Engels narrowed his views on the industrial aspect of the book. Through his experience and awareness of the uncleanliness industrialization builds around him, his review expressing his utter disgust for the treatment and lifestyle of the poor. Unlike the review of Forster, Engels takes a dark turn from hope and enlightenment to the fear and hope that consume the many lives of the poor. "There is no end to the sufferings which are heaped on the heads of the poor"(414).
The entire review follows more along the lines of a rant about cruelty that has befallen the poor through industrialization than a review simply about Mary Barton. This may be the case, but I believe that to be a goal of Gaskell. Heightening the senses of the world around them and bringing forth the conflict so openly raging inside him, so I suppose job well done. Engels' words sprout from Mary Barton, Gaskell blatantly explaining the issues with this predicament through a coy and innovated manner. His tangent begins with a review, but never quite recollects itself onto the main topic. Still, his temperament with the relationship between the workers and the mill owners obviously struck a chord, but I am sure that he was not the only one. If anything, he personified the discontent with both Elizabeth Gaskell and the many readers upon this subject.
Forster looks to the story almost as an enlightenment to those who are in the dark about the hardships and callousness that poverty has bestowed its presence to many of that time. Some may even believe Mary Barton to be a political novel, but I agree more with Forster writing against such a notion of this novel. The moral of the story blossomed between the contrast of the characters, branching to possible conclusions that poverty could bear,
"The little girlish varieties which cost the heroin so dear: and, in the contrasted characters of Jane, Wilson, and Alice, the irritable exactions of temper which are bred by poverty as well as the humble religious patience which may alleviate and redeem it; are beautifully sketched" (368).
Gaskell didn't just write a novel on politics, sympathetic characters, and soul crushing truth of poverty; she expressed that through the thorny thicket of hard times, there are ways to build and find a way out through religious patience. Forster's contemporary review indulged my mind to think beyond the characters and look at the honest truth of Gaskell's "right and keen perception of the motives that actuate ordinary life."
The contemporary reviewers both comprehended what I thought to be the message Gaskell hoped to get across. The method in which they portrayed their emotions are different in writing style and focus. The two reviewers did however come to one conclusion: the current system is in need of work to some degree. Engels and Forster in a way complemented each other with Engels starting his distaste for the system followed by Forster's decree of hope and patience for those in such a terrible situation.
I agree that it seems to be the goal of Gaskell in this novel to inspire passions within the readers. Engels, as you describe, seems to be a reader of that sort who is inspired by the authors description of strife and hardship. It is interesting that Forster recognizes that the literature seems to transcend just one genre. I agree in the thought that the novel seems to be political, mystery, romance and historical all at one. Whether this method is effective of confusing is up to the reader.
ReplyDeleteIt makes sense that Engles would see truth in this novel, especially along the lines of English society's responsibility for its people, given his other writings and political views. We only touched on the fact that both Barton and Carson lost sons to the cause of industrial poverty. Harry's death was a direct strike in retaliation for the factory owners' treatment of their workers, while Barton's son's death was a more indirect result of poverty and the conditions in factory cities. In many ways, though, both deaths come as a result of societal views more than personal or individual ones.
ReplyDelete