Lu
Administrator
Posts: 5,469
|
Post by Lu on Jan 24, 2011 13:19:12 GMT -5
[Ch 16-22] Question #3. I think that thought process shows that Helen doesn't know exactly what to think of Mr Huntingdon, she says I have thought deeply on my aunt's advice, and I see clearly the fooly of throwing myself away on one that is unworthy all the love I have to give.. it is not he that I love; it is a creature of my own imagination And then she adds that she's doesn't think her opinion of him is wrong...I was really confused ;D [Ch 16-22] Question #6. I think Helen's uncle is a weird character, I didn't expect him to accept her niece's engagement so easily, I thought he agreed with his wife's opinion of Mr Huntingdon and would have done something to persuade her niece not to accept him. That part made me think about what Helen's aunt tells her in chapter 16 and I began to wonder, as Helen herself, if she has "been troubled in that way" and has talked from first hand experience.
|
|
Kristie
Novel turned into BBC miniseries
"If a book is well written, I always find it too short."
Posts: 7,214
|
Post by Kristie on Jan 25, 2011 10:59:08 GMT -5
This second section of the book is sooo interesting!! It’s during this section that we finally learn about Helen’s past. For the first 14-ish chapters we’re left completely wondering what happened in her past that led her to bring her small son and move into Wildfell Hall. The way that Helen behaves in relation to little Arthur leads us to believe that something happened in her past, probably with Arthur’s father (Mr. Arthur Huntingdon), that makes her want to protect him and not let him even have the chance to learn how to become another version of his father. But even within this grouping of chapters, some of my questions have been left quite unresolved. Such as: What happened between Helen and Mr. H to make her be a Mrs. Graham living in Wildfell Hall? Did he actually die? Did they divorce (heaven forbid for someone as pious as Helen)? Did she actually run away from him and “kidnap” little Arthur? This last possibility makes a little sense–Mrs. Graham could be a made up name and her reasoning for titling her paintings with different geographic locations could all indicate that she is trying to hide from Mr. H. But one of the greatest questions of all (for me at least) is, what does Mr. Lawrence have to do with any of this? Is he perhaps privvy to Helen’s schemes and helping her out?
One thing that I realized especially in this section is Helen’s regard towards Mr. H. Very close to the end of this section is when Helen is finally getting fed up with him, but before that I noticed a trend. Helen would start a diary entry being very mad at something Mr. H did, but by the end of the entry, she would’ve forgiven him because he promised to not do such things again. Now, this wouldn’t be bad if she didn’t always lament about how he can never be in earnest or speak seriously on any subjects. Wouldn’t you think that a person who knows someone else never is serious about what they say would know that they may not be truthful in their promises to stop doing “bad” things?? I would think Helen would’ve caught on to this. But she must have been completely blinded by love. And her thoughts that she could change Mr. H.
Which leads me to another point: marrying people that have faults when you think you can change them doesn’t always work! I know this from personal experience. My oldest aunt married her husband probably a little under 30 years ago. He’d been married before and surely had his faults (controlling/domineering is putting it lightly). But she was young, as far as her experience with men goes (she was in her later 20s), and she thought she could change him. But she couldn’t. And, while they’re not divorced or separated–she’s too “Christian” to give up on him (essentially her own words)–he lives in California and she lives in Ohio (that’s about 2000 miles). This has been the situation for about 6-7 years. So, thinking you can change someone only works if they’re somewhat willing to change.
~*~JANE EYRE & WUTHERING HEIGHTS SPOILERS~*~ And one last thing that I want to talk about is that I’m really liking Mr. H as a villain. Let me explain…I read a lot of Jane Austen–or reread, rather. I feel her villains are often very similar to each other. Now, I know the Bronte sisters are three different authors, and therefore their villains will be different. But I feel their stories are similar in a very general sense–with a woman wronged by the villain (that’s why he’s a villain!) But their villains are so different. Mr. Rochester (Jane Eyre) isn’t known to be bad until towards the ending, while Heathcliff (Wuthering Heights) is essentially bad right off. But Mr. H is in between. He’s not bad right off, at least not the way Helen sees him. But he’s certainly known to be bad before the ending. I just like that he’s different Obviously I don’t care for his character. ~*~END SPOILERS~*~
I can’t wait to keep reading to find out the answers to my earlier questions!!
|
|
Kristie
Novel turned into BBC miniseries
"If a book is well written, I always find it too short."
