A Review of Dickens' Little Dorrit

Charles Dickens is one of my favorite authors. His masterful intertwining of subplots, delightful sense of humor, eccentric characters and sincere social advocacy make his novels moving, thought-provoking and enjoyable. I've read a few of his novels, some of which are in included in my top favorites while others, though not making that list, still proved worthwhile to read. One of the novels that didn't quite make it to my top list was Little Dorrit.

Before I read Little Dorrit, I picked up David Copperfield and Oliver Twist, two novels that are, in the usual Dickens style, lengthy but full of surprises and turns that kept my attention. Little Dorrit, though the writing is wonderfully descriptive and the imagery magnificent, did not have the same effect on me when I read it. In fact, I found myself putting the novel down for longer periods of time and wishing I could move on sooner than later. I appreciate Dickens' style enough to be patient with him. I know that his plots do not unfold quickly and that you've got to stop and notice the details when reading his work. But I found that I lost some of that patience with Little Dorrit, and the book did not finish in a manner that gave me the usual satisfaction at the end of his novels.

The primary focus of Little Dorrit is the title character, her family and their lives in the Marshalsea debtors' prison. One thing that I admired in the novel was how Dickens put together all the elements of the prison. The towering, clanging gates. The scant housing. The always busy prison pub. The animated inhabitants and turnkeys. He painted a perfect picture of the prison, and I felt sympathetic to Amy Dorrit and the other members of the community who were forced to live a life cut off from society simply because they were poor. Everything Dickens wrote about the prison seemed genuine and unexaggerated. He presented the situation as it was, probably drawing on much of his memory of the place from his childhood, and I loved how real it all seemed not simply by the description but by the apparent heart in the writing. This is one example of just a brief description of the homes when Arthur Clennam visits the prison for the first time:

The night was dark; and the prison lamps in the yard, and the candles in the prison windows faintly shining behind many sorts of wry old curtain and blind, had not the air of making it lighter. A few people loitered about, but the greater part of the population was within doors. The old man taking the right-hand side of the yard, turned in at the third or fourth doorway, and began to ascend the stairs. "They are rather dark, sir, but you will not find anything in the way." (Chapter 8, Book the First: Poverty)

While I liked the primary plot and focus of the novel, which revolved around Amy Dorrit and Arthur Clennam and the Dorrits' time at the Marshalsea, I cannot say that I enjoyed the subplots of the novel nearly as much. True, the characters were intertwined and played some part in each other's lives, but when reading the novel, I wanted to skip through the more intricate details about these characters. The story of the embittered Miss Wade luring Tattycorum away from the Meagles family was one that lost my interest early on. I honestly did not care enough about Miss Wade, the attention-seeking Tattycorum, or the Meagles, who all seemed so one-dimensionally cheerful and optimistic that they were hardly believable or interesting. How and why the intelligent, caring and socially aware Arthur Clennam would fall in love with the sugary sweet, naive, exceedingly dull and simple "Pet" (the Meagles' affectionately nicknamed daughter) was beyond my comprehension.

Another character that I felt did not meet the usual Dickens standard was Monsieur Rigaud, the novel's villain. Rigaud was a murderer, escaped from prison and seeking to simply make money and wreck havoc. He tells others that his name is Blandois and adopts a new persona to fool the other characters. In fact, he often has soliliquies in which he proclaims his great character:

"You shall win, however the game goes. The shall all confess your merit, Blandois. You shall subdue the society which has greivously wronged you, to your own high spirit. Death of my soul. You are high-spirited by right and by nature, Blandois!" (chapter 30, Book the First: Poverty)

These soliquies become tiring and unoriginal. Also, per the quote above, nowhere in the text is the explanation of how the world has "greivously wronged" Rigaud. Even his reasoning behind the blackmail of Mrs. Clennam is strictly money-driven. Dickens seemed to try too hard to make him mysterious by making his character, even moreso than the Meagles family, very one-dimensional. He was more of an annoyance to me than a person I wanted to keep knowing about or seeing in the story. His villainy seemed trite compared to that of Dickens' other antagonists, like Bill Sikes and Fagin in Oliver Twist, Mr. Murdstone and Uriah Heep in David Copperfield, or Ralph Nickelby and Wackford Speers in Nicholas Nickelby. Dickens' other antagonists had more depth of character, in that their motives were clearer.

