Ship of Fools: Anthony Trollope

Thread: Anthony Trollope Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029750

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

I'm reading Victoria Glendinning's fabulous biography of AT. I have only read one of his novels--The Way We Live Now. IMO it has hardly aged a day. It is not part of one of AT's big series (Pallisers; Chronicles of Barsetshire). Can AT's novels be read as stand-alone stories even if they are part of a series? Or do you really have to start with the first in a series and read them in order? For example, if I read The Eustace Diamonds without having read any of the other Palliser novels, would I get lost?

Does anyone have suggestions on where to start with AT? Favorites?

Thanks.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Clearly I need to get my hands on this biography. I can currently reading Juliet Barker's THE BRONTES and it is superb.
A fast and easy window into Trollope is the dramatizations. Vision issues make sitting in front of the TV for a couple hours easier than plowing through 400K in words.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

I think that the ecclesiastical novels benefit from being read in order, but you can mix up the parliamentary ones without too much trouble. I began with the ecclesiastical ones and moved to the parliamentary series -- I recall having greatly annoyed a professor of political science at Queen's (Kingston, Ontario) by saying that the only useful studies of the parliamentary system were Phineas Redux and Crossman's diaries.

They have provided me with years of delight.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

This is timely! I tore through just about all of Trollope as a teenager (started with the political novels after the BBC series in the 70s.) and am just about to start the Barsetshire novels again.

It will be interesting to see if I still like them. I've never really got on with Dickens, but as a teenager, I loved the Pickwick Papers yet when I tried to re-read it a few years ago, I found it unreadable and got nowhere.

M.

Edited to add - that's an incoherent sentence, isn't it?

[ 31. July 2015, 05:45: Message edited by: M. ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

A great-grandson. also an Anthony, floated around Law School when I was there - he and his family lived a few stations closer to the city. The family pronounced the surname as TroeLope, Tony Trollop (as in tart). I have not seen him for 30 years or more now.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

There was an old story about a traveller to the Soviet Union having his reading matter confiscated - the customs officer had never heard of a writer called Barchester Towers, but anything entitled 'A Trollope' must be porn.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

I love all the Palliser novels, but I really don't care for the Barchester ones. You can start anywhere in the series; you'll miss a few references, but only a few. The first novel in the series is Can You Forgive Her?. I like it very much; there is a character, Mrs Greenough, who has buried a much older husband and is now enjoying all the money she inherited.

ETA: Trollope was kind to his characters, unless they were simply evil. I like that very much.

Moo

[ 31. July 2015, 11:24: Message edited by: Moo ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Agree with what people say about the two big series. reading them in order fills them out a bit but they can certainly be enjoyed in any order. The Eustace Diamonds, mentioned in the OP, is a good crime story with an excellent female villain. The Warden, which is the first of the Barchesters, is actually quite short and light and a good entry- I do think that some of his later books are a bit padded out. On adaptations: some years ago Radio 4 did both the Pallisers and the Barchesters, pretty well- R4Extra have just rebroadcast the Pallisers and they will probably still be on BBC i-Player. There was also a Barchester series last year, but not so good IMO- all made a bit 'olde-worlde' and didn't do Trollope's capacity for serious comment any favours. But YMMV of course.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by M.:
It will be interesting to see if I still like them. I've never really got on with Dickens, but as a teenager, I loved the Pickwick Papers yet when I tried to re-read it a few years ago, I found it unreadable and got nowhere.

Well, it was his first work, written as a young man, and it's noticeably lighter in tone than any of the rest of his books. You might find his later works more mature and readable.

On the subject of Trollope, I tried one of his novels but couldn't get on with it. I can see how they would appeal to Ship readers, though.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

The only other Dickens I liked at all (at least as a much younger person) was Barnaby Rudge.

I've never really felt inclined to read any again, apart from the P.P., as I said.

Anyway, sorry, this is a tangent! I loved Trollope when I was younger and hope I still do.

M.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

With the crutch of the BBC dramatization I was able to read and enjoy THE WAY WE LIVE NOW. Which Trollope should I try next? I did read THE WARDEN but was not greatly amused.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Brenda, please could you try not to put book and film titles into ALL CAPS please? It comes across as shouting and looks rather dissonant. Italic is fine or quotes are fine.

Thanks!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

There's a naughtiness about Barchester Towers, particularly the character of the Contessa, which he never rose to again.

I do like the chapter in The Eustace Diamonds in which Lizzie Eustace goes down to the seashore to read Shelley's Queen Mab but never get past the opening despite her publicized enthusiasm for the work. A literary pseud exposed. But then, I don't like literary romantics.

