Ship of Fools: February Book Group

Thread: February Book Group - The Warden Board: Heaven / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=012992

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

The Ship of Fools Book Group pick for February 2018 is Anthony Trollope's The Warden. This is the first book in his Barset series, and his first successful novel; it's a short, quick read and a good introduction to the other books in the series.

Numerous hard copy editions are available at all sorts of prices, and it's also a free Kindle download from Amazon.

I'll be posting some questions and thoughts on February 20th, so enjoy the read!

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

Looking forward to this. I have a print copy on my bookshelf, but may use the free download from Project Gutenberg so I can increase text size. My Kindle seems to have expired.

Easy-to-read Gutenberg Warden

Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on :

Looking forward to this. I read the book years ago after seeing the BBC series of the first two books in the Barchester Chronocles series. It was the first time I came across Alan Rickman, who played Obidiah Slope.

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

Damn, I missed that. I would watch Alan Rickman in anything.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

Sadly the Rev. Slope doesn't appear until the next book, along with the frightful Mrs. Proudie the Bishop's Wife. But this one does have the Archdeacon, who's pretty good value himself.

Posted by Cathscats (# 17827) on :

I love this book, especially the character of the Warden himself.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

I read this and other Trollopes in grad school, where my 19th c lit course was basically a Trollope course because that was the prof's favourite 19th c novelist. I haven't picked him up since, although reading Catherine Fox's Lindchester series twice in the last couple of years made me want to revisit Trollope, as that's the original she's paying homage to. So I'm hoping to be in for this month.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I too have read this, but remember almost nothing of it. (My memory is like a sieve.) So I shall have to reread!

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andras:
This is the first book in his Barset series, and his first successful novel; it's a short, quick read and a good introduction to the other books in the series.

I don't know that it's a perfect introduction. The Archdeacon Grantly we know and sort of love from Barchester Towers onwards is not exactly the same Grantly as we see here. And, as already said, no Mrs Proudie.
Still worth reading though.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

My sister lent me The Warden about 25 years ago, with the warning that it was very difficult to get into, but once I did, I'd be hooked. I think I finally persevered on my third try -- and I was, indeed, hooked and read the whole series. Now that I'm retired I intend to do so again.

I have watched the BBC series several times, and -- of course -- loved Alan Rickman in it. [Waterworks]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

How accurate is the BBC version to the book?

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
How accurate is the BBC version to the book?

Pretty close, from what I remember of it - including Mr. Harding's habit of playing his imaginary 'cello when feeling stressed. I think that The Warden occupied the first two programmes of - I think - a six-programme adaptation.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, the BBC series (available free on YouTube) was pretty good, though I could never quite accept Donald Pleasance as a convincing Mr. Harding - Pleasance had far too villainous a visage!

But, on the whole, The Warden is indeed a good read, with well-portrayed characters, and a very English (or should I say Anglican) plot.

It's a pity, in a way, that some of Trollope's other novels are IMHO rather cumbersome and verbose.

IJ

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andras:
Pretty close, from what I remember of it - including Mr. Harding's habit of playing his imaginary 'cello when feeling stressed. I think that The Warden occupied the first two programmes of - I think - a six-programme adaptation.

Something modern churchgoers won't pick up on, is that in the first half of the C19, the cello would have been seen as an ecclesiastical instrument much as we'd regard an organ today. By the time Trollope was writing, with the changes in church music going on at the time, it even had much the same sort of 'traditional' association as the organ has in contrast with guitars and the like now. So it is aligning the Revd Septimus Harding with the church life of his youth.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Now that I did not know. I do know that the cello was far more popular at one point in time. Jack Aubrey, the ship captain in the Patrick O'Brian novels plays the cello -- this was set during the Napoleonic wars.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

By the time The Warden was published in 1855, the traditional west-gallery quires and bands were indeed becoming things of the past.

Thomas Hardy's father and grandfather both played in church bands, but by the time young Tom himself was growing up, in the 1840s, the musicians were mostly employed at social gatherings, rather than at Divine Service.

At the time of The Warden, of course, Barchester Cathedral had what we would now regard as the standard Anglican choir and organist, so despised, later in the series of novels, by the egregious Mr. Slope.

IJ

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

Sat up and read right through The Warden last night and put it down at 2am. I'm tempted to read nothing but Trollope like a guilty pleasure all through Lent, but will wait until after the book discussion.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

Our little C-i-W church still has a sort-of gallery band. Our excellent Fr. B is a great fan of Hardy, and has twisted various arms so that our Sung Eucharists every Sunday are accompanied by the combined strains of organ, flute and viola.

We don't actually have a gallery, so the flautist and violist play from the choir, sitting right by the organ console; it's absolutely lovely!

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

How delightful! Well done, Fr. B..... [Overused]

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

I reread "The Warden" last year. (E-readers are a great invention, particularly for long flights on airplanes.) I now need to rewatch the BBC version; Alan Rickman (of blessed memory) was perfect as the odious Obediah Slope.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
How delightful! Well done, Fr. B.....

IJ

Indeed! Were the old Dean still in place, I'd suggest it to him, if only as a one off or occasional event. The current one, I suspect, would react coldly. Nonetheless, good on Fr B.'s display of playful good taste.

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

I can't help feeling FrB would find a kindred spirit in the warden Mr Harding's passion for church music and his secret extravagance:

'Since his appointment to his precentorship, he has published, with all possible additions of vellum, typography, and gilding, a collection of our ancient church music, with some correct dissertations on Purcell, Crotch, and Nares. He has greatly improved the choir of Barchester, which, under his dominion, now rivals that of any cathedral in England.'

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

'The Warden' is a clever presentation of several perennial problems.

The problem of where 'justice' and 'righteousness' really do lie. John Bold, has a point, doesn't he? Isn't Harding being overpaid for what is really quite a comfortable sinecure? Is it really good use of the charitable funds? Even in today's parlance it might appear that the Aims and Objectives are not being met! However, the hospital pensioners are, or at least were, happy, content. Harding is kind, conscientious, pious, a genuine pastor to his 'old men', even if not exactly overworked. On whose behalf is Bold agitating such unnecessary controversy. It appears that it is only in Bold's tender conscience where the trouble lies; and he has nothing personally to do with the matter.

Sub-plot: Bold is also courting Harding's daughter. At what height of marytyrdom is Bold uselessly aiming, to demonstrate just how 'disinterested' his concern for the hospital pensioners is? Again, the word 'unnecessary' seems to fit here.

Summing up: Bold may have a point. BUT no-one was being hurt, far from it. Godly work was being carried out conscientiously and all was right with the world. Is it only for the appeasing of his own tortured moralising that Bold is agitating the wasps' nest? He is a good enough person to know, later, he did no good. He is appalled that he can't undo what he has set in train.

So that's problem one.

Next, the problem of a mischievous media wanting to sell copy, and a crusading journalist always on the lookout for a nice 'vehicle' for his artistic and moralising talents, regardless of context and consequences. And - even in those days - compromising of the truth.

