In April of 1849, W.R. Greg wrote a review of the Elizabeth Gaskell's novel Mary Barton for the Edinburgh Review. In the review Greg stated that Mary Barton is full of inaccuracies and exaggerations. Greg articulated "Notwithstanding the good sense and good feeling with which it abounds, it is calculated, we fear, in many places, to mislead the minds and confirm and exasperate the prejudices, of the general public on the one hand, and of the factory operatives on the other" (Greg 383). The review expresses that Elizabeth Gaskell in her writing is prejudiced and biased and Mary Barton is in a sense propaganda for the lower class. In Greg's opinion the working class was granted many opportunities to better themselves in life, especially young laborers and mechanics. Greg then went into a step by step process through which this was possible, concluding that in Mary Barton the lower class is pitied and made out as though they had no means in which to better themselves other than committing crime, or marrying up. On the other end of the spectrum, written on February 17th, 1849 and published in Prospective Review, it is stated that through reading the novel "We rise from its pages with a deeper interest in all our fellow-beings; with a firmer trust in their great and glorious destiny; and with a strengthened desire to co-operate with its gifted authoress and with all of kindred spirit, in every effort to ennoble and bless them" (380). Despite several inconsistencies in the narrative, the review states that Mary Barton "represents the ideas and passions of a particular class, or rather of a certain portion of a particular class, during a crisis of strong local excitement, when the supposed interests of masters and men were brought into direct collision"(374).
It is arguable that Greg is correct in the sense that Gaskell's narrative consists of a wide variety of inconsistencies, however, stating that the main inconsistency is that the characters are unable to better themselves is a difficult argument to support. In a time period where the lower class was many times unable to attain any form of education, disease was prevalent, and those who worked in factories were many times severely injured or killed simply working one's way up the ladder of success seems not only unbelievable but ridiculous. The Prospective Review is a lot more logical and easy to support, the review states that despite the narrative containing several inconsistencies that overall the narrative was very well written and sheds light onto the human condition during this time period. The characters are very relatable in the novel, especially Mary who as a teenager and eventually young woman holds all the hopes and fantasies in the world, and despite facing horrible tragedies and unfortunate circumstances she endeavors on and eventually discovers herself but what it is that she truly desires, Jem.
I think if both of the articles points were combined, then a perfect argument would be made. The novel Mary Barton is over dramatic, but it is this drama that brings light to the upper class about how the lower class lives. I think that without the drama that the Edinburgh Review states, the out come of knowledge that the Prospective Review states is impossible. Therefore, I feel that the over embellishment in which Gaskell rights is necessary in order to receive that she is looking for.
ReplyDeleteThe Edinburgh Review says that it was propaganda for the lower classes which, as discussed in class, I believe was a possibility. It is a little hard to believe that there was nobody of a higher class that would have realized what was going on with the poor (but I could be wrong). However I do agree with the Prospective quote that the story was about the ideas and feelings of a class, but when I read the quote it seems as though it can be taken in the context of being feelings and not truth.
ReplyDeleteI tend to come back to the question of readership when I think about Gaskell's purpose(s) in writing Mary Barton. As was the case with Dickens' novels, readers reacted strongly against the violence and depictions of poverty in Mary Barton. Given that novels had tended to focus on just the middle and upper classes before this point (and depictions of the poor tended to romanticize them and place them in rural settings), I can understand why readers of fiction would be skeptical of the type of poverty that Gaskell writes about. If they can't see it in their immediate surroundings and haven't encountered it before in fiction, it's going to seem unreal.
ReplyDelete