Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think that Scarlett's first 2 children are one of the most overlooked bits of Gone With The Wind?

155 replies

Jane379 · 25/05/2026 17:11

I was rereading it a few days ago and it struck me how at the end, Scarlett is totally focused on getting Rhett back, nothing else. What happens to poor Wade & Ella afterwards are anyone's guess - especially as Melanie has died and Rhett seems to have checked out, and they were previously acting as surrogate parents. I suppose Mammy would probably end up looking after them?
It's hardly Scarlett's fault that she was expected to have kids despite no desire to, but she should have treated them better once they were born. I think the film toned down her attitude to them a lot, probably because it was seen as too shocking and damaged her heroine sstatus.A retelling in retrospect by Wade or Ella would be an interesting spin-off idea...

Rhett seems a pretty negative parental figure too, I think he's often assessed too positively & romanticised. Unbelievable he had Bonnie jumping like that at only 4,..the whole thing with him & Bonnie was weird, at the end he essentially says he treated her as a substitute for Scarlett.

AIBU?

OP posts:
XelaM · Yesterday 13:31

As for the novel's depiction of the South - so many classic historical novels are set in problematic times and yet are written to romanticise those times. If we rewrite all classics to sanitise and remove all problematic references, we will have no literary classics left.

It reminds me of "blind casting" that is so popular these days when well-known white historical figures are played by black or Asian actors. Just why?!

Credittocress · Yesterday 13:38

I think part of peoples problem understanding the book is wanting to view Scarlett as the heroine, when she never was. She’s the main character, but deeply flawed.

EverydayRoutine · Yesterday 13:45

XelaM · Yesterday 13:31

As for the novel's depiction of the South - so many classic historical novels are set in problematic times and yet are written to romanticise those times. If we rewrite all classics to sanitise and remove all problematic references, we will have no literary classics left.

It reminds me of "blind casting" that is so popular these days when well-known white historical figures are played by black or Asian actors. Just why?!

I'm definitely not in favour of revising older texts. But I think we should also be clear-eyed about the reality of a writer's perspective. When a writer is an apologist for a particular ideology, it's more than reasonable to address that aspect of the writer's work. That doesn't mean it's the only element worthy of discussion. But it also shouldn't be ignored.

As for blind casting, why not if it provides a fresh take on a historical figure or era? Have you seen "Hamilton"? An absolutely brilliant work of art. In the original production, Lin-Manuel Miranda whose background is Puerto Rican played Hamilton, Leslie Odom Jr. who is Black played Aaron Burr, etc.

BIossomtoes · Yesterday 13:50

Credittocress · Yesterday 13:38

I think part of peoples problem understanding the book is wanting to view Scarlett as the heroine, when she never was. She’s the main character, but deeply flawed.

She’s like Emma, of whom Jane Austen said that she’d created a heroine nobody but her would like.

dottiedodah · Yesterday 14:06

EmeraldRoulette Long time since I have seen the film but couldnt remember any children in it! Probably because as you say they werent!

LilyCanna · Yesterday 14:07

XelaM · Yesterday 13:31

As for the novel's depiction of the South - so many classic historical novels are set in problematic times and yet are written to romanticise those times. If we rewrite all classics to sanitise and remove all problematic references, we will have no literary classics left.

It reminds me of "blind casting" that is so popular these days when well-known white historical figures are played by black or Asian actors. Just why?!

Absolutely no one is suggesting that GWTW should be edited or sanitised. It's just that you can't really discuss the novel or the film without recognising that it was written to appeal to audiences in 1936 precisely by presenting its own sanitised version of the past in which slavery was not horrendously violent. And that violence continued into the 20th century in the form of lynchings, Jim Crow etc. when the book was written and beyond. The book and the film promote the idea that the antebellum South and even the Klu Klux Klan were benign.

The idea that we only find it 'problematic' because we're judging it from 2026 is nonsense - African Americans picketed the film when it came out. They knew that however entertaining and beautifully filmed it might be, or however appealing the characters, it was propaganda legitimising slavery and racism.

I would really recommend the Rest is History episode on Gone with the Wind, and while I'm at it their mini-series on the different iterations of the Klu Klux Klan was brilliant - a mixture of horror and also the 'banality of evil' in comedy proportions.

followtheswallow · Yesterday 14:18

dottiedodah · Yesterday 14:06

EmeraldRoulette Long time since I have seen the film but couldnt remember any children in it! Probably because as you say they werent!

