! ~ narrative from Martin Chuzzlewit

 

As I near the end of Dickens’ works and read some of his lesser-known stories, it is not surprising that they are not up to his usual standard. This is by far my least favorite. I almost feel unfaithful to a favorite author to give it only 2 ½ stars.

 

It is pretty standard fare in some respects: there is a pompous hypocrite, several misers, an orphan, though not the typical Dickens orphan, a rich uncle, and comical secondary characters, including one who prides himself on being jolly no matter the circumstances.

 

So why did I dislike it? I’m not sure. Maybe I’m getting too familiar with Dickens’ formula, but I don’t think that’s it. Maybe I was offended by his unflattering treatment of the United States, but I hope that isn’t it. (More on that in a minute.) Nor do I think it was Dickens’ notoriously slow start and long character development, which seemed even slower and longer than usual. But I don’t know. Maybe it was a little of all of those. I never really empathized with anyone, though Dickens’ hallmark justice was still satisfying in the end.

 

My Rating: 2 ½ out of 5 Stars

 

 

As far as I know, this is the only Dickens novel partially set in the United States. Young Martin Chuzzlewit sets out for America with a faithful companion to earn his fortune. With one solitary exception, he is met with nothing but frauds, cheats, yokels, and bigots. It was not well received in the United States…shocking! Dickens added a preface first and then a postscript to the preface defending himself. He wrote:

 

The American portion of this story is in no other respect a caricature than as it is an exhibition, for the most part (Mr Bevan excepted), of a ludicrous side, only, of the American character…

 

He doesn’t mention that he had recently visited America in an unsuccessful attempt to get American publishers to honor international copyrights. So, his disdain is not without cause, but he is not without the duplicity and hypocrisy that he is so expert in lampooning in others.

 

I still love the bloke, great writer, but this is not his best work.

 

Oh and…I found this marvelously ironic. With his famous sarcasm in the narrative he quips of British parliamentarians…

 

…it is the custom to use as many words as possible, and express nothing whatever.

 

Quite apropos when ole CD uses such a prudent economy of words himself.

 

Maybe I was a little annoyed by his treatment of the U.S.A. ;)

 

^.

Dombey and Son by Charles Dickens (novel #214)

Never from the mighty sea may voices rise too late, to come between us and the unseen region on the other shore! Better, far better, that they whispered of that region in our childish ears, and the swift river hurried us away. ~ narrative from Dombey and Son

 

Contrary to the title, Dombey and Son is about Florence Dombey, the oldest child of Paul Dombey, a wealthy London shipping magnate. Florence, or Floy, is a typical Dickens heroine: an ideal of virtue and beauty. Though, when the story opens, she is only six.

 

It opens at the birth of Florence’s younger brother Paul, heir to the Dombey Empire. Mr. Dombey is barely affected when his wife dies. He is too busy planning and placing all his hopes and dreams on his son. Florence is nearly invisible to her proud and aloof father. He is never cruel to her. She is raised in comfort and privilege, and yet…

 

Florence is far poorer than the most miserable of Dickens’ orphans or paupers.

 

And the reader’s heart slowly breaks.

 

But then there is hope. Mr. Dombey remarries, and, for a brief moment, Florence is genuinely loved by her beautiful stepmother. No, really, genuinely loved. And poor Mr. Dombey, who is not loved by his new wife, becomes jealous of his daughter’s ability to win her stepmother’s affection.

 

Who? Who was it who could win his wife as she had won his boy? Who was it who had shown him that new victory, as he sat in the dark corner? Who was it whose least word did what his utmost means could not? Who was it who, unaided by his love, regard or notice, thrived and grew beautiful when those so aided died? Who could it be, but the same child at whom he had often glanced uneasily in her motherless infancy, with a kind of dread, lest he might come to hate her; and of whom his foreboding was fulfilled, for he DID hate her in his heart?

 

And the reader's heart breaks again.

 

You can count on the author to do that, but this is far from typical Dicken’s fare.

 

It is a warning and exposé on the frightful sin of pride. It is a hopeful message about the power of love and forgiveness. Some might call it a fantasy in that regard, but I have seen such love and forgiveness.

 

There are still some of Dickens’ hallmarks. There are intricate coincidences and connections between the main and lesser characters. There are comic caricatures, subtle foreshadows, and an ironic twist or two. There is a toothy, smiling, unctuous villain whose villainy brings about the satisfying ending…but not the perfect ending that Dickens is often criticized for. Much is lost; much is gained.

 

My rating: 4 out of 5 stars

 

 

 

And with this novel, I’ve completed The Classics Club Round III.

 

.

Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens (novel #199)

…death, fires, and burglary, make all men equals. ~ narrative from Oliver Twist

 

Oliver Twist, alternately titled The Beggar Boy’s Progress, is Dicken’s second novel, one of his best known, and shorter than most. If you believe the myth that Dickens was paid per word, you might believe he hadn’t quite learned the full value of verbosity just yet.

 

It’s the story of a poor orphan – obviously, with a heart of gold – of course, who unbeknownst to himself, and the reader, has been robbed of his rightful station – yep, falls amongst vagabonds and thieves – why not, then into kind and caring hands – sure, repeat vagabonds, repeat kind and caring, throw in a whole bunch of ironic coincidence, and then oh so satisfying justice.

 

My epitomizing might seem like criticism. It isn’t, though I think sometimes Dickens is a bit of a guilty pleasure. Please note the emphasis on sometimes, because I love Dickens: A Tale of Two Cities – the greatest novel EVER; David Copperfield and Bleak House amongst my all-time favorites; and A Christmas Carol - amazing! But, every work of Dickens cannot rise to such standards. 

 

I first read this at least 30 years ago and loved it, but this time round, I was just a bit less impressed. I will make but one precise criticism. The unbelievable coincidence – a Dickens trademark – is just too unbelievable in this tale. Too many; too frequent; too perfect*. I’ve struggled with this before with Dickens. It’s in every novel. But, each novel should stand on its own. A coincidence in one novel, does not render a different coincidence in a distinct novel less plausible, though it sort of feels that way. But when Mr. Dickens employs one ironic twist, after another, after another, after another, in the same story, it’s just absurd. Oliver Twist was his second novel. I have noticed that he progresses as an author and does not lean so heavily on this device in later novels.

 

And again, lest my point is lost in all this nit-picking, it is a very enjoyable read. When Dickens’ hallmark poetic justice, teetering on the edge of calamity, begins to unfold, I couldn’t put it down. Very captivating, very satisfying!

 

Let the tears which fell, and the broken words which were exchanged in the long close embrace between the orphans, be sacred. A father, sister, and mother, were gained, and lost, in that one moment. Joy and grief were mingled in the cup; but there were no bitter tears: for even grief itself arose so softened, and clothed in such sweet and tender recollections, that it became a solemn pleasure, and lost all character of pain.

 

 

My rating: 3 1/2  out of 5 stars

 

 

 

 

This novel satisfies 19th Century Classic in the Back to the Classics Challenge 2022

 

 

 

 

* Yes, I know “too perfect” is grammatically untenable, unless of course one uses it for effect.

 

.

 

 

The Prince by Niccolo Machiavelli

The Prince was written by Niccoló Machiavelli as a gift, having no other suitable gift, for his prince. It is political theory and philosophy intended to instruct the young prince on how to rule his dominion well and securely. I admire Machiavelli for this:  recognizing that wisdom is a gift at least as valuable as the fancy baubles that others might offer.

 

However, my admiration principally ends there. Machiavelli espouses a philosophy of situation ethics, which posits, the end justifies the means. Indeed his name has become synonymous with the concept.

 

I recognize, in many instances, this is the way of the world. Many world leaders, past and present, have taken pages from Machiavelli’s playbook…Literally! By literally, I mean…ahem! Literally! I believe, many have read it, decided it makes good sense, and have adopted the methods to their own rule. It isn’t just political. I am certain that many a shrewd businessperson also follows Machiavelli’s precepts.

 

…it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them.

I do not endorse Machiavelli’s philosophy, though I acknowledge its efficacy. I read his treatise, to see how the other half lives. The Lord Jesus told a parable of an unjust steward. I believe he was instructing his disciples to understand the ways of the world. He said:

…the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light…

 

He was not telling them to emulate the unjust steward, but to be aware, and beware.

 

Hence, I read Machiavelli. I can be a bit naïve about the ways of the world. The Prince certainly hard slapped some of that naïveté out of me.

 

Christ also admonishes his followers to be wise as serpents, and gentle as doves. Machiavelli made me wise to the ways of the world; I pray the Lord will make me gentle.

 

Excerpts:  to illustrate Machiavelli’s philosophy, not to endorse it.

 

For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less, benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavor of them may last longer.

 

Upon this a question arises:  whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, it is much safer to be feared than loved…     

 

…men have less scruple in offending one who is beloved than one who is feared…

 

…those princes who have done great things have held good faith of little account…

 

If men were entirely good this precept would not hold, but because they are bad, and will not keep faith with you, you too are not bound to observe it with them.

 

…it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them.

 

.

Hard Times by Charles Dickens (novel #179)

Hard Times has a slightly different feel from the rest of the Dickens’ novels I’ve read. It still has the pitiful and virtuous orphan – though she is a secondary character. The villains are not so much evil, as they are foolish or boorish, and it wouldn’t be Dickens without some ironic coincidence and poetic justice – BUT, the ending is not so perfectly satisfying; it is a mixture of folly that cannot be undone, and beauty that is reclaimed. 

