I Don't See the Hate

For my final post I want to start with saying that this has been a good place to hash out thoughts as we have read. There were a lot times that I did the reading and then thought that I had nothing to say, but getting on here made me digest it! 

I was given article called "Hatred and Civility: The Antisocial Life in Victorian England" by Christopher Lane for my final writing. First of all, I found myself on the defensive by the title alone. Being that I am a Bronte fan, I have never looked at her novels as anything other than pure enjoyment. I mean who goes around looking for hatred in a novel? With that being said, I will argue this article (though concede to a few small points), and then continue reading Bronte novels the way I like, biographical and romantic.

Lane starts the article by stating that "Bronte's protagonists suffer greater hardships while holding tenaciously to their principles." I have found Villette to be a very Bildungsroman style novel. I feel we watched the character grow and mature, work out her head, take chances, and come to some very resolved ideals. I never like Lucy was stuck, clinging to her principles. I always felt like she was working something out. I felt Bronte gave us a clear view into her mental processes and showed the reader how Lucy came to her conclusions. I never left out of why she was acting/thinking in a certain way.

Next, the article states that Bronte "turns the aggression of the protagonist into a politically impotent rage." Again, I disagree. I can see this to a certain extent. Bronte is definitely saying something about women, gender, and the domestic sphere, but, in comparison to Dicken's Bleak House, I believe she is quite mile in her "political" approach. Her voice is "political" voice is recognizable, but, I feel, completely overshadowed by the story line of growth and maturity. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to call it a "rage." 

Then, the article states, "Because her invocations of personal duty modify her protagonists' troubled relation to their communities, moreover, Bronte sometimes implies that these characters would be happiest if they could dissolve their ties completely." Again, I disagree. I never sensed that Lucy didn't want to be involved with the other characters/community in this novel. If anything, I saw the opposite. I saw a shy, introverted, awkward, young girl trying to figure out how to be a part of her world by comparing/contrasting herself against Ginevra and Polly. It is in these contrasts that she learns her own qualities and thoughts, which in the end, lead her to the ability to become part of her community, part of love, and part of others lives. The idea of running a school is not a sudden thought in the end of the novel, she had been preparing/saving/learning for a long time to be able to contribute back to others. I never saw her want to "dissolve ties."

Anyhow, I have at least six other places that I disagree with the thought of hatred within Villette. I will continue on in my apparently naive way and pretend that Bronte wanted us to see a world with hope, dreams, and the reality that sometimes life is hard. It doesn't always work out the way we want, but that doesn't mean we "hate."

Love and Reverence: Two Different Things

Today I had the chance to read quite a bit of the novel. Between Lady Dedlock's death and poor Sir Leicester Dedlock's sincere love for her, I really felt my first real emotions with this book. I was really sad when I was done reading today! The scenes where Sir Leicester is watching the snow and listening for her steps to return almost tore me up. It would seem through all of their riches, fashion and fame, there was a deep sense of real love. It was beautifully written and I am now a true Dickens fan.

So what exactly went wrong with their love? Was it Victorian society? Was it that women just didn't have room for error? If they were "real" people and messed up (say like got pregnant), did that put them in jeopardy of survival? I am so disturbed by the fact that she took it upon herself to "know" how Sir Leicester was going to handle the information and didn't understand his deep loyalty to her. Why didn't she know that she was going to be safe? Why didn't she comprehend, understand, or feel security within their marriage? I believe that page 656 gives us some clues. When the housekeeper begins to confront Lady Dedlock and gives her a letter, before she even reads the contents, she is already closed off. It is said of her, "But, so long accustomed to suppress emotion, and keep down reality; so long schooled for her own purposes in that destructive school which shuts up the natural feelings of the heart, like flies in amber, and spreads one uniform and dreary gloss over the good and bad, the feeling and the unfeeling, the sensible and the senseless; she has subdued even her wonder until now" (656, 657). Lady Dedlock lives up to her name; she is in a dead lock in life. Her secrets led to a void, emotionless, distant life that in the long run gave her life a dreary gloss. I find one of the most important elements to this is that she was a woman that had everything. She had the husband, the house, the fashion, the fame, and the money. Yet, Dickens is showing us that it is the openness of the heart that gives a richness in life. There was nothing in this life that could fill her heart as it had once been filled by Hawthorn. Love, true love, even forbidden love, with all its spectacles, is the only thing that causes us to live. She gave that away when she didn't choose Hawthorn and her daughter. I believe she had a lot of reverence and respect, and yes, love, for Sir Leicester, but it wasn't the kind that allowed her to "feel." Reverence and respect, and even gratefulness, are wonderful to experience in a relationship, but Dickens is showing that it doesn't make for wholeness. Wholeness comes from loving in spite of mistakes. Had she told Sir Leicester her mistakes years before, she may have been able to obtain a sense of wholeness in her life. But, Dickens makes it clear that secrecy in relationships will never amount to love. In fact, he goes so far as to say, it kills not only the secret keeper, but everything in its path. This subdued void should be a heavy warning to everyone in a relationship. It's equivalent to death!