There is a very brief scene with them in it actually. So brief if you blink you miss it. She certainly isn’t shown as pregnant or mentions them in any other context.

It is a really interesting discussion and there are some good book recommendations on this thread too. I don’t think history should be sanitised and one of the things I didn’t like about Anne with an E was the way Anne seemed to have modern attitudes to indigenous Canadians; that is neither realistic nor to my memory mentioned in the novels.

A southern belle challenging the horrors of slavery doesn’t ring true.

BestIsWest · Yesterday 14:19

Oh, I’m off to listen to the TRIH podcast now!

BIossomtoes · Yesterday 15:39

BestIsWest · Yesterday 14:19

Oh, I’m off to listen to the TRIH podcast now!

I’ve just listened to it. Thank you so much for the recommendation @LilyCanna, that was a very thought provoking hour. I’m now off to buy Sarah Churchill’s book. Now there’s another problematic name!

ETA I’m talking nonsense - her name is Churchwell! 🤭

Notonthestairs · Yesterday 16:48

I had no idea TRIH covered GWTW - I'll look it up and the episodes regarding the KKK.

Jane379 · Yesterday 17:06

trainedopossum · Yesterday 00:25

God I loved that book, it was my first taste of how perplexing adult relationships could be, the first time I conceded that maybe there were things I wouldn’t understand until I was older.

Scarlett’s awfulness was very bewitching to me, I didn’t feel like I was being persuaded to learn a lesson or whatever. She was very imperfect and sometimes she paid for it and other times she didn’t.

I don’t like to do the “problematic“ disclaimer, you’d be mad to think anyone reads it and thinks it’s a manual for living. It illustrated in living colour the system for accumulating wealth via free labour. Scarlett gets annoyed at all the romantic mooning over the beautiful life they’ve lost and it’s clear in the book that that the ease and beauty they enjoy is made possible by slavery.

Eta: I rather missed the point of the thread there 😀 Yes she didn’t much like her first two children, thought they were whiny and soft, but also felt some measure of guilt about it.

Edited

Definitely agree re Scarlett's complexity.

I think my personal view on the presentation of slavery is that while some of the views expressed about slavery are Scarlett's rather than the narrator's, the book does have a clear omniscient narrator, (rather than just having us be inside Scarlett's head the whole time) and a lot of the worst racism is expressed by the narrator (eg. The wildly false presentation of Reconstruction, a lot of the 'happy slave' stuff) . I don't know much about Mitchell's personal views on race but it's hard to read all the racism as simply being Scarlett's flawed perception.

OP posts:
Jane379 · Yesterday 17:09

Credittocress · Yesterday 13:38

I think part of peoples problem understanding the book is wanting to view Scarlett as the heroine, when she never was. She’s the main character, but deeply flawed.

Exactly, I think Mitchell herself said she wrote Melanie as the heroine but Scarlett somehow took over (and Mitchell was arguably more of a Scarlett herself.)

OP posts:
Jane379 · Yesterday 17:18

LilyCanna · Yesterday 14:07

Absolutely no one is suggesting that GWTW should be edited or sanitised. It's just that you can't really discuss the novel or the film without recognising that it was written to appeal to audiences in 1936 precisely by presenting its own sanitised version of the past in which slavery was not horrendously violent. And that violence continued into the 20th century in the form of lynchings, Jim Crow etc. when the book was written and beyond. The book and the film promote the idea that the antebellum South and even the Klu Klux Klan were benign.

The idea that we only find it 'problematic' because we're judging it from 2026 is nonsense - African Americans picketed the film when it came out. They knew that however entertaining and beautifully filmed it might be, or however appealing the characters, it was propaganda legitimising slavery and racism.

I would really recommend the Rest is History episode on Gone with the Wind, and while I'm at it their mini-series on the different iterations of the Klu Klux Klan was brilliant - a mixture of horror and also the 'banality of evil' in comedy proportions.

Edited

I will listen to that! There is a good book on the Klan called Hooded Americanism too. I will never understand how someone as intelligent as Mitchell clearly was could treat it the way she does in the book.

