Book Talk :: North and South

North and South

by Elizabeth Gaskell

Q: What do you get if you mix together one part Jane Austen, one part Charles Dickens and one part Stephenie Meyers?

A: Elizabeth Gaskell's "North and South."

It would be hard not to compare this book with Jane Austen's "Pride and Prejudice," since they are both Victorian novels, written by women, about unlikely lovers who seem to hate each other all the way until ... they don't hate each other anymore.

While Jane Austen's work are, in my rather sentimental mind, perfection itself, this book left me irritated and unsatisfied, the way Stephenie Meyers' books do. The irritation arises from the fact that the book could have been so much more than it is. I feel the same irritation when I read the Meyers' books, which really do have interesting plots and concepts, but really fall short in execution.

So a quick disclaimer: I really enjoyed reading this novel and, my apologies to Ms. Meyers, this book was infinitely better than most modern novels. And now, forgive me as I tear it to shreds. First off, let's start at the end. The entire book seems to build toward the ultimate Happily Ever After, which would, of course, be the wedded bliss of our heroine, Margaret. Yet when that climatic event occurs, it is anticlimactic to say the least. It is hurried. It is illogical. There is nothing in the scene to dictate that this is a logical moment for our hero to speak. Yet he does. And what does he say? "Margaret... Margaret... Margaret..." How does she reply? She puts her head down on the table. Then he puts his arms around her.

And that is our climatic love scene?!? Weak! I felt cheated. Then the book just abruptly ends. This was the worst sort of "a woman's only joy is to find marriage" drivel I could imagine. At least "Pride & Prejudice" gives us a humorous and witty account of what happens after they are married.

Secondly, the amount of melodrama amazed me. Not one, not two, not three, but four main characters die in quick succession. The first two have been hinted at so long that I was rather bored with the fact that it took them so long to kick the bucket. The last two were senseless, sudden and melodramatic. Yes, poor Margaret is living a sad life. Okay, you've made your point. And then some.

Lastly, the characters themselves were overly weak, melodramatic and illogical. The amount of swooning and fainting in this novel was amazing[ly pathetic]. Seriously, how can I take a main character seriously when she is constantly swooning? How many times did she hit the floor or lay on the couch unconscious?

While I'm on a roll, the constant sickness and death was far too mysterious for me. Things were constantly referred to in oblique terms and not explained to the reader. Are we supposed to guess what the disease is when the only hints given are pain, tiredness and the knowledge that the person can never get better? I'm sorry, but that is a bit too obscure for my untrained mind. And it irritated me, because so much of the story revolved around these mystery illnesses.

Now that I've got that out of my system, I'll state again that I did enjoy reading this novel. The story was complex, which is to my taste, and had a bit of historical context, which is somewhat like fiber: it's good for me, whether I like it or not. Unfortunately, I can see why this classic is not a true classic like "Pride & Prejudice." It dragged in places, was overly dramatic and left a lot wanting in many areas.

One of the reasons I put this book on my "To Read" list was the note that the author, Elizabeth Gaskell, had been mentored by none other than the great Charles Dickens. I'm afraid that my opinion of Dickens, who edited this novel, actually went down after finishing this book.