Archive for August, 2011

North coast of Cornwall, just above Crackington Haven, Boscastle

Dear friends and readers,

I recently read another Winston Graham novel, a novella really, The Forgotten Story, set in 1898, written 1945. I had not expected but found (once again) central to a Graham novel, a marital rape, and central to the atmosphere Cornwall.

It’s one of three the non-Poldark novels recently in print: Wintson Graham: Marnie, Greek Fire, and The Forgotten Story. Marnie is a highly unusual psychological study of a disturbed young woman which was travestied by Hitchcock into a film about a hateful mother, controlling husband and thieving woman (it made a lot of money); Greek Fire, very typical for Graham’s generation of leftist writers, a novel about the overthrow of a socialist movement in Greece, 1948, and its replacement by a capitalist religious group, heralding what was to come as it was engineered by US and other western powers’ agencies (Alexander Baron wrote a similar one about Spain in the 1950s, Franco is Dying); and Forgotten Story, historical fiction set in Cornwall, centered on Anthony Veal, an orphan boy where we meet marginalized people making a living off an inn on the coast of Cornwall at the turn of the century; how Patricia Harris (nee Veal), the daughter attempts to flee a marriage where she has married above her and finds life constraining and painful.

The Forgotten Story, has an unhappily apt title, which paradoxically point to one reason it may still be in a remember collection, as it was made into mini-series in 1983 by then respected actors which appears to have flopped if the complete lack of information in IMDB and on line stills are any indication. Nonetheless, The Forgotten Story, is also one of the few pre-1950s novels, novels before the Poldark series, Graham chose to reprint.

The cover features Sean Connery in an early leading role as the controlling husband, and Tippi Hedren as the disturbed young woman (Hitchcock originally wanted Grace Kelly)

In a brief preface to The Forgotten Story Graham writes that it was novel written just before the first Poldark (Ross Poldark) and during some dark days in WW2 and he says it reflects the dark state of mind he felt at the public revelations of what the state of the UK had been doing, the concentration camps, the reality of what the war had been. He opens by describing those who would reconstruct real events from newspaper accounts as “like paleontologists trying to reconstruct an extinct animal,” never certain because of the deceptive nature of appearances, the multiplicity of details that add up to truth but that can also suggest a number of other possibilities.” What we discover slowly in this book is that we have a dreadful murderess at its center (yes it has the commonly misogynist figure popular in crime mysteries still) who has murdered Patricia, our heroine’s father, the good Joe Veal, and now her uncle, who had been brought into the plot into order to accomplish it. Until near the end of the book it seems as if we are in a more straight historical novel about the psychological social troubles of a set of local people.

We do not know this until the very close to story’s end as it is told by a young boy, old enough to understand on a prime level what’s happening and the amorality or morality of a given event (older than the children in Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird who cannot tell us but are transparent windows supposedly). The effect is part of the power: the naif perspective. He is himself endangered at the close, Aunt Madge, the murderess, Uncle Joe (as Anthony calls her)’s second wife, locks Anthony into a room below deck on a sinking ship in order to drown him. The use of a child narrator gives the word its intensity: he is not only innocent, but a good and well-meaning adolescent (aged 11), older than the children of Lee’s story and also (more recently Emma Donoghue’s The Room); nonetheless, the device works to deflect the reader from the central tabooed content in various ways and see what’s happening through normative eyes and a mind continually trying to give an upbeat presentation of events.

Its tightly structured; begins with a wreck on the coast of Cornwall, and returns to the scene at the end, resembling DuMaurier’s Cousin Rachel and Trollope’s Eye for an Eye) which both begin in terribly disturbed moments: in all three cases the novel is the explanation in the form of a story. It gives the piece a gothic framing.