The problem of naive and innocent people (Harding) who are pulled into the issue and left high and dry when the media circus has got bored and moved on to their next moral platform.

This is exacerbated when the hospital pensioners whose only complaint, hitherto, was the cello-playing of their warden, are alerted by the press of their 'injustice'. They have benefited from the quiet and kindly christian ministry of Harding for years, but now that they've been told they are in fact victims of Harding's greed, they want what's due to them. Their status, as a result of the campaign on their behalf, is ultimately damaged, however. Their hopes and avarice, awakened by Bold's moralising and the press's mischief, result in their disappointment, and even shame.

The problem of the 'righteous defence', typified by Grantly. Energetic, non-negotiable, aggressive. The grace of perhaps being morally right seems to lose some of its graciousness in Grantly's explosive righteous indignation, which the under-siege Warden finds equally as repugnant as the injustice of Bold's campaign.

The problem of the Law. Harding's lawyer is brought into the question, and as we all know, when you go to the Law, don't always expect justice. Despite it's not being the good or the best solution, Harding is convinced that resignation is the 'right' - the lawful - solution. More confusion.

Trollope is great at blending all this, making it real, offering well-developed believable characters, and raising questions: what would I do? How would I respond? Great stuff!

Posted by ACK (# 16756) on :

Just downloaded 'The Warden'. Haven't read any Anthony Trollope in years, but was thinking about it,so this is a good spur to get on with it. I was introduced both to Trollope and Alan Rickman by that dramatisation. Hoping the book is as good as I recall. Rickman, of course, continued to be brilliant in everything I subsequently saw him in.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

Can I ask everyone please to be careful and mark or (better) avoid spoilers - we only started this thread three days ago and not everyone's read as far as you have.

Thanks!

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Now that I did not know. I do know that the cello was far more popular at one point in time. Jack Aubrey, the ship captain in the Patrick O'Brian novels plays the cello -- this was set during the Napoleonic wars.

IIRC it’s Stephen Maturin who plays the cello. Jack Aubrey plays the violin.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Could be; it's been some years since I've read the O'Brian books. I do remember that Aubrey has an Amati which is judged to be well above his station.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andras:
Can I ask everyone please to be careful and mark or (better) avoid spoilers - we only started this thread three days ago and not everyone's read as far as you have.

Thanks!

Ooops. I've misunderstood what the thread was about. I thought it was about discussing the book. Many apologies!

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by andras:
Can I ask everyone please to be careful and mark or (better) avoid spoilers - we only started this thread three days ago and not everyone's read as far as you have.

Thanks!
Ooops. I've misunderstood what the thread was about. I thought it was about discussing the book. Many apologies!

Anselmina, the reminder was meant for myself as much as anyone else - I easily get dragged into any sort of Lit Crit (too easily, Mrs. Andras would say)!

But the discussion really opens on the 20th or thereabouts, to give everyone a chance to get to the end of the book. In the meantime all sorts of comments are welcome, as long as they don't reveal the plot - or, if you really must unburden yourself, warn us with a Spoiler Alert please.

Will Mr Harding be persuaded to stay as Warden?
Will the Archdeacon have a fit of apoplexy?
Will John Bold run off with Tom Towers and open a boarding house in Margate? (Now, that would be a development that I'm sure didn't occur to Trollope!)

Thrills, spills and cliff-hangers...

Well no, not really...

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

I started yesterday and, predictably, realized I'd forgotten how good Trollope is.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The thing that strikes me is how the pace of fiction has changed. You need to give the Victorians time; they're not going to open up on page 1 with the explosions and the murders and the girls flinging their panties off. We, operating at the speed of Wifi, have different expectations of our storytellers. We have to shift gears.

This may be also a function of how the work was published. Am I correct, that this work (like most of Trollope, Dickens, Gaskell, etc.) first appeared in serial form? That was a whalebone corset that highly constricted how the work was written. Even after the serialization was finished, the author expected to (and did) extensively revise the text for the book edition. Entire academic careers have been erected upon the foundation of analyzing how much these works were rewritten, and why, when they were republished in hard covers.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Am I correct, that this work (like most of Trollope, Dickens, Gaskell, etc.) first appeared in serial form?

First published in one volume if I read the chronology at the front of my edition right. I think most of Trollope's books were published as three volume novels: in one of them Trollope complains (tongue in cheek I presume) that his publisher won't let him have a fourth volume to tie up all his loose ends.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

Serial rights were where an author could make serious money, apparently, but Trollope wasn't in a position to get those until a lot further on in his writing career.

The first printing of The Warden took a while to sell out, and Trollope admitted that he'd have made better money breaking stones.

By the time Framley Parsonage came along he was an established author with a devoted following - Mrs Gaskell enjoyed the serial parts so much that she wished that it would never end (she'd have loved a good tv soap!) - but even Barchester Towers ran into serious objections from the publisher's reader, who was very much put out by the Signora Neroni as well as by the Proudies and the Rev. Slope - exactly the characters that a modern reader is most likely to love.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

But Trollope had quite a reasonable job in the Irish Post Office.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

He did -- but writing, once his career took off, paid a lot better. OTOH without the postal job he would have starved to death before ever completing a novel, so it's just as well.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
OTOH without the postal job he would have starved to death before ever completing a novel, so it's just as well.

In addition while in the job Trollope had the idea for the free standing red letter box.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MaryLouise:
...'Since his appointment to his precentorship, he has published, with all possible additions of vellum, typography, and gilding, a collection of our ancient church music, with some correct dissertations on Purcell, Crotch, and Nares. He has greatly improved the choir of Barchester, which, under his dominion, now rivals that of any cathedral in England.'

That's just one reason I love his character.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Could be; it's been some years since I've read the O'Brian books. I do remember that Aubrey has an Amati which is judged to be well above his station.

Oh, yes, it would be.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But Trollope had quite a reasonable job in the Irish Post Office.

... which was then, of course, simply the GPO rather than an Irish institution per se. He apparently did his Post Office work in England very badly and with an ill grace until he was sent over to Dublin with, if I remember correctly, a note from his superiors suggesting that he should be sacked as soon as possible.

But he fell in love with Ireland and the Irish, rode all over the country working out possible routes for the rural postmen (always men then!) and developed a passion for hunting, though he admitted in his autobiography that he rode very badly to hounds.

And, yes, he invented the pillar box too!

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
My sister lent me The Warden about 25 years ago, with the warning that it was very difficult to get into, but once I did, I'd be hooked. I think I finally persevered on my third try -- and I was, indeed, hooked and read the whole series. Now that I'm retired I intend to do so again.

Thanks, everyone -- this thread convinced me it's time to read the whole series again. I started The Warden last night, and finding it much easier to get into this time. Now I'm excited about re-reading all of them (probably interspersed with other books in between).

