LucindaE
10-09-2010, 05:49 PM
Naughty, tut, tut! :confused: Elizabeth Gaskell seemed to write novels in which people who commited serious sins came to a bad end in this life, unlike in real life, where the wicked flourish...
I can't say I find any of the characters in Sylvia's Lovers sympathetic. Philip is dismal, Sylvia is self-centred, Charley Kinraid I found an intolerable egotist. Nevertheless, I found it odd that while the first two come to dismal ends for their respective wrongdoings - Philip for making an idol out of Sylvia and lying about Kinraid's being seized by the press gang, Sylvia for swearing never to forgive him, and the author makes her disapproval of the behaviour of both clear, Kinraid is allowed to get away with a double murder!
Not only that, but Elizabeth Gaskell never explicitly condemns it, or his trifling with the affections of a number of girls, one of whom is supposed to have 'died of a broken heart' (as Victorians thought possible, even if Shakespeare didn't).
He shoots dead two press gang members on the fight on board the 'Good Fortune'. He threatens to kill the first two men who come onto the whaler, and then witnesses say, 'picked off the first two' before he is shot himself. He only escapes trial and hanging because they think he is dead.
Only Philip (who would, wouldn't he?) and the fanatical puritan Alice Rose condemn these murders. Everyone else thinks he behaved wonderfully, though if he hadn't started the hopeless fight, his friend Darley would in fact, still be alive...
Later on, when he is seized by another press gang (unarmed) he pulls out his cutlass, and not to cut their tarry pigtails. However, they disrarm him. He is taken off to begin his career in the Royal Navy, which culminates in his becoming a Captain.
Of course, during the Napoleonic Wars, a Captain relied on the press gangs to supply about one quarter of his crew. Kinraid thus colludes in the press gang activity that he once opposed to the point of murder. This seems to show remarkable opprtunism and cynicism.
Yet again, neither the author nor the characters in the book ever critisize him for it. Everyone agrees again that he is 'a hero'.
After Sylvia refuses to run off with him he quickly marries a silly heiress and is last seen, glowing with health with a bright future in front of him.
Of course, it is possible that Gaskell meant this undeserved good luck to be ironical, but in a book where the other two main characters come to sad ends through their own wrongdoings, it is odd, and it is particularly peculiar in a book written with the theme of sin bringing its own misery (in this life).
More odd still, of the criticisms of the book that I have read, none seem to think Kinraid's murders of a couple of sailors working for the press gang (possibly unwillingly) worth mentioning. Graham Handley is an exception to this; he mentions the murders in a footnote, and suggests that the contrasting fates of Kinraid (guilty of murder, but not hanged) and Daniel (not guilty, but hanged) are meant ironically by the author.
What do others think? Comments welcome!
LucindaE
I can't say I find any of the characters in Sylvia's Lovers sympathetic. Philip is dismal, Sylvia is self-centred, Charley Kinraid I found an intolerable egotist. Nevertheless, I found it odd that while the first two come to dismal ends for their respective wrongdoings - Philip for making an idol out of Sylvia and lying about Kinraid's being seized by the press gang, Sylvia for swearing never to forgive him, and the author makes her disapproval of the behaviour of both clear, Kinraid is allowed to get away with a double murder!
Not only that, but Elizabeth Gaskell never explicitly condemns it, or his trifling with the affections of a number of girls, one of whom is supposed to have 'died of a broken heart' (as Victorians thought possible, even if Shakespeare didn't).
He shoots dead two press gang members on the fight on board the 'Good Fortune'. He threatens to kill the first two men who come onto the whaler, and then witnesses say, 'picked off the first two' before he is shot himself. He only escapes trial and hanging because they think he is dead.
Only Philip (who would, wouldn't he?) and the fanatical puritan Alice Rose condemn these murders. Everyone else thinks he behaved wonderfully, though if he hadn't started the hopeless fight, his friend Darley would in fact, still be alive...
Later on, when he is seized by another press gang (unarmed) he pulls out his cutlass, and not to cut their tarry pigtails. However, they disrarm him. He is taken off to begin his career in the Royal Navy, which culminates in his becoming a Captain.
Of course, during the Napoleonic Wars, a Captain relied on the press gangs to supply about one quarter of his crew. Kinraid thus colludes in the press gang activity that he once opposed to the point of murder. This seems to show remarkable opprtunism and cynicism.
Yet again, neither the author nor the characters in the book ever critisize him for it. Everyone agrees again that he is 'a hero'.
After Sylvia refuses to run off with him he quickly marries a silly heiress and is last seen, glowing with health with a bright future in front of him.
Of course, it is possible that Gaskell meant this undeserved good luck to be ironical, but in a book where the other two main characters come to sad ends through their own wrongdoings, it is odd, and it is particularly peculiar in a book written with the theme of sin bringing its own misery (in this life).
More odd still, of the criticisms of the book that I have read, none seem to think Kinraid's murders of a couple of sailors working for the press gang (possibly unwillingly) worth mentioning. Graham Handley is an exception to this; he mentions the murders in a footnote, and suggests that the contrasting fates of Kinraid (guilty of murder, but not hanged) and Daniel (not guilty, but hanged) are meant ironically by the author.
What do others think? Comments welcome!
LucindaE