But Dickens is to Trollope what malt whisky is to Pepsi.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, Dickens is better on the whole (though Trollope can rise to a good level). But actually one I think is more consistently good - not up to Dickens's heights, but avoids the pantomime and Grand Guignol that Dickens often teeters on the edge of and sometimes falls headlong into- is Wilkie Collins. No funny names and believable dialogue. And Lydia Gwilt, the villainness of Armadale, is for me just about the most sexy female character* in Victorian fiction.

*Actually there are some hints in Trollope too. Just the other day I read something by some academic citing passages from The Small House at Allington about the effect that Griselda Grantly, the dumb blonde daughter of the Archdeacon of Barchester, has on Plantaganet Palliser, the rather dry politician who pops up all over the eponymous series, showing pretty clearly that Trollope is saying, discreetly, that he gets an erection thinking about her- 'blood coursed through veins of which he had been unaware' or words to that effect. But she's still a bit cardboard, like too many of his characters.

[ 31. July 2015, 19:58: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
With the crutch of the BBC dramatization I was able to read and enjoy THE WAY WE LIVE NOW. Which Trollope should I try next? I did read THE WARDEN but was not greatly amused.

To be fair to Trollope, I don't think he is meant to be amusing as such. While plot is very important to the books, he seems very keen not to compromise the potential humanity of his creations, in order to feed the plot-line, or make the story more satisfactory from a literary functional point of view.

So what I love about, am challenged by, his writing is that his characters are usually multi-layered. And that makes it hard to identify 'goodies' and 'baddies' in the usual way. You just begin to catch on to the idea that a particular person is selfish, or a gold-digger, or nasty in some way; but then Trollope reveals another part of their inner life which reminds us that few people are ever wholly bad or wholly good. And these are the people he writes out.

I think this gives his writing a depth of humanity which is deeply insightful, and a realism which is both sympathetic but also unnerving. Like his description of Archdeacon Grantly praying at the death-bed of the Bishop, who is his father whom he truly loves, but whose timing of demise might end up depriving the Archdeacon of a much desired bishopric.

In some of his travel writings Trollope could be possibly construed as racist in one or two of his reflections; but that he very much had within him the spirit of his own era is without doubt. His Irish novels are interesting if read alongside factual stuff about the famine for example.

The depth of his character writing is second to none, in my opinion. And someone above has mentioned his compassion. Must get my hands on the biography mentioned above!

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Trollope was kind to his characters, unless they were simply evil. I like that very much.

It's true, and he has very few simply evil characters. I keep trying to work out how to put it. If the phrase weren't so overused I'd say he hates the sin and loves the sinner. He can show his characters falling short of moral perfection without dismissing it as not mattering and yet without coming over self-righteous about it (cough Eliot cough).

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Ref the Dickens vs. Trollope debate. I love Dickens - am always re-reading his books. But for me Dickens is the author who manufactures amusing but rather two-dimensional characters in order to service his equally amusing but usually hyper-convoluted plots. Which is what I enjoy about Dicken's writing!

Some of the main protagonists are allowed to develop eg, Copperfield, Dombey, Pip; and explore the depths of their potential characters. But many secondary characters are fairly cartoonish, or flat-featured, and need to be, in order to feed plot development.

For me, it's Trollope who is the single malt and Dickens the soft pop! Luckily I love both!

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Which Trollope should I try next?

Everyone should read at least Barchester Towers.

I think Orley Farm, though less famous, is also pretty good.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
But Dickens is to Trollope what malt whisky is to Pepsi.

I agree that Dickens is probably the better writer overall, but they're not really comparable. Dickens does proper melodrama with villains that are real proper villains; Trollope is almost devoid of melodrama, and seldom writes characters without some humanising feature.
Dickens' merits are not realist merits: he's half way to having characters that could be called Hypocrisy or False Humility.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

I took a course in the 19th century novel in grad school which turned out to be all about Trollope (actually this was typical of the MA English courses at my university, don't know if it's that way everywhere -- a course would be advertised as being about the literature of a particular period, but the prof would pick one or at most two writers s/he liked and teach those exclusively. This prof REALLY liked Trollope). We read several of the novels -- Barchester Towers for sure; I can't now remember which others. Which are the ones with Lily Dale in them, who's so determined to remain a spinster? That's Trollope isn't it?

I remember so little of it now, but I do recall at the time enjoying the books a lot more than I expected to. I had had a really hard time trying to slog through Dickens and found Trollope much more readable, though I'm not sure that would still be my reaction now.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

The Small House at Arlington is the main Lily Dale novel.