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

If you read his autobiography, you can discern that (by his own admission) the young Anthony was very nearly worthless. In early adulthood he scraped along unable to support himself, got his first clerk job due to the influence of his mother's friends, and then spent all his time slacking off, looking for things to drink and friends to introduce him to girls. It was only when his employer shuffled him off to Ireland (passing the bad penny along in hopes of getting rid of it) that he found his way. He didn't start writing seriously for a good while. He was one of those late-maturers, only becoming a worthwhile person later on in life. Actually a hopeful tale, when you consider all the slackers and layabouts of your acquaintance. Maybe one of them shall grow up to be a titan of literature.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
If you read his autobiography, you can discern that (by his own admission) the young Anthony was very nearly worthless. In early adulthood he scraped along unable to support himself, got his first clerk job due to the influence of his mother's friends, and then spent all his time slacking off, looking for things to drink and friends to introduce him to girls. It was only when his employer shuffled him off to Ireland (passing the bad penny along in hopes of getting rid of it) that he found his way. He didn't start writing seriously for a good while. He was one of those late-maturers, only becoming a worthwhile person later on in life. Actually a hopeful tale, when you consider all the slackers and layabouts of your acquaintance. Maybe one of them shall grow up to be a titan of literature.

And having spent half his life slacking, he turned into an absolute workaholic, aiming to produce a (large) fixed number of words each day, written in pencil, often on railway journeys but also on board ship, which were then copied out tidily by his long-suffering wife.

I'm very much of the fixed-number-of-words persuasion myself (just finished today's quota, actually) but I certainly wouldn't start on the next book if I'd finished the current one with some of my word-count total left unused - which is what Trollope did.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I would argue that the pressure of filling the quota makes for weaker prose (the National Write a Novel in November effect). But OTOH he had the pressure of serialization behind him. To be able to write the serial, month by month or week by week, and have it appear before you've finished the thing, is like walking out on a high wire.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

I believe in getting it down, and then editing the hell out of it. Having a word-count goal can help with that.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I would argue that the pressure of filling the quota makes for weaker prose (the National Write a Novel in November effect). But OTOH he had the pressure of serialization behind him. To be able to write the serial, month by month or week by week, and have it appear before you've finished the thing, is like walking out on a high wire.

I think you're right about the dangers of a quota; but then, without the need to get something down on paper, how many writers would ever finish anything? Douglas Adams was so famously dilatory at doing any work that at one point his editor actually moved into his flat to force him to get on with it, at which point he finally sat down at the keyboard and got on with it.

It's the same with most writers' groups: the requirement to write a poem / chapter / short story on X by next Thursday is a wonderful stimulus to imagination, and darned good discipline too.

But yes, it then needs editing! Once again, a good writers' group that doesn't mind giving honest advice and opinions is a wonderful thing. But sadly too many of them tend to pussyfoot around and not speak the hard truths that a writer needs to hear.

Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on :

Just finished the book yesterday and I'm looking forward to the discussion.
I'm in the 'put something/anything down on paper' and then edit it camp when it comes to writing. Trouble is getting something down in the first place.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Clearly this is one of the (enormously many!) different strokes issues. Many writers do not need the support and encouragement of a group or an editor; the story is a pressure from within like a full bladder, and you have to sit down and write to get it out. I get the sense that Tolkien was like this; you don't grind out all that stuff about the First Age without being kind of obsessive. Also this varies from day to day or even book to book; writers love it when the Muse is insistent because then production is easy and the wind is at your back.

I think it could be proven by looking at the books (although not necessarily this one) that Trollope was of the grind-it-out school. This, combined with the longeurs of the Victorian story style, makes some of the later Barchesters a tough slog. Because The Warden is shorter and his first venture into Barchester it's the most accessible, what do you think?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Brenda said:

quote:
I get the sense that Tolkien was like this; you don't grind out all that stuff about the First Age without being kind of obsessive.

Very true - and inventing the various forms of Elvish must have been a sort of busman's holiday for him, being a philologist. What an incredibly broad and deep imagination he possessed!

/Very Small Spoiler Alert/

Back to The Warden for a moment, there is mention in the story of a certain very small parish church within the city of Barchester. Those of you familiar with the book will know whereof I speak, but does anyone know if it was based on a church IRL? A bit of Googling suggests that it's an amalgam of a couple of long-gone churches in Bristol, but the scanty notes in my edition of the book make no mention of whether Trollope had any particular example in mind.

IJ

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Somebody somewhere must have created a map of Barchester town, I say to myself. And behold, the power of the Google! You can click on the maps to biggify them.

Here is a larger discussion of Barsetshire's geography.

And this image is especially fine.

All these links are a free click.

[ 07. February 2018, 14:35: Message edited by: Brenda Clough ]

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

I've been known to describe writing as the most fun one can have with one's clothes on, but yes, even then I sometimes have to drag out the words; but I'm not sure whether the end result is really better then or worse than when 'the wind's behind you'. One can write an awful lot of twaddle when it's all flowing freely!

The Last Chronicles has never struck me as being 'ground out' I must say; indeed, I find some parts of it incredibly powerful. But The Way We Live Now shows Trollope writing in anger rather than just telling a story, though being who he is, it's still a pretty restrained sort of anger. Moderate Anglican to his fingertips was Trollope!

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Well Googled, Brenda (you got there before me)!

The little church (St. Cuthbert's) is indeed marked on the city plan, opposite the Bishop's Palace, and above the gate (so Trollope tells us) leading into the Cathedral Close. The actual parish is tiny, of course, although this sort of thing was not uncommon in mediaeval England.

But....what real-life church might have been Trollope's inspiration?

IJ

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Somebody somewhere must have created a map of Barchester town, I say to myself. And behold, the power of the Google! You can click on the maps to biggify them.

Here is a larger discussion of Barsetshire's geography.

And this image is especially fine.

All these links are a free click.

Thank you, Brenda. I shall print out a couple of them to tuck into my books.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Barsetshire always seems to me to be a quite small county, and none the worse for that, IMNSHO.

I wonder how it was affected by those wretched and egregious local government 'changes' of the 1970s?

IJ

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

You know there is probably someone who has written the new Chronicles of Barsetshire, analyzing those very points. What to do when somebody wants to rent the steeple for a cell phone tower? The hijinks ensue when a female Dean arrives!
If nobody -has- written these, then somebody -should-.

Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
<snip>But....what real-life church might have been Trollope's inspiration?

I guessed this one and Wikipedia thinks I was right.

[ 07. February 2018, 20:00: Message edited by: BroJames ]

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
You know there is probably someone who has written the new Chronicles of Barsetshire, analyzing those very points. What to do when somebody wants to rent the steeple for a cell phone tower? The hijinks ensue when a female Dean arrives!
If nobody -has- written these, then somebody -should-.

I think that's pretty much what Catherine Fox set out to do -- with Lindchester rather than Barsetshire, of course, but she's very consciously using Trollope as her model. Female Dean and all.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Thank you, BroJames - I think that's it.

Rather a neat little place, no?

[Big Grin]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Oh, heavens. The hero of this novel was married at St. Swithin's. The grandfather of the bride was attached to the church in some way.

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

I've tended to think of Trollope as quite parochial and very grounded in English country life (that imagined Barsetshire) but in fact he was quite an anomaly as a Victorian because he travelled so widely, to the West Indies, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand, and the United States.