Even though some of the characters in the novel were not as interesting and vibrant as Dickens' earlier characters, I read on. Two characters that actually made me laugh out loud were Flora Finching and the woman only referred to as Mr. F's Aunt. Flora, Arthur Clennam's former fiancee, is silly, flighty and always tightly wound, especially when Arthur is around. Her long bouts of dialogue in the novel have sparse commas, which was a brilliant touch on Dickens' part. Her hurried, rambling, usually off-topic words tell of her flightiness and marvelously add to the comedy of her character. Below is a bit of dialogue from Flora, in which she is commenting on a room in the dank house belonging to Mrs. Clennam, at least at first:

"Ah dear me the poor old room," said Flora, glancing round, "looks just as ever Mrs. Clennam I am touched to see except for being smokier which was to be expected with time and which we must all expect and reconcile to ourselves to being whether we like it or not as I am sure I have had to do myself if not exactly smokier dreadfully stouter which is the same or worse, to think of the days when papa used to bring me here the least of girls a perfect mass of chilblains to be stuck upon a chair with my feet on rails and stare at Arthur--pray excuse me--Mr. Clennam--the least of boys in the frightfullest of frills and jackets ere yet Mr. F appeared a misty shadow on the horizon paying attentions like the well-known spectre of some place in Germany beginning with a B is a moral lesson inculcating that all the paths in life are similar to the paths down in the North of England where they get the coals and make the iron and things gravelled with ashes!" (Chapter 23, Book the Second: Riches)

Quite the opposite of Flora, the elderly Mr. F's Aunt is a solemn character, though ever so comically due to her senility and feisty, brief commands that have no reason behind them. Mr. F's Aunt is left to Flora by the death of her husband Mr. Finching, and pairing the two was a genius move by Dickens. Mr. F's Aunt is described as having the same hard expression on her face and a crooked wig upon her head. For reasons completely unknown, she despises Arthur, and often glares at him and makes threatening comments to him. My favorite comments from this "respectable gentelwoman," as Dickens calls her at one point, remain "Bring him for'ard, and I'll chuck him out o' winder!" and "He has a proud stomach, this chap! Give him a meal of chaff!" The latter comment, and an increased animosity, came from Mr. F's Aunt when Arthur only stared at the woman when she told him simply, "Take that," holding out to him the crusts of the toast she had just eaten during tea. At the woman's one-line outbursts to Arthur, Flora attempts to calm her but never succeeds, which never makes Flora angry or even irritated with the woman. Indeed, she acts as though Mr. F's Aunt's behavior is quite commonplace.

While Little Dorrit has some interesting characters, the characters do little to help strengthen the major theme and overall plot, which is a bit weak. The ultimate message of the rags to riches story is that "money doesn't buy happiness," which is a good theme to explore, but after I completed Little Dorrit, I felt that this theme was quite beaten into me. And I won't give away the ending so as not to spoil anything, but I will say that the conclusion is a bit predictable and the demise of Rigaud is, well, for lack of a better word, befuddling. I appreciated Dickens' satire on the British government, the "Circumlocution Office," but not having much background knowledge on the British government of the mid-nineteenth century, I did not fully understand it. I'm sure that this added to some of my frustration with the plot.

The plot did have some unexpected twists, but I felt that the predictablity of the story outweighed the surprises. Parts of the book felt too long, even for Dickens. I particularly felt strongly about this with the Meagles/Tattycorum situation as well as the Dorrits' tour of Europe. Up until the end of their tour, the story seemed repetitive: Amy Dorrit is sad, William Dorrit is pompous, Fanny Dorrit is selfish, Tip Dorrit is vain, Frederick Dorrit is complacent. These were issues seen in the Dorrits' poverty, and perhaps Dickens was trying to make a point that having money did not improve these characters. Still, as a reader, I like to see change and evolution in characters. I will say that Arthur Clennam underwent genuine changes and evolution in persona, which I commend, but I wish I could have seen that in the other characters.

