As we are entering week three of the North and South read along, I have been noticing more and more frustration with Margaret’s conduct and character. Now, I had planned to do a post on Margaret and “the role of women” in Gaskell’s novel from week one, but today I find myself rather hesitant. I’m not sure that in light of al the negative feelings surrounding Margaret of fellow read along participants I should spend a whole post pondering about her. Nevertheless, that is what I am going to do.
To be completely honest, I never really paid much attention to whether or not I liked Margaret before. She didn’t bother me, but she also never elicited great amounts of love in me. Knowing her story, knowing I was seeing the world mostly from her perspective, I did identify with her. I just never really pondered her before. Perhaps I was too busy, um, swooning over Mr. Thornton.
When I started paying more attention to Margaret due to other bloggers’ remarks, I saw two things that irritated me a little. First, Margaret bluntness. I admire her for it, in part, but she can also come across as rather unfeeling and unsocial.. If you think Elizabeth is harsh in rejecting Mr. Darcy’s first proposal in Pride and Prejudice, then you clearly haven’t read Margaret’s response to the first proposal of Mr. Thornton, which in a way, is so blunt and painful that it made me question Margaret’s judgement of the situation and Mr. Thornton himself. It also makes her come across as stuck-up and proud – too proud to consider Thornton in any way resembling a gentleman. Second, Margaret suffers from the female innocence and martyrdom complex that comes with a lot of Victorian fiction and that Violet, for example, has remarked upon in her reading of other works by Gaskell. Again, there are things to be admired about this part of Margaret’s character, but it also makes it hard to relate to her at times.
But now let me turn to what I appreciated in Margaret’s character in North and South. Something that I only really noticed rereading it this time around. Something that makes me lean very much towards the side of liking her, and appreciating what Gaskell has done with her. The fact that in many ways, Margaret subverts social expectations surrounding women. Of course, the whole thing comes accompanied with Victorian sentimentality and with Margaret as somewhat of a perfectly innocent role-model, and some ingrained feelings of superiority based on class, but it was the subversion that stood out to me during the past week.
This subversion expresses itself in a few ways. And really, the more I think about it the more I feel that it is one single interpretation of individual agency vs. institutional authority and expectation, which I mentioned last week. But I digress – let me return to Margaret and her role as a woman in North and South:
In a way, Margaret’s very bluntness is the first indication I found of her role as subverting certain female expectations. For Margaret aims to speak the truth, and nothing but the truth, it seems. And in doing so, she voices her opinion in almost every company. She does not remain quiet when the men are talking of serious things. She does not contain her remarks to the strictly feminine sphere, but instead talks – and is shown to think things through – on the interrelated topics of industrialisation, working conditions, religious ideals, etcetera. She is intellectual as well as feminine in her feelings and (religious based) belief in charity and truth. Now, I am not extremely well-read in the classics, but the fact that she voices her opinions at all, and on these topics -as a woman- is not something I have come across very often.
It is through her bluntness, and her role as someone who perhaps does not so much like to argue, but does like being heard and having her say, that she takes on the most important role of mediator between the North and the South, between mill owner and employees, between her father and her mother even. She is, in the end, what enables some of these characters and settings to work together better.
We also learn that, faced with her mother’s death, Margaret is the one who shows strength of character, whereas both her father and her brother Frederick are lost in their own grief:
“Margaret went languidly about, assisting Dixon in her task of arranging the house. Her eyes were continually blinded by tears, but she had no time to give way to regular crying. The father and brother depended upon her; while they were giving way to grief, she must be working, planning, considering. Even the necessary arrangements for the funeral seemed to devolve upon her.”
Margaret is the character every one depends upon, and I find it remarkable that during the novel, her role as the one being able to keep herself together in situations of stress or grief is stressed again and again, while several men are shown to give way to sentimentality and weakness. I rather wonder if this is why Mr. Hale is shown to be so weak and uncourageous, that even his own wife protects him from the knowledge of her illness. If this is why Frederick, too, when he finally arrives, tries to help his sister, but also very much relies on her for advice and guidance and practicalities. In all of this, Margaret’s role is that of a caring angel, which is a little bit of a feminine stereotype I think, and she also gives way to sentimentality herself, but she nevertheless remains strong. And I wonder at it – because strength of character is so often a male characteristic.
It’s not that Margaret is perfect – which makes her a little bit more likeable to my mind than if she were painted as a prim and perfect girl – she surely has a lot of growth to look forward to. Margaret does not always enjoy being the one everyone relies upon (in case of being the bearer and messenger of secrets, in her friendship to Bessy Higgins, in taking up responsibility after her mother’s death. She has to learn that despite it being honourable to tell the truth, that bluntness isn’t always the best option, and that her opinions aren’t always right. She also has to let go of some of her pride and superiority: she tells Higgins that the south isn’t all that great, she has to face the fact that she told an untruth and did not have enough faith in God to rely on the truth (as she puts it herself), she has to face the fact that after rejecting Thornton as ungentlemanly he acts the perfect gentleman, and she has to face the fact that “shoppy people” aren’t always beings to shrink from.
