Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

We are nearly there. This week, we will be discussing the first five chapters of BOOK III.

Sweeping changes, my friends, are taking place in the novel. Louisa nearly commits the act of adultery, but changes her mind and finds a temporary/constant haven in the house of her father.

1. Why do you think she reconsidered her decision? Was there a decision in the first place?

2. What are the roles of two other leading feminine characters in the novel - Sissy and Mrs. Sparcit?

3. It was mentioned in the previous discussion thread that Mrs. Sparcit was not only his right hand, but also someone who might be on intimate relationship with Mr. Bounderby. Do you agree with this interpretation? Do the events of these chapters confirm or reject this assertion?

4. For a while, Mr. Bounderby and Mr. Grandgrind were on the same page, but in these chapters his paternal instinct is stronger than his support of his buddy. Is this change, that many have predicted, logical in Mr. Grandgrind?

5. The elderly lady, Mrs. Pegley, as some have correctly predicted, is Mr. Bounderby's mother. Is she a foil character for her son and for Mrs. Sparcit?

6. A mere speculative question. Many of you have noticed that it is hard to relate to the characters of this novel. Do you think it is intentional or was dickens simply exhausted after quite an intentional and emotionally very revealing novel Bleak House?

I like how you linked Sissy and Mrs Sparcit. They are like the angel and the devil sitting on the shoulders of characters in cartoons. Sissy is trying to inspire love and honor, while Mrs Sparcit is rooting for scandal and downfall. Sissy is a bit of a disappointment, coming from such an interesting background, she has become another self-effacing caretaker like Nell or Mary in Chuzzlewit.

I loved the revelation about Bounderby, that is my favorite part of the whole book! I was sure the old lady was his mother, but I expected some melodramatic tale of how they were separated and why she had to abandon him despite loving him, etc. etc. Turns out he had a totally normal middle-class upbringing with all kinds of help. It reminds me of politicians who play up how they come from humble roots, worked hard, etc., even though they are often stretching the truth. The lack of melodrama almost seems like Dickens is making fun of his own earlier work (Oliver Twist for instance) or that of other Romantic authors.

For the book as a whole, it does seem like "Dickens Lite". If he really wanted to show the evils of the Industrial Revolution and the trials of workers' lives, he could have done it. The main theme seems to be about ill-matched marriage (which was on his mind) and the conflict between facts (productivity) and fancy (arts and human emotions). But we barely see the workers. Stephen's trauma has very little to do with his job, except that he's not rich enough to get a divorce. As people have said, the whole union issue doesn't go anywhere. None of the characters are really developed. They stand for ideas or classes. It's more of a sketch than a novel, in my opinion.

I can't resist this comparison

Josiah Bounderby - "workers want to be set up with a coach and six and fed on turtle soup and venison with a golden spoon"

Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, quoted in today's NY Times - "The American Dream isn't how long you can sit on your couch watching TV or playing Xbox every day when you should be working" (presenting a proposal to cut off assistance after a shorter period of time.)

Besides all their other perks, the rich and powerful continue to claim they can read the minds of workers.

What a courageous action by Sissy to see Harthouse.  I presume she is appealing to his honour as a gentleman, and it seems to work.  Harthouse admits he has no morals, but in the end feels ashamed of himself and his actions.  Well done Sissy.

When Bounderby arrived at the Gradgrind house, I had a very different outcome in view.  Mr G handled the conversation brilliantly and I was surprised at Boundersby's reaction, how easily he let Louisa go. He may well have realised she was not the trophy he thought, but I would have expected him to want to keep his 'possession' all the same.  Am I right in thinking a separation of this sort very unusual at that time?

Sissy seems to bring a quiet comfort to everyone.

Great that the old lady turns out to be Bounderby's mother, we did have our suspicions! Especially humiliating how the revelation took place in front of everyone of note to our story and many other town residents ... Serves him right!