Overall, I would not recommend this novel to anyone who is not seriously devoted to Dickens. First time readers of Dickens should definitely not pick up this novel before any others. As a lover of Dickens' work, I can move on from what I've disliked in Little Dorrit and still look forward to reading his other novels.

To first time readers of Dickens, I would recommend starting with his early works and then moving on to his later works, as Dickens' style evolved as he grew older. Here is a list of Dickens' novels in chronological order. Some biography and analysis of the author's writing style is also included on the site, which may be of interest to both novices and seasoned veterans of Dickens.

A Discussion on Tom Bombadil

As an ardent fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Hobbit, I'm always excited to read anything more I can find by Tolkien. The Silmarillion is on my reading list (you will undoubtedly read a post about this book eventually), but being in the middle of Gaskell's Mary Barton, I decided to pick up a work by Tolkien that is not as lengthy. Thus, today's focus is The Adventures of Tom Bombadil.

The Adventures of Tom Bombadil is a series of seventeen poems, all legends compiled by hobbits. These poems, all rich in detail and beautiful in language in the true Tolkien style, tell fun, imaginative stories and fables. While all of the poems have great merit and are, quite simply, a lot fun to read, I'm going to limit the focus of this post to the two poems specifically about Tom Bombadil.

As Tom Bombadil is one of my favorite characters in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I was excited to read more about him in the poems. However, the poems do not tell anything about Tom Bombadil's history or lineage, so the reader should not expect to really learn too much more who Tom is and where he comes from. The first poem tells of his meeting with other inhabitants of the forest. Each character he encounters takes something from him or tries to trap him in some way. Tom, of course, demands that each make right their errors, and they all leave him alone without a fight. Two familiar characters from the poem are Goldberry, the River-Daughter, and Old Man Willow, who both make appearances in The Fellowship of the Ring. The poem explains how Bombadil took Goldberry as his wife. He literally caught her and "held her fast," then said to her:

'...Here's my pretty maiden!
You shall come home with me! The table is all laden:
yellow cream, honeycomb, white bread and butter;
roses at the window-sill and peeping round the shutter.
You shall come under Hill! Never mind your mother
in her deep weedy pool: there you'll find no lover!'

While Tom can tell the inhabitants of the forest what to do and his requests are always met without question, he is not a tyrant of the forest. He does indeed have a charge over the forest, but he is not a king nor is he really a leader of those living in the forest. He seems to just keep the inhabitants of the forest from harming him or anyone else, namely certain hobbits who get stuck in Old Man Willow's roots in The Fellowship of the Ring. He seems to be there to keep everyone in line, except Goldberry, to whom he is obviously attached. Indeed, the interaction between them in the beginning of the poem is a flirtation rather than Tom keeping up some kind of rule of the forest.

The second poem in the series about Tom Bombadil is "Bombadil Goes Boating" and describes his journey down the forest river, all because he caught a leaf:

Tom caught a beechen leaf in the Forest falling.
'I've caught a happy day blown me by the breezes!
Why wait till morrow-year? I'll take it when me pleases.
This day I'll mend my boat and journey as it chances west down withy-stream, following my fancies.'


I especially like the comparsion of a day to a leaf in this text. Falling leaves all seem to be same. Except if you catch one and really look at it, the leaf may have little details or certain coloration that makes it stand out from the others. When we see a leaf that could be different, we should grab it and take a look because it might be something extraordinary. And so it's the same with our days: all could be one just like the other, but we have the potential to make our days good and to take a chance, take a journey perhaps, and follow our own "fancies."

Tom indeed takes his journey down the river in the poem, and he meets animals who try to trick him or lead him to harm. Tom outsmarts the animals, and again, they leave him alone after their attempts. His journey eventually leads him to hobbit territory, specifically The Shire. After a few dismissals from other hobbits, Tom eventually finds Farmer Maggot, whom readers of the trilogy remember as the farmer whom Frodo stole mushrooms from as a young hobbit. Tom and Farmer Maggot have some drinks and laughs while swapping stories. Maggot eventually falls asleep, and when he awakes Tom is gone, adding to the otherwordly, mysterious identity Tolkien has given him.


