Reading Shirley
by Sunita
Nothing like a 2100-mile road trip to give you the opportunity to listen to a really long book. After several previous starts and stops (from last year!) I finally managed to crack the back of this book. Liz McC and Miss Bates have both written about their experiences reading Shirley, and both are far more competent than I to talk about it as a novel. I approached it as a lover of 19thC literature but not a lover of Brontë. I still have 6 hours to go, so this is a muse-in-progress.
I really did need all those hours driving alone to stick to Shirley, because my God there is a lot of bloat in this thing. Or not bloat, maybe, but there are at least three books in this book. There is the nominal plot, about the mill and the changing economic conditions of the region. There are the relationships between young women, young and old women, and women and men. And then there are the many, many didactic passages (entire chapters, even) by the omniscient narrator, on everything from gender to nature to politics to religion (established, pagan, you name it).
I thought I was getting a book on riots and social change and suddenly William Blake showed up. I am not a fan of William Blake. But then he would be elbowed aside by Mary Wollstonecraft. Which was better but still unbelievably didactic. And even worse, sometimes it was dialogue. No one speaks this way! No one ever spoke this way! Certainly not barely-educated Yorkshire maidens.
This feels like a book written by a very angry woman, but an angry woman who in the end is writing two romantic storylines with HEAs. The romantic parts undercut the gender parts for me, because as miserable as Caroline is, and as independent and strong-willed as Shirley is, they are both shaped so thoroughly by their love for specific men. I couldn’t help but think that Caroline would have been fine if Robert had just had a bit more economic success from the outset and been able to act on his love for her. I’m not sure what Shirley’s point was supposed to be, as a character. She’s rich and independent and apparently highly motivated to be a good landowner, but then she’ll stop for pages and pages, falling into a trance and thinking about Adam and Eve, or just Eve. And then three-quarters of the way through the book we find out that she too is pining for a man.
It strikes me that this is the kind of story that makes people disdain the romance genre. The strength and complexity of the young female characters is completely undercut by their unfulfilled passions for their beloved objects. And the spinster women are rendered in such a way as to make me think that Bronte thinks their lives have been wasted. So what if society thinks ugly, good-works-directed women are to be pitied? A lot them them didn’t pity themselves (including in this book). Isn’t that what matters? I’m not putting this well, but something about the way women’s work was portrayed bothered me a lot.
Of course that era stifled and constrained women, and that’s worth getting angry about. But those constraints don’t make Miss Ainley and Miss Hall (or even Hortense) pitiable to me. I felt the narrator sometimes elided that distinction.
I’m complaining a lot, but I’m not at all sorry I’m reading/listening to it. Bentinck’s narration is excellent, and there are some wonderful passages and scenes. Once I adjusted to the idea that I was reading a manuscript as much as a finished book in the modern-day sense, I found the digressions and meanderings easier to take (although the devoir section just about finished me off). It does reinforce my belief that a reader falls into either the Austen or Brontë camp. Not that you can’t like both, but if you do, you like them for very different things and you tend to prefer one over the other. Reading Shirley is like reading Sense and Sensibility with Sense removed and Sensibility doubled.
When I finish I’ll talk about the actual social stuff. I’m waiting to see how Robert’s storyline is resolved. Brontë seems to favor the millowners over the displaced workers; she feels for them in the abstract, but she doesn’t show much empathy for the individuals she writes, or render them as unique persons (with a couple of exceptions). I have many thoughts, but they are inchoate at the moment, and obviously incomplete. On to those last 6 hours. At least I’m assured of plenty of plot in them.
Can I just say that I hope Liz and Miss Bates will join you here in discussing Shirley? What a rich exchange that would be.
LikeLike
But I finished it six months ago and can already hardly remember a thing about it! It’s such a messy book that it’s hard to hang on to in memory (really, if ever a book needed a firm editorial hand).
One thing I will say: I think a lot of Victorian novels suffer (from our point of view at least) from having complex, interesting female characters pressed into the service of/confined in the end by the marriage plot. I suppose it’s better than the alternative, which seems to be death–and I think the authors were often calling attention to very limited choices of endings for women’s plots, but still, I wish they could have imagined more alternatives. Others that spring to mind are Meredith’s Diana of the Crossways and Mary Ward’s Marcella.
LikeLike
Once I realized that there really were three different books, more or less, I had an easier time with it. And it is interesting, even when I find it tiresome, if that makes sense. I’m not bored.
That’s a good point about the constraints of the marriage plot. I think my problem with the way the relationships affect the female characters is that it didn’t feel well integrated into the story to me. Or rather, the marriage/HEA was warring with the idea of the independent and fulfilled woman. Which of course is part of what you are saying, I think. I can’t really fault Bronte for not being able to negotiate that in fiction when it was something that was so fraught in her environment.