Posts: 7,214
|
Post by Kristie on Jan 25, 2011 11:07:52 GMT -5
[Ch 16 - 22]Question #2. I don't think Bronte supports physiognomy but I don't have the impression she openly criticize it eiher. It's just that I don't consider Helen as a good example of physiognomist, in this part of the novel at least. She falls in love with Mr Huntingdon and she's persuaded she'll be able to reform him, a thing that doesn't seem possible at that point. She doesn't like Mr Boarham and Mr Grimsby, but we see them only from her point of view and we can't be sure she's right. I agree that Bronte doesn't seem to support physiognomy, but she doesn't exactly critique it either. Helen thinks she is a great physiognomist, but it turns out she pretty much sucks at reading people's characters from their appearances. Well, maybe it was only so in the case of Mr. H because she was slightly blinded by love in that case. As she wasn't exactly attached to Mr. H when the original mention of physiognomy occurred, I had the feeling that Helen had greatly misread someone in her past, which led her into "hiding" as that's essentially the case in her tenancy of Wildfell Hall. Especially whoever was little Arthur's father (which turns out to be Mr. H ).
|
|
Kristie
Novel turned into BBC miniseries
"If a book is well written, I always find it too short."
Posts: 7,214
|
Post by Kristie on Jan 25, 2011 11:16:55 GMT -5
[Ch 16-22] Question #3. I think that thought process shows that Helen doesn't know exactly what to think of Mr Huntingdon, she says I have thought deeply on my aunt's advice, and I see clearly the fooly of throwing myself away on one that is unworthy all the love I have to give.. it is not he that I love; it is a creature of my own imagination And then she adds that she's doesn't think her opinion of him is wrong...I was really confused ;D I was also confused! First she said she wouldn't marry him until she knew if he was a good or bad man. Then she's "certain" he isn't. And finally she says that it'd essentially be an adventure to bring him back to the good side if he turns out to be bad, so she'll just marry him anyway...A weird line of thought and crazy rationalizing.[Ch 16-22] Question #6. I think Helen's uncle is a weird character, I didn't expect him to accept her niece's engagement so easily, I thought he agreed with his wife's opinion of Mr Huntingdon and would have done something to persuade her niece not to accept him. That part made me think about what Helen's aunt tells her in chapter 16 and I began to wonder, as Helen herself, if she has "been troubled in that way" and has talked from first hand experience. I agree. I find the uncle to be quite stupid in regards to Helen's marriage.
And it's great that you thought that perhaps the uncle was a Mr. H and the aunt was a Helen. I hadn't even thought that that might be what really happened! That really makes sense. Especially considering the fact that the uncle knows much of Mr. H's father's land has been squandered away--wouldn't normal people take that as a bad sign.
|
|
Lu
Administrator
Posts: 5,469
|
Post by Lu on Jan 26, 2011 3:25:09 GMT -5
I'm sorry, Kristie. I haven't edited your post...I'm not use to have a "modify" button near the "quote" one, I'm SORRY and it won't happen again! This second section of the book is sooo interesting!! It’s during this section that we finally learn about Helen’s past. For the first 14-ish chapters we’re left completely wondering what happened in her past that led her to bring her small son and move into Wildfell Hall. The way that Helen behaves in relation to little Arthur leads us to believe that something happened in her past, probably with Arthur’s father (Mr. Arthur Huntingdon), that makes her want to protect him and not let him even have the chance to learn how to become another version of his father. But even within this grouping of chapters, some of my questions have been left quite unresolved. Such as: What happened between Helen and Mr. H to make her be a Mrs. Graham living in Wildfell Hall? Did he actually die? Did they divorce (heaven forbid for someone as pious as Helen)? Did she actually run away from him and “kidnap” little Arthur? This last possibility makes a little sense–Mrs. Graham could be a made up name and her reasoning for titling her paintings with different geographic locations could all indicate that she is trying to hide from Mr. H. But one of the greatest questions of all (for me at least) is, what does Mr. Lawrence have to do with any of this? Is he perhaps privvy to Helen’s schemes and helping her out? I have the same questions. I don't think they're divorced either but the possibility of Helen running away with little Arthur makes sense, expecially if Mr Huntingdon has threatened the child in some (although that hasn't happened yet, he doesn' even care much for his son). I'm also waiting for the appearance of Mr Lawrence, I have this idea that he knew Helen before she moves to Wildfell Hall. i'm SO curious!! I shouldn't have start such an interesting book 2 weeks before an importan uni exam! ;D [Ch 16-22] Question #6. I think Helen's uncle is a weird character, I didn't expect him to accept her niece's engagement so easily, I thought he agreed with his wife's opinion of Mr Huntingdon and would have done something to persuade her niece not to accept him. That part made me think about what Helen's aunt tells her in chapter 16 and I began to wonder, as Helen herself, if she has "been troubled in that way" and has talked from first hand experience. I agree. I find the uncle to be quite stupid in regards to Helen's marriage.