'The idea that we only find it 'problematic' because we're judging it from 2026 is nonsense - African Americans picketed the film when it came out. They knew that however entertaining and beautifully filmed it might be, or however appealing the characters, it was propaganda legitimising slavery and racism.'- this definitely. And it certainly was protested by black people at the time, as was The Birth of a Nation. GWTW is obviously not as bad as that at all, but some pages seem

The sections on Reconstruction are so vitriolic that I'm surprised white Northerners received to book well, too. The film at least doesn't include paragraphs like these :

'
The former slaves were now the lords of creation and, with the aid of the Yankees, the lowest and most ignorant ones were on top. The better class of them, scorning freedom, were suffering as severely as their white masters. Thousands of house servants, the highest caste in the slave population, remained with their white folks, doing manual labor which had been beneath them in the old days. Many loyal field hands also refused to avail themselves of the new freedom, but the hordes of “trashy free issue niggers,” who were causing most of the trouble, were drawn largely from the field-hand class.
In slave days, these lowly blacks had been despised by the house negroes and yard negroes as creatures of small worth. Just as Ellen had done, other plantation mistresses throughout the South had put the pickaninnies through courses of training and elimination to select the best of them for the positions of greater responsibility. Those consigned to the fields were the ones least willing or able to learn, the least energetic, the least honest and trustworthy, the most vicious and brutish. And now this class, the lowest in the black social order, was making life a misery for the South.
Aided by the unscrupulous adventurers who operated the Freedmen’s Bureau and urged on by a fervor of Northern hatred almost religious in its fanaticism, the former field hands found themselves suddenly elevated
to the seats of the mighty.
Country negroes flocked into the cities, leaving the rural districts without labor to make the crops. Atlanta was crowded with them and still they came by the hundreds, lazy and dangerous as a result of the new doctrines being taught them. Packed into squalid cabins, smallpox, typhoid and tuberculosis broke out among them. Accustomed to the care of their mistresses when they were ill in slave days, they did not know how to nurse themselves or their sick. Relying upon their masters in the old days to care for their aged and their babies, they now had no sense of responsibility for their helpless. And the Bureau was far too interested
in political matters to provide the care the plantation owners had once given.
Abandoned negro children ran like frightened animals about the town until kind-hearted white people took them into their kitchens to raise. Aged country darkies, deserted by their children, bewildered and panic stricken in the bustling town, sat on the curbs and cried to the ladies who passed. (These sections are aside from prejudiced, factually inaccurate: former slaves would not have had 'no experience caring for their sick', nor did they en masse abandon children and old people!)

And the KKK is described thus : ' Neither life nor property was safe from them and the white people, unprotected by law, were terrorized. Men were insulted on the streets by drunken blacks, houses and barns were burned at night, horses and cattle and chickens stolen in broad daylight,

Page 914
crimes of all varieties were committed and few of the perpetrators were brought to justice.
But these ignominies and dangers were as nothing compared with the peril of white women, many bereft by the war of male protection, who lived alone in the outlying districts and on lonely roads. It was the large number of outrages on women and the ever-present fear for the safety of their wives and daughters that drove Southern men to cold and trembling fury and caused the Ku Klux Klan to spring up overnight. And it was against this nocturnal organization that the newspapers of the North cried out most loudly, never realizing the tragic necessity that brought it into being. The North wanted every member of the Ku Klux hunted down and hanged, because they had dared take the punishment of crime into their own hands at a time when the ordinary processes of law and order had been overthrown by the invaders.'

OP posts:
Jane379 · Yesterday 17:22

EmeraldRoulette · Yesterday 10:41

I find it really bizarre to judge Scarlett for her attitude towards her children

She didn't have a choice. I'm sure a lot of women in the 1860s felt like that about their children.

I don't normally hold with the "young and foolish" argument but when you go back as far as the 1860s, I do. How is she different than the young men rushing off to war and thinking of it as a good thing? She was 17 and had no education. Add that in with no choice and no options for women and what was she going to do? Why would she make an effort with the children she never wanted to have?

Hmm...she did have a choice about marrying so young, Gerald for one was against it..but yes, she would have had to marry eventually. And being an unhappy teen widow in the middle of war was hardly the best introduction to motherhood. And the marriage to Frank was essentially to save Tara.

She DID have a choice about marrying Rhett- why did she? I suppose subconsciously at that point she's attracted to him...And they get on.

I still think she could have tried a bit more though.

Rhett is often seen as more progressive but doesn't really seem to sympathise with her desire not to have any more kids (OK partly as it's linked to her obsession with Ashley, but I think readers often romanticise Rhett & forget he's a man of his time)

OP posts:
Jane379 · Yesterday 17:24

EverydayRoutine · Yesterday 11:19

It is historical fiction which ought to at least attempt to recreate a particular time and place with some fidelity to reality (as far as that is possible). Slavery was never a benevolent system. Creating a fictional world in which it is presented as such is deeply dishonest.