Tom Bombadil is indeed one of Tolkien's most quizzical and interesting characters. His inherent link to the forest, his wisdom in spite of his whimsy, and his disinterest of worldly affairs lead the reader to believe that he is a sort of deity or spirit. Tom was the only character in The Lord of the Rings trilogy to touch the ring and not be bothered by any of its effects. Gandalf even says at the Council of Elrond that the ring "has no power over him." Later, in Return of the King, Gandalf also tells Frodo that Tom has not been "much interested" in all the events revolving around the ring. Tom seems to be one of the few characters of Tolkiens' that has no fault. He is not on any journey to make correct any wrongs. He is not fighting with anyone. He is completely content with living in and taking care of the forest.

Given Tom Bombadil's otherworldly traits, could we consider him a model for an ideal style of living? Maybe it's a bit pretentious to assume that the tales of the carefree, "merry fellow" Tom have resonance in real life. However, Tom lives a life of simplicity, which is far from the type of life that any of us can claim to live. Nature is his source of life and his prime joy, and while he knows of the events and people outside of his world, he chooses to stay in the forest and keep his home, his livelihood there. His life is peaceful, joyful and fulfilling in its own way. Given the state of Middle-Earth in the novel, I don't think I'd mind living in the forest with Tom and Goldberry while the war between good and evil rages.

Perhaps the reader would think that he simply turns a blind eye to evil, making him selfish rather than helpful or likable. However, like the elves, Tom Bombadil wishes to stay out of the affairs of mankind, whose hearts are greedy and selfish, as Tolkien repeatedly points out in the trilogy. Unlike the elves, though, Tom succeeds in keeping himself separate from their troubles. He is a perfect manager of the forest. He keeps nature running smoothly and even houses Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin on their way to Rivendale without letting this interrupt the general flow of nature.

Tom's cheerfulness and optimism provide some relief from the heavier topics at hand in The Fellowship of the Ring. Overall, he represents unfailing, unflinching goodness. His being in the trilogy and part of the collection of hobbit legends shows that in spite of wars, evil deeds and sorrow, good does always exist in Middle-Earth because Tom Bombadil always maintains it. Sure, not everyone is effected by this goodness, as Tom Bombadil is relatively hidden away from most of the inhabitants of Middle-Earth, save the hobbits, who are, after all, a people of pure hearts and innocence. But those with hardened or despairing hearts do not likely believe that such a constant goodness exists, and if one does not believe something exists, why would one put any energy or effort toward finding it? I think that Tom knows this, and I think that he would even have simple, wise solutions to stopping the evil in Middle-Earth, similar to his straightforward reprimands to the living things in the forest when they are being mischievous. But the men, the dwarves, the elves all do not live their lives so simply, and so with complex issues comes complex solutions. Complexity is not a trait embodied by Tom Bombadil, which only adds to his spirit-like characteristics.

For further reading on Tom Bombadil, you could check out various Tolkien websites. If you're a fan of Tolkien, you know that the information about him and Middle-Earth is abundant, and rightly so. This is a Wikipedia page dedicated solely to the spritely Tom Bombadil, where you'll find info about his role in the trilogy and more about the poems discussed in this post. Also, here is a wonderful site for all things Tolkien, including analysis and description of his works and even news related to the great scholar and author.

No complications, no consequences? -- An analysis of Hemingway's "Soldier's Home"

Today I'm taking a turn from Victorian-era nineteenth century works to American modernism. And who better to focus on than the iconic Ernest Hemingway? The selection for this post is "Soldier's Home."

"Soldier's Home" tells the story of a man named Harold Krebs, the soldier who has come home to Oklahoma in 1919, much later than other soldiers from his hometown arrived. The story describes images and thoughts of post-war Krebs (as he is most often called, probably the same name he was called in the military) on ideas and objects that are seemingly simplistic, like the way girls look in his town or Krebs' father's car.