And it's great that you thought that perhaps the uncle was a Mr. H and the aunt was a Helen. I hadn't even thought that that might be what really happened! That really makes sense. Especially considering the fact that the uncle knows much of Mr. H's father's land has been squandered away--wouldn't normal people take that as a bad sign. I'm not sure about that but Helen's uncle behaviour is very weird. I've got another idea but that's in the 3 section so I'll wait to post it.
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on Jan 26, 2011 9:04:49 GMT -5
I was away all weekend so I'm a little behind in the discussion but it was great to read what you guys have posted so far. I like Kristie's comparison with Jane Austen's novels because that's something that jumped at me too: even though this book was written shortly after Austen's novels were published, there is such a huge difference in style and matter! Brontë's characters are much more passionate - going back to the first section, I think that would explain the fight between Mr. Markham and Mr. Lawrence. You would never see Mr. Darcy or Mr. Knightley lose it that way! No matter what happens (such as when Darcy meets Wickham in Meryton), they never lose control of their emotions - not so with Brontë's characters!
And I agree, I also really like how Mr. Huntingdon is portrayed as the villain, I think he has more substance than other 19th century villains. Again, Brontë is taking it one step further than Austen by having her heroine actually marry the bad guy (can you imagine Elizabeth Bennet marrying Wickham?!), even though it's clearly against her better judgement. But it goes back to how passionate her characters are - Helen knows about Mr. Huntingdon's faults, and despite what she'd said before about never being able to marry a man she had no esteem for, she's so attracted to him that it overrules everything. This makes her much less of a role model for young ladies of the time, for sure, but somehow it makes her feel more human. If I'm being totally honest, I think I've very often felt like Helen and ended up doing the wrong thing by letting my emotions get the best of me...
I can't wait to read on and find some answers to our questions, for I too want to know what happened to turn Mrs. Huntingdon into Mrs. Graham!
|
|
Kristie
Novel turned into BBC miniseries
"If a book is well written, I always find it too short."
Posts: 7,214
|
Post by Kristie on Jan 26, 2011 16:51:02 GMT -5
I was away all weekend so I'm a little behind in the discussion but it was great to read what you guys have posted so far. I like Kristie's comparison with Jane Austen's novels because that's something that jumped at me too: even though this book was written shortly after Austen's novels were published, there is such a huge difference in style and matter! Brontë's characters are much more passionate - going back to the first section, I think that would explain the fight between Mr. Markham and Mr. Lawrence. You would never see Mr. Darcy or Mr. Knightley lose it that way! No matter what happens (such as when Darcy meets Wickham in Meryton), they never lose control of their emotions - not so with Brontë's characters! It's interesting that you bring up how the good guys and bad guys actually seem to fight in this novel, but how in Austen's novels they manage to reserve their passionate feelings. I wonder if this was simply a difference of the 30-ish years between the publishing of Austen and the Bronte sisters. Or is it left up to the authors themselves? It's easy to see that Austen wrote a lot based upon what she herself had observed in real life. So maybe the Brontes observed more or just had a bigger imagination? Regardless, I love both Austen and the Brontes for how they write And I agree, I also really like how Mr. Huntingdon is portrayed as the villain, I think he has more substance than other 19th century villains. Again, Brontë is taking it one step further than Austen by having her heroine actually marry the bad guy (can you imagine Elizabeth Bennet marrying Wickham?!), even though it's clearly against her better judgement. But it goes back to how passionate her characters are - Helen knows about Mr. Huntingdon's faults, and despite what she'd said before about never being able to marry a man she had no esteem for, she's so attracted to him that it overrules everything. This makes her much less of a role model for young ladies of the time, for sure, but somehow it makes her feel more human. If I'm being totally honest, I think I've very often felt like Helen and ended up doing the wrong thing by letting my emotions get the best of me... And I have to agree with you that especially in this novel, with the heroine actually marrying]/b] the villain, it makes the story much more interesting. This is also a way to point out that heroines aren't always perfect
|
|
Isa
Administrator
Posts: 6,995
|
Post by Isa on Jan 27, 2011 7:24:42 GMT -5
I agree, Austen and the Brontë sisters have very different styles, and yet I enjoy them both. But I really don't know enough about the Brontës (other than the fact that they disliked Austen) to figure out where the change in style and subject matter came from. Perhaps I should join the Brontë literary society to find out more? ;D Another thing that surprises me is that I've always thought of Anne as the "less talented sister" because we don't hear as much about her. Sure, she didn't that one big novel like Emily did with "Wuthering Heights" and Charlotte with "Jane Eyre", but this is my second time reading one of Anne's novels (the other one was "Agnes Grey") and I think she's a great writer!
|
|
|
Kristie
Novel turned into BBC miniseries
"If a book is well written, I always find it too short."