Helen_in_the_uk wrote: "I was surprised at Boundersby's reaction, how easily he let Louisa go. He may well have realised she was not the trophy he thought, but I would have expected him to want to keep his 'possession' all the same. Am I right in thinking a separation of this sort very unusual at that time? ..."

As far as I can gather, separation was actually more common than divorce in Victorian times (due to the difficulty and expense of getting a divorce.) However, it left the wife effectively destitute, so Louisa would have needed her father's support to survive. Dickens was writing a few years before the Divorce Bill of 1857, which made divorce a little easier but still only really possible for the well-off. (I haven't been able to find a good citation for this so am happy to be corrected)

I agree, Bounderby gave her up very easily. Maybe he felt that Louisa had disgraced him and was no longer worthy of him: or that he preferred bachelor life.

Thanks for your input about divorce/separation Emma :)

Robin wrote: "I like how you linked Sissy and Mrs Sparcit. They are like the angel and the devil sitting on the shoulders of characters in cartoons. Sissy is trying to inspire love and honor, while Mrs Sparcit i..."

It was my favorite part of the book as well! I assumed that she was Bounderby's mother, but it still was very satisfying to see that pompous poop get what he deserves.

And I agree that it is a lot like our politicians today. When I use the American Dream as a theme in my classes, we talk about how everyone focuses on hard work and education to move up the social/economic ladders. But it really is luck and opportunity that determines whether a person is successful or not successful.

I know not everyone likes him, but I love Malcolm Gladwell, and his book "Outliers" goes into this idea as well. One example that Gladwell uses is the story of Bill Gates (which bothers the rhetorical part of me - he's an exception to the rule), but it does make Gladwell's point. Gates was born at the right time, he had access to a computer when others did not, etc. Obviously, he took advantage of those opportunities, but if he didn't have those opportunities in the first place, all the hard work and intelligence never would have mattered, at least where computers were concerned.

While I agree that Dickens could have gone into the lives of the workers a bit more, I think that showing the people who have the power over their lives as fools to be equally effective.

One point in the novel that I thought was especially relevant to today was when Dickens talked about how the owners of the factories said that they would close down and move somewhere else if regulations were put in the place that made them treat workers better or clean up the towns.

Sadly, businesses still do that today. Always threatening to move and often moving.

Making us all, "slaves to the machine...."

Robin wrote: "I like how you linked Sissy and Mrs Sparcit. They are like the angel and the devil sitting on the shoulders of characters in cartoons. Sissy is trying to inspire love and honor, while Mrs Sparcit i..."

Great summary, Robin. I felt very much the same with regards to Sissy being this almost typical Dickens angel,Bounderby's background story, which we maybe is more realistic, but less Dickensian exciting, and the summary of the whole novel as a "Dickens Lite". The novel feels to me also more like a novella compared to his usual works. It is a rounded, formed story, but it somehow lacks something... I was also rather disappointed that it did not show the hardships of the workers in an intense light like he did e.g. in Nicholas Nickleby with regards to the boarding schools in Yorkshire.

Lynnm wrote: "One point in the novel that I thought was especially relevant to today was when Dickens talked about how the owners of the factories said that they would close down and move somewhere else if regulations were put in the place that made them treat workers better or clean up the towns.

Sadly, businesses still do that today. Always threatening to move and often moving.

Making us all, "slaves to the machine...."
..."

Good point, Lynnm.

Zulfiya wrote: "4. For a while, Mr. Bounderby and Mr. Grandgrind were on the same page, but in these chapters his paternal instinct is stronger than his support of his buddy. Is this change, that many have predicted, logical in Mr. Grandgrind? ..."

I was a little reminded of Dombey when in the end he turns to his daughter Florence and lives (almost) happily ever after though he had been so rude and distant to all his near ones before.
I think in the case of Mr. Gradgrind, he is not particularly evil and I think he does care for his daughter. This whole affair seems more an eyeopener to him.
I wonder whether Dickens was thinking of himself as well. I mean his treatment of his own children was not the most exemplary either with regards to love and affection.