 

The heroine Louisa, or more precisely, the promise of a heroine is a blooming beauty, with a sharp intellect, and an immense capacity for love. She is the daughter of perfectly pragmatic Mr. Gradgrind who raises her as all his children to be perfectly pragmatic, devoted to facts, oblivious to passion, pleasure, or whimsy. Louisa learns her lessons, and her duty, well and succumbs to a perfectly practical life. 

 

The reader weeps, for there is detectible in Louisa the un-nurtured promise of an elegant mind, a compassionate spirit, and a joyful heart.

 

There is a heartbreaking scene, when Louisa who is fated beyond repair, despairs of her life to her father.

 

How could you give me life, and take from me all the inappreciable things that raise it from the state of conscious death? Where are the graces of my soul? Where are the sentiments of my heart? What have you done, O father, what have you done, with the garden that should have bloomed once, in this great wilderness here!

 

She struck herself with both her hands upon her bosom. 

 

And now alas too late…her father weeps.

 

Sounds pretty miserable huh? Well that is the Dickens motif, but unlike most if his stories, in this case, all things are not set quite right. 

 

But…there is still something left to make the reader’s heart rejoice.

 

 

My rating: 3 1/2 of 5 stars

 

 

This novel satisfies “New-to-Me Classic by a favorite author“ in the Back to the Classics 2021 Challenge and The Classics Club Spin#26.

.

King Henry IV, Second Part by William Shakespeare

Henry IV, part two is the third play in Shakespeare’s tetralogy or Henriad: four plays regarding the succession from King Richard II – Henry IV – Henry V. Written in the late 16^thcentury, it covers the final days of Henry IV (1413) and the ascension of his son Henry V who reigned from 1413 – 1422.

 

In the previous play, Prince Henry (aka Hal, aka Harry) is chided by the King for being a wastrel, and for his association with Sir John Falstaff – who although a Knight and loyal to Henry is two-faced, craven, and hedonistic. Prince Henry vows to become a better man, but at the outset of part two – the change is not yet apparent. 

 

This is probably my least favorite thus far, of the historical plays. I liked Henry IV part one very much, but in part two, the various acts seem disconnected. Prince Henry begins to see Falstaff for the scoundrel that he is, there is the putting down of the rebellion, and the death of the King even as he learns the rebellion is ended. There is a good deal of comic relief – perhaps more than most of Shakespeare’s historical plays – but it didn’t really work for me.

 

There is a touching scene between the dying King and his successor.

 

King Henry: …God knows, my son,

By what by-paths and indirect crook’d ways

I met this crown; and I myself know well

How Troublesome it sat upon my head:

To thee it shall descend with better quiet,

 

and…

 

How I came by the crown, O God forgive;

And grant it may with thee in true peace live!

 

And the response:

Prince Henry: My gracious liege,

You won it, wore it, kept it, gave it me;

Then plain and right must my possession be:

Which I with more than with a common pain

‘Gainst all the world will rightfully maintain

 

Shorthly thereafter, one official inquires of another

 

Chief Justice: How doth the King?

Earl of Warwick: Exceedingly well; his cares are now all ended.

 

Henry makes a good start, and appears to be the man a king should be. The audience is given an epilogue by an unnamed dancer…that there is more of this tale yet to tell…which of course will be the play: King Henry V.

 

Modern day colloquialisms from Henry IV part two

Falstaff asks Pistol: What wind blew you hither, Pistol?

Pistol: Not the ill wind which blows no man to good.

Modern rendering: It’s an ill wind that blows no good

 

Later Falstaff asks Pistol: What, Is the old king dead?

Pistol: As a nail in the door

Modern rendering: as dead as a door nail

.

Germinal by Émile Zola (novel #168)

(translation by Havelock Ellis)

 

Was Darwin right, then, and the world only a battlefield, where the strong ate the weak for the sake of the beauty and continuance of the race? ~ Étienne

 

Germinal is widely regarded as Zola’s masterpiece. It is set in France during the coal miner’s strike of the 1860s. The principle character, Étienne, is a recurring character introduced in an earlier novel. Étienne is out of work, for striking his supervisor and although he is qualified for more skillful labor, he takes a job as a coal miner. He nearly quits after one day of the back-breaking work, but…

 

He did not know, but he wished to go down again to the mine, to suffer and to fight.

 

Étienne is an idealist, and Germinal is the tale of The Bourgeois and Proletariat. I am tempted to say it is the French version of The Grapes of Wrath, but that would be unfair to Zola whose masterpiece was published a half-century before Steinbeck’s. 

 

Early in the book, I thought I was not going to like it. I thought it was going to be a thesis for communism, portraying the heartless greed of capitalism. But no. Zola humanized both miners and capitalist, showing the very different suffering of each in the elongated strike.