All the following are from The Last Chronicle of Barset

quote:
On the Saturday it was necessary that he should prepare his sermons, of which he preached two on every Sunday, though his congregation consisted only of farmers, brickmakers, and agricultural labourers, who would willingly have dispensed with the second.

quote:
Mrs. Proudie always went to church on Sunday evenings, making a point of hearing three services and three sermons every Sunday of her life. On week-days she seldom heard any, having an idea that week-day services were an invention of the High Church enemy, and that they should therefore be vehemently discouraged. Services on saints' days she regarded as rank papacy, and had been known to accuse a clergyman's wife, to her face, of idolatry, because the poor lady had dated a letter, St. John's Eve.

quote:
Then came the sermon, preached very often before, lasting exactly half-an-hour, and then Mr. Thumble's work was done. Itinerant clergymen, who preach now here and now there, as it had been the lot of Mr. Thumble to do, have at any rate this relief,—that they can preach their sermons often.

quote:
the archdeacon preached the sermon in the fabrication of which he had been interrupted by his son, and which therefore barely enabled him to turn the quarter of an hour from the giving out of his text. It was his constant practice to preach for full twenty minutes.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Just to defend Dickens – it is quite wrong to judge him as a psychological analyst of character. He works through imagery. I read “Barchester Towers” recently when convalescing and it was just what I wanted, although I suspect the gentle satire covers a complacent social attitude.

I was surprised how superficial the characterization of Mrs Proudie was. Now Miss Havisham, for all the improbability of her situation, is a terrifying presentation of a woman destroying herself in her exercise of power over others. Imagery tells us more about the human situation than "realism".

Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :

Thanks to all of you! I'll start with the Pallisers series, and later I'll tackle the Chronicles of Barsetshire.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Venbede, you're quite right about Miss Havisham, who as a main character gets the full treatment. She has an impressive and very moving character development, denied most of Dicken's more secondary creations. Which isn't to say that he doesn't occasionally throw a little bit of subtlety into even those characters, too.

He permits, eg, Uriah Heep to pronounce upon the hypocrisy of society's expecting the lower classes to be 'umble' about their position, while at the same time criticising them for affecting this humility. But nevertheless, Heep is unredeemably despicable throughout; as Sykes is unredeemably violent and cowardly; as Quilp is unreedemably malicious; as Ralph Nickleby is unredeemably vengeful etc.

Similarly, his lady characters are usually either perfect angels of Victorian femininity, targes, or fools. Rarely (ever?) a combination of qualities and weaknesses normally found in a real woman.

It's impossible to imagine Trollope writing such flat monochromatic characters. But for that reason, Dickens has powerful images of fear, hate, melodrama - primary colours, I suppose, which are memorable and entertaining! And because Dickens is so successful at appealing to the sentimental popular feelings, he is also more moving, I think.

Whereas Trollope is subtle, shaded and to my mind more immediately identifiable as real, and relatable to. Few of his protagonists, male or female, are ever easily described as 'good' or 'bad'. They're just too multi-faceted; as likely to make a bad decision as a good one. And maybe that makes for a less satisfying pathway through a novel, where the signposts to moral rights and wrongs are a little more ambiguous.

My challenge with Trollope is usually along the lines of 'what would I have done'. He describes dilemmas and motivations so precisely and with such understanding, even as the author he rarely seems to judge what was rightly or wrongly done by his characters. Whereas one is never left in any doubt with Dickens as to how one is supposed to respond, or how one should feel in every situation.

I think you're right, too, about Dicken's being more about 'images'. Kind of Hogarth like, in that respect.

This has been a lovely thread. It's really helped me to identify and appreciate what I love about both Dickens and Trollope.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Interesting to think about Dickens being Hogarthian. Although we think of him as a Victorian we forget sometimes that his early writings are, just, pre-Victorian. I wonder whether in some ways he can be seen as a hangover from the 'long' C18? Although he embraces and uses and vividly describes the new technology- the railway, the telegraph- it's often as something new, a subject for wonder and a catalyst for change. Whereas Trollope, the Post Office official, inventor (supposedly) of the pillar box, and man who travelled to Australia, and around the UK by rail a lo,t on official business, is very much more a mid-Victorian.

But I agree: this has been a lovely thread- thank you for starting it, Hilda of Whitby.

[ 02. August 2015, 15:00: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Anselmina writes:

quote:
My challenge with Trollope is usually along the lines of 'what would I have done'. He describes dilemmas and motivations so precisely and with such understanding, even as the author he rarely seems to judge what was rightly or wrongly done by his characters. Whereas one is never left in any doubt with Dickens as to how one is supposed to respond, or how one should feel in every situation.

Here I would differ. A Québécois friend who I introduced to Trollope said to me that he is kind to his characters, even those he feels are the worst and whom he clearly dislikes.

There can be little doubt that he has no time for Mr Slope (followers of Anglican contemporary clergy can sometimes identify trollopian characters with acquaintances in their own dioceses), and despairs of Lizzie Eustace.

