Hello everyone!
I finished reading 'Villette.' I loved it. I liked very much Dr. Bretton and Paulina, but my heroine was Lucy Snowe, absolutely!! Has anyone read it?
Printable View
Hello everyone!
I finished reading 'Villette.' I loved it. I liked very much Dr. Bretton and Paulina, but my heroine was Lucy Snowe, absolutely!! Has anyone read it?
I read it. I didn’t make a big impression on me, but I thought that it was ok. Mostly I remember that the main character’s prejudices against Catholics and in favor of Protestants were rather funny.
Hello Aylinn!
Those prejudices were mostly based on the real life of Charlotte. Her father was a very strict Protestant.
By the way, do you mean funny ha-ha or funny peculiar?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aylinn
I think it is one of the most wonderful novels I've ever read, and also one of the most underrated novels ever. Even a non-reader knows something of Jane Eyre, but somehow even literature buffs seem to overlook this original and unconventional novel, Charlotte's true masterpiece.
I've read it at least seven times. So many favourite scenes - Lucy being rowed to her ship at night by a bunch of foul-mouthed boatmen, her first classroom experience as a teacher, dressing up as a man and playing the libertine in the school play, the schoolroom scenes, the parties, the art gallery where M. Paul reproves her for gazing at a gigantic nude painting, her "scarlet dress" (Pink, pink! And pale pink at that!), Lucy doped and high as a kite, wandering about the festive park at midnight, and encountering every single character in the book, and of course the ghostly nun - Was any other 19th century female character allowed to have such a wide range of experiences and adventures?
Lucy is amazing! I also like Ginevra, and Monsieur Paul.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmilla
Hello mona amon!
You know the book almost by heart!! Amazing!! :) Yes, Lucy was a controversial heroine for Victorians. But I admired very much her courage and willpower.
I too have just finished reading Villette. Requiring some application for the first half, I found that application deeply rewarding as the novel thundered to its breath taking finish. I think a good book, is one that affects one personally, and Villette certainly does that. I was spoken to by Charlotte Bronte across 150 years, and I wish I could reply. Her device of addressing the reader directly strikes me as sincere, and my sympathy with her characters comes close to empathy.But all this is predicated on her technical skill. Her sentences are complex and satisfying as they tease one's mind along cryptic paths. Similarly the plot unfolds in an unpredictable way that had me physically gasping at several points, indeed until the very last paragraph.
I was one of the unimpressed. I think because Lucy did not seem a real person to me, she remained fictional and unlikely, I thought much of her morality was perverse and frankly a bit silly. I had the same trouble with Jane Eyre though.
Hello Mona Amon
Yes I agree, especially about the dreamy scene in the park. And what about her waking amongst familiar surroundings after her blackout! Many times the author had me foxed, just as bemused as her characters. But what kept me gong, before I became truly involved in the story, was C. B.'s technical skill with sentence structure. I do enjoy a complex sentence, that does more than just transmit data.
Further, I am not so sure the Bronte sisters used pseudonyms to avoid being recognised as women. Particularly Charlotte; her works are obviously written (well, to me) by a mind rare in male authors.
Perverse and silly morality?
IMO rather an intelligent 19th century female writer trying to come to terms with a perverse morality.
Are we talking about sexual morality here? Religion?
It's been a decade or two since I read Villette, but I remember wondering why Charlotte killed off M. Paul, for no apparent reason other than to deny her heroine and readers a potentially happy ending.
Ecurb,
Mr. Paul probably was inspired by Constantin Héger, Charlotte's tutor in Brussel and her unrequited love. By killing the character she was maybe trying to exorcise a love that had made her suffer a lot.
According to her biographer Mrs. Gaskell, Charlotte didn“t want a happy ending for this novel. The open ending was in attention of a wish of her father.
Thanks, but M. Paul's death seemed tacked on to the novel, to me. Charlotte had a propensity for unhappy endings -- like when Jane Eyre gets back together with rude, abusive and self-centered Mr. Rochester.
No no no, M. Paul is left alive, or dead, at the end of the novel, according to the reader's desire. I have read the last paragraphs again and again; the hush after the storm is not heard by some (dead I suppose) , the sun brings night (bad news) to some awaiting, readers of a sunny disposition are allowed to look forward to a happy reunion and succeeding life. So skilfully does the author avoid a maudlin ending.