 

He portrays the long slow suffering of the miners…

 

Things dragged on; a deep discontent was fomenting in the pit…

 

against the comfort and sudden plunge to ruin of the capitalist.

 

These revolutionary dreamers might demolish society and rebuild another society; they would not add one joy to humanity, they would not take away one pain, by cutting bread-and-butter for everybody. ~ M. Hennebeau

 

Tragedy and ruin:

 

On both sides obstinacy was piling up ruin: while labour was dying of hunger, capital was being destroyed.

 

Zola depicts the passion of the Étienne, who was a persuasive speaker, but naive and unprepared for the full toll of suffering a strike would cause.

 

The mine belongs to you, to all of you who, for a century, have paid for it with so much blood and misery.

 

And even the stoic anarchist, Souvarine, is given fair voice.

 

Raise wages – how can you? They’re fixed by an iron law to the smallest possible sum, just the sum necessary to allow the workers to eat dry bread and get children. If they fall too low, the workers die, and the demand for new men makes them rise. If they rise too high, more men come, and they fall. It is the balance of empty bellies, a sentence to a perpetual prison of hunger.

 

All a compelling struggle, but I didn't love this story, until the end, when lives are imperiled, miners are buried; the bitterness and conflict is forgotten as all sides are united in their desperation to save a few human souls.

 

…and these two men, with their contempt for each other – the rebellious workman and the skeptical master – threw themselves on each other’s necks, sobbing loudly in the deep upheaval of all the humanity within them.

 

This was tragically beautiful, and made the whole story worthwhile.

 

Perhaps Steinbeck learned from Zola – the imperfect ending. There is no happily ever after. Yet, there is hope born of adversity, and bathed in blood, but still…hope.

 

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

This is the first time I’ve read Germinal or Zola. Have you read this novel? This author? What did you think? I’ll definitely read more by Émile Zola

Oh and...the author has the coolest name, ermmm, second coolest name in literature (apologies to Italo Calivno for nearly forgetting him).

 

Other excerpts:

 

But now the miner was waking up down there, germinating in the earth just as a grain germinates; and some fine day he would spring up in the midst of the fields: yes, men would spring up, and army of men who would re-establish justice. ~ narrative

 

You will never be worthy of happiness as long as you own anything, and your hatred of the bourgeois proceeds solely from an angry desire to be bourgeois yourselves in their place. ~ Sourvarine

 

Men were springing forth, a black avenging army, germinating slowly in the furrows, growing towards the harvests of the next century, and their germination would soon overturn the earth. ~ narrative

. 

 

The Stranger by Albert Camus (novel #155)

"I have never been able really to regret anything in all my life." ~ Meursault, The Stranger

I had no idea what to expect from The Stranger. I knew it was a thesis to some extent for Camus’ philosophy of absurdism, but that had very little meaning for me. Blissfully ignorant I began.

Blissful didn’t last long. It begins with the main character, Meursault, learning of his mother’s death and departing for her funeral. Set in Algeria, mid 1940s, it details a few days, and then a year or so in the life of French Algerian Meursault.

The reader begins to see Meursault is a man without great passion or emotion. He goes through some of the motions of mourning, but doesn’t really seem to mourn. It isn’t as though he had a bad relationship with his mother, he professes to have loved her and to have got along. He is just indifferent to her passing.

This blasé attitude is the mark of Meursault. The day after the funeral he begins, or perhaps renews, a relationship with a girl from work, goes to the beach, goes to a comic film, and shows no sign of mourning. When his girl, Marie, asks him to marry her, he flippantly agrees, but later when she asks if he loves her, he responds, "I suppose I don’t" – but he’s still willing to marry her. It doesn’t mean anything to him.

Meursault’s aloof attitude toward life culminates when he kills an Arab. The first fatal shot is probably self-defense, but after pausing…

…I fired four more shots into the inert body, on which they left no visible trace. And each successive shot was another loud, fateful rap on the door of my undoing.

Meursault is arrested and tried. The most damning evidence being his indifference to his mother’s death, and indifference to everything.

Meursault is Camus’ embodiment of absurdism – the futility of seeking meaning or value from life. As such, I thought Meursault and the novel do a fair job of portraying absurdism, but do nothing to convince me of its merits; in fact, quite the opposite.

I pondered the title, and I suppose Meursault is the stranger – a stranger from humanity. I can’t say I enjoyed it, but I did find it interesting and well written. I’ll read more by Camus, but certainly with a predisposition next time.

My rating: 3 of 5 stars

This novel satisfies square G5, Classic Science or Philosophy (Absurdism) in the 2020 Classic Bingo Challenge, and Classic in Translation (from French) for the Back to the Classics Challenge 2020.

.