Gone With the Wind

Quoting myself,


All throughout the book Christianity is clearly VERY evident. I do not know how anyone can possibly miss the references made in that link. And there are so many more. While I do not quite agree with the conclusions reached in that link it does prove the point that there are innumerable biblical or Christian references in GWTW.



One need only read the very opening of the book to where the book's title comes from: '' There was a land of Cavaliers ... look for it in books, for it is no more that a dream remembered, a Civilization gone with the wind.''


All thru the book Scarlett is looking for satisfaction in people, materiality, having multiple spouses, and in amassing wealth. "Money was the obsession dominating her mind." [p 668] "I want money more than anything else in the world". [p 679] All this just like Solomon in the Old Testament. In the end both characters determined that they were merely chasing after wind as "All is vanity and grasping for the wind."

Ecclesiastes 1:14; 2:11; 2:17; 2:26; 4:4; 4:6; 4:16; 6:9

It took a while but I finally finished reading GWTW. Very interesting read. I've looked up some sites re the question of whether or not the book was "racist". More often than not people's views on that question were based on their own skin tone. Whatever the case, I would not censor the book. As with Twain and others its message is one that pervaded society for a long period of time. For better or worse, it must not be forgotten.

The character that caught my attention or interest the most was Rhett Butler. I saw how he was repeatedly referred to in terms that reflected a Jewish stereotype though I could not find any historical links which referred to writer Mitchell as an anti Semite (her father may have been one though that isn't clear, either). There was one line that caught my attention when Scarlett muses about Ashley's poor management skills as she fretted "anyone could Jew him down on prices." Butler is again referred to as a pirate "all he needs is an ear ring and cutlass". He conducted business in Nassau which was a Caribbean haven for pirates and reportedly engaged in claim jumping. He does business in New Orleans (a place where some corrupt Jewish carpetbaggers went to) and to South Carolina [by the way, South Carolina had a Jewish carpetbagger governor in the early 1870s]. He owns a cat house (houses of sin were said to be owned almost exclusively by Jews). He asks "why not steal from the rich instead of the poor and weak?" He owns large amounts of stock in a bank and we all know the stereotype about Jewish bankers - there are numerous scenes in which he is a money lender. He dealt in the liquor industry which, again, was stereotypically thought to be Jewish controlled especially by Protestants who advocated teetotalism in that era. There are repeated references to Butler as having a dark/swarthy face and brown hands. He is called "outcast" sorta like Joseph or Moses. He played both sides of the fence and has considerable influence over Yankees in Washington as well as Confederates. Lastly, Butler was referred to as a "swine" -- this was the derogatory term used most often in Europe with my own Judio ancestors in Spain referred to as ''marranos" which means swine. Butler fit every conceivable Jewish stereotype. All this makes me wonder why this subject has not been discussed in literary or movie criticism.

Whether anyone calls it racist or not, it cannot be denied that the book is illuminating and genuinely reveals what that society was all about. So let's live in the knowledge and comfort that such times can never return. On that basis I say that, yes, it is well worth reading.

Less than flattering reviews of GWTW:


https://thereadersroom.org/2017/06/2...with-the-wind/



There was a reason I never before read past the first 50 or 100 pages – Scarlet is a raging evil snarky miserable ***** and I hate her. None of the other characters were particularly likable – ranging from sniveling, whiny sissies to evil, snarky *******s.
But by God did it feel good when Rhett tells her “My dear, I don’t give a damn” because neither do I.



A great ending to this book would be “And Mammy pulled so hard on Scarlett’s laces that scarlett’s organs failed and she died. El Fin.” Then you wouldn’t have to keep reading the next 500 pages or so.


-23570328502385 stars for being racist as hell




Many online commentators I came across felt that Scarlett was, somehow, a noble character. That she was self reliant and some kind of role model for other female characters. That despite her youth, emotionalism, and her willingness to hurt others, there was a great character. In all honesty I don't know how people can feel that way.

Less than flattering reviews of GWTW:


https://thereadersroom.org/2017/06/2...with-the-wind/



There was a reason I never before read past the first 50 or 100 pages – Scarlet is a raging evil snarky miserable b_____h and I hate her. None of the other characters were particularly likable – ranging from sniveling, whiny sissies to evil, snarky A---H-----s.
But by God did it feel good when Rhett tells her “My dear, I don’t give a damn” because neither do I.



A great ending to this book would be “And Mammy pulled so hard on Scarlett’s laces that scarlett’s organs failed and she died. El Fin.” Then you wouldn’t have to keep reading the next 500 pages or so.


