fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2936 ]

[ SECRET POST #2936 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2936 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 066 secrets from Secret Submission Post #420.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - text secret ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm some 350 pages into E. Gaskell's 'North and South', and there are two things that bother me:

1) Why am I supposed to like John Thornton?? Am I supposed to like him? In the course of the novel he hasn't performed a single act of kindness that wasn't motivated by selfishness in some shape or form. He's certainly not a cliche "bad guy" figure, but he really hasn't done a single thing that would make me like him even a little, much less sympathize with Margaret's growing love for him.

2) The fact that the fandom is so absolutely concentrated on Margaret/Thornton. It's like the Higgins family or the clash of different mentalities that makes the novel so interesting never existed. This makes me worry that Gaskell ended up completely derailing her own work and simply discarding the "North vs. South" issue.

I mean, yeah, this probably has something to do with me missing the point of just about every single romance out there - as evidenced by the fact that I was genuinely surprised to find Margaret/Thornton shippers in the #NorthandSouth tag (as opposed to, IDK, clever meta on the social conflicts depicted in the novel). But still. How is the romance the most interesting part of this book?

I haven't actually read the book, but I'll tell you why I like John Thornton in the tv series: he's played by Richard Armitage. I'm shallow. He's pretty, but he's also a great actor so I get pulled in regardless of the dickishness.

...It isn't a great excuse, but hey.

Well, it's good you've found something to enjoy about him! Don't we all have our shallow pleasures?

It won't help me, though. I'm aro-ace, and good acting is always a great thing, but it certainly won't make me like the character himself. I'm just hoping that Gaskell will somehow manage to un-dick him in the last 200 pages *sighs*

Maybe it's possible? 200 pages isn't much to un-dick someone, but I imagine a decent writer could manage it. (Granted, this woman might not be a decent writer, but...I hope you enjoy what's left of the book anyway.)

Not everyone can be as easily swayed by an actor/actress as I can, apparently.

For what it's worth, so far I've really liked her writing, so I guess I'll just keep trusting her until it becomes obvious that she's failed :) It's true that many things could happen in 200 pages, and the anon below says that Thornton changes his views somewhat, so there's certainly hope.

Now I wish I had read the novel. I meant to, but it never happened.

I believe anon is right in that Thornton does undergo some change, but he's such a stubborn character that it takes a while. He never struck me as a terrible human being, but I can see why you might not call him likable either. (Again, for me what made him likable is mostly Richard's performance.)

They are also right about the film focusing more on the romance, so some of the obsession with the pairing is probably from people who only watched it and were into the chemistry between the actors.

I suspect it's the movie adaptation, which is a lot more romance-focused, where the book talks a great deal more about the factories, unions and conditions for workers. Gaskell spent time in both the north and south of England, and she clearly sympathized with the factory workers. However, she does touch upon the issues owners like Thornton were facing-- compete with the cheap cloth from India, or go out of business and THEN what will all the people of Milton do except starve?

Thornton is sympathetic in the sense that he's not quite as bloodthirsty as the other owners. He doesn't like the idea of unions, no, but neither is he entirely willing to bleed his workers dry for profit. Over the course of the novel, he changes his views somewhat as well. It's not so much that he's suddenly introduced to radical enlightened thinking but... Margaret builds on what's there and overcomes his natural stubbornness.

The Thornton/Margaret romance sort of symbolizes the combination of their two mindsets. The struggles of the Higgins family feels more poignant, I agree. Gaskell worked in a LOT of social commentary into the novel, more so than many writers of her time. But I think the Thornton/Margaret romance gives it a framework, it's a symbol of how different ideologies when it comes to business and people fit together.

No, that's exactly the way I see it, as well! The romance, I mean. I'm just worried that in the remaining 200+ pages it'll become less about their mindsets and them as people and more about -true love-. I suppose I've been traumatized by my experience of reading Ouida's love stories.

It is true that Thornton has his struggles and that the Union is also really fucked up sometimes, and I'm very glad Gaskell wrote about that. And perhaps the problem is that I can't quite get rid of my 21st-century goggles and see Thornton as the decent man he is. But I can't help wishing there were something substantial I can point to and say "yes, this makes him a likeable character".

It is a shame about the adaptation. But at the same time I'm relieved to hear that, because it means that the fandom's obsession with the pairing probably isn't due to the fact that the last third of the book is suddenly all about romance and nothing else :)

It's been a while since I read the book and unfortunately I can't remember all the details. Also, I saw the film adaptation first so that influences my take on Thornton but I don't recall him ending up a dick. Just my take on it of course, but I recall his redeeming points to be:

* a sense of fair play, by the standards of the time.
* his love for his mother and even his silly sister. He's fully cognizant of the sacrifices she made for him and it's clear he'd spend his last penny on her comfort rather than his own.
* his desire to be more than just a rich industrialist. The whole reason for him seeing Mr. Hale as a tutor is seen as an indulgence by his mother, but he loves learning for learning's sake and cares enough to pursue it even when he doesn't need to and it takes precious time away from his business.
* out of all the people in the story (even his own family!) he's the only one who makes no bones about Mr. Hale's decision to give up his living because it's a decision of conscience. In every other way, that decision is a disaster. It takes everything away from himself and his family, but as wishy washy as Mr. Hale seems at times, he's still a man of conscience. He cannot bring himself to take the Church's money and be a spiritual leader when he doesn't feel like he can do the job justice and he'd rather be poor and live in an industrial town like Milton even if it means leaving an idyllic life behind him and even when it earns him the exasperation of his loved ones. Most other people see him as well meaning but foolish-- only Thornton sees him as a good man worthy of respect.
* his concern for Margaret's reputation even though he doesn't particularly like her or agree with her opinions. He admires her strength of character, also.

(possibly mild spoilers depending on how far along you are?)

Then there's the gradual changes he makes. You notice that the more he gets to know Higgins, the more he's willing to see that point of view. Not even Margaret is entirely successful in changing his mind until he meets and talks to Higgins one on one. His isolation from his workers allowed him a certain degree of hard heartedness, but he can't keep that up once he's spent more time with them. I see a slow, but well defined character arc for him, and it's an improvement.

It's still relative, I think. Thornton doesn't look particularly enlightened to modern eyes, but very little about the book does because it's so rooted in that time and place.

Hit 'post comment' too soon. Also: Richard Armitage. He and the actress have a smoking chemistry onscreen.

It's been years since I read N&S now, and I don't have access to my notes; they're at my office. I remember thinking that Thornton was supposed to represent the uppercrust at its best--that 17th and 18th century European idea that the upper class is best suited to lead and can, in a paternal role, provide leadership and guidance and caretaking for the lower classes. This is usually applied to the aristocracy and Thornton is nouveau riche, but I think we're supposed to see him through that lens. Thornton is hard and exacting and not what I would call a fun person, but I think the narrative presents him as a Good Man. I think he tempers Margaret's idealism and naivete and she softens him.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2936 ]

Re: Fandom Annoyances

Re: Fandom Annoyances

Re: Fandom Annoyances

Re: Fandom Annoyances

Re: Fandom Annoyances

Re: Fandom Annoyances

Re: Fandom Annoyances

Re: Fandom Annoyances

Re: Fandom Annoyances

Re: Fandom Annoyances

Re: Fandom Annoyances