North and South Book Review

If you so much as gingerly step into the outskirts of the period drama world, you’re bound to hear about North and South. I wanted to see the mini-series, but I wanted to read the book first because That’s What You Do. So I did. (Still haven’t seen the mini-series, though; I’m currently making my way through the 2005 Bleak House.)

This was my first Elizabeth Gaskell book, so as well as judging the book itself, I was forming judgments about Gaskell’s writing style as a whole as I was reading as well. I must admit that just talent-wise, I wouldn’t say she’s in the same class as Jane Austen or Charles Dickens or that sort. However, North and South was still quite interesting and engaging, and there were plenty of things I liked.

(I’m not avoiding spoilers, by-the-by, so take care.)

One of those things I liked was that it wasn’t just pure romance. I don’t tend to like stories where the entire plot is who-likes-who. (Probably at least a large part of this prejudice of mine has to do with the fact that I associate purely-romance stories with cheesy and lame stories. If there was a story that was pure romance but was well-written and intelligent, I quite likely would like it. For instance, romance is a big part of Jane Austen’s stories (though that’s by no means all that happens in her stories), but they’re great because Austen has such good insight into human character and how differing personalities interact with each other and such. Jane Austen is not chick-flick material, and that you may tie to.) Things happened in North and South; people had problems and challenges and joys that had nothing to do with romance. See, that’s realistic. Unless you’re a very strange human, real life does not consist of pure romance.

Anyway. Back to the point.

Another thing I liked is that the characters were very 3-dimensional. It struck me that every one of the main characters was flawed – Margaret and Mr. Thornton were proud and prejudiced (hehe) and too easily angered, Mr. Hale was over-scrupulous and indecisive, Mrs. Hale was superficial and selfish, Frederick was rash and hasty. And yet they were all likable. I feel that one sometimes comes across characters that seem unrealistically good (looking at you, Dickens), and while that actually is true of real life sometimes, Gaskell’s characters were rather refreshing.

Something which was not refreshing, however, was the fact that I felt that Ms. Gaskell monkeyed about with what the characters would actually do to move the plot along. Take, for instance, the bit where Margaret is harshly realistic about her mother’s health to Mr. Hale, feeling that she should be truthful, then suddenly starts downplaying her sickness as soon as she’s in Mrs. Thornton’s presence to try to not make Mr. Hale worry. For the purposes of the story, this was done so that 1) Mr. Hale would be worried and 2) Mrs. Thornton would feel neglected and offended that she was not getting a visit from Mrs. Hale, thinking she wasn’t really sick. But it felt very contrived to me. And that wasn’t the only part like that; I felt frustrated more than once at something that felt forced and unnatural.

By-the-by, not that I’m saying that Ms. Gaskell had the same motives as Diana Barry, but I must say that I was rather reminded of Diana’s technique when writing stories of killing off all her characters so that she wouldn’t have to think of what to do with them. There were soo many deaths in North and South. Some of them you could see coming from a mile away, but…but…was it really necessary to kill the poor girl’s entire family? (Well okay, except Frederick, I guess, but still. Yeesh.)

Oh, and speaking of death or near-deaths, Margaret’s idea that Mr. Thornton go out and reason with the striking factory workers outside should have a nice spot on the list of the top ten stupidest ideas ever thought up. Oh, there’s a mob of enraged people outside pretty much screaming for your blood? Cool, why don’t you just go and explain everything to them nicely, and everything’ll turn out just fine. YEAH. THAT’S A GREAT IDEA, MARGARET.

I did like Margaret on the whole, though. Some heroines you connect with personally, and some you don’t; Margaret was one of those who did not. But she had a lot of good qualities – she was truthful (usually) and responsible and such. And you must remember that the poor girl had the task of managing the entire household (and it was not an easy household to manage, either) squarely on her shoulders. Not to mention that she had to deal with about 90% of the people she liked dying. We can cut Margaret some slack here.

I liked Mr. Thornton too.  He wasn’t perfect, of course, but neither was Margaret. They made a good pair, I thought. Some fictional couples seem unrealistic and like they would never have worked out in real life, but Margaret and Mr. Thornton matched well.

About the ending, though…well, all I can say is, if you thought Jane Austen was abrupt…

(Oh, and was I the only one who rather liked Henry Lennox? At least in the beginning? I mean, he had flaws, but everybody else did too, and he did genuinely like Margaret and was willing to marry her even when she was just a poor minister’s daughter. I think a story just about him would be quite interesting.)

How do you like North and South? What do you think of Elizabeth Gaskell as an author? Do you relate personally to Margaret?