Beyond the redolent use of Cornwall, I was attracted to the uncle who runs a genially transgressive bar, and to heroine, a type very like say Elinor Dashwood, the well-meaning but self-possessed and vulnerable young woman (played in the mini-series by Angarah Rees)

Angharad Rees (online promotional photo, perhaps as Patricia)

When Patricia flees her persistent husband, Tom who with a boyfriend, Ned Pawlyn (who later offers to flee to Australia so they can live as man-and-wife without being known), starts the quarrel in the bar which appears to lead to her father’s death, she has no means of supporting herself decently. This is 1898 and the only professions open to a young woman still are wife or teacher. She takes a position as a strict girls’ school — we are in a mild version of Jane Eyre too. The telling gripping incident of the story is a marital rape scene, which I’m coming to see as an obsession, a highly unusual one. Tom rescues Patricia from the bar quarrel and to assert his rights over her, rapes her. Grahame returns to this unusual motif again and again: presents a marriage scene where the husband rapes the wife and it is clear this is rape. This time it’s in apparent service of a 19th century obsession also found in Trollope's Vicar of Bullhampton: pressure on this woman to stay married to this man because he thinks he has a right to her since he’s prosperous, approved by everyone around him, is what’s respectably called decent and humane (though very rigid, a snob, controlling, cold) and what’s more in 1898 she has no decent way of earning her living. When Patricia leaves Tom publicly, and gives testimony on his behalf in a courtroom which reveals her liaison with Ned, she is ostracized and there’s a scene of public humiliaton (so she’s, to use Trollopeian types, a Mary Lowther, the good heroine who refuses the persistent hero because she’s not physically turned by him into a Carry Brattle, the “fallen” woman).
All the while she is of course in her heart an Esther Summerson/Amy Dorrit type (a pillar for others, a good person — no Arthur Clenhams in sight, alas, but someone who offers to go to Australia with her and live together there unmarried). Everything comes (quite literallly) to shipwreck.

Graham chose to return to the end of the Victorian period to be able to show this paradigm, only instead of Trollope’s way of least questioning it, and nagging the girl to take the man, showing her up, spending time on the obsessive young man and Mary’s unreasonableness (so to speak) in an effort to make the center the women’s quest for sexual satisfaction, Graham de-constructs the framing social circumstances. Tom Harris no longer has the right to demand Patricia back. In 1891 it had become no longer accepted since a famous court case for a husband to try to wrest his wife back to live with him. But he feels he ought to. The sense in the fiction is that this is wrong. This is at least one place where a woman should have real liberty. She is nagged by her (murderous we find) aunt to return to Tom using the conventional argument, she should. Period.

That this motif is returned to ceaselessly shows itd centrality for controlling women in this set of social structures, and that it’s at a great price to her.

The ending shows Tom Harris who has all along been an ambivalent figure (he appears to be exploiting the boy to pressure Patricia) into a hero of integrity. He rescues Antony and brings Patricia back from the school. We discover that Tom has been responsible for her getting her job: he had the connections and respect by his family and position as a lawyer. Unlike Ned, he can take Patricia somewhere as his wife; they can afford to provide a home for Anthony.

But the way he wins her is more interesting than this, or the way it’s presented. The presentation of Patricia’s choice to return to Tom reminded me of Colm Toibin’s Brooklyn. All is not quite forgiven — and as in Marnie, the saving grace is the rape scene is not at all dramatized (as it is twice in Four Swans), nor is the heroine driven by trauma and psychological distress (as in both Marnie and Four Swans), only an indication it took place (this is the way Ross Poldark’s rape of Elizabeth, the central heroine of the whole series is inserted — so to speak, just what led up to it, and the aftermath). Just enough is.

How do they come to this decision. From the same standpoint as Toibin’s: the woman is married to the man and so she obeys the social convention, goes with it. In the case of Toibin’s Brooklyn he uses this obedience to convention to point up the coldness of people towards one another, how they can pick up and drop one anther ruthlessly to follow what’s their interest. The force in Toibin is grimly powerful. I have read Toibin’s The South (about a woman who escapes her family to go live in Spain and finds herself embedded eventually in another family group), Blackwater Lightship (about deep alienation within a family), and The Master, Henry James as a gay man, an outsider. After a while the books all do spin around the same concerns, and for me at least are gripping. I find I can’t put them down easily each time I start one up again. I get intensely emotionally involved.