It doesn't really matter, Lucy achieved fulfillment when Paul declared his love for her and set her up in her own school. She tells us of her contentment for the 3 years of his absence; she had found someone with whom she could share, physically and philosophically.
You see him like that. But does she? And it seems she can handle him all right. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ecurb
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agliomby
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danik 2016
I'd better explain. The way they both indulge in rightous self-denial whenever they can annoys me. They harm themselves by the moral decisions they make, decisions that help no one and complicates things . eg. Jane chooses near death over the man she loves. (that's perverse) I just can't admire her for that - even though I know I'm supposed to. In fact I find it hard to believe in her character after that. I prefer Cathy Earnshaw's selfishness or Tess Durbeyfield's practicality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agliomby
I suppose righteous self-denial was considered a great virtue under the Victorians, specially the Victorian women. But that doesn“t mean one has to like it.
I think not everything is self denial with Jane, specially at the end of the novel. Jane hates to be dependent on someone and, at the end of the novel Rochester is wholy dependent on her. As a heiress, she is not even dependent on his money. And I think this inversion of roles suits her.
And is that not the essence of the collective Bronte philosophy, i.e. independence? Especially in "Shirley", a novel that I think proposes individual freedom equal to anything advocated by for instance Germaine Greer or Fay Weldon. Lucy Snowe may have strict principles, but she never relinquishes them. Indeed she does not even expect them from her lover.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danik 2016
I read that several times as well. You know when you shout at the telly in annoyance? That.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agliomby
I suppose they (Lucy and Jane) also have no one dependent on them, (unlike Tess) and so can indulge themselves in their suffering, as a proper Victorian heroine should.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danik 2016
"Victorian morality" was stiff and obsessed with appearances - keeping secrets locked in the attic you might say. We still feel its influence today. I wonder if Charlotte was a product, or a leading influence of it.
Perhaps neither, just a part of it. Guiltily, I must admit, when equality for women came into my consciousness, about 45 years ago, I first thought, well, if the works of the Brontes and George Eliot were a product of oppression and inequality, there was some consolation. And for me the sexuality implicit in, say, M. Paul touching Lucy Snowe's un-gloved hand under the blanket in the coach has more impact than any graphic representations of desire readily seen on the web.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Answering both of you (I still haven“t learned to use the multi quote button :()
I think there is a lot of wish fulfillment in Charlotte's novels. She herself survived three sisters which she nursed through their illness. Also her unstable and dissolute brother died in this period. And she had to keep household for a father, who according to Mrs. Gaskell, was very stern and exacting, while personally distant of his daughters after they had grown up. And what would you think of an indepedent writer of 39, who, when getting a proposal of marriage answered "Have you talked to my father"? So it is no wonder she went for orphan and unencumbered heroines.
I think also that hers and honest Thomas Hardy“s heroines
are a response to the Victorian ideal of feminility. As Virginia Woolf would say decades later:
"You who come of a younger and happier generation may not have heard of her--you may not know what I mean by the Angel in the House. I will describe her as shortly as I can. She was intensely sympathetic. She was immensely charming. She was utterly unselfish. She excelled in the difficult arts of family life. She sacrificed herself daily. If there was chicken, she took the leg; if there was a draught she sat in it--in short she was so constituted that she never had a mind or a wish of her own, but preferred to sympathize always with the minds and wishes of others. Above all--I need not say it---she was pure. Her purity was supposed to be her chief beauty--her blushes, her great grace. In those days--the last of Queen Victoria--every house had its Angel."
http://s.spachman.tripod.com/Woolf/professions.htm
I agree that Victorian morality was mainly based on appearances. I think Charlotte was both an outcome of it and an influence. An outcome as a parsons daughter, who received a stern education, though the Brontė girls managed to create a playground for their imagination in spite of it. An influence because at least one her novels, Jane Eyre, became a bestseller and later a classic, surpassed though by the IMO greater Wuthering Heights.
Sorry for the long post, got carried away by the subject.
