Summary:
The piece of criticism I read is called "Class Antagonism and the Sexual Plot in
Mary Barton," written by Deborah Epstein Nord and published in 1995. Nord discusses how two of the major themes of the novel (class antagonism and women's sexuality) at first seem like they don't really interact with each other and exist separately from each other. However, Nord points out how the two work together to bring about the turning point in the book and change Mary's character. She states, "The connection between Barton's fear for his daughter's chastity and his murder of Harry Carson, the man who threatens that chastity, is one of the elements in the novel that fuses the plot of class antagonism with the sexual plot" (571). The two themes come together at this point because Harry represents all the evils of the upper class and has been horrible to the workers, but he also treats women horribly and doesn't care about ruining their innocence, so to speak. Nord argues that John Barton has a double purpose in murdering Harry: obviously because of the economic situation, but also to preserve Mary's chastity. The turning point in the novel, according to Nord, occurs when John murders Harry. She says, "Mary is transformed from the passive subject of discussions of her sexual virtue and proper role to the active agent of her own fate" (572). In other words, all of the issues fueled by the class antagonism build up into the explosion that is the murder, which in turn allows Mary to have agency for the first time, tying back into the sexuality theme.
Analysis:
Even though everything Nord argued about the interplay between class antagonism and sexuality is really interesting, a smaller issue she brings up really caught my attention. Nord talks briefly about the character of Esther, who is one of the most interesting characters in the novel I thought. While readers during Gaskell's lifetime would have been horrified by Esther's character, Gaskell tries to redeem her a little bit. Nord points out, "By playing the card of the dying child, Gaskell reclaims Esther from her status as pariah and situates her within the framework of parental devotion and bereavement that weaves classes together in the novel and binds John Barton and the elder Carson to the author herself" (570). So, even though Esther is a prostitute, we are still supposed to have sympathy for her and see her similarly to Barton and Carson (and even Gaskell) who have lost children themselves. Nord stresses the similarity especially between Esther and Barton and discusses how they both become lost wanderers, outcasts from society, who die and are buried in the same grave. The aspect of Nord's criticism that made me think the most is how she points out how Gaskell must have understood that Esther's identity as a prostitute is clearly a "role created by society, not decreed by nature or by some higher morality" (570). In other words, Esther wasn't the horrible 'fallen woman' the other characters (and probably readers of that time) thought she was; in reality, her circumstances put her in that situation. The opposite of that role is shown when she goes to visit Mary and puts on the 'costume' of a middle class mechanic's wife. Esther is able to switch between roles, which suggests that Gaskell meant for there to be much more to her character than just a lowly prostitute living on the streets. In the end, Esther's character is redeemed somewhat and able to die in her home surrounded by her family, her daily struggles finally put to rest.
Your blog is so interesting Krysta! I had not thought at all about the connections between John Barton and his sister-in-law, Esther, when really they share many of the same similarities! Personally, I strongly sympathsized for Esther, and that was largely due in part to the loss she experienced of her child (just like Nord talks about). I found her character very interesting just like you did and of all the characters, I wonder where Gaskell got the inspiration for her. It almost makes me wonder if her character was suppose to mirror, reflect or resemble Elizabeth Gaskell in real life because she too, lost a child and suffered very badly afterward. Now that you have brought this up though, I am very anxious to discuss this in our group about what Gaskell may have been doing with these two characters. Did she mean to set them up so side-by-side? As a reader, I think that I read over the fact that they were buried together, but now that I really go back and think about that it is very interesting. Gaskell could have done anything she pleased with either burial, or not even said anything about where Esther was buried, yet that is what she chose to do as an author. Which in turn, makes me think that maybe all aong these two characters were meant to be read "together" so to speak, even though Gaskell created animosity between them.
ReplyDeleteHmmmmmm interesting!!!!!!!!! :)
Esther is such an interesting character in this novel. There wasn't time to talk about this in class, but I think that Gaskell's doing interesting things with Esther and clothing as a signifier or marker of identify. They stand out because we don't hear much about the other characters' manner of dress, but Gaskell gives us lots of detail about Esther (what she looked like before she left town, what she looks like when she comes to Manchester, what she looks like when she tries to pass herself off as middle class).
ReplyDeleteI had not thought about Gaskell's attention to detail with Esther's character until I just saw this comment, that is really interesting now that I look back on it. I was fascinated by her character and really wish we could've just taken a whole class to solely look at her. Gaskell presented her in such a different light and contrast to everyone else. I think it would've been really awesome to have heard the entire story from her point of view; that would've put so many twists in the novel!
ReplyDelete