-23570328502385 stars for being racist as hell




Many online commentators I came across felt that Scarlett was, somehow, a noble character. That she was self reliant and some kind of role model for other female characters. That despite her youth, emotionalism, and her willingness to hurt others, there was a great character. In all honesty I don't know how people can feel that way about her. She was racist as f___k and said,


Free darkies are certainly worthless ... you can't depend on darkies anymore ... The more I see of emancipation the more criminal I think it is.
It's just ruined the darkies.

Free issue N________s are something else and a good whipping would do some of them a lot of good."


Previously she referred to blacks as "apes". She is exploitative as F____k as well. She exploited prison labor and bemoaned the fact that she had to pay wages to the freedmen. She undercut business rivals. In her rabid quest for money she would resort to every lie imaginable. Not a very nice person at all. Indeed, a detestable one.

Sorry for the partial duplication - my PC froze and created this mess.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellsapoppin

It took a while but I finally finished reading GWTW. Very interesting read. I've looked up some sites re the question of whether or not the book was "racist". More often than not people's views on that question were based on their own skin tone. Whatever the case, I would not censor the book. As with Twain and others its message is one that pervaded society for a long period of time. For better or worse, it must not be forgotten.

The character that caught my attention or interest the most was Rhett Butler. I saw how he was repeatedly referred to in terms that reflected a Jewish stereotype though I could not find any historical links which referred to writer Mitchell as an anti Semite (her father may have been one though that isn't clear, either). There was one line that caught my attention when Scarlett muses about Ashley's poor management skills as she fretted "anyone could Jew him down on prices." Butler is again referred to as a pirate "all he needs is an ear ring and cutlass". He conducted business in Nassau which was a Caribbean haven for pirates and reportedly engaged in claim jumping. He does business in New Orleans (a place where some corrupt Jewish carpetbaggers went to) and to South Carolina [by the way, South Carolina had a Jewish carpetbagger governor in the early 1870s]. He owns a cat house (houses of sin were said to be owned almost exclusively by Jews). He asks "why not steal from the rich instead of the poor and weak?" He owns large amounts of stock in a bank and we all know the stereotype about Jewish bankers - there are numerous scenes in which he is a money lender. He dealt in the liquor industry which, again, was stereotypically thought to be Jewish controlled especially by Protestants who advocated teetotalism in that era. There are repeated references to Butler as having a dark/swarthy face and brown hands. He is called "outcast" sorta like Joseph or Moses. He played both sides of the fence and has considerable influence over Yankees in Washington as well as Confederates. Lastly, Butler was referred to as a "swine" -- this was the derogatory term used most often in Europe with my own Judio ancestors in Spain referred to as ''marranos" which means swine. Butler fit every conceivable Jewish stereotype. All this makes me wonder why this subject has not been discussed in literary or movie criticism.

Whether anyone calls it racist or not, it cannot be denied that the book is illuminating and genuinely reveals what that society was all about. So let's live in the knowledge and comfort that such times can never return. On that basis I say that, yes, it is well worth reading.

---

The question for me is if the stereotypes you enumerate where applied exclusively to Jews or to a more ample group. What seems clear to me,is that Mitchel wanted her protagonists to be neither good nor bad.
What caught more my attention is how Ku Klux clan is described. All the "decent " men of the south seem to belong to it.

Evidently the link which I posted has changed. Let's see if this works:



https://thereadersroom.org/2017/06/2...nd/#more-13294



Indeed, it shows "Mitchell seemed to forget what the KKK actually got up to and portrays them as ‘gallant gentlemen’ which they certaintly were not." This among other things proves that the book, which was such a massive best seller, had many shortcomings.

I think what modern readers choke on is not so much that it’s a racist novel, but that it’s an apologia of the southern plantation lifestyle. Hence a defense of slavery. I suppose you can take the 19th century southern planter culture and the Civil War as just a backdrop for the story, but then you’re left with just a tawdry true romance-style story.

Mitchell does sort of flip the script on the standard love story of the day. I think most readers recognize right off that Charlotte and Rhett are meant for each other, maybe they even deserve each other, but usually the adventurous woman winds up with the rube and then spends the rest of the book pining over the scoundrel. In this one she marries the scoundrel and pines over the rube. And then she breaks the scoundrel. Tough woman. She’s a survivor. I admired her in the same way I admired Captain Ahab. She’s got chutzpah.

I forget how the main characters referred to the war. In that war there are two names for everything. The Union soldiers tended to name things for a natural feature — The Battle of Bull Run. The Confederate soldiers would name the same thing for a man-made feature — The Battle of First Mannasus. It reflected what fascinated them most about the place. There’s a political element to how they referred to the war itself: The War Between the States, or The War for Union. Or as Granny Clampett described it — The War betwixt the North and the U. S. of A. The War betwixt the Gray and the Yeller. The War of Northern Aggression!

Anyway, speaking of the Jewish diaspora and how they were treated in the south, Poppin, have you heard the story of Leo Frank? In Atlanta Hartsfield Airport, on the spine betwixt B and C concourses, there is a “Walk Through Atlanta History” exhibit. In it there is a photo of a fairly miserable-looking Leo Frank and his wife not too far from a photo of Margaret Mitchell, oddly enough. He was the manager of pencil factory in Atlanta in the early 1900s. One of his workers, a young girl, was found murdered at the factory. She had also been raped. Well, despite evidence to the contrary, Leo got blamed. He was convicted and while he was awaiting appeal, he was kidnapped from the jail by a group of “citizens” and lynched. It was a sensational story for the day and I’m sure Ms Mitchell was familiar with it. I wonder what she thought about it. Methinks might not have been good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hellsapoppin

Evidently the link which I posted has changed. Let's see if this works:



https://thereadersroom.org/2017/06/2...nd/#more-13294



Indeed, it shows "Mitchell seemed to forget what the KKK actually got up to and portrays them as ‘gallant gentlemen’ which they certaintly were not." This among other things proves that the book, which was such a massive best seller, had many shortcomings.

---

I think, your citation hits the nail, Poppins!

I completely agree with you here, Sancho:"I think what modern readers choke on is not so much that it’s a racist novel, but that it’s an apologia of the southern plantation lifestyle. Hence a defense of slavery." It was a whole mode of life and it seems to have been Mrs. Mitchel's mood of life until the war.

I am also glad to read a post that doesn´t demonise Scarlett. She is not a "good" woman. She is a survivor. The "good woman" according to the lights of the novel would be Melanie,but Melanie dies in the end.

@Sancho,


Initially it was referred to as "the Cause" ~ that is, a 'righteous struggle' against Yankee 'aggression' which sought to undermine their way of life. Then it is referred to the "Lost Cause". At first it was thought to be a glorious, noble, and worthy effort. Then when they paid a heavy price tag they conceded that it was not worth it at all. At no point did they concede that slavery was an evil or that secession was illegal. Instead they employed every manner of self justification and apologia to defend both, never conceding at all that they started and prolonged the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danik 2016

I think, your citation hits the nail, Poppins!

---

Thanx!




[QUOTE -- "I am also glad to read a post that doesn´t demonise Scarlett."[/QUOTE]


I read several reviews starting with some from the time the book was written. It seems like for several decades she was defended by many commentators as simply being a survivor who had everyone's best interests in mind. Then starting with the Civil Rights movement of the late 1960s the view towards her changed. Indeed, early commentators never mentioned her racist rants. Later critics did. And, as I wrote before, nobody (except for me) has used the term "sexist" to denote her inclinations. But that's been discussed already.

It's all like Moby Dick ~ a book HATED and demonized in its time by contemporary critics. Today it is beloved and venerated by modern critics.

In their time the Impressionist painters were considered cranks who created worthless junk. Today they are considered classicists whose works will cost you millions to buy.

Views change and I guess that's what makes it all art.

@Sancho



Forgot to address that part of your question.

Yes, indeed, I read about him many decades ago. It was a very sad story of an innocent man (an engineering scholar) wrongly accused and having been murdered in cold blood for a crime he did not commit. His death influenced the creation of the Anti Defamation League as no one was charged with his murder.

Has anybody read Charles Frazier’s Cold Mountain?

Following The Battle of the Crater, Confederate Soldier, Inman, decides he’s had enough of war and decides to desert the army. He sets off on an odyssey-like walk back to his home to Tennessee.

The battle itself was fascinating, in the novel as well as in the history of the Civil War. It was part of the months-long siege of Petersburg, Virginia. A group of Union soldiers from Pennsylvania, former coal miners, had an unusual (and potentially brilliant) idea — why not tunnel under Confederate lines and blow the rear to smithereens with dynamite, thereby breaking the siege. It could’ve worked, but fell apart due to the poor planning of the maneuver that followed the blast.

Anyhow, as Civil War novels go, I enjoyed this one immensely. Also a pretty good movie.

I have cold mountain but haven't read it yet. ive come close to picking it up a couple of times though...so I suspect eventually I will. maybe all the more so because I like books that have movie versions.