Now that we’re on the topic of Margaret’s imperfections, can I remark on the whole “telling an untruth to safe her brother” thing? Because I rather think it is another example of her going against the grain of social expectation, or at least, seeking her own path of personal identity independent from other forces in society, except her faith and personal beliefs? Because when faced with the fact that she lied to the police officer, and upon realising that Thornton knows she has done so, it is the fact of the lying that saddens her – and she never even contemplates the social impropriety that she might be implicated in in the mind of Thornton. It is not sticking to her own ideals that comes to her mind, not the fact of how others might perceive her embrace, only how Thornton must feel now that he knows her to be not a 100% capable of keeping to her own ideals.
There is more to come of Margaret’s growth, more that makes me believe that Gaskell, while very much someone who seems to believe in a specific role for women, also claims personal agency, identity, the fact that women are rational individual humans instead of property. Without going into detail, there’s a quote to be found on that in the upcoming chapters:
“She had learnt, in those solemn hours of thought that she herself must one day answer for her own life, and what she had done with it; and she tried to settle that most difficult problem for women, how much was to be utterly merged in obedience to authority, and how much might be set apart for freedom in working.”
I think, if anything is to be the character arch of Margaret, it is this. This realisation that she is responsible for herself, that she – can – be relied upon to do so, and that in the end only she can make of her life what she wants it to be (even if what she wants to be is then again dependent upon social expectations – at least in part). This can be taken rather negatively, I feel, for social conditions do influence who people become, but it is also rather hopeful to read when read in the context of women’s role in Victorian society – this idea that women are fully individual humans capable of their own decisions and thoughts (while taking care of all the people dependent upon them). And I see it reflected in the other female characters too, apart from Fanny. Even in mama Hale, more so in mama Thornton, in Bessy, in Dixon, but yes – most of all in Margaret. And thinking about her that way, I feel kind of partial to Gaskell’s portrayal of her.
I definitely appreciate Gaskell’s portrayal of women and helping them take a giant leap outside the Victorian ideal of weak femininity. And I admire Margaret’s strength of character while still finding her annoying. She’s strong; she’s totally taken advantage of by her family; she sticks to her morals as best she can – more often than not, she’s a perfectly admirable character. Yet, for some reason I find her so grating at times. I think it’s entirely in how she’s treated the two men who have proposed to her. And mostly because I’ve yet to understand her motivations in treating Lennox and Thornton so abysmally as they pour their hearts out to her. Her manner with them was just so abrupt and harsh that I felt slapped in the face.
She’s a challenging character for me and that’s what I’ve personally appreciated the most these past three weeks. I, too, would rather struggle with liking Margaret than be given some cookie-cutter prim and proper Victorian heroine that is far too often found in 19th century literature. I look forward to the novel’s final resolution and hopefully some great character development from Margaret in these last few chapters.
I rather think Margaret grows in the last chapters, but there is also more of “feminine wekness” about her in some scenes, which I noticed in particular after writing this post.
I do understand how you can both admire her as a strong female and be annoyed by her. The strange thing is that I never was, and on this reread I started to think of her as a little bit annoying. I remember the first time picking up N&S and feeling that really why didn’t Margaret accept Henry and just be perfectly happy. But now I’m really grateful she did not (especially given how Henry talks in the last chapters). I do think she was very harsh in her rejection of Thornton – I never remembered it that harsh. I actually think they portray Margaret’s social awkwardness in those situations really well in the BBC miniseries, as it shows how she just never learned to speak turthfully and yet feelingly about such things.
I absolutely love Gaskell’s portrayal of Margaret as she is unlike most Victorian heroines I have read. She is a true ‘strong female’ character as she has so many sides and not all of them her best side.
I wonder how much a modern day perspective of Margaret effects how we view her character? Victorian readers would have sympathised perhaps more with her snobbery,and accepted her reaction to Thornton? Where as a modern day reader would not really pick up on the antagonism between Margaret and Thornton was based more on the fact he was in trade. (In the BBC dramatisation they downplayed her snobbishness and made Thornton I thought slightly more rougher than in the book. If you’ve seen it you’ll know what I mean.)
Oh yes, I know exactly what you mean about BBC making Mr Thornton a little rougher.. I agree that reading North and South from a modern standpoint can be really interesting (there are still a lot of themes that are pertinent to our life now), but also confusing or annoying as the orldview was definitely different. Such as for viewing Margaret as a strong women, she is still very much portrayed as feminine and wanting a marriage and kids, and giving priority th feminine sphere of the home etc. But apart from that view, I do really like how she’s also very strong.
