Blog One

Summary:
I looked at John Forster’s review in Examiner (1848), an unsigned review from Prospective Review (1849), and the unsigned review from British Quarterly (1849) for my blog. The first of these praises the book warmly, though from the beginning, contextualizes itself based upon the author’s gender. Forster remarks that Gaskell does a good job of calling attention to the lower class, but does “not affect to offer any solution of a problem involving so such misery” (367). Conversely, the Quarterly chastises Gaskell’s (at the time anonymous) attention to the poor, as the reviewer believes her description to be too “one-sided” and not at all fair to the groups she attempts to criticize. Lastly, in the Prospective Review, the reviewer is overall quite taken with Gaskell’s novel and especially the way it’s presented, complimenting the prose and even comparing it to verse. The praise is tempered by the highlighting of a couple inconsistencies, but ultimately, the author says they don’t detract too heavily from the work as a whole.

Analysis:

What I find most interesting is the dichotomy between the reviewers’ acceptance of Gaskell’s portrayal of the lower class. While Forster and the Prospective find it sympathetic and heart-tugging, the Quarterly thought the text was inaccurate and biased. While the author’s sympathies are expected to show, the reviewer cited key details that differed from the events that actually inspired them.

One example is the death of Harry Carson, modeled after that of Thomas Ashton. Details of the events, such as the location and specifics of the weapon, are too similar to be coincidence, yet different enough as to be aggravating to some contemporary audiences.

The aspect of this that I find intriguing is the authorial decision behind it. Obviously, Gaskell knew that her readers would find and point out the similarities between the events. Therefore, I’m curious as to what motivated her to do it anyway. When trying to build sympathy for the aggressors in this situation, it seems to me as if it would be best to not exonerate a situation in which they’re the less sympathetic group. To clarify, when it will be obvious where the inspiration for a scene came from, why change the motivations so strongly? In my opinion, this could devalue the author’s portrayal of other parts.

In class, we discussed how reading was one of the main pastimes of the middle-class. Therefore, it can be assumed that a large percentage of Gaskell’s readership was part of neither demographic from the novel, and should thus have a relatively unbiased opinion of what goes on therein. Still, the Prospective is quick to clarify that the book is not a political novel, and thus it can’t be seen as a call-to-arms. So, what then was its purpose? Obviously more than simple entertainment.

Ultimately, I think the purpose of Mary Barton was to raise awareness, but not necessarily to fix things. After all, like Forster said, there’s not even a solution presented. I just find it perplexing that a book which is, for all intents and purposes, an exposition on the lives of the lower-class should be so selectively honest. It makes sense from a propaganda perspective, but still, the novel feels like more than that. Maybe it’s intended to be a political book after all.