As per usual for Hemingway, the writing style of "Soldier's Home" is clean and simple, yet descriptive of what is not "seen" upfront by the reader. With simple statements like "He did not want any consequences," Hemingway seamlessly describes the depth of a character who seems to have been dulled by war. Any words spoken by Krebs is minimal. No long speeches, no long explanations of anything in dialogue is seen in this story, except when Krebs' mother speaks. I think the story's writing style alone shows Krebs' dislike of all things complicated, which is exemplified by his not wanting to date:

"He did not want [girls] themselves really. They were too complicated. There was something else. Vaguely he wanted a girl but he did not want to have to work to get her."

Like the one above, Krebs' thoughts throughout the story are decisive. While one who has never experienced war firsthand may wonder why he thinks and believes the things he does, the reader can know that he has quite decided his views and that nothing will change his mind. Girls won't, his mother won't, his father won't. However, what about the unnamed sister, whom is deemed "his best sister"? As the reader can see by the jesting conversation between the two and the fact that Krebs decides to watch her baseball game, Krebs seems to care about her more than anything else in his life. His interaction and thoughts about his younger sister are starkly different than his thoughts about anything else. Besides his sister, nothing--not faith, not work, not women--is special or interesting to him. Krebs wants to "float" through life without investing emotion or energy. He seems to believe that living this way will prevent "consequences." After all, if you do nothing and care about nothing, then nothing can happen, right?

Now that the war is over, Krebs feels that his life is meaningless and empty. He really does try to find meaning, but due to the artificiality and carelessness of the people around him, he gives up the search. The girls are "complicated" but only in a way that is annoying and far too much work to him. The townspeople are unimpressed with his war stories, even when they are completely fabricated. The other former soldiers in the town don't want to talk about the war with him and would rather go on and live normal lives. Krebs doesn't feel he can go on with a normal life and thus decides that he'll do nothing. Is it because the war has damaged him? Or is it because he sees the town for what it really is for the first time in his life?

While Krebs ardently wants to avoid complexity in his life, Krebs' mother encourages him to seek out the complexity. However, like Krebs, she does not want complications. The first time I read this story I was sympathetic to Krebs' mother, whom he tells that he does not love in a rather nonchalant way. However, Krebs' mother, while she does mean well, does not want to really try to understand what her son is going through. She's likely scared of what she'll find out, which probably hits her when he says that he doesn't love her. Like all mothers, she probably didn't want her son to go away to the war in the first place but had to let him go. Deep down, she knew he wouldn't be the same, but she does not want to accept it. She wants him to "settle down," or get married and get a job. And she begs him to pray with her when he does not believe, which is only passively acknowledging the issue. Sadly, Hemingway stated that he detested his mother. Perhaps the interaction between the two characters represents something much more real than fiction.

Though written so simply, Hemingway's short stories are all complex, deep and altogether magnificent. But don't expect happy endings. Of course, this is usually the case with the modernists, as they were weary of Victorian realism, which they believed was sentimental, trite, and ironically, unrealistic. Even so, modernism shows us the misery, complexity and often the darkness of the human heart, which is as essential as presenting the optimism, simplicity and light of the human soul.

Top Mothers in Literature

In celebration of the holiday, I am shaking things up and writing a post in a slightly different format than usual. Below is my list of great mothers in literature. These mothers fulfill their parental duties with love, wisdom, and unflinching support to the heroes and heroines of their literary works.

Marmee from Little Women

As one of my favorite literary mothers, Marmee's kindness, patience and extraordinary sense of charity makes her a great model for all of us mothers. She knows how to deal with life's trials and still raise her girls to be modest, smart, consientious, and kind women. Marmee faces extreme difficulties: raising her daughters alone while her husband is at war, taking care of the feeble Beth and later seeing her die at a very young age, and dealing with the family's poverty and lower social standing. Yet through all these hurdles, Marmee remains an ideal mother and a rock for all her daughters. While she is a not considered a heroine in Little Women, who knows where Jo, Meg, Beth and Amy would have been without her in the plots of their lives?

