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

[BishyBarnyBee]

Following the very successful Madame Bovary readalong, we have decided to explore another woman who refused to be bound by contemporary mores.
So shocking at the time, two of Gaskell's friends burnt their copies.

"Elizabeth Gaskell's Ruth (1853) was the first mainstream novel to make a fallen woman its eponymous heroine. It is a remarkable story of love, of the sanctuary and tyranny of the family, and of the consequences of lies and deception, one that lays bare Victorian hypocrisy and sexual double-standards. Shocking to contemporary readers, its radical utopian vision of a pure woman faithfully presented predates Hardy's Tess by nearly forty years."

We will aim for two chapters a week - a weekend chapter and a mid week chapter. If I have time, I'll try and do a ChatGPT chapter summary, but anyone else is welcome to jump in if I haven't got there first.

We start 1st Jan, so if you are up for a bit of Victorian passion, guilt, regret and redemption, sign up here!

I have a feminist question - please don't be offended anyone!

Are we meant to call her Elizabeth Gaskell now? I think we aren't supposed to say Mrs (defined by her DH and all that...)

When I was at uni the Penguin books all said Mrs on the front, now they say Elizabeth.

Of course Mrs is easier to type!

I think a lot of writers challenged Victorian moral and religious hypocrisy. AFAIK, of the really famous authors, Hardy is the only one who really scandalised people.

I think it's interesting, while Bradshaw is obviously behaving badly, I suspect we're also meant to judge Farquhar for being (a) grateful that he didn't go any further to fix his interest with Ruth, and (b) jumping straight back to Jemima.

Obviously given how attracted he was to Ruth, another choice he could have made would have been to propose & to support her in life. Let's hope Jemima never falls short of society's standards, since it doesn't seem like Farquhar will stand up for her if she does.

And yes, I'm pretty sure that we're absolutely meant to be sympathising with Ruth, and thinking (along with Jemima), there but for the grace of god etc.

The use of Christian names is a pertinent point given that it marks the point at which Jemima and Farquhar become engaged. Ie it signifies great familiarity.
Would the author want people outside her family to refer to her by her Christian name? People outside her family wouldn’t have done in her day. I would like to think that Publishing under her own name (rather than a male pseudo name or as ‘ by a lady’) was a feminist act.

I wasn't talking about the time really, though but that there was a definite point in the book world in which Mrs was dropped. They still do this more in America actually with authors, including when they write reviews and critical essays and often female writers and academics complain.

It's a very interesting point, @Piggywaspushed. I think it may be only me that used Mrs Gaskell? Possibly because I'm doing the summaries and using Mr and Mrs a lot? Or possibly because she was Mrs Gaskell when I was doing my A levels? Or, as you say, because it's quick to write. Looking back at the thread, I've used a mixture of Gaskell, Mrs Gaskell and Mrs G without really thinking about it too much.

I don't relate to the premise that we are "supposed to" use certain vocabulary, as it implies there is a right way and a wrong way, whereas actually it's all just opinions, really. I can see why the publishers decided to use her full name, as no male author would be referred to as Mr X. And in fact I can't think of many other female authors referred to as Mrs - Mrs Beeton, maybe? Is that because it was rare for a married woman to be able to write? But I'd think she would have been very proud to see her name on the front of her books, and if she called herself Mrs Gaskell, I don't think it's necessarily disrepectful to use it now. I might just stick to Gaskell now it's been raised though.

I think maybe in the same way that Ruth holding Donne's hands meant she was ruined, it didn't take much social interaction for two people to know they were in a relationship? I think there is a social code which is a bit subtle for us but would have been very clear to the Victorian reader.

Farquhar and Jemima have re-bonded over their concern for Ruth, and she warmly expresses her gratitude to him. This new warmth emboldens him to ask her to call him Walter - which would take the relationship to a new level. She jokingly says he is too old, he is offended, then she relents and calls him Walter - which is an acceptance of his coded proposal. So it is not as out of the blue as it seems.