Take Mrs Proudie as an example. He readily describes her limitations of vision, her prejudices, her cruelty, and her ambivalence, but his description of her last minutes centres on the how her talents were wasted and how her strength brought her no real happiness.

It may be a matter of taste in cultural matters (why would one prefer Madonna over Nina Hagen? or Dolly Parton over Tanita Tikaram?), but my preference is for Trollope's subtleties over Dickens' caricatures.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

But there's a sensuous vividness, a fantastical poetry about Dickens which you never find in Trollope. Think of the description of the fog that opens Bleak House: that's a lot more than scene setting, it's a proclamation.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Similarly, his lady characters are usually either perfect angels of Victorian femininity, targes, or fools. Rarely (ever?) a combination of qualities and weaknesses normally found in a real woman.

It's true that Dickens' good female characters are seldom up to much. That said, I think David Copperfield's view of Agnes is deliberately presented as being his subjective and partial portrait, and Esther Summerson works as a narrator and as a picture of someone whose upbringing has been oppressive, whether or not Dickens intended it as such.
But then, with the exception of Pip most of Dickens' young men are fairly characterless. I can't imagine David Copperfield writing a novel, and this despite the fact that he's evidently intended as a self-portrait.

On the other hand, his secondary characters have an air of being more true than life.

quote:
But for that reason, Dickens has powerful images of fear, hate, melodrama - primary colours, I suppose, which are memorable and entertaining! And because Dickens is so successful at appealing to the sentimental popular feelings, he is also more moving, I think.

It's tempting to say that Dickens is a modern mythology. Mr Micawber is the god of cheerful improvidence; Mrs Gamp the goddess of bad private nursing. Chancery is not a location in London but a department of the Underworld.

quote:
My challenge with Trollope is usually along the lines of 'what would I have done'. He describes dilemmas and motivations so precisely and with such understanding, even as the author he rarely seems to judge what was rightly or wrongly done by his characters.

I think Trollope is usually pretty clear about what he thinks the rights and wrongs are. What he seldom goes in for is self-righteousness about his characters.
I think his attitude is perhaps an exemplar of Anglicanism at its best: we should not judge others more harshly than we would wish to be judged.

[ 02. August 2015, 16:09: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

If you don’t like Dickens, there we go. I can’t be doing with Lawrence or the Brontes.

However, “monochromatic” isn’t quite right: his characters are described from the outside and we don’t share their inner life. That doesn’t mean they haven’t got any. I certainly wouldn’t call the characterisation monochromatic. Flat maybe, but in glaring, vivid colour.

The Victorian novelist I would contrast with Dickens as she does inner life and almost boundless sympathy would be George Eliot. And like Dickens, and unlike Trollope, she does not confine her major characters to the middle and upper class. (I haven't read all Trollope though.)

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

I think this thread has pointed out why I love Trollope and can't be doing with Dickens - the characters (for me) feel more real; and certainly more fully realised. I'd disagree that he was being kind to Mrs Proudie in her last minutes though. If anything, surely he's lamenting what more she could have done with her life than what she did?

There is, of course, the middle way between the two - from a man just a little older than Dickens but a writing contemporary. The morality and Hogarthian nature of Dickens (along with the best of his humour) and the characterisation of Trollope.

I refer of course to RS Surtees. Obviously it helps if you don't object to reading about a lot of foxhunting, but Mr Sponge's Sporting Tour, Handley Cross, Mr Facey Romford's Hounds, Ask Mama, Hillingdon Hall, Plain or Ringlets?, etc are up there with the best.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Betjemaniac
...if you don't object to reading about a lot of foxhunting...

This just reminded me of a scene I love in one of the Palliser novels. It is a foxhunting scene, and an "overweight novelist" has come down from London to join in. One of the other characters predicts that the novelist will tell them how many pages he wrote that morning before he left London.

I really like the way he poked fun at himself.

Moo

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I forget who it was (perhaps in the books thread) who recommended the Anthony Trollope biography by Victoria Glendinning. But my! What a lovely book! I am enjoying it immensely.v

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I forget who it was (perhaps in the books thread) who recommended the Anthony Trollope biography by Victoria Glendinning. But my! What a lovely book! I am enjoying it immensely.v

It was in fact Hilda of Whitby who mentioned the Glendinning bio in the OP of this very thread. I should check it out; I enjoyed her bio of Swift.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

For the Victorian reader, the other great novelist other than Dickens wasn't George Eliot or Trollope but someone Trollope himself greatly admired, Willliam Makepeace Thackeray.

He's rather a one work writer and that work is Vanity Fair.

If you like Trollope, you might like to give him a go.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

PS, I've heard it said that Thackeray is the one Victorian male novelists C20 feminists think is OKish about women.