His two volumes on his 1877 journey around South Africa show him revising his ideas on Empire because he detested the nostalgia in the Cape Colony for slavery and thought self-rule for black South Africans was the best way forward. He had a very astute eye for character and place -- not the sparkle you find in the letters of Lady Anne Barnard written from the Cape, but his comments on the Kimberley Diamond Fields show us a tent city created almost overnight on the empty veld.

[ 08. February 2018, 04:41: Message edited by: MaryLouise ]

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

Trollope himself said that Barset was Somerset, while Barchester was Winchester.

He only got round to drawing up a map of the place when he was working on Framley Parsonage, and even then his map doesn't always agree with what he wrote, so I doubt if it's possible to create an exact map that would be consistent with all the books.

But I agree that it's fun to try.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

From the lack of recent posts on this thread, I wonder if people are about ready to start discussing the book?

So if anyone wants to say No, no, not yet! could they please do so in the next day or so. Thanks!

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

I'm only about half-way through, but start discussing at any time. I've read it before (and watched the BBC series), so I'm not concerned about spoilers.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

I finished it awhile back and I'm good to go anytime.

Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on :

I'm happy to start discussing it too.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

Right, here are a few questions for people to consider and respond to; feel free to add others or to ignore them completely - they're only there to get the discussion going!

There are no right answers! These may not even be the right questions...

1. What do you think are the major themes in The Warden?

2. Trollope frequently uses authorial asides to speak directly to his readers. Does this affect your enjoyment of the story?

3. Is The Warden a religious book?

4. How do you respond to the mock-Dickens novel The Almshouse which Bold encounters on his journey to London

5. Have you read any other of Trollope's books, and if so what did you think of them?

Posted by Fuzzipeg (# 10107) on :

I discovered Phineas Finn when I was 18 and then read all the political novels and the Barset ones, one after the other but I haven't managed to read one since. You have encouraged me to have another stab at The Warden. Especially MaryLouise's comment....Trollope in Lent seems a good idea.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

After reading all the of Barchester books (in the 90s) I discovered The Vicar of Bullhampton in my sister's former bedroom at my parents' home. I read it while visiting and then looked for a copy for myself, but it seemed to have been unavailable.

Many years later, when my sister died unexpectedly, I looked for her copy when cleaning out her home. (My parents had since sold their home and moved, and subsequently passed on, so my sister had all of her possessions in her own home by that time.) It was there, and it was one of the few things I took with me.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The one I have read most recently is the very different The Way We Live Now.

Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :

I've read the Palliser novels, and some of the other Barchester books. I enjoy the authorial asides; in Trollope, it's part of the charm.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

It's interesting that the apparent villain - John Bold, I suppose - actually behaves rather well, whereas the Archdeacon berates and insults the Warden, all in the name of the Church.

Tom Towers, of course, seems to be almost beyond redemption.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
After reading all the of Barchester books (in the 90s) I discovered The Vicar of Bullhampton in my sister's former bedroom at my parents' home. I read it while visiting and then looked for a copy for myself, but it seemed to have been unavailable.

The Vicar of Bullhampton is a good read. The situation of Carry Brattle would be different nowadays (she would less likely face being sent to a Magdalene laundry or the equivalent) but the various attitudes towards her would still be there.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Yes, Dr. John Bold is indeed a rather engaging villain, though he is really only seen as such by the Archdeacon and his friends.

Tom Towers is, of course, alive and well, and working for Certain Tabloids (rather than an up-market paper, should such an odd entity still exist in the UK).

.
.
.
.
.
.
/SPOILER ALERT/

I'm rather sorry that Trollope didn't see fit to include Bold in later stories...

IJ

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andras:

3. Is The Warden a religious book?

No. It's a book about clergy. In the same way the Palliser novels (particularly The Eustace Diamonds and Can You Forgive Her?) are not political books, just books about politicians.

My favourite bit of Trollope is when Lizzie Eustance, the pseud, actually tries reading Shelley rather than just enthusing about his poetry. But I never liked Shelley.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andras:
Trollope frequently uses authorial asides to speak directly to his readers. Does this affect your enjoyment of the story?

It's been fashionable to object to Trollope's use of authorial asides as if Trollope is trying to write like Henry James and hasn't worked out how yet. He isn't trying to write like Henry James. Trollope has no interest in making us forget that we're reading a work of fiction.

quote:
Is The Warden a religious book?

I don't think it's more religious than Austen's Mansfield Park. It's not preaching for conversion. On the other hand, it is in favour of humility and charity, both in the characters whom Trollope commends and in the way Trollope depicts them.

quote:
How do you respond to the mock-Dickens novel The Almshouse which Bold encounters on his journey to London

Yes, that's unmistakeably Dickens. That's as fair as satire gets.
Obviously it's an anti-manifesto for Trollope: this is how I am not writing the Warden. In particular, I am not writing characters who are wholly good or wholly bad.

quote:
Have you read any other of Trollope's books, and if so what did you think of them?[/b]

All of the Barchester series, the first of the Palliser series (Can you Forgive Her), The Way we Live Now, and Orley Farm.
Some of the later ones could do a bit with editing down.

Trollope's obvious difference from Dickens is that he hardly ever sees characters as wholly good or wholly bad. There are some outright villains - Slope perhaps, but one can usually see how they've ended up that way.
I think he's one of the least unjudgemental of novelists. You get novelists like George Eliot who are highly moral, but who condemn their characters for any transgressions; and novelists who don't condemn their characters because they aren't deeply interested in the morality of their situation. But Trollope is deeply interested in writing about morality without condemning his characters. The worst he'll often say is that a particular character isn't a favourite.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I don’t think that’s at all fair to George Eliot. Who does she condemn in adam Bede or Sials Market?

Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on :

I love the authorial asides, specially the bit where Trolope says something like 'I didn't hear all the conversation, which is just as well as I don't want to have to write a three-volume novel'
Another thing is 'showing not telling' something that anyone whose ever done a creative writing class will have heard a lot about. I think telling has its place, I liked the way we were clearly told what the characters of the three archdeacon's was, and then there is the scene when Bold visits where those characters are neatly illustrated.
I don't think Bold is the villan as such. He is someone doing the wrong thing from the best of motives. I've come across a few of those in my time.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

That alone shows you how much more subtle he was than Dickens. Who always favored painting in black and white.

Posted by ACK (# 16756) on :

I got into Trollope thanks to the TV series of Barchester, and in my late teens/early twenties, read most of the Barchester stories and Palliser/Phinius Finn stories. Then not read any more until re-reading 'The Warden' now.

I need to re-read more.

It was my teens last time I saw 'The Barchester Chronicles', but I still had Nigel Hawthorne's voice in my head when I read the Archdeacon's lines. (Although he might have sounded more like Appleby than Grantly). I guess I'll have my favourite actor's voice in my head when I get around to re-reading 'Barchester Towers' with the Odious Mr Slope.