Posts: 7,214
|
Post by Kristie on Jan 31, 2011 11:00:32 GMT -5
I totally thought I was going to be the last of the three of us to post about this third section of the book because I was on a weekend trip and sick when the date for posting about it was up Guess not haha
This third section is, I think, my favorite of the whole book so far. It’s just really interesting because there is a lot going on and we finally get some answers to some questions.
To begin with, we finally figure out what exactly it is that Mr. Huntingdon did to tick off Helen: he had an affair with Annabella (Lady Lowborough). But I thought it was interesting that this wasn’t the straw that broke the camel’s back. But, then again, with the time-period the book I can understand why it is that Helen didn’t leave as soon as she found out about the affair. Helen stuck it out for about two years, living at home with her “husband”–I’m sure if they had Facebook, their relationship status would’ve been “separated” or “in an open relationship” Anyways…I give Helen a lot of credit for sticking it out. It must be hell to live alongside a person whom you hate. But, as I don’t have children of my own, I don’t think that I could empathize with her. I won’t know until I have children just what I’d go through for them. (Although I know I would go through a lot for my husband, sisters, and other close family/friends.) But what made Helen decide to finally leave Mr. Huntingdon was that little Arthur, at the tender age of four, was already mimicking his father I cannot imagine a four-year-old behaving the way Helen described it. (I have to admit that the first thing I thought of in regards to a tipsy tot was Stewie from Family Guy, an American cartoon.) But that would definitely scare me into wanting to leave!
But then something pretty unexpected happened, and right at the end of our section! Mr. H found out that Helen was planning to run away and confiscated pretty much anything of hers with value so she couldn’t get money. So we’re left with a cliff hanger before the next section, leaving us wanting to know how she ends up leaving him if he did this. I mean, maybe he does end up dying, although the fact that Helen acts as a fugitive makes it appear he’s alive and well. But, at least now we know at least one of the bad things Mr. H did.
One thing that I noticed about the men in this section is that they tend to know when they are behaving like imbeciles. Mr. H, for example, was misbehaving in order to gain attention. Well, at least from Helen’s biased viewpoint And Hattersley basically told Helen that he couldn’t be bothered to think about what he does. He wants Millicent to be his moral compass–to tell him when he does wrong–so that he doesn’t have to be bothered to think. Hattersley just seems lazy when I tells Helen this. And Mr. H appears needy. But I think that these are weird behavior patterns to gain what they want. If they know that they’re not doing good/right things, why bother doing them at all? Mr. H should remember that he’d be paid attention for good and not just bad–Helen always doted on him when he did right. But I’m pretty glad that I personally don’t know anyone who acts like this…at least not all the time
So, the questions I still need answered are these: How is Mr. Lawrence involved in Helen’s plight? How did Helen finally run away? and Does Mr. H actually track them down (if alive, which I think he is) before the book ends?
|
|
Lu
Administrator
Posts: 5,469
|
Post by Lu on Jan 31, 2011 13:14:15 GMT -5
I finished reading this part last night, I don't read much during the day lately. I really liked this third part too. It's very interesting, althought there's no answer regarding Mr Lawrence. I agree it must be hell to Helen, living with an husband she hates. Perhaps was quite normal for an husband at that time, but I hate that Mr Huntingdon has had an affair and he's the one who doesn't want to live separated from Helen, I mean, Lady and Lord Lowborough do live separated after he's found out about the affair. I've had the impression that (most of) the women are stronger than the men. I also found interesting the similarities between Lord Lowborough and Helen's situations, and the huge differences between the way they can act. Reading this part, I almost forgot about the previous one, to me it sounds almost like another novel. Suddenly, when Helen describes the time she spends with Millicent and the children, Millicent reminded me of Mary (Eliza's sister), and I really don't why... maybe because she trusts both of them with her son. The ending of part 3 was terrible for Helen, I didn't expect Mr Huntingdon would have found out about her plan and I have no idea how Helen will manage to get out of there. I can't wait to read what happens next!
|
|
Kristie
Novel turned into BBC miniseries
"If a book is well written, I always find it too short."