LikeLike
The only Bronte novel I have thoroughly enjoyed was the Tenant of Wildfell Hall. I sort of like Jane Eyre but only if I read it with my romance-reading glasses tied firmly on. So I am firmly in the Austen camp. It is interesting to me how successful the Brontes were as novelists. I wonder (and maybe Liz can tell us more) about the contemporary response to the books.
LikeLike
After reading so much genre fiction, where I don’t usually stick with books where the voice doesn’t appeal to me, it’s interesting to read a book that I’m not in sympathy with but which is clearly well worth my time. It’s a mess, but it’s an ambitious mess, and there are a lot of important issues being tackled. And it makes me think about how it fits into other books that address similar themes. I know Gaskell is an obvious comparison, but it makes me want to reread Emily Eden and also Trollope. But then I always want to reread Trollope.
LikeLike
I don’t think I’ve ever even heard of Emily Eden! Off to google I go.
LikeLike
Oh, you absolutely must! She wrote two well-received novels, The Semi-Attached Couple and The Semi-Detached House. They were reissued by Virago back in the 1980s, I think, which is when I discovered her. I saw some of her paintings at an exhibition in Kolkata a few years ago. She was a very interesting woman. Great friends with Melbourne, too. And great-great-etc. aunt to Anthony Eden.
LikeLike
I loved those Emily Eden books–read years ago. I should find them again!
LikeLike
They’re in the public domain, and I’m pretty sure manybooks.net has them. I think I got ebook versions there, but of course they’re sitting in the TBR.
LikeLike
Yes, when I googled I did vaguely remember hearing about the books before. I now have them on my kindle, waiting for me to finish my latest Jo Beverley binge-read.
LikeLike
Yay, report back if/when you get a chance to read them!
LikeLike
I have just finished them both – and thoroughly enjoyed them! Thanks so much for the recommendation.
LikeLike
Yay! Thanks for letting us know. Now I want to reread them. I know my print copy is around somewhere …
LikeLike
The character of Shirley was Charlotte’s idealized projection of her sister, Emily. Note that Shirley (like Evelyn) was a man’s name at the time, Shirley is given “masculine” pursuits and, if I recall correctly, Charlotte reproduced the real-life event of her sister cauterizing her arm with a fire iron after being bitten by a dog who might have been rabid.
Given Emily’s character as we know it from both her works and direct recollections — Constantin Héger called her “an intrepid explorer” (hobbled, of course, by her gender — pressing her into a marriage, however happy, was close to a betrayal. So was Charlotte’s disavowal of Wuthering Heights as “unfeminine”.
On the larger picture, all of Charlotte’s novels, except for Jane Eyre, are horribly messy. They read more like drafts; she desperately needed a good editor.
LikeLike
I had read Shirley was somewhat based on Emily, but I didn’t realize that anecdote was from Emily’s life! And I agree with you on the marriage plot as part of Emily/Shirley’s arc. I take Liz’s point that this is a feature of novels of the era (and a reality of the time), but the way she was shown, at the end, to basically be pining for Louis made me angry. It made her apparent rootlessness and dissatisfaction make more sense, but why did she have to be like that? Which comes back to my overall frustration with the way women’s options were portrayed.
And just to be clear, I fully understand how difficult it was for an unmarried woman in 19thC Britain. It was equally difficult for unmarried women in 20thC India, a situation I’m personally familiar with. But while there were many women who chafed at the restrictions of the institution and were burdened with unhappy marriages, there were also women who figured out how to thrive within that environment and retain a sense of purpose and of identity. I would have liked to see *someone* like that in Shirley. I guess Bronte didn’t believe much in that possibility, which may be why the book feels angry to me.
LikeLike
All of Charlotte’s books are angry — something that Virginia Woolf dwelt upon in A Room of One’s Own, contrasting her to Jane Austen. I think the anger came because, of the three Brontë sisters, she was the most eager for formal recognition — and the most torn by the Victorian gender conflicts. Emily was genuinely otherworldly, Anne was more resigned (though not in a passive way). There was also Charlotte’s impossible love for Héger, portrayed in Villette — another messy construct. But when Charlotte tried to reconcile being a writer and being a wife, it literally killed her.
LikeLike
Oh, thanks for this, Athena. I am a total ignoramus when it comes to the Brontes because I didn’t like the books much when I read them as a teenager and so have avoided really learning about them. This conversation has really helped me put this book in a better perspective, and also it helps me understand the angry novels that women wrote, and why they have the characterizations and plots they do.
LikeLike
The Brontë sisters have become myth — actually, many myths, depending on the agendas of the mythmakers (Lucasta Miller explores this in The Brontë Myth). It’s worth reading a good biography of the entire family, because none of the three sisters can be understood in isolation. The 2013 version of Juliet Barker’s meticulous biography Wild Genius on the Moors is the best candidate (be warned, it’s hefty and hardest on Charlotte).
LikeLike