The drippy woman in Vanity Fair is implicitly criticised for her sentimentality.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Certainly go for Vanity Fair - everyone should read that!- but don't overlook the others. The one that his contemporaries thought most highly of was, I believe Henry Esmond (?e), but I'd recommend Barry Lyndon . It's set in the late C18 and is a really good first person narrative by a quite appallingly selfish and unscrupulous character. It also contains one of the best literary descriptions of non-violent domestic abuse, from the point of view of the perpetrator, that I've ever read: I used to use it for teaching.

Oh, and on women, I'd put in a word for Wilkie Collins again. I don't know what feminists think of him but he writes some really strong independent women who I think are entirely credible.

[ 07. August 2015, 10:16: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Esmond was his histoical novel set in the late C17. I wasn't overwhelmed.

The other two are Pendennis and The Newcomes which I would like to re-read.

I saw the movie of Barry Lyndon when it first came out, but I understand the book - which I haven't read - is very different. I can remember a contemporary at college saying he didn't want to see a cartoon by Gainsborough.

(Code fix)

[ 07. August 2015, 16:50: Message edited by: Firenze ]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Oh, and on women, I'd put in a word for Wilkie Collins again. I don't know what feminists think of him but he writes some really strong independent women who I think are entirely credible.

I think you're thinking of Marian in "The Woman in White", in which case I'd agree with you.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

yes, you're right- she's the best of them. I think there's someone comparable in 'No Name' but it's a few years since I read it.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
The Victorian novelist I would contrast with Dickens as she does inner life and almost boundless sympathy would be George Eliot.

George Eliot does have almost boundless sympathy for the poor degenerates who don't live up to her wisdom and moral standards, it is true.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

The lack of development in Dickens minor characters is not IMO as said above, but because the stories are episodic and designed to be read aloud. They were publishes as series in newspapers and Dickens would perform readings.

I think people are over analysing here.

Novels written as a book can be more subtle in character development. But for sheer story telling, it is Dickens.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

I might have to revise whether Trollope sided with his characters on what they did, as right or wrong! Maybe I'm confusing his kindness or understanding of their weaknesses as non-judgementalism.

Obviously what I've said is just for myself and my own perception of these authors. I love these guys and could spend hours analyzing their work!

Ref: Wilkie Collins. Don't know what the feminist verdict might be. He does have some extraordinary female protagonist. But with Marion Harcombe what I'll remember is his opening introduction of her. Walter Hartright reflects on his first sight of her when he can only see her shape, something like; what a great figure she has, what great deportment etc, and then when she turns round and he sees she is 'dark' (as in swarthy/sallow) and has a little moustache he proclaims: 'the lady is ugly!'

It is plain to the reader from this point that Marion is never intended to be a romantic proposition. Whereas the fair, blonde Laura, who is, frankly, more of a cypher for female neediness and vulnerability is clearly the one he'll fall in love with. Plus ca change!

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

For professional reasons I have read an enormous quantity of lit crit about WinW recently. The latest theories revolve around the gradual throttling of the female narrative in the book; it is significant that Marian's lively and attractive journal entries vanish from the latter half of the book. And wow! Can Walter Hartright's actions be interpreted in a dark way!

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I've just started The Woman in White.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Sorry, should be Marion Halcombe, not Harcombe. And of course Walter is 'Hartright' - how could a hero be anything else!

Venbede, I hope you enjoy the novel. We did it for English O Level, and it really got me hook, line and sinker, into Victorian classics. I've ready it many times since. Interesting to know what you think of it.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Gripping. Two days and I'm already half way through.

Even without the thriller element, the characters strike me as far more engaging than Trollope's - sorry to knock a well loved author.

Even Laura is far less drippy than many a Victorian heroine.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

Ref: Wilkie Collins. Don't know what the feminist verdict might be. He does have some extraordinary female protagonist. But with Marion Harcombe what I'll remember is his opening introduction of her. Walter Hartright reflects on his first sight of her when he can only see her shape, something like; what a great figure she has, what great deportment etc, and then when she turns round and he sees she is 'dark' (as in swarthy/sallow) and has a little moustache he proclaims: 'the lady is ugly!'

I don't think that's fair. He certainly admires and respects Marion from the first conversation.

He just fancies Laura,

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

In all fairness, WinW was a slightly different genre than Trollope was working in. WinW was the first 'sensational' novel, specifically written to make the reader quake and feel suspense. Watch as you read how often the major characters feel emotion, or talk about their nerves, or quake or feel faint or whatever.

M.E. Braddon was the other major practitioner of the genre -- see her Lady Audley's Secret, which was modeled to a great extent upon WinW. At the time the reviewers complained bitterly of it, warning that all these racy novels would lower the moral tone of the nation. (And they were right -- just look at us now!)