Posts: 7,214
|
Post by Kristie on Feb 1, 2011 9:37:19 GMT -5
I also thought about Helen and Lord Lowborough. The differences in the way they can act are definitely huge. I feel so bad for Helen because she doesn't really have any rights where her son is concerned. At least there are no Lowborough children to confuse that situation.
|
|
Lu
Administrator
Posts: 5,469
|
Post by Lu on Feb 4, 2011 7:52:39 GMT -5
I finished reading yesterday. I really enjoyed this novel. My edition of Agnes Grey (Dover Thrift Editions) has an Introductory Note written by Charlotte Bronte, called "Biographical Notice of Ellis and Acton Bell" which was originally published in 1850 as a preface to a revised edition of Wuthering Heights and then as a preface to a combined edition of Wuthering Heights and Agnes Grey. In this introduction, Charlotte Bronte writes about The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, since it's an interesting passage I thought I'd share it: The Tenant of Wildfell Hall, by Acton bell, had likewise an unfavourable reception. At this I cannot wonder. The choice of the subject was an entire mistake. Nothing less congruous with the writer's nature could be conceived. The motives which dictated this choice were pure, but, I think, slightly morbid. She had, in the course of her life been called on to contemplate, near at hand, and for a long time, the terrible effects of talents misused and faculties abused; hers was naturally a sensitive, reserved, and dejected nature; what she saw sank very deeply into her mind; it did her harm. She brooded over it till she believed it to be a duty to reproduce every detail (of course with fictitious characters, incidents, and situations) as a warning to others. She hated her work, but would pursue it. When reasoned with on the subject, she regarded such reasoning as a temptation to self-indulgence. She must be honest; she must not varnish, soften, or conceal. This well-meant resolution brought on her miscontruction, and some abuse which she bore, as it was her custom, to bear whatever was unpleasant, with mild, steady patience. She was a very sincere and practical Christian, but the tinge of religious melancholy communicated a sad shade to her brief, blameless life. In the same notice, Charlotte Bronte also talks of Wuthering Heights, writing that it was misunderstood and critics failed to do it justice. I can see The Tenant of Wildfell Hall deals with themes which were pretty scandalous at the time it was published, but I wouldn't think Wuthering Heights less "scandalous" and I don't understand Charlotte Bronte's opinion. I'm only a 20th (/21st) Century reader...
|
|
Kristie
Novel turned into BBC miniseries
"If a book is well written, I always find it too short."
Posts: 7,214
|
Post by Kristie on Feb 4, 2011 23:15:30 GMT -5
Just finished this about an hour ago.
Liked the novel as a whole, but I found this ending bit a tad lacking. After we find out that Helen ran away and that Mr. Lawrence is her brother, my questions were pretty much answered. Yes, there were the bits about Helen going back to Arthur's sick bed and the marriage that Gilbert thought was Helen's at the very end, which turned out to be Mr. Lawrence's which drew back my attention a little. But I think there was some slow bits at the end--not a good place to put boring parts One thing I didn't like about the ending was Gilbert's wrapping-up the fates of other characters long before the end of the book. This ruined the flow of the story, I thought.
I also realized during this last bit that I think I've never read a story from the male perspective that is focused so much on feelings of love. I don't think I've really ever read much from this time period that are narrated by men anyways--Jane Austen definitely didn't have men narrating her novels. But I wondered, Was it hard for Bronte to write from a man's point of view? I think it would be hard for me. Maybe it'd be easier if I'd had brothers. (Are there brothers in the Bronte clan?) But especially the fact that love is viewed differently from men and women, generally speaking. So was this a good representation of how men would have dealt with their feelings of love? Would they write about them to a friend in letters or in a diary?
|
|
Lu
Administrator
Posts: 5,469
|
Post by Lu on Feb 5, 2011 13:22:19 GMT -5
I also realized during this last bit that I think I've never read a story from the male perspective that is focused so much on feelings of love. I don't think I've really ever read much from this time period that are narrated by men anyways--Jane Austen definitely didn't have men narrating her novels. But I wondered, Was it hard for Bronte to write from a man's point of view? I think it would be hard for me. Maybe it'd be easier if I'd had brothers. (Are there brothers in the Bronte clan?) But especially the fact that love is viewed differently from men and women, generally speaking. So was this a good representation of how men would have dealt with their feelings of love? Would they write about them to a friend in letters or in a diary? I know what you mean, Kristie. There was a brother in the Bronte clan, but I don't know much about him. I realized about that male's perspective on love almost at the end of the novel, when Gilbert travels to see Helen, and I thought about Jane Austen's novels as well. I liked the part narrated by Helen better. I also don't understand well the change in Gilbert's character, perhaps it was the reading of Helen's diary. I can see why Helen thinks he's become indifferent. I'm happy that Mr Lawrence and Esther get married at the end. I thought about Mrs Maxwell's advices about marriage, earlier in the novel, perhaps they came from the experience of Helen's mother, after all her husband was an alcoholic.
|
|