New Year, New Fallen Woman: Elizabeth Gaskell's Ruth Readalong

@LiesDoNotBecomeUs , I am so sorry for your loss as well 💐

I agree with everyone else's comments. Bellingham just gets worse and worse! The irony of him saying to Ruth, 'you really should learn to have a little sympathy' !!!

I find myself wishing Ruth would be less self-sacrificing and saint-like, but these qualities have been ingrained in her I guess.

I like the idea that this novel contains so much 'language of the flowers'.
My mother used to have (and may still have) an old book with a title like this and it contains flower names and their meanings when included in a bouquet. It seems that you really could send a message that way in the 19C.

I agree all seemed very sad. Not least because we are reminded again (a few times) how bloody young Ruth is. And how kind she is (eg going to kiss the baby).

In particular, I thought the scene in the woods very 'telling' because Ruth has little value in her own beauty but it is the ONLY thing Bellingham values in that scene. And, of course, all he cares about is how her sad mood impacts him. And, of course, all she cares about is the same thing and resolves to be cheerier... for HIM!

However, in need of a good sign, I remember my Gran used to say speedwell brought luck - so maybe the fact that this is the flower they saw in the woods is a ray of hope?

So sad that Ruth feels that she is judged by both young and old when really I think she is misinterpreting the older man's expression. Another way of showing us how her self-esteem is being eroded.

@BishyBarnyBee I couldn't agree more with you.

Ruth is going through some major trials and tribulations but there is a silver lining.

Thank you Bishy. An excellent summary as always.

I felt sorry for Ruth as she begins to realise the implications of her association with Mr. B. The incident with the little boy was awful. Also, the cheek of Mr. B to chastise Ruth for not being a joyful companion when he was the one who took her to this secluded place is too much!

Thank-you Bishy and @FuzzyCaoraDhubh - it sounds safe to continue.

We are all leaning together here but it has been a very sad time.

(My sister always reads the ends of novels before beginning them - just in case they end badly.)

I'm very sorry to hear of your loss @LiesDoNotBecomeUs My condolences to you 💐

I got caught up in the story and have been reading at night before bed, so I'm ahead in the book. I can't say much obviously, but recommend* *that you hang in there with it.

Good point about narrators in the work of female authors being just as complicated and interesting as those in the novels of men!

I'm struggling a little with the content of Ruth as bereavement has struck here over Christmas and I'm in need of positive fiction. The writing does have me hooked though and the plot keeps offering hope.

Well said, and I very much agree that narrators are rhetorical constructs, which is why I spoke of function and devices. The image I had in my head was of the author turning her face to the reader (or screen as some here are suggesting) for just a second, almost but not quite adopting a persona - so more of a device than a fully fledged character. And when talking about authenticating devices I was very much thinking of male writers like Daniel Defoe wg Robinson Crusoe.

Thank you for all your comments on chapter five! I went back to look for the mysterious 'I'. I think I overlooked that passage due to the shocking behaviour of Mr. B having guests removed from their rooms for his benefit. Awful man.

Ha, @BishyBarnyBee , great minds and all that! 😂

I love the Fleabag comparison; that's really apt.

@ShabanahFazal , I also like your ideas about why the 1st-person sometimes appears in the novel: to create a bond with readers, and to make the story seem more authentic.

And I agree that the narrator does seem plausibly like Gaskell's authorial voice. I'm just committed to the author/narrator distinction, because I think narrators in literature are always a rhetorical construct, regardless of how closely they seem to mirror the author.

There's also an old-fashioned tendency in literary criticism to assume that male authors play around with the 'I', but women authors are earnest and sincere and so when they say 'I', we should take it literally. (I know you weren't implying this of course!) It's a pet peeve of mine. Most critics are less sexist now, but I still come across this assumption sometimes when reading about early modern women writers, and it never fails to make me cross. First-person narrators in the work of female authors can be just as complicated as first-person narrators in the work of male authors. OK rant over!! 😂

I was mystified by that 'I' as well! But my Penguin edition (edited by Angus Easson) has a note:

'Gaskell was familiar with the area around Snowdonia and the reference below (p. 55) to "I have seen - but I shall see no more", oddly personal, is a possible memory of a visit in July 1845 to Ffestiniog and Portmadoc, during which her only son, Willie, died of scarlet fever.'

So maybe it's a reference to her own personal grief which she has let intrude into her story.

About Ruth's name (yeah, I'm still thinking about that!), I also remembered that one of the most famous characteristics of the Biblical Ruth is that she's an orphan. And so is Gaskell's Ruth! And there's a lot in the Bible about the importance of looking after widows and orphans. That fits with one theme of the novel: some characters offer help and kindness to the orphaned Ruth, while others are ready to exploit her.

It's ironic, I suppose, that Mrs Mason, herself a widow, is so bad at extending charity and tolerance to Ruth.

Me too! I’m also trying to work out exactly what the function is of this unusual use of the first person in an otherwise classic third person narrative. I’ve read much further on because it’s such a page turner and she uses this voice on a number of isolated occasions. I wondered at first if it would turn out to be a character who’s involved in the story, but it hasn’t.

Mostly the perspective is the usual Victorian omniscient one, where the author has a god-like view of everything and what’s inside all the characters’ minds, and the I voice that pops up every now and again still seems to be that of Gaskell the author. So I think she’s probably doing it at times to speak to the (most likely female) readers, and establish a closer bond with them because she knows she’s telling a controversial story. I think she wants them to trust her enough to be drawn into greater sympathy with Ruth than they would otherwise, and sometimes does directly comment in compassionate tone.

However, it could also be a way of checking herself in case she comes across as too sympathetic to Ruth. I have a feeling it might be a device to make the story seem more authentic, as if told by someone who witnessed it all and knew it to be true, because other 18th and 19thc novels would use devices like that (or discoveries of diaries/letters etc) to make out of the ordinary, outrageous or sensational events (especially if they involved vice of any kind) seem like true stories. The idea was to stress to the reader that the author wasn’t making it up themselves or approving of the characters’ actions, but just relating them as they happened - all to avoid the charge of corrupting the minds of readers, especially females with their habit of reading ‘silly novels’.

Just some musings of mine! I’d be interested to hear other people’s ideas for why GE uses the occasional I.

That’s a good idea, which seems obvious now you mention it - that Bellingham’s entitled removal of the other guests is a warning of what he’ll do to Ruth.

Another good chapter.

Partly because the 'holiday' in Wales reminds me of many a family holiday in Wales, Scotland and the Lakes - a bit damp but beautiful.

That aside, Mr B having that couple kicked out of the house so he could have a room - hmph. Only bothered about himself, as usual. Plus, I wonder if it mirrors how Ruth may be set aside later, for his comfort or convenience?

What an unpleasant man he is. And how lovely was Mr Benson?

It's lovely to see how much Ruth enjoys the beauties of nature in Wales, something she'd never have seen under normal circumstances. It's so sad that Bellingham doesn't appreciate her enjoyment, & enjoy them more himself for her sake.

Let's hope Benson shows up again, and is able to help Ruth (maybe? but maybe just a passing tourist)

Thank you for pointing out the George Herbert poem @ShabanahFazal .

I'm baffled by the 'I' narrator which turns up again in Chapter five. This 'I' had already seen the room to which Mr B leads Ruth but then tells us that he or she 'shall see no more'.