Villette: a wonderful novel

[Agliomby]

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.

[Danik 2016]

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.

You see him like that. But does she? And it seems she can handle him all right.

[prendrelemick]

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?

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.

[Danik 2016]

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.

[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.

[prendrelemick]

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.

I read that several times as well. You know when you shout at the telly in annoyance? That.

[prendrelemick]

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.

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.

"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.

[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.

"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.

[Danik 2016]

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 Brontë 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.

[Jackson Richardson]

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.

[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 Brontë 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.

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.

[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 Brontë father. Later Brontë 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.

[Danik 2016]

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.

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.
I find "Villette" anguishing, at least many parts of it.

[prendrelemick]

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 Brontë father. Later Brontë 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.

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.

[Agliomby]

I thought Elizabeth Gaskell's work a blatant panegyric.