So, in the end it wasn't Victorian society. It wasn't patriarchal marriage. It wasn't fame and all its fashion. It was simply dishonesty. Dishonesty within a marriage and within oneself. This is what killed her. She died because she allowed her past love (her true love) to live without her. And she died because she allowed her present love to really never be loved. Ouch!

Are We All Stubborn?

Last night in my reading of Bleak House I began to notice yet another theme in this novel. I was reading the section where Mr. George is his jail cell (616-621) and noticed his obstinate resistance to the idea of hiring a lawyer for his case. First off, Mr. George is a really likeable character, yet we would have to admit that he isn't the sharpest crayon in the box. He seems to be one of Dicken's characters without a hidden agenda. He is a simple minded guy leading a simple kind of life. He is enjoyable because of his simplicity. Yet, when I came to this point in the novel I became a bit exasperated with his character. He seems to have a good point about wanting his own truth to set him free, but he doesn't seem to understand or accept societal facts that without a lawyer, entering the "game of the courts" will turn into his own demise. When approached by Jarndyce as to the imperative need for a lawyer to represent him, he says, "I must decidedly beg to be excused from anything of that sort" (617). He becomes emphatic with, "No lawyer!" (617). I couldn't help but thinking that it will probably turn out to be his stubbornness determines his fate and that he can't see that he is hurting himself.

With this thought in mind, I began to apply it to every character within the novel. There seems to be a theme of stubbornness throughout the novel. There is Jarndyce, determined and obstinate in his stance about never succumbing to the enticement of the legal suit. Ada is adamant about loving Richard. Richard is adamant about loving Ada, as well as, never letting the legal suit go. Mr. Tulkinghorn is adamant about the protection of Sir Leicester Dedlock and about keeping Lady Dedlock controlled. Lady Dedlock is adamant about keeping Esther a secret. Mrs. Jellyby is adamant about Africa. Mr. Turveydrop is adamant about his Deportment. His entire household is adamant about keeping his Deportment at the forefront. Mr. Bagnet is adamant about doing whatever Mrs. Bagnet says and Mrs. Bagnet is adamant about Mr. George's obstinance and goes to get his mother to help him. Esther, the central character, seems to be adamant about keeping everyone happy. The list could go on and on. It's so easy to look at Richard and see how stupid he is in his stubborn determined law suit and to point the finger at him, yet what about the others. I believe Dickens would have us take a few steps back and see through his looking glass. He is trying to show us a new perspective. As an outsider to anyone's life it's easy to say to a friend, "You need a lawyer," but if the friend can't see the fire coming, maybe we should go get their mother like Mrs. Bagnet. Maybe Dickens is trying to say that we shouldn't be so quick to point the finger, but should resolve to be there when they fall like Jarndyce is for Rick. Dickens is strongly pointing out that we all have a tendency to point a finger very quickly. It is so much easier to see the "flaw" in someone else, yet not see that we are all stubborn to our own ideas and ways. Sometimes we can't see ourselves and the messes we are in and we should be able to count on a friend that will love us past our human nature of stubbornness. Maybe, Dickens is saying that if sticking to your guns is a flaw, then we are all flawed and we should lighten up on one another.

That's M-O-N-E-Y!!!!

After doing the exercise in class of drawing out character flaws and reasoning, I can't help but notice the common theme throughout the whole novel; MONEY! It doesn't matter who you are in this novel, somewhere, somehow, you are affected by money. Those that want it, like poor Richard, go crazy.! Those that don't want it, like Esther, are burdened with the fact they don't have it.