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

What the book reminds me of is Ann Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho which is far more senstational in effect with the heroine's emotions centre stage, kept in the villain's castle. That is thrills for their own sake. WiW is describing characters and society far more seriously.

I'm getting the impression that what makes WiW so good is that is not just or even primarily a novel of mystery and suspense. The life and characters described (at greater length that necessary just to build tension) are just the sort of thing you'd get in Trollope.

The main examples of nerves in the novel I've noticed are the despicable Mr Fairlie's which are a selfish fraud.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

One does wonder about Mr. Frederick Fairlie. The bachelor dislike of children. The passive-aggressive domination of the servants, including Hartright. The relentless aestheticism. He was (in story time) a generation before Oscar Wilde. But he is a stereotypical repressed gay man.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

He's a negative gay stereotype.

I'm really suspicious of this word "repressed" as though if people had had sex they'd turn out ever such nice people. Sex can give people even more opportunities to be unkind to other people.

Is Marian a repressed lesbian?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

She is clearly a 'superfluous' woman, a big social problem of the day. There were tons of women who were not rich or pretty enough to attract a husband, yet of too high a class to actually work for a living. Nor were there any jobs for a respectable female, except for nursing or being a governess.
She is clearly attracted to Count Fosco, and is aware of it. And (have you read it before? Are you near the end?) there are clear indications that she is powerfully attracted to Walter. But since the latter half of the book is told from his point of view, and he is oblivious, you have to watch for it.

Posted by Firenze (# 619) on :

You get the impression though that by the end Laura is not long for this world, in which case Walter and Marion....except, of course, for Deceased Wife's Sister.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

No, it is clear from the way it is set up (they are half-sisters) that Marian can never marry Walter even if Laura should considerately kick the bucket.
Much has been made however of the rather interesting menage a trois that is ongoing in the latter bit of the book. The sisters live downstairs and do all the housework and cooking (or Marian does, Laura being an invalid) while Walter goes out and earns the daily bread. It sounds exactly like the song from Cabaret. Since Walter has full control of the narrative from beginning to end, we only see his behavior through his eyes. But if you step back, and look at it from another angle, some quite negative constructions could be put upon his actions.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I've finished the book. I can't see any negative constructions to be put on Walter. Without him, Laura would never re-gain her existence in society.

Either Marion or Walter has to stay at home with Laura, and it would be appropriate for Marion.

It is glaringly apparent to me that Laura is the love and motivation of Marion's life, which is why she refuses Walter's invitation to leave them.

She isn't silenced by Walter - she just isn't present at the relevant events. She is referred to in the last sentence of the book as the main inspiration for Walter, other than his love for Laura.

Posted by Clarence (# 9491) on :

quote:
I agree that Dickens is probably the better writer overall, but they're not really comparable. Dickens does proper melodrama with villains that are real proper villains; Trollope is almost devoid of melodrama, and seldom writes characters without some humanising feature.
Dickens' merits are not realist merits: he's half way to having characters that could be called Hypocrisy or False Humility.

Trollope's merits are gentle good humour, delightful little digs at society and some much more believable characters. I'd go with Barchester every time and loved both the books and the BBC dramatisation (Donald Pleasance as Mr Harding was perfect). Great Sunday afternoon reading/viewing...especially for anyone dealing with Anglican politics!

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I need to read all the Barchesters, but have got no further than The Warden.

As to WinW. reading all those litcrit articles was fascinating. (I printed out pdfs borrowed on Inter Library Loan, and they fill a four-inch binder.) Walter starts out as an impecunious drawing master. He ends as a married landowner and man of leisure -- an amazing leap, especially for the time. And how insecure he must feel, in an era when being born to it was important, when the taint of trade was so great.
All narratives are controlled by the narrator -- if I tell a story about me I am inevitably the protagonist. And thus Walter's narrative specifically justifies his ascent. His motives were utterly pure. Laura's first husband dies accidentally. He didn't have to off Count Fosco. Of course not: he is in charge of this story from beginning to end.
There's a nice little tip of the hat near the end to us, to warn us about all this. It is when Walter reveals (hundreds of pages in!) that all the names and events are falsified by him. This was not really necessary for us to learn -- it serves no story function. But it is a hint that the narrative is totally in Walter's hands and we see only what he wants us to see.
Compare to Marian's account. She is not writing a story. In fact she is present to us only in the form of her journal entries. These have a different goal. She is writing things down so that she doesn't forget them; so that she can lay events out and spot the pattern. She never has control of the narrative; even her journal entries are selected by Walter.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Just re-read The Way We Live Now- every bit as good as I remember it being, pulling no punches at the uselessness and parasitism of a particular section of the upper classes (which I think it is more about than the dishonesty of Melmotte, who is an old monster and a crook but at least an energetic one).
A few thoughts:
(i) It looks at first as if Trollope is indulging in some fairly stereotypical anti-semitic stereotyping, but this changes towards the end of the book, where the most generally decent character (IMO) is Mr Breghert*, an honest and reliable Jewish financier, and Melmotte turns out to be probably Irish-American.Did Trollope perhaps have second thoughts part way through writing? *Roger Carbury, who is supposed to be an upright hero, is rather a prig.
(ii) The theme of the old, country, hierarchical society coming into conflict with the new commercial urban world is present here as elsewhere in Trollope and, as elsewhere, although Trollope prefers the old ways, ultimately the new ways are going to win.
(iii) Why on earth are two characters falling over themselves (and falling out) about Hetta Carbury? She's just another one of Trollope's rather cardboard virtuous women- two-dimensional and dull. Paul Montague would have been much better off with Mrs Hurtle, the glamorous American with a slightly mysterious past. But then Trollope's unconventional women (Lizzie Eustace, Miss what's-her-name who marries Dr Thorne, in their different ways) tend to be mch more satisfying than his conventional ones.