Mrs. Weasley from the Harry Potter series

Yes, I know the Harry Potter series is not part of the canon (yet, may I say?), but I feel it would be nothing short of an injustice to not include her on this list. Mrs. Weasley has many of Marmee's characteristics for being a good mother: kindness, patience, a sense of charity, and strength. However, Molly Weasley also has a temper and often deals with stress due to having seven children, six of which are boys. And her boys have not been easy to raise. The mischievous Fred and George wreck havoc wherever they go, Ron always finds himself in mortal peril with Harry Potter, and Percy turns against and completely snubs his family. Plus, Charlie studies and cares for dragons for a living, which can't make for any peace of mind. However, Mrs. Weasley still runs her household smoothly (even without magic, I think she could do it seamlessly), acts as a fearless protector to all of her children, has a strong sense of pride for each and every one of her children, and even considers the orphan Harry Potter as one of her own. Mrs. Weasley knows when to be firm, when to be kind and understanding, and when to let her children go and experience life for themselves. All in all, she's an ideal mom, especially since she can cook a meal with a few waves of her wand.

Mrs. Thornton from North and South

The mother of the sensible John Thornton does not embody the warm and welcoming personality of the ideal, angel-like mothers, but she has the most of one trait out of any mother included on this list: strength. Having lived a hard life in the industrial city of Milton, she has been through many types of hardship, poverty being the most difficult to overcome. After her husband squanders away all of their money through gambling and drinking, he dies, leaving her with John and his sister. As was customary during this time period, John quits school to earn the family's living. I cannot imagine the difficulty of sending your 14 year-old son to work to support the family. But John did it, and he turns out quite all right. Due to his impeccable work ethic instilled in him by his mother, John eventually goes from being a common worker to a mill owner. She believes in John more than anyone and despite her hard ways, she comforts and supports him through his own trials. Mrs. Thornton's sole thoughts lie with John and his well being, and you know throughout the novel that she'll do whatever it takes to keep him from harm or failure. However, like every understanding mother, she also knows when to let her son make his own decisions (even if she doesn't agree) and how to still proudly stand by him.

Betsey Trotwood from David Copperfield

Even though Betsey Trotwood is David Copperfield's great aunt and not his mother, she deserves to be named as a great mother in literature. Having disowned David simply because she found out he was a boy, she was not what one would call an ideal caretaker at the start of the novel. However, when David comes stumbling to her house after he has run away from the factory, she takes him in and protects him from his cruel stepfather, Mr. Murdstone. After taking David into her home, Betsey makes an exception to her prejudices against boys and acts as a loving, strong, and wise guardian to David. Betsey gives David a life of ease and comfort as a boy and sends him to a good school and even helps him get a job. David's gentle and kind ways soften Betsey, and the reader sees that despite first impressions and the fact that she had no biological children of her own, Betsey is a natural protector and provider.

"A Draught of Sunshine": Keats' resounding hope in despairing times

Like Gaskell, I've had to read John Keats outside of an academic setting, and I will say that without careful study, I find Keats rather challenging. However, he is definitely worth the effort, as many will agree. Today I'll be discussing "A Draught of Sunshine". You'll find the full poem here.

The initial thought that came to mind when I first read this poem was the beautiful, otherworldly imagery. Upon reading these lines, I couldn't help but stop, take a breath and read again:

God of the Meridian

And of the East and West

To thee my soul is flown

And my body is earthward press'd. -

It is an awful mission

A terrible division;

And leaves a gulph austere

To be fill'd with worldly fear.

As "A Draught of Sunshine" is spiritual in nature, it is nearly impossible to read this poem, particularly the section above, without thinking of any faith where human beings are believed to embody a soul. I know I did, and as a Christian, I felt that I could understand and appreciate Keats at that level. This poem was published posthumously and perhaps Keats wrote it while he was suffering from tuberculosis in his last days. He undoubtedly understood that life on earth can indeed be "an awful mission". Physical human separation from God, he's stating, leaves one afraid. But alone? Only in the "worldly" sense. As he states above, his soul has already "flown" to God while his body must live on Earth where he later confesses to enduring "lonely hours". Another poignant image expresses how the body longs for the soul to be with it:

Aye, when the soul is fled/To high above our head,

Affrighted do we gaze,

After its airy maze,

As doth a mother wild,

When her young infant child

Is in an eagle's claws -

This is the desperation of death, the longing of unity with God. What better way to express this longing than with the image of a mother separated from its child! Not only does this image resonate with the human relationship of parent and child but also the Christian's relationship of God as parent and human as child. Perhaps Keats is saying that while we long to be with God, God is loth to let us be separated from him to live our human lives on earth.