When I read “secrets locked in the attic” I thought of Elinor Dashwood in Sense and Sensibility. She learns (from her rival) that her boyfriend has deserted her and chooses to say nothing to anyone and at the same time deal with her sister’s hysterical reaction to the same situation.
Elinor’s silence is heroic, but not self righteous. She is an angel in the house of an all female household.
PS. I haven’t read Vilette for years. I remember at the time thinking it was the most depressing novel I’d ever read. But I was going through a bad patch.
That's a great post. I have only one bone of contention - The Elizabeth Gaskell biography, the very thing that created the Bronte myth, is not to be relied on. It was a piece of nineteenth century spin, and probably influenced Wolf as much as everyone else. It is now accepted their upbringing was as enlightened as was possible given their time and situation . Patrick Bronte was a remarkable and clever man according to sources come to light since Gaskell. You only have to look at the risque output of the other sisters to see this is probably true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danik 2016
Mrs Gaskell's biography of Chalotte was written in the form of a 19th Century novel. It is very clear that she didn“t like Patrick Brontė father. Later Brontė biographies also point out many points of controversy in it but unfortunatelly those I came across didn“t bring new informations and all of them followed the pattern of the first one. Most of the letters from the younger sisters disapeared, possibly destroyed by Charlotte herself. There might to be some material about the father as he was the one who survived his whole family. It seems he went to Wales.It would interest me greatly, if you knew something about him.
There is the Victorian Literature Topic "the mad woman in the attic" inspired by Bertha and pointing at the supressed feelings and truths in the representation of the heroines.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson Richardson
I find "Villette" anguishing, at least many parts of it.
Here's a start. http://justine-picardie.blogspot.co....ck-bronte.html. I haven't read the book reviewed here, but I have read other histories and articles that are extremely critical of Gaskell's book . The other day I listened to a radio discussion of Jane Eyre (BBC In Our Time, with Melvyn Bragg http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05y11v8) where the same point was made, in fact of all the family Patrick's story could be said to be the most incredible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Danik 2016
I thought Elizabeth Gaskell's work a blatant panegyric.
Well, I suppose even Mrs Gaskell wanted to sell as many books as possible and chose her narrative accordingly. The heroine triumphing over almost unsurmountable difficulties and disadvantages will never go out of fashion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Agliomby
I ought to confess here I haven't read it, so don't really know what I'm talking about!
Could Jane be the two Dashwood sisters joined together? A mixture of sense and sensibility.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackson Richardson
Thanks for your links about Patrick Brontė. Unfortunally I at present know only one good library on English Literature and it is in an university that“s on strike. As importing these books have become rather expensive I have to rely mainly on on-line material.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Mrs. Gaskell only came to know Charlotte in the last part of her life when the latter was already a famous author. Judging from the biography it wasn“t a very close relationship.
The biografy of Charlotte was written at the request of Patrick Brontė, who at first seemed not to object to the book only after criticism started. What one notices is that Mrs. Gaskell takes great care to quote from her sources. Even so there are parts that generated great controversy. One of them was the narrative of the childhood of the Brontės. Two of the maids felt themselvrs so misrepresented in the biography, that they asked P. Brontė for a testimony.
Anyway this site is a feast for Brontė fans:
http://bronteblog.blogspot.com/
One can find not only the novels and poems by them but also shorter and earlier texts.
There is also Mrs Gaskell“s biography(about 700 p)and other older biographies and critical evaluations.
I've just read the first few pages of Lizzie's Life of Charlotte and now I know where the archetypal Yorkshire Man comes from! - Independent, tight fisted, over confident, taciturn, fast friend, implacable enemy. I'm going to get a T shirt with it on.
Now the question is, if Gaskell invented The Brontes, did she inadvertently invent The Yorkshireman as well?
But Mrs G came from the wrong side of the Pennines !
True, but she lays it on thick about Yorkshiremen and their strange ways.
I have an image of a coterie of genteel lady tourists clutching their Gaskill, staring at a local waiting for him to thrill them with a harsh retort.
http://www.online-literature.com/eli...otte_bronte/2/
I find Villette such a heart-breakingly sad novel. Lucy's feeling of complete isolation and deprived of love, without wanting to be simplistic, sounds like depression to me. It's a very incisive portrayal of a state of mind.