As I wrote above, I am impressed by the characterisation of Scarlett in the novel and the film. She is a complex and flawed figure. It's possible to appreciate that element of GWTW (among others) and also reject its ideological underpinnings.

This definitely!

OP posts:
Jane379 · Yesterday 17:28

BIossomtoes · Yesterday 12:10

They may have believed that it was their right to enslave other human beings, but they were entirely aware of the brutality inherent in the system.

And you know this how? I suspect wealthy white women in the 1860s were shielded from that brutality, as they were shielded from much else. Judging period pieces by contemporary standards never works well. Given that there were probably people still alive with first hand memories of the 1860s when GWTW was written, it’s not unreasonable that Mitchell was able to draw on those memories which inevitably would be one sided.

suspect wealthy white women in the 1860s were shielded from that brutality, as they were shielded from much else.

  • I think this is a bit naive. Wealthy white women who owned slaves could be brutal themselves : some beat slaves, sold women on away from their children if they thought their husband might cheat with them etc.

And white women were certainly aware of beatings, sexual exploitation etc. The book is pretty accurate in showing even 'kind owners' like Ellen see slaves as inherently inferior, that women pretend in the South to be naive but are actually not (remember Ellen runs the plantation but lets Gerald think HE does!- women ran these places, remember, the house side particularly) and that women do know about the worst sides (eg. Savvy Grandma Fontaine saying 'we've seen mulattoes before'- and why were there so many?)

There's also the plain fact that even if slaves aren't beaten etc they were still owned, we're seen as racially inferior etc. GWTW is good at showing how wealthy white women had a key role as carriers of social norms in the South, and many certainly passed these down.

OP posts:
Jane379 · Yesterday 17:33

HelenaWilson · Yesterday 11:08

many people (wrongly) view the novel and the film adaptation as historically accurate.

It is historically accurate in its representation of the experiences and point of view of a particular class or group of people. It's not an academic critique of the whole Southern way of life or of the North vs South, federal vs state, dispute. It's fiction. Fiction explores different characters and how they react to events. The author, rightly, doesn't tell readers what to think about it all. She presents her story and allows readers to make up their own minds.

I think Mitchell does tell the readers how to thunk about some of it though. As in the parts about slavery I quoted earlier.

Or take these sections : ' Georgia was heavily garrisoned with troops and Atlanta had more than its share. The commandants of the Yankee troops in the various cities had complete power, even the power of life and death, over the civilian population, and they used that power. They could and did imprison citizens for any cause, or no cause, seize their property, hang them. They could and did harass and

Page 910
hamstring them with conflicting regulations about the operation of their business, the wages they must pay their servants, what they should say in public and private utterances and what they should write in newspapers. They regulated how, when and where they must dump their garbage and they decided what songs the daughters and wives of ex-Confederates could sing, so that the singing of “Dixie” or “Bonnie Blue Flag” became an offense only a little less serious than treason. They ruled that no one could get a letter out of the post office without taking the Iron Clad oath and, in some instances, they even prohibited the issuance of marriage licenses unless the couples had taken the hated oath.
The newspapers were so muzzled that no public protest could be raised against the injustices or depredations of the military, and individual protests were silenced with jail sentences. The jails were full of prominent citizens and there they stayed without hope of early trial. Trial by jury and the law of habeas corpus were practically suspended. The civil courts still functioned after a fashion but they functioned at the pleasure of the military, who could and did interfere with their verdicts, so that citizens so unfortunate as to get arrested were virtually at the mercy of the military authorities. And so many did get arrested. The very suspicion of seditious utterances against the government, suspected complicity in the Ku Klux Klan, or complaint by a negro that a white man had been uppity to him were enough to land a citizen in jail. Proof and evidence were not needed. The accusation was sufficient. And thanks to the incitement of the Freedmen’s Bureau, negroes could always be found who were willing to bring accusations.
The negroes had not yet been given the right to vote

Page 911
but the North was determined that they should vote and equally determined that their vote should be friendly to the North. With this in mind, nothing was too good for the negroes. The Yankee soldiers backed them up in anything they chose to do, and the surest way for a white person to get himself into trouble was to bring a complaint of any kind against a negro.'

These sections seem to pretty clearly present the narrator's view.