I like Trollope's chatty style. I think my favourite was 'Dr Thorne'. If I recall rightly, early on in that book, he tells you the ending, to stop you worrying unduly. (Though I might be mixing it up with 'The Princess Bride'). I like that his stories are character driven, inviting us to spend some time with these people.

I got the feeling he was not very happy with his portrayal of Grantly in 'The Warden', when he feels the need to tell us we have not seen him at his best. Bold, as the antagonist, is a sympathetic character, and Grantly's attempts to stamp on him, do not not do Grantly any favours. The antagonists in 'Barchester Towers', show Grantly in a better light, if I recall rightly.

I agree, it is more about people involved in religion, rather than being about religion.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
That alone shows you how much more subtle he was than Dickens. Who always favored painting in black and white.

It's true. However, sometimes black and white is the better choice as with Bridget Riley or Schindler's List.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
I don’t think that’s at all fair to George Eliot. Who does she condemn in adam Bede or Sials Market?

But I do love her comment in Adam Bede that Methodism, like asthma, appears to run in families!

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ACK:

(snipped!)

I like Trollope's chatty style. I think my favourite was 'Dr Thorne'. If I recall rightly, early on in that book, he tells you the ending, to stop you worrying unduly. (Though I might be mixing it up with 'The Princess Bride'). I like that his stories are character driven, inviting us to spend some time with these people.

I got the feeling he was not very happy with his portrayal of Grantly in 'The Warden', when he feels the need to tell us we have not seen him at his best. Bold, as the antagonist, is a sympathetic character, and Grantly's attempts to stamp on him, do not not do Grantly any favours. The antagonists in 'Barchester Towers', show Grantly in a better light, if I recall rightly.

I agree, it is more about people involved in religion, rather than being about religion.

I certainly think that it was a slip to show the Archdeacon reading Rabelais, something that we never see him doing again.

There's a hard side to the Archdeacon, and Trollope doesn't tiptoe around it. In the Last Chronicles (spoiler alert for those who've not read it!) he sets about disinheriting his son, who he fears is about to make a foolish marriage, and does it at once because he knows he won't be able to do it after he's said his evening prayers. But he does change his mind later on...

I think the most devastating of Trollope's asides is also in the Last Chronicles, where the Bishop goes to the cathedral to pray after his ghastly wife's death, and Trollope suggests he is praying that he should not be glad she is dead. Ouch!

As regards deliberately giving the outcome of the plot away at the beginning, that of course is exactly what the Chorus does in Romeo and Juliet!

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

I think what really struck me about The Warden, on this re-read after 20-some years, is the gray areas, the moral ambiguity.

It's a really great little problem Trollope has set up here, because I think it seems obvious to the modern reader that John Bold is right -- the terms of the original bequest are NOT being upheld, and it's wrong for the Warden to be living in relative luxury in comparison to the poverty of the twelve old men. But by making the Warden so obviously a good and decent fellow, and Bold, while well-meaning, quite insensitive and sometimes unkind, our sympathies are with the person who is, on the surface of it, benefitting from a miscarriage of justice. I found it quite interesting and complex to set it up like this.

It's interesting, too, that it is a novel about people for whom the church is the central institution in their lives, but actual faith in God doesn't seem to come into it a whole lot. The Warden seems the likeliest person to be genuinely religious, but even with him, it's his personal kindness and his love of music that are the defining characteristics, not his piety. When he resigns the position, there's a sense that he's doing what he believes is right at personal cost to himself, which is certainly a moral position -- but it's also telling that what really motivates him is not a firm belief that it's wrong for the warden of the hospital to prosper in this way (he seems quite OK with someone else taking the position and getting the salary that he's giving up) but that he doesn't like to be the target of the public disapproval that comes with it.

It's all really very interesting and complex and nuanced, and because it's been so long since I read Trollope I forgot how well he does that.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
After reading all the of Barchester books (in the 90s) I discovered The Vicar of Bullhampton in my sister's former bedroom at my parents' home. I read it while visiting and then looked for a copy for myself, but it seemed to have been unavailable.

The Vicar of Bullhampton is available at abebooks.

Moo

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Trollope's obvious difference from Dickens is that he hardly ever sees characters as wholly good or wholly bad. There are some outright villains - Slope perhaps, but one can usually see how they've ended up that way.

Trollope said that an author should be kind to his characters because he created them.

Moo

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

Slope ended up in charge of a church 'in the vicinity of the New Road, and became known to fame as one of the most eloquent preachers and pious clergymen in that part of the metropolis.'

Double ouch!

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
But by making the Warden so obviously a good and decent fellow, and Bold, while well-meaning, quite insensitive and sometimes unkind, our sympathies are with the person who is, on the surface of it, benefitting from a miscarriage of justice. I found it quite interesting and complex to set it up like this.

There's another Trollope novel - I won't say which because mild spoiler - which is built around the same kind of situation: the more unpleasant people have justice on their side.

quote:
It's interesting, too, that it is a novel about people for whom the church is the central institution in their lives, but actual faith in God doesn't seem to come into it a whole lot. The Warden seems the likeliest person to be genuinely religious, but even with him, it's his personal kindness and his love of music that are the defining characteristics, not his piety.

I feel it's not so much that they don't have faith. Trollope is primarily interested in the consequences of the church being a worldly institution. I think it's more that he doesn't think it's his business as a novelist to describe what goes on between a character and God.

quote:
it's also telling that what really motivates him is not a firm belief that it's wrong for the warden of the hospital to prosper in this way (he seems quite OK with someone else taking the position and getting the salary that he's giving up)

More I think that Harding wouldn't venture to judge another person for holding the warden's position; he just can't reconcile it with his own conscience.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
It's also telling that what really motivates him is not a firm belief that it's wrong for the warden of the hospital to prosper in this way (he seems quite OK with someone else taking the position and getting the salary that he's giving up)
More I think that Harding wouldn't venture to judge another person for holding the warden's position; he just can't reconcile it with his own conscience.

That's certainly the most charitable interpretation, but it did seem to me that Warden Harding's conscience didn't really kick in until he was excoriated in the press for enjoying the benefits of his position -- the fear of public censure seemed to me to motivate him at least as much as the sense that he was actually doing anything wrong.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Yes, if we imagine that nobody made any accusations the Warden would be happy to continue as he has always done. He would never have changed on his own initiative.
All of Trollope (indeed, all the Victorian novelists) are also up for free at Gutenberg.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

In a sense I think it's the Julius Caesar dilemma as Shakespeare expounds it: it may be right and even necessary that a bad situation (or even a bad person) should be removed, but what comes in its place may be no better, and may well be worse.

'Always keep ahold of Nurse...'

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Trollope's obvious difference from Dickens is that he hardly ever sees characters as wholly good or wholly bad. There are some outright villains - Slope perhaps, but one can usually see how they've ended up that way.
Trollope said that an author should be kind to his characters because he created them.

Moo

I don't suppose you know where he said that?