[ 23. September 2015, 15:43: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Trollope's unconventional women (Lizzie Eustace, Miss what's-her-name who marries Dr Thorne, in their different ways) tend to be mch more satisfying than his conventional ones.

Yes, I agree. My impression is that Victorian novelists were constrained by their public's (or perhaps their publisher's?) expectations of literary heroines. Dickens is an obvious case in point - plenty of interesting women in his books, but the main heroines are completely boring and 2-dimensional.

The Way We Live Now is a fantastic book. I think it's probably Trollope's best, although I enjoy many of his novels. The Eustace Diamonds is my second-favourite.

I think it's significant that when the BBC serialised the political novels (many years ago now) the series was called "The Pallisers". Glencora and Plantagenet Palliser are actually minor characters in most of the political novels but they are easily the most interesting. Glencora is another of Trollope's minor, but fully realised, female characters. As a young women she falls for an unreliable but attractive scoundrel, but is eventually persuaded to do the sensible thing and contract an arranged marriage with Plantagenet. The way the couple negotiates their relationship in the series of books is fascinating. It's a shame the conventions of the time didn't allow him to make her a main character.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I too found Mrs. Hurtle far more interesting and attractive than poor Hetta Carbury. Whose only real strength seems to be in her steady rejection of her cousin Roger, in spite of her mother's outrageous pressure. It is a mystery to me why Mrs. Hurtle was so enamored of Paul in the first place. Sir Felix seems to have had a good deal of raffish charm (I bet he was great in the sack) but Paul is dim and unattractive.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Yes, you can see why Ruby Ruggles falls for Sir Felix,and there's a hint that he has a good deal of success picking up lower class girls. I think Mrs Hurtle perhaps sees possibilities in Paul and would like to bring them out. I suspect that she had a very strong sexuality, perhaps with a bit of a tste for being in charge(which would fit with the idea of taking Paul in hand, no fnarr-fnarr intended).

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I noticed that her 'unsuitability' for Paul seemed to revolve completely around her vigor in refusing to put up with the abuse of the never-seen Mr. Hurtle. That she should have the right to leave an abusive spouse seems to never have occurred to anyone; it was clearly her duty to stay put and suck it up, Laura Fairlie style.

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

Not forgetting that Mrs Hurtle had the grave misfortune to be (whisper it) American!

[Biased]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Yes, so why this fascination with Paul? He is not wealthy, like Mr. Melmotte. He is not titled, like Sir Felix. It seems to be wish-fulfillment -- Trollope wrote about the fascination of the ship-board romance, and he met many interesting females while traveling.

Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Just re-read The Way We Live Now

I've just finished the audio book read by Timonthy West. Its a marathon (30+ hours). He reads it excellently - I'm alwasy slightly in awe of actors who can create so many distinct characters male and female. His voice for Lord Nidderdale is my favourite - a gentle, lazy Scottish brogue.

One thing I've noticed more in the audiobooks is the nature of the serialisation. It is noticeable that Trollope does little recaps of character's actions so far at various points. I hadn't noticed this as much when reading his books.

quote:
(i) It looks at first as if Trollope is indulging in some fairly stereotypical anti-semitic stereotyping, but this changes towards the end of the book, where the most generally decent character (IMO) is Mr Breghert*, an honest and reliable Jewish financier, and Melmotte turns out to be probably Irish-American.Did Trollope perhaps have second thoughts part way through writing? *Roger Carbury, who is supposed to be an upright hero, is rather a prig.

I think that throughout the book Trollope and the read are half a step ahead of the characters in terms of knowledge and attitudes. So we are not told that Melmott is a crook outright until a chapter or so before all the characters start getting suspicious. I think the same applies to the attitudes. Trollope is stating but not necessarily endorsing the anti-semetic attitudes. He leads to the reader to the point that such attitudes are ridiculous.

