Summary:
I chose to look at two different reviews for this blog entry. I read Charles Kingsley's review from Fraser's Magazine and W.R. Greg's review from the Edinburgh Review. Both of these reviews were published in April of 1849. Kingsley wrote about how he thought Mary Barton should
be "read aloud from every pulpit, till a nation, calling itself
Christian, began to act upon the awful facts contained in it" (381). He
states that people only need to read this novel if they are wondering
why members of the working class are behaving in an 'abhorrent' way, why
they are murdering, drinking, taking opium, and why they hate law and
order. Kingsley believes Mary Barton shows precisely why the
working class was behaving in such a way, even to the point of turning
their backs on God. He praises Gaskell for her realism. W.R. Greg also
praises Gaskell for the realism of the novel, but his praise is
short-lived. He claims Mary Barton is "calculated...in many
places, to mislead the minds and confirm and exasperate the prejudices,
of the general public" (383). Greg also claims the novel is filled with
"false philosophy and inaccurate descriptions" and even "exaggerations"
on the part of Gaskell when describing relations between the workers and
the masters (383). His review is interesting because he critiques the
character of John Barton, argues that the working class only have
themselves to blame for their poverty by not saving their money, and
ends with the statement that "their fate and their future are in their
own hands, and in theirs alone" (390).
Analysis:
For my analysis, I really want to focus on W.R. Greg's criticism, with
specific emphasis on how he blames the poor for their own misfortune.
After reading Mary Barton, it is clear to me that the majority of
the horrible things that happen to the characters are not their own
fault, but the fault of the society and system in which they live.The
discussion in class in which we outlined the characters' misfortune due
to their economic situation also helped illuminate this for me because
almost everything bad we listed happened because of their poverty. Greg
tries to argue that the members of the working class could be just as
well off as their masters, saying that he truly believes that "wealth
and independence could speedily become the rule instead of the
exception" (388) among these people. Looking at the situation from a
sociological point of view, you just can't blame the poor for these
issues; it's a complex topic that cannot be explained away by those in
the upper classes saying that they should just try harder to save
their money. Greg's whole attitude toward the poor reminds me of the
Poor Law Amendment of 1834 that we discussed briefly in class. Public
assistance is supposed to help those in need, but during this time, the
poor were instead characterized as 'idle' and 'dissolute,' and thus were
blamed for their poverty more than actually helped. I was surprised
that nowhere did Greg use the argument that God chooses some to be poor
in their lifetime, while their true reward will come in heaven (which is
another common argument for not helping the poor). He adopts a similar
attitude, though, that the poor are just poor and nothing is going to
change unless they decide to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. While Kingsley shows compassion and sympathy for the characters of Mary Barton (and the members of the working class in general), Greg only questions their work ethic.
I am so very glad that I did not personally read Greg's review or I probably would've gone on a rant that argued against several ideas that he laid out on the table. After reading your blog, it really brings to light (for me anyways) that the notions and tendencies of politics have fundamental similarities that have not changed, no matter what era or time period we are discussing. I think that throughout the discussions of not only this book, but of the Victorian era itself, we have looked towards many of the differences from then until now. However, with your explanation of Greg's argument about the poorer classes shows me that there is still much to be said about people having their own beliefs/theories and standing strong for them (very much like we experience today on such matters as say, abortions, healthcare, welfare. etc.). Greg thinks that the lower classes should or can change how they live, but at the end of the day that is HIS opinion; however it is one that I strongly (very strongly) disagree with (thus my friends we have politics :)). He clearly has never had to struggle before as a person. Just by listening to this I would assume that during that time he himself probably ranked among or near the higher classes of his own society. I would be curious to know what kind of criticism he received upon this reviews publications back then.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis of Greg's review (and an astute comment, Hannah). I tend to have the same reaction to him, and it's definitely a 21st-century reaction, in that we definitely have a more complex understanding of poverty today than we did 150 years ago.
ReplyDeleteLike Hannah, your post makes me think about America today, and while we've come a ways, there's still that part of the population that holds the same beliefs as Greg. I'm thinking about critics of public assistance, for example, who argue that people are fully capable of supporting themselves if they just try hard enough. I'm also thinking about people who claim that racism and sexism are things of the past, simply because they don't see either of them in the narrow circles of their lives.