Excellent post, Iris! I finished North and South last weekend and really enjoyed it. I hope to read more Gaskell soon. Can you recommend any of her other novels?
I’m sorry for the late reply. I haven’t read all of Gaskell’s work (there’s a lot, especially if you take her short stories into account). Mary Barton was her first novel and I think is much less entertaining than North and South, but it does deal with social inequalities and the industrial revolution. There’s just so much less subtlety about it. As for Wives and Daughters, I have only read it once (it’s next on the list as a reread) and I remember it fondly. It has a more domestic setting and less social commentary (from what I remember). The sad thing is that it’s unfinished. I’ve also heard great things about Cranford, which also has a more domestic and small-town setting, and less overall plot, I think. I haven’t read it yet though. Apart from those three there are other novels, including Ruth which I’m very curious about (it’s about a “fallen woman”).
I know this doesn’t help much. I do think Wives and Daughters is generally considered her most accomplished novel next to North and South.
Thanks, Iris, for another insightful post on this book. The themes you wrote about are important, but I was about to post something about the need to get back to Margaret and how she views herself as a woman. The reason she gave Thornton for throwing herself between him and the crowd was that it was what a woman should do. We know she is falling in love with him, but she reverts to womanly duty. And the “need” for women to maintain harmony and happiness for all I find as almost as deadly as telling us to be weak. Reading this book, I see Virginia Woolf’s rejection of the “Angel in the House” in To the Lighthouse. Part of what fascinates me with Victorian women, in books and in life, is this need to be both weak and strong at the same time.
“Part of what fascinates me with Victorian women, in books and in life, is this need to be both weak and strong at the same time.”
Exactly! In reading the last chapters after this post I noticed more of what you called the “womanly duty” Margaret feels. And I agree that it is a somewhat suffocating notion. I did not mean to imply with this post that Margaret is the epitome of woman’s liberatrion. I just felt it was interesting how, in keeping with the ideas of feminine spheres and duties, Gaskell does manage to make Margaret strong-willed. Her strength is also part of her “womanly burden” which in that way might be read as a suppression mechanism, but at the same time she is more than just a sex, she’s her own person – and I think that can be read as an empowering narrative too. So yes, definitely it is the “both weak and strong” thing that I find interesting about narratives about Victorian women.
I’d like to re-read this novel, so thanks for reminding me about it! I remember being slightly irritated by Margaret, but appreciated her strength in that era equally. Like lakesidemusing has commented, I’d like to read more by Gaskell; she seems to me quite underrated.
Gaskell’s writing can really differ over her books though – which mioght explain why she’s underrated in comparison to say Jane Austen. There are more different themes, and sometimes her writing can be daring, and sometimes it can be a little too easy and conforming. I haven’t read much by her yet (there’s so much to explore!) but I do know that I found both Wives and Daughters (which is unfinished) and Mary Barton interesting (though the latter is a little problematic on some counts). Lined up next for me are Cranford and Ruth.
I do hope you get to reread North and South sometime! Have you seen the miniseries? It is wonderful and a must-watch!
As much as I didn’t like the book, and wasn’t keen on Margaret (I remember her saying “I’m a genius!” and am afraid that was it for me) I have to agree with what you’ve said about the way she is strong. Her independence of mind, whilst her actions are sometimes lacking in judgement, is evident throughout the book and she manages to command respect for it. The respect may be fictional and thus not completely representative of life back then, at least not always, but it’s a good presentation and those parts of her character are compelling.
I saw you didn’t like it much and it surpised me a little as our tastes are often so similar. But I can see what might make people not love this book. Have you seen the mini series? I do hope you’ll give it a try despite your dislike for the book – it is wonderful.
It surprised me too, though your reasonings gave me a lot to think about. I haven’t seen the series, but I plan to. I’m surprised at the casting for Thornton (Richard Armitage’s roles aren’t the sort I imagined in Thornton) but can see the actress who plays Margaret changing my mind. I can’t remember her name at the moment. I’m very open to my opinion being altered by the mini series
I can’t seperate Mr Thornton from Richard Armitage because I’ve seen the series so often
He does a stellar job at portrayaing him (and *whispers* does so in a very sexy manner *end of whisper*)
Oh heck, I’m watching it asap!
Pingback: Mr (John) Thornton [North & South Read Along] | Iris on Books
I agree that her bluntness, or assertiveness, is subversive, and I liked that about her. However, it did border on rudeness a few times. More annoying to me was that, at least in the first half, she was quick to denounce other people’s judgements without ever considering her own biases. She grew on me a little, but never became a favorite of mine.