9 September 2013
Summary
For this blog, I chose to look at the reviews by the Manchester Literary Times in 1848, John Forster in 1848, and the British Quarterly in 1849. These reviews come merely in unison with the release of the novel in 1848 and detail the quality of the novel before the author is revealed. This timely relevance means the reviews understand the challenges of the time as well as the issues of disparity that Gaskell seeks to uncover through the novel. The Manchester Literary Times believes that while the novel is no great literary work, its honesty and ability to describe the world around it is inspiring. Forster agrees in his claim that the novel “is no bragging, or tolling of things fantastical” (Forster 367). He claims that is it through sympathy that Barton constructs a beautiful novel and like the Manchester Literary Review understands it is the plainness and ease of the literature which gives the novel literary credibility. The British Quarterly agrees with the beauty of the writing style but calls into question accuracy of the picture being portrayed. It calls into question the own faults of the poor and the depiction of all mill owners as bad men. It claims “this one sided picture” (British Quarterly 370) is inaccurate. The review really steps away from the abstract appreciation of literary technique and theme but looks instead into historical relevance and accuracy. In a sense out of this grouping, the British Quarterly represents the upperclass and plays the devil's advocate.
For this blog, I chose to look at the reviews by the Manchester Literary Times in 1848, John Forster in 1848, and the British Quarterly in 1849. These reviews come merely in unison with the release of the novel in 1848 and detail the quality of the novel before the author is revealed. This timely relevance means the reviews understand the challenges of the time as well as the issues of disparity that Gaskell seeks to uncover through the novel. The Manchester Literary Times believes that while the novel is no great literary work, its honesty and ability to describe the world around it is inspiring. Forster agrees in his claim that the novel “is no bragging, or tolling of things fantastical” (Forster 367). He claims that is it through sympathy that Barton constructs a beautiful novel and like the Manchester Literary Review understands it is the plainness and ease of the literature which gives the novel literary credibility. The British Quarterly agrees with the beauty of the writing style but calls into question accuracy of the picture being portrayed. It calls into question the own faults of the poor and the depiction of all mill owners as bad men. It claims “this one sided picture” (British Quarterly 370) is inaccurate. The review really steps away from the abstract appreciation of literary technique and theme but looks instead into historical relevance and accuracy. In a sense out of this grouping, the British Quarterly represents the upperclass and plays the devil's advocate.
Analysis
The first two reviews assume that the
picture being painted of the poor is accurate. John Forster sympathizes with
their plight and go as far as to claim “be satisfied with the knowledge that
they are born, are wretched, and die, is certainly no longer possible” (Forster
367). Through this statement he acknowledges that the novel has made valid claims and has highlighted plausible issues. He calls them the “dangerous
classes” as acknowledges that the
respectable populations carries little sympathy for the lower class and that is the value of the novel. Likewise, the Manchester Literary Times at least
acknowledges the unfortunate as a “humble class” (366) and while lends little
room for sympathy finds beauty in their recognition and Gaskell’s passion. Together these articles agree that Gaskell’s writing is worthy of respect for
its honesty and ability to portray a set of individuals in an intimate and
heart wrenching way. They believe her achievements are found in the ability to
sway public opinion. However, in the opinion of The British Quarterly, the author “seems
still under the influence of the very common misapprehensions entertained
respecting the laboriousness of occupation in the factories” (372). This review
harshly critiques and defends what is thought of as the social order and
treatment of lower classes. It brings out statistics claiming that the
incidents in factories are not as prevalent as supported in texts like Mary Barton. Ultimately, it is
understood that the living conditions were not favorable and the world was
changing through industrialism as jobs boomed and busted. These critics show
the reader that the class warfare came from both sides and whether Gaskell
meant to be political in nature, her writing still caused discussion. Discussion for
improvements sake means this novel is a success. In addition, it is considered an estimable literary
work, agreeable by all.
Gaskell, Elizabeth. Mary Barton. Ed Thomas Recchio. A Norton Critical Edition. New York: W.W. Norton, 2008. Print.
I liked that you analyzed the commentaries that not only praised Mary Barton but also challenged some of its concepts as well. I think that although her novel may not focus on the other classes of the time, that it was still successful in showing a picture of the true hardships of the working class. I completely agree that her novel was successful in the fact that is caused discussion.
ReplyDeleteAriel,
ReplyDeleteI think it's great that you chose to look at two reviews that agree with one another, as well as one that sort of opposes the ideas presented in the other two. I think it's important that you brought into the picture that Gaskell's readers came from both classes. We tend to only think of Gaskell's lower-class readers, and completely forget that readers of the upper-class without a doubt came into contact with this novel as well. It is interesting to think of how the different members of society reacted to the novel and the way that the different classes they belonged to were portrayed.
It's still hard to accept that England (speaking generally) would be so blind to what was happening in it's poorest cities, and that some would go so far as to deny outright that poverty existed. But then I think about Syria and how long it's taken the world to become concerned and angry about the 100,000 or so people killed there in the last two years. In some ways, it seems that the further removed from a problem we are, the easier it is to pretend it doesn't really exist (or to just remain ignorant).
ReplyDelete