Let's look at Esther. She is young, has a trim, nice figure. She seems to be the person that every character just loves. She can do no wrong. She is a chronic people pleaser. She invests in all things good, all things kind, and all things worthy. So what's wrong with her? What is her "flaw"? Is it that she is scarred all over her face? That seems to be the only sort of unworthy thing Dickens has said about her. So what does she do? She decides she's going to marry John Jarndyce. What?!!!! And a big WHY? In class we talked about her need for protection. Protection from a society that didn't care for the single woman. The only reason to "protect" Esther is so that she has the confidence and assurance of money to care for her for the rest of her life.Without this "marriage" what will become of Esther when her "guardian" dies? Does she end out on the street? Does she still have a place to live? Food to eat? For what job is she qualified? The main job for women was teaching and we can see with Charley that she doesn't seem to be thriving in that field. So, it's not for love. It's not for sex. It's for money!

How about Richard? He is one that also needs money. He is almost out of money. He is continuing to live a life that squanders what he has and he is now in debt. Is it the lawsuit that is making him go crazy and make such poor decisions? I think Dickens would have us believe that this is the case. But given a deeper look past the surface of the situation one has to look at what is really happening to Richard. As Richard feels himself slipping away into the abyss of debt and crazy unrelinquished greed, Dickens justifies his behavior by saying of Richard, "...injustice breeds injustice; the fighting with shadows and being defeated by them, necessitates the setting up of substances to combat" (501). What are the "shadows" Dickens is referring to? What is the injustice? Richard has not been treated unfairly by Jarndyce or the system for that matter. Is the "injustice" and the "shadow" possibly a look back at a young Richard that was left without parents and a smaller portion of money that didn't turn out to be enough to take care of him? What would "necessitate" someone to "combat" in life other than need? I believe his greed is created out of his youthful need. So, really it's not about a lawsuit, or a right to have what is justifiably yours. It's about a hole created in his youth. It's about the fact that money created the hole and it's money that will satisfy it.

Maybe, Dickens is trying to show us the system of money and all its deficits. Maybe this story isn't about courts and lawsuits. Maybe, Dickens is saying that no matter what - money controls everything!

          For my first blog, I want to focus on pages 234-237. The scene where Mr. Jarndyce and friends go to check on and meet Coavinses children. The main thing that struck me was what happens in life when one cannot move on. I thought Dickens ever so eloquently has penned the destructive force that unforgiven anger can present in one's life. Mr. Jarndyce has an incredibly similar story to Mr. Gridley's, yet their future choices on how to handle life's blows has led them to very different life circumstances. First, you have Mr. Jarndyce who seems to exude patience, kindess, selflessness, and charity. The very definition of his life seems to be based on who he can rescue next. He is a man that moved passed what he deserved and what was expected. He made a new life for himself when the possibilities of what was guaranteed were not manifesting themselves. He is noted by Mr. Gridley that he "bears your wrongs more quietly that I can bear mine." On the other hand, Mr. Gridley is deadlocked in being "dragged for five-and-twenty years over burning iron." He is convinced within himself that "if I took my wrongs in any other way, I should be driven mad!" He is described as wrathful, resentful, revenging, angrily demanding justice, and has a countenance with an expression that does not soften. He is unable to use his natural characteristics in a positive way, like a general or a great politician. 
           An interesting thing I notice at this point is that the one who seems to point out that Mr. Gridley has "lazily adapted themselves to purposes" is Mr. Skimpole, a "child" that has chosen to use and abuse everyone he knows and never become responsible to grow up! Is part of Dicken's plan to point out that what we so vehemently accuse others of, we generally should just look in the mirror? I find this entire segment to be pointing at choice. Dickens himself, a child raised in poverty, made a very conscious choice to not be poor. Is he purposely pointing a finger at what stops us in life from overcoming? Is he trying to toot his own horn? Is he, say, Mr. Jarndyce? One that seems to have it all figured out? I just wonder how much of Dickens is in this scene. If so, doesn't his ability to pen Mr. Gridley as one that had a passion that was so fearful that you wouldn't believe it if you didn't see it, proving that maybe these are feelings that he has experienced and never gotten over himself? How does he know this character so hideously well? 
           I find these characters so intensely described that I, myself, feel uncomfortable for the children as Mr. Gridley tries to hold them. I plainly see Dicken's message of how ugly anger makes a person. I think we all experience expectations that cease to manifest. His message is truthful and descriptive beyond anything I really ever wanted to read. I feel his commentary on government and power is heard, without being said.  

Giving it a try!