OP posts:
BIossomtoes · Yesterday 17:34

She DID have a choice about marrying Rhett- why did she? I suppose subconsciously at that point she's attracted to him...And they get on.

I’m pretty sure she offered to be his mistress when he was in jail and she settled for Frank instead when Rhett turned her down - that must have stung. She needed to be married for superficial respectability and he was just about the only man left who’d have anything to do with her. Of course his wealth wasn’t insignificant.

EmeraldRoulette · Yesterday 17:36

@followtheswallow "There is a very brief scene with them in it actually. So brief if you blink you miss it. She certainly isn’t shown as pregnant or mentions them in any other context"

no, there isn't

Because Wade and Ella are not in the film.

I will bet you an ice lolly! Which scene are you thinking of?

Jane379 · Yesterday 17:37

I do think that overall (in the North too) history books in the 30s were pretty biased in favour of the Lost Cause. It would only be reassessed en masse by historians after the Civil Rights movement. So Mitchell probably had few sources to work from which told a version more sympathetic towards black people.

Otoh so much of her historical material is blatantly inaccurate. Eg her claim that most of the freed slaves in political positions were ' a few generations away from the African jungle' 🙄. Not only were all slaves in the South many generations away from Africa (since the import of slaves was banned early in the 19th century) but most of the black politicians who served after the War were Northerners who had been free for generations. I think this info was available at the time.

OP posts:
Jane379 · Yesterday 17:38

BIossomtoes · Yesterday 17:34

She DID have a choice about marrying Rhett- why did she? I suppose subconsciously at that point she's attracted to him...And they get on.

I’m pretty sure she offered to be his mistress when he was in jail and she settled for Frank instead when Rhett turned her down - that must have stung. She needed to be married for superficial respectability and he was just about the only man left who’d have anything to do with her. Of course his wealth wasn’t insignificant.

Good point. Also Rhett does kiss her and she seems to say yes in a haze- and he promises to spoil her (and does) which of course appeals.

OP posts:
EmeraldRoulette · Yesterday 17:40

@Jane379 oh hello you're back

Did you see my 4 am post about the kids not being in the film? And my quote from your post.

Are you writing a dissertation?

I did a massive history project on Reconstruction. I don't know what happened to my academic brain, I can't remember most of it. I suppose you have to keep these things in use and I've never had to use any of my academic strengths in my career

I will listen to those history podcasts.

ETA - that moment in the film where she gargle cologne to cover up the drinking and then the doorbell rings and it's "great balls of fire! <hic> it's Rhett". Vivien Leigh deserved the Oscar for that alone 😂😂

XelaM · Yesterday 17:41

followtheswallow · Yesterday 14:18

There is a very brief scene with them in it actually. So brief if you blink you miss it. She certainly isn’t shown as pregnant or mentions them in any other context.

It is a really interesting discussion and there are some good book recommendations on this thread too. I don’t think history should be sanitised and one of the things I didn’t like about Anne with an E was the way Anne seemed to have modern attitudes to indigenous Canadians; that is neither realistic nor to my memory mentioned in the novels.

A southern belle challenging the horrors of slavery doesn’t ring true.

Really? I've seen the film a million times and almost know it by heart. 😂 I have never seen Scarlett's eldest children in the film. Which scene is it?

followtheswallow · Yesterday 17:43

We may not be seeing it through solely Scarlett’s eyes but we are asked to be in the position of the southern elite, who would hold such attitudes. I don’t know. I feel it would be somewhat ruined by a moralistic narrator finger wagging and saying ‘but of course while Ashley had joined the KKK, this was morally repugnant!’

Jane379 · Yesterday 17:44

BauhausOfEliott · Yesterday 11:06

It was common in those days, both in the UK and the US, for wealthy parents to spend very little time with their children. Children of wealthy parents would often be brought up largely by a nanny or a servant (who in parts of the US may well have been a slave) and would pretty much only see their parents at breakfast and briefly in the evening before bed. And when they were older they were often sent away to boarding schools.

So it's very possible that someone like Scarlett wouldn't really have bonded with her children.

This definitely, ...otoh Scarlett is shown as being heavily tutored by Ellen (as are her 2 sisters) in how to be a lady, so I think Ellen is quite involved in a period-typical way.

I have read some things which suggest Victorian upper class childrearing in the UK was not always as distant as that. But it certainly was sometimes. Agatha Christie's memoir is interesting in that she was very close to her mother but nannies clearly did a lot of the childrearing especially when she was young. I wonder how common that kind of model was?

OP posts: