North and South

"Pride and Prejudice meets Communism!" I've always found that description humorous and descriptive, although not necessarily super fair. Gaskell was a contemporary of Jane Austen and wrote about romance and high society.

As for the communism, it's halfway true. It’s more about the origin of the idea of the capital holding rich having for the first time a relationship with labor unions that isn’t completely antagonistic, that is a little bit more complementary. This makes the books political stance distinctly socialist; not communist, by the definitions set forth by Karl Marx.

The setting is Dickensian, a polluted city full of commerce and soot, with poor downtrodden workers struggling to survive.

Our heroine, Margaret, is unusually empathetic and a strong peacemaker. She’s one of favorite characters from any book I have read in this era. She is a newcomer from the country, new to an industrialized environment. The daughter of a parson, she is used to visiting the poor and doing as much good as she can to help people understand each other. She vaccilates between the world of the poor and the rich, between the workers who are striking for their rights, and the family of John Thornton, one of the mill owners.

Unlike many a book that has been written on social and economic injustice, this one is actually interesting. Gaskell doesn't strawman either side, and in fact explores each quite thoroughly, showing different individuals, factions, and viewpoints inside of each side. Through her heroine Margaret, she seeks to find common ground, an art form all but lost during that time period...

And sadly, it's all but lost today. Would that more people thought like Margaret. It's such a rare gem to find meaningful discourse, seeking to understand, searching for common ground, unifying instead of dividing. To do the work of a peacemaker is really hard work, and often thankless. Many people will say that if you're not for us you're against us. That's where we are in American politics today; the moderates are attacked by both sides, torn apart like a sheep among wolves. But nevertheless...I digress, but the point is, Gaskell is doing something really interesting in this work that is healing to my soul.

The heroine, Margaret, is one of my favorites. She's strong, imperfect with her impetuousness and a touch of (unintentional) haughtiness. But she's strong, a unifying force, someone with a higher perspective.

Her biggest flaw is probably her haughtiness—she thinks of herself as “Someone,” for she comes from minor nobility and there are all sorts of Victorian concepts of what all that entails. Because of that she can be seen as more a product of her environment and when contextualized, she’s ahead of the curve—her maid Dixon actually gets more offended for the family’s sake than her family does, which makes for a comedic twist.

The comparison with Jane Austen is inescapable, and in many ways this is similar; these are rich nobility during the same time period having some of the same dinner parties and concerns. But here we have a lot of the poor’s perspective too. And where Austen's novels are really only about romance with only a dash of other topics, Gaskell's novel is about romance but is also truly about at least two other things. One is the coming of age story which is quite strong here; I won’t say more than that for fear of spoiling things for you. The other is a searching for resolution to war between those with capital and those without. And this is far from the demonizing, revolutionary talk of the Communist Manifesto. The tone is more similar to Charles Dickens (fitting since he was a mentor of Gaskell’s). It’s more a perspective of really seeing the plight of the working poor with great pathos, really seeing it.

And Gaskell also seeks for us to really understand Thornton. Far from falling into the pit of "all rich people are scumbags," she explores his psyche in insightful detail. She shows what many people overlook, which is that someone like Thornton came to be where he was precisely because of admirable traits: because of how capable, determined, hardworking, creative, and industrious he was, precisely because he could see and understand things that few do. It also shows his examples of charity and kindliness, much of which Margaret draws out, but which was quite latent before she entered his life.

She also doesn't deify the rich as I have seen some books do. In fact, Thornton and especially his mother have become a bit monomaniacal, and it's love for Margaret that helps free John from his crusty shell and connect with his heart again.

I also loved reading this for the characterizations. Everyone seems to be basically a caricature...but a well-done caricature. I feel like they are epitomized representations of certain archetypes; distilled forms. They make me feel things. Mostly palm-to-forehead things. But things nonetheless, because they feel like Gaskell is making fun of things that need to be made fun of.

I like how Gaskell sets up a pretty huge hurdle for the love story to overcome. The Thorntons basically think Margaret is a complete snob. And that misunderstanding makes sense in context; it illuminates the suspicion that the new money has for being looked down upon by old money, which is another major theme. You see what you expect to see. Well done.

Quibbles? Well, as in all Victorian romances, it ends immediately with engagement. The two lovers haven’t spent any time really getting to know each other in depth. That’s always puzzled me about these books.

I also have other quibbles with the ending feeling a bit rushed, and it taking is a bit too long in the middle to get there. The pacing could have been a bit better.

Overall? I strongly liked this book. I liked it even more than the Jane Austen I have read so far…with that said I haven’t read the great P&P or Emma yet so that could change…but I really thoroughly enjoyed this book. I’m looking forward to reading more of Gaskell.

But she had learnt, in those solemn hours of thought, that she herself must one day answer for her own life, and what she had done with it; and she tried to settle that most difficult problem for women, how much was to be utterly merged in obedience to authority, and how much might be set apart for freedom in working.

Margaret

…… he was uneasy and cross, unable to discern between jest and earnest; anxious only for a look, a word of hers, before which to prostate himself in penitent humility. But she neither looked not spoke. Her round taper fingers flew in and out of her sewing, as steadily and swiftly as if that were the business of her life. She could not care for him, he thought, or else the passionate fervour of his wish would have forces her to raise those eyes, if but for an instant, to read the late repentance in his. He could have stuck her before he left, in order that by some strange overt act rudeness, he might earn the privilege of telling her the remorse that gnawed at his heart. It was well that the long walk in the open air wound up this evening for him. It sobered him back into grace resolution, that henceforth he would see as little of her as possible, - since the very sight of that face and form, the very sounds of that voice (like the soft winds of pure melody) had such power to move him from his balance. Well! He had known what love was - a sharp pang, a fierce experience, in the midst of whose flames he was struggling! but, through that furnace he would fight his way out into the serenity of middle age, - all the richer and more human for having known this great passion.

John

Nord et Sud était depuis très longtemps dans ma PAL, une envie soudaine d’ambiance victorienne a fini par me décider. Il n’y a pas à dire, je préfère une Gaskell à une Austen (pas taper !). Si la romance reste le sujet principal du roman, l’intrigue est renforcée par un propos de fond, pas uniquement basé sur la petite bourgeoisie anglaise et ses soucis futiles, mais aussi et surtout sur l’aspect social de l’ère industrielle. Gaskell confronte deux milieux sociaux, totalement opposés culturellement, et évoque largement les conditions de (sur)vie des ouvriers du nord de l’Angleterre, sans doute pas meilleures que celles les travailleurs du sud, néanmoins assez différentes et difficiles pour mettre le doigt là où ça fait mal. Nos deux principaux protagonistes sont issus de ces deux milieux, et la compréhension mutuelle n’est pas évidente. Les droits des ouvriers, les avantages sociaux, le profit à tout prix au détriment de la santé des travailleurs, les contraintes des patrons pas toujours en adéquation avec les besoins et le bien-être des ouvriers, on s’aperçoit que les conflits et les inégalités sont toujours d’actualité. En bref, la délicatesse et le raffinement d’une Austen et le réalisme sombre d’un Zola. J’adhère !