The other thing that grated on me was the reference to "the control which he should have a right to exercise over her actions at some future day". It's softened by the fact that she has just announced her intention to disobey him, but as I think I said upthread, it's as if the best a girl could hope for was to marry a benevolent dictator. It's the same trope of an older, wiser man taming a spirited young woman that we see in Austin. Obviously so much better than a controlling hypocrite like Bradshaw, but even so...

Chapter 29

In which life settles into a monotonous tranquility, Jemima and Ruth have a fond meeting, Jemima is married and Ruth finds a vocation as a sick nurse.

Life in the Benson household has settled down and in some ways, the fact that the worst has happened has relieved the fear of discovery and brought a kind of tranquility. Life is somewhat grey and monotonous but Sally has softened as she ages and brings a spot of brightness. She is outraged when her deafness is referred to, but when Leonard smiles at her indignation, she is pleased to have put a smile on his face. He helps her draw out her life savings to give to Benson and frames the now superfluous will so she can display the long words she is so proud of.

2 years pass and Jemima's engagement is now common knowledge. On the eve of the wedding, Jemima comes to the house and the two women embrace, Jemima asking for forgiveness and Ruth expressing her gratitude for Jemima's support in the painful interview with Bradshaw. The household offer their congratulations and Jemima enjoys Sally's contempt for what she wrongly assumes to be Jemima's wedding dress.

While Jemima is away, Ruth nurses the old lady she befriended during Leonard's illness, who has suffered a potentially fatal hip fracture. Jemima returns from the continent to find Ruth has an offer of work as a sick nurse. Jemima tries to persuade Ruth she deserves better, but Ruth is determined to find a way to be useful. Jemima is disappointed as she and Walter had planned to persuade Ruth to visit them often, but Ruth says she feels she could not visit - but would always come if Jemima were ill or sorrowful.

Thank you for the chapter summary @BishyBarnyBee - I had got behind, then trying to catch up got ahead and now am back on pace! I think this novel comes alive when dastardly Mr Donne is in it so afraid I am hoping he comes back to disturb Ruth’s worthy sick nurse existence!

We're back to Ruth's moral redemption again, aren't we, which has always been the dullest element of the story. And Jemima is a reformed character too! We urgently need some character flaws, poor Sally's idiosyncrasies are having to carry a lot of weight here.

Haha, the last three posts have made me laugh. I agree that the piety is a little wearing, but Kindle informs me there is only about 1h 43m left so we are coming to whatever climax there may or may not be.

I am very glad to have read this, even if it hasn’t always been enjoyable - from a plot or for me, a prose angle early on but once I started reading a couple of chapters at a time I really got into it.

Just doing the next chapter, some shocking behaviour and outrageous injustice coming right up !

Chapter 30

In which inconvertible evidence of Richard's duplicity leads Bradshaw to cut off his most beloved child.

Ruth settles in to her new role as a sick nurse, first with the poor and as her reputation spreads, more widely. Her quiet, tender care is renowned throughout the town and even the roughest boys respect her.

The years pass and one day Walter asks if he can pay for Leonard's schooling. While he is there, Benson asks him to chase up an outstanding bonus on shares bought for him by Bradshaw.

Bradshaw is bemused when the Insurance Company write to say there was no bonus because the shares were sold over 12 months ago. He tells Farquhar that Benson must be confused, belittling the minister's lack of financial exactitude. Watson, the clerk, trembles as he insists that Mr Richard had instructed him to pay Benson a dividend after the date of the alleged transfer of shares. Farquhar can immediately see the implications of this, but Bradshaw continues to bluster and blame anyone but Richard, suggesting forgetfulness on Benson's part or incompetence from the Insurance Company.

The next day a clerk arrives with the deed of transfer. Bradshaw stares at the signature then asks - "like a man who has received a slight paralytic stroke" - if the clerk has heard of forgery. He takes the deed and vows that if fraud has been perpetrated, he will pursue justice, even though the culprit should be his own son. He again wants to blame Benson, but lays his head on his desk and moans aloud.

Determined to find the truth, Bradshaw breaks open Richards's private desk and reads every paper, finding convincing evidence that the perfect Richard is far from what he seems. He clings to the hope that his son may not be guilty of forgery but rather a blunder or stupendous piece of forgetfulness.

Benson is used to needy visitors in the night, but is surprised by a portentous knock at midnight. Bradshaw produces the deed and begs Benson to be sure if it is his signature. He can see from Benson's face that it is not and is stony eyed as he vows that Richard must be prosecuted. Benson refuses, saying we have all offended God, and advises Bradshaw he will feel different in the morning. This infuriates Bradshaw whose parting words are that "If there were more people like me and fewer like you, there would be less evil in the world, sir. It's your sentimentalists that nurse up sin".

Benson is distressed by the night's events - not for himself, but for Richard. He resolves to consult the clear-headed Farquhar first thing in the morning.

I found this a very exciting chapter! I don’t know how Richard ever thought he would get away with it though.

Yes, and Bradshaw's insistence that he has never knowingly done wrong, then his parting shot that it is all the fault of sentimentalists like Benson!

Gaskell is really laying into the hypocrisy of the establishment here - Bellingham was spoiled by his mother's indulgence and Richard has been spoiled by his father's self-righteousness and lack of true Christian charity. The whole book is a plea for Christians of the time to engage in a little less judgement and a little more self-reflection.

I agree that his parting shot was a very mean thing to say in the circumstances. I had to read it twice because I thought I might have got it the wrong way around!

Yes, I was outraged. I've tried to keep commentary out of the summaries but it was hard not to comment there!

Bradshaw's son has stolen Benson's money and this is somehow Benson's fault?!

This was a riveting chapter and your summary is excellent @BishyBarnyBee I agree with you about Gaskell calling out religious hypocrisy. Bradshaw is such a stupid, stubborn, short-sighted man. I was feeling sorry for him until he made that remark to Benson. It really takes the biscuit. I don't think he even apologised to Benson for his son's crime?

Ah, just spotted the typo in the chapter heading. Incontrovertible, not inconvertible, which means something completely different. That'll teach me to try to use big words in an attempt to sound vaguely Victorian.

I’m not going to read along, as Ruth has always annoyed me (though I like lots of other Gaskells), but I just wanted to admire your thread title.

Thank you! I think most of us have found Ruth quite annoying and some of us have looked back with fondness at the oblivious selfishness of Madame Bovary, our last fallen woman.

We might go for Dangerous Liaisons next time, which I haven't read but understand might be less preachy - or at least, have a higher percentage of outrageous behaviour for us to be enjoyably indignant about!

I don’t recall any preachiness in the book. It makes it obvious why well brought up young Englishwomen were forbidden to read French novels. (Madame Bovery likewise). 😀
This was an enjoyable chapter plot wise. Gasp at Richard’s misdeed and sigh as Bradshaws pomposity is punctured.

Thanks for another fab summary, Bishy. Yes, Bradshaw is awful; nothing will ever be his fault. One might think that the shock of his son's crime would shake him out of his usual complacency, but instead it seems to make him double down on the rightness of his own views.

I do recall Richard being set up as a bit of a wrong'un earlier in the novel.

This is a minor point, but I was disappointed in Ruth for turning down the offer of formal schooling for Leonard: She could see no advantages that would counterbalance the evil which she dreaded from any school for Leonard; namely, that the good opinion and regard of the world would assume too high an importance in his eyes. I think she's taking anti-worldliness too far here! Poor kid.

Sorry, I know I'm replying to this very belatedly, but yes, academic scholars now would certainly say Elizabeth Gaskell or Gaskell: no Mrs!

But given that she published as 'Mrs Gaskell', I can see why that title seems familiar in her case.

I've just been reading a series of novels written in the 60s and set in the 40s (Olivia Manning's Balkan Trilogy), and I was interested to see that the characters (some of whom are lecturers in English literature) consistently refer to 'Miss Austen'. But the male writers they lecture on are referred to by surname alone (eg Conrad and Tennyson).

I've also read some old-fashioned academic works (early 20th c. I think?) where women writers are referred to by first names. So a critic will refer to Louise Labe (one of my favourite French poets) as Louise, but to Pierre de Ronsard as Ronsard. Ugh. I suppose it was standard practice at the time, but it was very sexist.