In fact you can see in his own work that he doesn't quite hold by that himself; one could not and have any kind of a plot. You have to be mean to your characters, but in the right way. Eleanor, for instance, really does have a hard time of it. Is it a spoiler, to refer to developments in her life in the next book?

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Trollope's obvious difference from Dickens is that he hardly ever sees characters as wholly good or wholly bad. There are some outright villains - Slope perhaps, but one can usually see how they've ended up that way.
Trollope said that an author should be kind to his characters because he created them.

Moo
I don't suppose you know where he said that?

In fact you can see in his own work that he doesn't quite hold by that himself; one could not and have any kind of a plot. You have to be mean to your characters, but in the right way. Eleanor, for instance, really does have a hard time of it. Is it a spoiler, to refer to developments in her life in the next book?

I can see that we're going to get on to Barchester Towers some time next year, but we've already had so many references to what happens in it that I wouldn't worry too much!

Poor Lily Dale in The Small House at Allington has a pretty rough time of it too. I think she's lovely, though really she's a little too priggish for my taste - but then, oh so many Victorian lasses are depicted that way!

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

One thing that seems to be becoming evident is that The Warden really does need to be read as a prologue to the rest of the Barchester Chronicles!

Did Trollope intend it to be a 'taster', as it were, or was it to be a 'stand alone' book?

IJ

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I am willing to bet that when The Warden was well received Trollope realized there was gold in them thar hills.
It is clear to me that Trollope has carefully set it up so that nobody is perfectly clean, except possibly the women who have no agency in this society anyway. Harding has been (we agree) incurious; Bold kicked over the wasp nest without thinking it through; the bishop is dominated by the archdeacon and the archdeacon himself is domineering. Nobody is criminal, but nobody's without stain.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The women may have not much clout in The Warden, but wait until you meet Mrs. Proudie in the next book(s)...!! [Eek!]

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The women may have not much clout in The Warden, but wait until you meet Mrs. Proudie in the next book(s)...!!

IJ

As the Archdeacon would say, "Good Heavens!"

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Indeed - and he has some quite Opprobrious Epithets in store for both her, and Mr. Slope....

[Killing me]

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Trollope's obvious difference from Dickens is that he hardly ever sees characters as wholly good or wholly bad. There are some outright villains - Slope perhaps, but one can usually see how they've ended up that way.
Trollope said that an author should be kind to his characters because he created them.

Moo
I don't suppose you know where he said that?

In fact you can see in his own work that he doesn't quite hold by that himself; one could not and have any kind of a plot. You have to be mean to your characters, but in the right way.

I have read a tremendous amount of Trollope, and I don't recall where I read that. As someone said earlier, Trollope showed understanding (but not approval) of his bad characters, such as George Vavasour in Can You Forgive Her. The point is that, unlike Dickens, he was aware that his bad characters had motivations other than depravity.

Moo

Posted by Marama (# 330) on :

Is The Warden a religious book?

No, it’s a book about religious institutions, but not really about religion. As others have commented, Warden Harding does not really have theological or even ethical doubts about taking the stipend from Hiram’s charity, it’s the shame and embarrassment through the publicity which make him give up the post. On the other hand, one could see the posing of the main question (is it right to protest about an injustice (that the money from Hiram’s trust is not all being used for the purposes intended by the donor), when the resulting ‘reform’ benefits no-one, particularly the old men?) as a highly ethical one. The book is all about unintended consequences, the ambiguity of positions taken by just about everyone.

I was interested in Mary Louise’s comments about Trollope’s visit to South Africa. Before that journey he travelled to Australia and New Zealand, including a visit to the sugar country of northern Queensland. His comments on the use of Pacific indentured labour there are remarkably perceptive and complex: he notes that while British objections to South Sea Island labour were based on humanitarian fears, the opposition within Qld was on quite different grounds. Queenslanders were worried about the protection of white labour, and believed kanaka labour was a threat to their own standards. With this Trollope has little sympathy - 'The belief is as erroneous as it is vicious. It is in some sort a repetition of the infantile political economy which many years ago induced rural labourers in England to destroy threshing machines'. He was one of few contemporary observers to draw this distinction, and to realise that any alliance between the humanitarian and white labour motives for opposition to indenture must be fraught, to say the least.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
the fear of public censure seemed to me to motivate him at least as much as the sense that he was actually doing anything wrong.

I think Harding would be able to bear public censure if he felt he knew it was undeserved. He'd find it unpleasant, but he'd bear it. But what worries him particularly is the thought that the public might be correct.
I think Trollope's good at subtle moral psychology: someone like George Eliot might think that everyone should regard only their own interior conscience, and anything else is merely fear of censure; but to Trollope the two blur into each other.

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Trollope's obvious difference from Dickens is that he hardly ever sees characters as wholly good or wholly bad. There are some outright villains - Slope perhaps, but one can usually see how they've ended up that way.
Trollope said that an author should be kind to his characters because he created them.

Moo
I don't suppose you know where he said that?

In fact you can see in his own work that he doesn't quite hold by that himself; one could not and have any kind of a plot. You have to be mean to your characters, but in the right way.
I have read a tremendous amount of Trollope, and I don't recall where I read that. As someone said earlier, Trollope showed understanding (but not approval) of his bad characters, such as George Vavasour in Can You Forgive Her. The point is that, unlike Dickens, he was aware that his bad characters had motivations other than depravity.

Moo

I know this as "An author must be an advocate for all his characters." My memory is failing me at the end of a long day. Perhaps it was purloined from Trollope. OTOH Terrence said that there was no new thing.

This is my first Trollope, and I'm surprised at how much I'm enjoying it.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

So here's a Q: was the hospital bequest really being abused? Whether it arises to the level of a genuine crime is a separate question (that, clearly, even the lawyers in the book were prepared to debate). But was a wrong actually being committed?

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
So here's a Q: was the hospital bequest really being abused? Whether it arises to the level of a genuine crime is a separate question (that, clearly, even the lawyers in the book were prepared to debate). But was a wrong actually being committed?

IIRC the letter of the bequest is being followed but the intent is not.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
So here's a Q: was the hospital bequest really being abused? Whether it arises to the level of a genuine crime is a separate question (that, clearly, even the lawyers in the book were prepared to debate). But was a wrong actually being committed?

Oh, I would say definitely yes. To me it seems like just the sort of abuse that's crying out to be reformed -- but it didn't really get reformed, did it?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

If it was clearly fraudulent, the lawyers (Abraham Haphazard etc.) wouldn't be waffling. So there is plainly space for debate. And the difficulty is hedged behind thickets of legalese dating back to the 14th c., which means it might as well be cuneiform.
In other words, the Archdeacon & co. do have a solid argument. The overarching -intent- of Mr. Hiram is clear. But the setup, the administration, is fuzzy. The twelve old men beyond their work are indeed being supported and cared for. (Who, btw, is actually doing the work maintaining twelve old men? The cooking, the carrying of coal, the cleaning? Mr. Harding isn't; he's playing his cello. Is it Eleanor managing the place? There must be a squadron of women servants back in the kitchen and laundry and scullery, never in view.) The twelve are as they have always been since 14-whatever, comfortable in their twilight years. The increase in the value of the bequest was not specifically directed to them.