For Booklyn I found I had to peek ahead to the last pages to make sure our
heroine does what will eventually lead to some happiness for her, I was so
anxious for her. I feel the same for Graham’s heroines, all but Marnie. Toibin’s novel, Brooklyn required enormous strength to get through so much did I worry for her because she seemed to be this good person, self-sacrificing and could be bullied into giving up what could make her life joyful. But then when I came to the end of the book I saw I had been mistaken. In fact she might have liked to stay in Ireland and not return to Brooklyn, that is, stay with her birth family group instead of the new one she had become a part of it.

Toibin’s Brooklyn‘s grim insight is what we think keeps people together is not their intangible feelings, but order itself, and their value for one another comes out of how chance has put someone near someone that fits his or her needs. And either you belong to the order or you don’t.

In Graham’s Forgotten Story in effect this young woman does follow her economic and social interest in going back to the husband who s a rising lawyer. It was due to him she got the one job she did get, a teacher at a school; he vouched for her. She is indignant when she first hears of it, but forgets the indignation during the force of the shipwreck, and re-finding Anthony alive. And if she married Tom, she can also take the young boy with her and protect, mother him. It is to her social advantage and people obey conventions, every one does.

Recent cover of Forgotten Story

It’s not an emotional adherence, it’s coolly done. And we don’t see her do it, we are told it impersonally as the boy sleeps. We learn the boy after all was taken in (his father had abandoned him, sent him back to his family because the father had begun a second family where the boy was not wanted). Tom, Patricia, and Anthony head out for South Africa to make a new life for themselves taking the boy.

The forgotten story is that of this rape, of this marriage. Swept under the rug, swept away as the storm which sweeps away Uncle Perry, the uncle who colluded with the aunt, swept away as Uncle Joe, the father whose real vulnerability we are never permitted to delve. Why he married Madge? what happened to Patricia’s mother?

The fiction remains conventional (in a way Toibin’s does not): Graham treats this decision not as a violation of feeling and he presents the woman’s choice with tact and sympathy. It reminds me of the central heroine of the Poldark books who also finds security, peace, respect from the community by agreeing to marry Ross Poldark, the landowner whose servant she has been and who she has been going to bed with for a couple of weeks.

Early cover for Forgotten Story,signalling it as a woman’s romance novel

But it is the same insight: the convention the society sets up pushes people to obey it as they get rewarded for it. It does not take much in the Forgotten Story to see that those who do not have such conventions on their side suffer badly. And the curious insistence that it’s on a rape that the whole thing turns, on the rape of woman’s body — as the whole trajectory of the Poldark series finally does (I’ll write another blog on the Poldark novels after all and this is partly one). I’ve written a review of two books which argue the order and stability of socieities also depends on their willingness to murder children who do not fit in: Child Murder and British Culture.

Angharad Rees (this promotional photo is of her as a modern woman) – an enigmatic sexualized heroine who does not tell

So, to conclude not only is Graham still unusual for presenting marital rape as a central motif in his novels, he is highly unusual for doing it repeatedly. I suppose we should not be surprised that this aspect of his fiction never comes up in discussions of the Poldark novels; when I’ve talked off list or blog with people who’ve read the Poldark books, they deny Ross raped Elizabeth. Of course she was consenting :) — they can’t deny the rape of Morwenna, so there is the implication in the conversation that I’m morbid to dwell on this unfortunate (highly it’s implied) heroine, when her story is meant to be not that atypical, only her reaction.

When writing my paper on Richardson’s Clarissa and rape (“What right have you to detain me here?”), I took the common view how rare is the depiction of marital rape (well, except in modern African stories, mostly those by women). I was right there, but wrong to have left out this exception.

For more on Toibin’s Brooklyn, see comments.


Read Full Post »

Charles James Fox (1790s?) by Karl Anton Hickel

Dear friends and readers,

As part of my project reading towards my paper to be given at the EC/ASECS, “‘I have a right to choose my own life:’ Liberty in Winston Graham’s Poldark novels,” I’m rereading the first 7 Poldark novels, reading a couple other historical novels which use the past to project a liberal-leftist and/or feminist point of view (e.g., David Lisse’s A Conspiracy of Paper, and Emma Donoghue’s Slammerkin), texts on the concept of liberty, and some genuine background non-fiction books set in the later 18th or early 19th century. One is Charles J Esdaile’s The Peninsula War. I’ll be writing about some of this reading as I finish it, or the spirit prompts me.