While the lines beginning with "God of the Meridian" focus solely on the concept of the body longing to be with God, the poem begins with the explanation of the actual draught of sunshine Keats prefers to drink over wine. Of course, the imagery of the sunshine being drunk out of his "bowl", which is the sky, is imaginative and aesthetic to the utmost. What better way to cast away fears and woes than to look upward, where the soul is flown and where brightness abounds?

Although I've said that this poem is spiritual in nature, I think it's worth it for anyone of any beliefs to read this poem. If not to gain an understanding of hope in suffering, perhaps just for great imagery. Keats' life--so sad, so short--gives great background to this work. He was passionate and quite inspiring. He left the medical field to become a poet. How often do you hear something like that happening in these times? This is a website dedicated solely to Keats, where you'll find information about his life and a collection of his poems and letters. I encourage you to print one of his poems out and write on it, dissect it, even hang it up for some inspiration.

North and South: an enjoyable read and a lesson in mid-19th century social isssues

As I am a huge fan of Victorian realism novels, I am embarrased to admit that I only recently heard of Elizabeth Gaskell. I read North and South about a month ago, and I enjoyed it immensely. As the title indicates, Gaskell compares and contrasts southern English country life to northern English urban life. The heroine, Margaret Hale, moves with her family to Milton, a fictional mill city, which is likely representative of Manchester. As Margaret tries to understand her new surroundings and the starkly different lifestyle of city dwellers, Gaskell delivers images of squalid living conditions and the tried and tired mill workers among the poor. Margaret befriends a family in these conditions and sees their suffering and hardships firsthand. All the while, Margaret keeps encountering John Thornton, a no-nonsense, business-minded mill owner who is rough, as you find out through the novel, only around the edges. I won't give any details away about the plot, since you may want to read North and South and would be disappointed if I told you the whole story here.

Gaskell not only portrays the astonishing differences between the poor and the wealthy as well as the comfortable middle class (much like Dickens), but she also portrays impressive growth in her characters. I will say that Margaret Hale is one of my favorite heroines of classic literture, but halfway through the novel, I would not have said anything of the kind. After moving to Milton, the middle- and upper-class shelter in which Margaret has been encased is abruptly removed. Although her concern for the poor is sincere, she comes across as well...a bit whiney. But aren't we all at 18-ish? By the end of the novel, you admire Margaret and hope to embody some of her characteristics. And as far as John Thornton goes, let's just say that he's ideal. More ideal than Mr. Darcy, even. :)

I've often told others that I enjoyed North and South better than anything I've read by Jane Austen, which was all of Mansfield Park and about one third of Northanger Abbey. Perhaps if I give up watching the Kiera Knightly version of Pride and Prejudice for awhile, I'll read the novel and may have a different opinion. I can't compare Gaskell and Austen too much, though. After all, they each lived very different lives and wrote in different decades. I think it's fair to say that they both wrote about what they knew and wrote it well. However, I found more depth in characters, plot and social significance in North and South than in Mansfield Park.

Like I said, I didn't know much of anything about Elizabeth Gaskell until I decided to pick up North and South, which stemmed from my glancing at UCLA's reading list for their master's program in English. I encourage you to read more about her. She was the wife of a Unitarian minister, a mother of six, and a good friend and biographer of Charlotte Bronte. See her wikipedia article here.

And while we're on the subject, why didn't I know more about her? I was surprised that nothing I read in my undergraduate courses was written by her. In fact, many lit geeks like myself I've spoken to about this book say they haven't heard much about her either. Do you think Gaskell should be included in more undergrad reading lists? How about high school? Dickens is included in these lists, so why not Gaskell? She was highly commended by Dickens.

Introduction

Welcome! You're reading the first post of Bookmarks by Natalie. From here on, you'll find reviews, analysis, commentary and interesting facts about classic literature and the genius (and often quizzical) writers behind the world's great works. Join me as I explore the works of the canon and revisit the themes that made these novels, poems and essays popular when they were written and still resonate with post-modern culture.