A more prudent wording of the bequest would have allowed for the expansion or contracture of the population served. As the money increased, you could get 14, 18, 20 old men; if there was a financial crash you dial it back down to 12. (I assume there are always enough indigent old men to fill the hospital however large it got.) 20-20 hindsight here...

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
That alone shows you how much more subtle he was than Dickens. Who always favored painting in black and white.

This threads is about Trollope and Trudy and others have pointed out his considerable virtues. But I can’t let a dismissal of Dickens get by without comment. Yes, he was melodramatic and sentimental. No, he didn’t do inner life. Yes, he is often grotesque (although that is when he is most original and powerful. Trollope only did grotesque in Barchester Towers, which is probably his most amusing book as a result.)

But Dickens had a wonderful, inimitable imagination and creates imaginative worlds which I find make Trollope look conventional and predictable. I’d far rather re-read Dickens.

Incidentally, Trollope’s model and most admired novelist was Thackeray who hasn’t been mentioned here.

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

Yes, I was thinking 'apples and oranges' when it comes to comparing Dickens and Trollope. Dickens is magnificent as a writer who makes his characters unforgettable archetypes and larger-than-life comic vaudeville or grotesques or villains. Miss Havisham in Great Expectations isn't a finely drawn realist portrait of a disappointed spinster, she is Gothic personified. I've often thought that Dickens is at his best when he writes about children looking at the frightening and strange adults around them who hold the power of life and death over those in their care (Dickens never forgot his time in the blacking factory as a young boy). This isn't to say that Dickens doesn't allow for change and repentance and reform in character development: think of Scrooge.

Trollope is as effective looking at misguided or malevolent characters but they are people you'd expect to meet at the parish council, deluded if well-meaning, chilling but human. Those of don't understand themselves and the harm they do.

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

Missed edit button. Last sentence should have read: Those who don't understand themselves and the harm they do.

It's a society that doesn't have to think about faith very much, a certain comfortable shared belief is a given. The presence of the Church is solid, enduring, a safeguard. This may be one of Trollope's strengths, to create a world and setting that is so concrete and fixed that any points of instability deserve close attention when set against the status quo. Radical change is unthinkable. The plight of the deserving poor may cause crises of conscience, individual sacrifice or Questions in Parliament, but it won't rock the boat. Darwinism or social revolution may be in the air but that isn't what Trollope wants to do here as a novelist.

The funny sharp insights are private or interior: the tart and dismissive Mrs Grantly who calls her husband 'archdeacon' in bed and raps him over the knuckles with her common sense. Suddenly this domineering character is seen in a tasselled nightcap listening to the counsels of his wife. That wives and daughters see the 'ordinariness' of these great church dignitaries is another irony Trollope likes to exploit.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

Ah, Thackeray! A brilliant writer too often neglected these days, and Becky Sharp is, I think, one of the finest novelists' creations of all time, right up there with Lizzy Bennet.

The plot of The Warden does stem from a real event: the Earl of Guilford was reputed to be taking an incredible £2,000.00 per year as Master of the Hospital of St Cross, Winchester, leading to an investigation by a reformist clergyman. Certainly the Earl's income knocks poor old Septimus Harding's £800.00 into the shade!

I do wonder if it was Dickens' reforming zeal that got up Trollope's nose as much as his caricatures. Our man thought that the world was pretty-much right-way-up as it was, and didn't want to disturb it too much.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

I just finished The Warden and will take a break before starting on Barchester Towers. But I'm starting a re-watch (third or fourth time through at least) of the BBC series this evening.

(I just re-watched Sense and Sensibility in advance of seeing a stage production next week, but there can never be too much Alan Rickman!)

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Is it the S&S stage production with a great many rolling chairs?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Is it the S&S stage production with a great many rolling chairs?

I've heard that everyone's on wheels (???), so I assume so.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

On this reread I am impressed with all the funny bits that sneak in. Yes, the archdeacon in bed with his wife. Also the speculation that all bishops lose their ability to whistle once they ascend to that rank.

Posted by MaryLouise (# 18697) on :

Trollope has such depth and range of expression. I found some scenes moving, notably the tender affection and friendship of the two older men, the Warden and the Bishop. Neither is a match for Dr Grantly or John Bold, but they are a great comfort to one another.

‘The bishop and Mr Harding loved each other warmly. They had grown old together, and had together spent many, many years in clerical pursuits and clerical conversation.’

On the other hand I wondered about Trollope's reading of the poor old men, the dozen beneficiaries. They are shown with sympathy and pathos at times but in an unsentimental and IMO slightly paternalistic manner. Most of these elderly working-class men are illiterate, damaged by years of heavy drinking, easily swayed by those around them and unable to see beyond the idea of that hundred pounds a year, an unimaginable sum to those receiving one-and-sixpence a day. Trollope assume the reader will agree with him that they are hardly the best judges of what is best for them in this matter. This would have been the common understanding of the servant and labouring classes and their characters are presented as comic and one-dimensional.

"Only think, old Billy Gazy," said Spriggs, who rejoiced in greater youth than his brethren, but having fallen into a fire when drunk, had had one eye burnt out, one cheek burnt through, and one arm nearly burnt off, and who, therefore, in regard to personal appearance, was not the most prepossessing of men, "a hundred a year, and all to spend; only think, old Billy Gazy;" and he gave a hideous grin that showed off his misfortunes to their full extent.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

Well, a lot of people are easily swayed by the suggestion that they can get a lot of money just by putting a mark on a piece of paper.

A certain misleading promise on the side of a bus comes to mind!

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andras:
A certain misleading promise on the side of a bus comes to mind!

What promise? What bus?

[Confused]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

This bus.

Jengie

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Also the condescending attitude about working people, Irish, etc. is easy to find in other literature of the period. It's hard to say whether it's the -characters- in (say) a Collins novel telling us that this or that working person is resolutely stupid, or whether that is the author's opinion. But the notion is far more common than you will find in modern works, and so must have had some currency among the readers.

Charlotte Bronte was half Irish (Rev. Patrick was of Irish working-class stock) and married another Irish clergyman, Rev. Nicholls. So you might hope she would be free of prejudice. Nevertheless when her new husband took her to his home she wrote back to family and friends praising, with naive astonishment, how civilized everyone she met was. The houses of her Nicholls in-laws, furnished in quite a decent style, OMG.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Also the condescending attitude about working people, Irish, etc. is easy to find in other literature of the period. It's hard to say whether it's the -characters- in (say) a Collins novel telling us that this or that working person is resolutely stupid, or whether that is the author's opinion. But the notion is far more common than you will find in modern works, and so must have had some currency among the readers.

Charlotte Bronte was half Irish (Rev. Patrick was of Irish working-class stock) and married another Irish clergyman, Rev. Nicholls. So you might hope she would be free of prejudice. Nevertheless when her new husband took her to his home she wrote back to family and friends praising, with naive astonishment, how civilized everyone she met was. The houses of her Nicholls in-laws, furnished in quite a decent style, OMG.