Tonight (while the electricity holds out), I want to recommend David Powell’s Charles James Fox, Man of the People. Powell’s is an intelligent, compactly informative book, important because insightful and goes against the strong tendency in our era to interpret earlier history from a conservative point of view. Powell makes a strong case for understanding Fox most clearly as someone who in his later career (after his father died) worked hard an consistently for civil and social liberty for the individual in a real-life real-world political context, which means he had to bend, compromise, build coalitions according to party politics at the time (later 18th century), the way the British parliament and elections and monarchy worked under the impress of specific individuals and his own allegiances. Much that is written insists that Fox had no principle, or even castigates him, but as Powell shows Fox’s life makes no sense unless you see genuine open-mindedness, real toleration and liberalism as the real impulse underneath the various permutations. This point of view on Fox coheres with the perspective on the Lennox family in Stella Tillyard’s two books, Aristocrats: Caroline, Emily, Louisa and Sarah Lennox, 1740-1832, and Citizen Lord: Edward Fitzgerald, 1763-98. Charles was son to Caroline Lennox and Henry Fox, cousin to Edward Fitzgerald.

I was particularly impressed with Powell’s rare ability to get down to the nitty gritty, really tell in literal details what a bill was, how the various sides acted towards it, the individuals involved, at the same time as he gives the motives and whatever principles were or claimed to be involved — all in brief compass.

What follows are some rather more scattered and general assessment remarks than I usually do (I omit details since there were so many ins and outs) from my reading as I went along, and then a posting by Nick Hay where he too assesses the book and quotes ably and epitomizingly from it.


Henry Fox, later 1st Lord Holland (1705-1774) by Joshua Reynolds

This is an excellent study of the ins and outs of political life in the later 18th century, and how one man, Fox, moved from apparently being an orthodox politician supporting the king to a genuine radical working for modern ideas of liberty across a wide swath of people. Where Powell slides over one can fill in with articles. How Fox fought against Wilkes in the earlier phase of his history: here it was Fox’s loyalty to his father that came in. We see his early years brought up lovingly by his father, the encouragement he was given to develop his mind originally, his extensive reading when at university, a habit he returned to in later life.

Then how he came to switch from being pro-king over the marriage bill where the king demanded that his sons and all further heirs to the throne get permission from the sovereign is a case in point that shows unexpected twists and turns of thought. Here Fox was for sexual liberty for males and liberty for someone to advance him or herself by marriage. Also his father had died and he felt freed to be more radical.

The best article I read was by D. T. Johnson “Charles James Fox: From Government to Oppostion, 1771-1774,” English Historical Review, 89 (1974):750-84. Johnson takes this modern pro-conservative view that Fox didn’t mean his radical enlightenment politics seriously. The changeover relates to Mrs Fitzherbert: it came when the king insisted on the Marriage Bill which gave the monarch the right to veto any marriages of the heir to the throne. It would seem this is an odd choice to change one’s stance on over a life time. Johnson shows it was far more than that; it was personal: Fox had been overlooked and insulted continually by the jealous North; Fox allied himself with Burke as a friend too; yes there was jobbery and inveigling for property and wealth. But in principle Fox was for people having the right (apparently) to marry whom they wanted. It’s presented as venal and personal: he is defending his father and mother, his own desire to marry up, but it seems to me from the quotations far more than that.

Powell appears to believe in Fox’s adherence to real principles after his father, mother and brother died. Powell shows how other scholars and people at the time dismissed his early period of orthodoxy (supporting the king and status quo). Tony Benn’s introduction to Powell’s book sets the situation against our modern one, the differences and similarities. The similarities are self-evident, politics as personal power and riches-grab, with a new ancien regime holding on to what it has, and recently trying to extend it again; the differences too, genuine near universal suffrage with decent laws and customs for the relatively and full powerless or unconnected. It’s paradoxical that Fox came to stand for the rights of these latter: super-wealthy aristocratic, gambler, but also highly well-educated (from Henry and Caroline who we learned about from Tillyard). Benn writes:

The pressure of all these events [1780s through 90s, from "beneath" for annual parliaments, equal or real representation, the French and American revolutionary ideals and doings] made Fox sound like a voice in the wilderness [his point of view was so rare, so individual it seemed] though a century or more later his little minority had won the day – and therein lies the importance of Fox as a major figure in the period through which he lived.