One interesting point, WWLN was published in 1875 By which Disraeli a converted Jew had just become prime minster for the second time.

quote:

(iii) Why on earth are two characters falling over themselves (and falling out) about Hetta Carbury? She's just another one of Trollope's rather cardboard virtuous women- two-dimensional and dull. Paul Montague would have been much better off with Mrs Hurtle, the glamorous American with a slightly mysterious past. But then Trollope's unconventional women (Lizzie Eustace, Miss what's-her-name who marries Dr Thorne, in their different ways) tend to be mch more satisfying than his conventional ones.

Yes. My favourite Trollope character is Lady Glen who I adore! Closely followed by the wonderful, wonderful Madame Max. I love the fact that he allows (eventually!!) Phineas Finn to marry Madame Max rather than matching his hero with a perfect Victorian heroine.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Oh yes, of course the wonderful Madam Max! But perhaps she is a suitable match for Phineas Finn because he is a slightly louch outsider- a 'Mick on the make' in the words of (IIRC) the Irish historian Roy Foster.
I think you may be right about Trollope expressing his characters' views rather than his own- we do tend to forget that characters are not necessarily their creator. But I still get a bit of a feeling that about half-way through he had a look at his earlier instalments and thought that maybe he had over-egged that pudding a bit and should introduce a bit of balance.
TWWLN did indeed come out in Disraeli's second administration, although it's clear in the novel that the government at the time of the action is Liberal. Trollope was, I beleive, a Liberal himself. I wonder what he thought of Disraeli, as a man, a politician, and a novelist. I aam trying to remeember whether there are any characters in his work who are based on Disraeli, as Mr Gresham (is it?) is based on Gladstone.

Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on :

Isn't Mr Daubney (sp?) Disraeli?

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Badger Lady:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Just re-read The Way We Live Now
I've just finished the audio book read by Timonthy West. Its a marathon (30+ hours). He reads it excellently - I'm alwasy slightly in awe of actors who can create so many distinct characters male and female. His voice for Lord Nidderdale is my favourite - a gentle, lazy Scottish brogue.

One thing I've noticed more in the audiobooks is the nature of the serialisation. It is noticeable that Trollope does little recaps of character's actions so far at various points. I hadn't noticed this as much when reading his books.

quote:
(i) It looks at first as if Trollope is indulging in some fairly stereotypical anti-semitic stereotyping, but this changes towards the end of the book, where the most generally decent character (IMO) is Mr Breghert*, an honest and reliable Jewish financier, and Melmotte turns out to be probably Irish-American.Did Trollope perhaps have second thoughts part way through writing? *Roger Carbury, who is supposed to be an upright hero, is rather a prig.
I think that throughout the book Trollope and the read are half a step ahead of the characters in terms of knowledge and attitudes. So we are not told that Melmott is a crook outright until a chapter or so before all the characters start getting suspicious. I think the same applies to the attitudes. Trollope is stating but not necessarily endorsing the anti-semetic attitudes. He leads to the reader to the point that such attitudes are ridiculous.

One interesting point, WWLN was published in 1875 By which Disraeli a converted Jew had just become prime minster for the second time.

quote:

(iii) Why on earth are two characters falling over themselves (and falling out) about Hetta Carbury? She's just another one of Trollope's rather cardboard virtuous women- two-dimensional and dull. Paul Montague would have been much better off with Mrs Hurtle, the glamorous American with a slightly mysterious past. But then Trollope's unconventional women (Lizzie Eustace, Miss what's-her-name who marries Dr Thorne, in their different ways) tend to be mch more satisfying than his conventional ones.
Yes. My favourite Trollope character is Lady Glen who I adore! Closely followed by the wonderful, wonderful Madame Max. I love the fact that he allows (eventually!!) Phineas Finn to marry Madame Max rather than matching his hero with a perfect Victorian heroine.

although of course, as you note, it is eventually...

I've often wondered, and not read enough biographies of him to know the answer, if he had the whole Finn arc in his head before he wrote Phineas Redux, or whether the initial ending was indeed the end of Phineas Finn and the arc of Phineas Redux was a new idea? Because obviously first time around he does match him with a perfect Victorian heroine. I'm always actually quite sad about what happened to Phineas' first wife to be honest - it's a bit unnecessary (even if it is the way back into parliamentary life - I'm sure Trollope could have come up with something else). Finn isn't very nice to her for much of the first book, then marries her, then she's off the scene again.

There's something a bit Anthony Powell about that.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Badger Lady:
Isn't Mr Daubney (sp?) Disraeli?

Yes, of course he is! Tnanks.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0