Those attitudes persist to the present day, though most middle-class people are polite enough not to let their views show too much.

It's so well-known that the Scots are grasping penny-pinchers, the Irish are untrustworthy bog-dwellers and the Welsh spend all their time digging for coal and singing - with a side-order of meanness - that no novelist needs to actually say so any more.

When someone does stick their head above the parapet and say out loud what they really think, there's an immediate media storm; not because those views are not surprisingly widely held, but because it's rude to express them.

The columnist A A Gill was famous for this sort of thing. In 1988 he declared that the Welsh were loquacious, dissemblers, immoral liars, stunted, bigoted, dark, ugly, pugnacious little trolls. The Commission for Racial Equality didn't see any cause to censure him.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
This bus.

Jengie

Thanks for the link. For some strange reason I haven't seen that on the streets of Phoenix, Arizona.
[Biased]

Posted by aliehs (# 18878) on :

Can any body join?

Guess it's not worthwhile till the new book is specified for March

Since the thread is called the February Book Club. does it automatically change to the March Book Club, or remain as February?
For what it is worth, I read The Warden years ago and remember it as an exercise in the niceties of administration of almshouses, which is not so different today in aged care facilities.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aliehs:
Can any body join?

Guess it's not worthwhile till the new book is specified for March

Since the thread is called the February Book Club. does it automatically change to the March Book Club, or remain as February?
For what it is worth, I read The Warden years ago and remember it as an exercise in the niceties of administration of almshouses, which is not so different today in aged care facilities.

There will be a new book in March, and a new thread -- on the new Ship.

The Warden really had nothing to do with "niceties of administration of almshouses." It's worth a re-read. Fascinating characters, who evolve over the series. I just finished it a few days ago (I last read it in the 90's), and then one must go on to the rest of the Barchester Chronicles. To get a feel for the first two books, I highly recommend the BBC Mini-Series.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aliehs:
Can any body join?

Guess it's not worthwhile till the new book is specified for March

Since the thread is called the February Book Club. does it automatically change to the March Book Club, or remain as February?
For what it is worth, I read The Warden years ago and remember it as an exercise in the niceties of administration of almshouses, which is not so different today in aged care facilities.

The thread will stay open - under the same name - for as long as anybody wants to post to it or until the Second Coming, whichever is sooner; and everyone on God's good Earth is welcome to pile in and add their thoughts, comments, complaints and general musings.

There'll be a new thread in March, the book being I Capture the Castle by Dodie Smith, and the discussion will be led by Nenya. It's a wonderful read, so either pile in to this thread now or beg, borrow or steal a copy of the March book! Or both!

Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on :

Aliehs - Have a look at this thread which is the Ship's Book group thread for the whole of 2018. Feel free to add any suggestions. If you'd like to know more PM me.
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=012969
I guess I'll have to start a new thread when we paddle across to the new vessel?

I've really enjoyed this discussion about The Warden. What struck me was how modern the dilemma was, I can imagine the press having a field day in a similar situation now.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I must say I would like to read The Almshouse by the Dickens of the novel. Trollope has a good time sticking pins into the other figures of the day. Did you see how the three sons of the Archdeacon are named after noted clergymen of the period? I only discovered this by looking at the footnotes at the back of my edition of the novel.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I must say I would like to read The Almshouse by the Dickens of the novel. Trollope has a good time sticking pins into the other figures of the day. Did you see how the three sons of the Archdeacon are named after noted clergymen of the period? I only discovered this by looking at the footnotes at the back of my edition of the novel.

And Samuel is known to all as Soapy - the allusion would have been very obvious to Trollope's contemporary readers, but I'm a little surprised that it got past the publisher's reader.

(Little Soapy disappears after the first novel in the series; perhaps we're to assume that he's gone to his heavenly reward? Or is it a case of amnesia auctoris?)

Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on :

I got the 'Soapy' Sam allusion, though know I know very little about Samuel Wilberforce. It sounds like Trollope was enjoying himself with the decriptions of the Archdeacon's sons.
I think I could have done with an annotated edition, there were a few sayings that didn't make a lot of sense, something about 'Beverley out the window'?, I can't find it now to get the exact quote.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Hang on, I'll repeat what I derived from my footnoted edition when I get my hands on it. (I'm at work, no novels allowed here.)

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

OK, here we go.
Charles James, Henry, and Samuel. based on three prominent bishops: Charles Jams Blomfield, bishop of London from 1818 to 1856, HEnry Phillpotts, the bishop of Exeter from 1830 to 1869, and Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford from 1845 to 1869. Notice in the novel that although Sammy talks so soft and sweet he does put a switch under the horses tail to see if it can be persuaded to kick.

Lydian revers to Lydia Languish in Sheridan's play The Rivals (1775), who prefers elopement to ordinary marriage. To woo her the rich heir Captain Absolute has to assume the identity of a penniless Ensign Beverly.

Posted by Sarasa (# 12271) on :

Thanks for the explanation about Lydia and Beverley, I should have looked it up when I was reading the book. I do like annotated editions, you learn such a lot.

Posted by Marama (# 330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
So here's a Q: was the hospital bequest really being abused? Whether it arises to the level of a genuine crime is a separate question (that, clearly, even the lawyers in the book were prepared to debate). But was a wrong actually being committed?

There's no crime being committed, but yes, quite probably the bequest is being abused. It's difficult to see what the right answer is - probably the spirit of the bequest would see a new second almshouse built and another group of old men (and possibly women) being helped - but legally that's not possible. There seems little evidence of any lack of care, though the question of who is actually doing the hard work isn't answered - perhaps more should be spent there. In reality it's hard to see how more cash in hand would help the old men, but it shouldn't be going in to the Warden's pocket either.

Posted by Marama (# 330) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sarasa:

I've really enjoyed this discussion about The Warden. What struck me was how modern the dilemma was, I can imagine the press having a field day in a similar situation now.

Yes indeed. Not sure if they could come up with a good answer though, given the constraints of the original will.

Posted by andras (# 2065) on :

It's a bit of a spoiler for Barchester Towers but in the end Parliament steps in and effectively rewrites the will.

The consequence of that, coupled with the arrival in Barchester of a new Low Church Bishop and his chaplain (and the Bishop's ghastly wife!) drive much of the action of the book. It's a good read - how about we do it next year?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by andras:
It's a bit of a spoiler for Barchester Towers but in the end Parliament steps in and effectively rewrites the will.

The consequence of that, coupled with the arrival in Barchester of a new Low Church Bishop and his chaplain (and the Bishop's ghastly wife!) drive much of the action of the book. It's a good read - how about we do it next year?

The Bishop's chaplain is also ghastly, and I shall always picture him as played by Alan Rickman.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I did wonder what happened to the Hospital at the end of this book. The warden's house is neglected, the beadesmen are sad. What is happening to the money that used to be Harding's? Is it being kept by the bishopric? It is clearly not being used for the twelve old men, nor to keep up the property.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0