So I conclude he sympathized with Mrs Fitzherbert as he took his stand against the bill that excluded her from being taken seriously. My favorite joke from Caroline’s trial is her answer that the only adultery she ever committed was with Mrs Fitzherbert’s husband.

Fox teamed up with Burke and they made these eloquent speeches and formed a solid opposition to George’s policies against the Americans in the Revolutionary war — which of course got nowhere as the king had the vote, and he was determined to carry on the war with the colonies as about his power and his perogative and bribed everyone with huge sums. In this book George does not emerge as this genial good man who became pathetically ill (the way he does in Alan Bennet’s play and recent books), but as a stubborn, venal, petty, vengeful man protecting his power first and foremost. The figure familiar from Junius at the time, from the early writing of Southey, from Byron and Shelley, from (come to that) Paine and Jefferson.


Elizabeth Armistead, later Fox (1750-1842), also by Reynolds

One reason I like Fox so much is he married Elizabeth Armistead who as a prostitute with no family and no inheritance was just nobody in this era, less than nobody as an unchaste woman – a very unconventional thing to have done, and was very happy with her in his later years. Like his father before him, he retired to live out a Horatian ideal. He had been a serious student when at Oxford and never lost contact with a rich intellectual life — despite all the years of gambling, promiscuity. A life of Armistead is included in Katie Hickman’s Money, Sex and Fame in the Nineteenth Century.

Powell does not address the question of Fox’s attitude towards women as such or individual women. We hear he was a notorious libertine, but not one example of how he behaved, who or what the particular woman in question was or the “escapade.” It’s a strange treatment as it’s not irrelevant to Fox’s standing as a politician then or now. I’ve now read three articles on Fox and find 1) there is a strong modern (recent) tendency to want to deny that Fox was at all radical in his thought but to present him as utterly subject to local politics, his engagement with family and friends, and acting out of venal personal motives in part all the time. “Venal” is not unfair: the writers (two reviewers of L. G. Mitchell’s biography) seems to misrepresent Mitchell’s book. Mitchell in his ODNB presents a sympathetic view of Fox, liking him personally but not taking a stand on the sincerity of Fox’s later years in opposition and in defense of personal and other human liberties. The two reviewers both Fox emerges from Mitchell’s book as a horror, one even says Mitchell detests him. He doesn’t if the ODNB is any sign. Both these reviewers seem to react in the way earlier people writing about Fox did: they say they abhor his personal amorality. If so, they never say what the particulars are.

I am suspicious that what they can’t stand is his unconventionality. The man was unconventional in his core being, a reaction to his father’s life and understanding, the education he was given, his mother’s high intelligence and indulgence. I can’t answer Caroline’s question for I don’t know what is meant by th references to Fox’s libertinage. If it includes rape and crimes against women, then his behavior to Elizabeth Armistead is an anomaly. If it’s that he was simply unconventional and lived with equally unconventional people, e.g., he may have had a liaison with Georgiana Spencer; he was later in life close with Charles Grey, who became his loyal henchman in the last years fighting Burke. Also important was his close alliance with Sheridan, the book to read here is Fintan O’Toole’s on Richard Sheridan A Traitor’s Kiss. Not slender, and scholarly, it is also on Ireland (as one person on C18-l said, “a blindspot for many English theorists & advocates of liberty”).

But there is this oddity — which it shares with many books until recently — and perhaps books to come once again. Repeatedly we are told that X, say the Earl of Sandwich in the particular instance (p. 119) was “a notorious profligate” and it was held against him and hurt him politically. But we are told nothing of what this means. What women he was involved with, what he did to them, what gambling or cheating or whatever neglects he was guilty of.

This is strange if you think just a little. What crime did he commit? We are not told. What shameful things? we are not told. When someone gambling debts are known, and it’s usually general, we are told. This is part of the pre-feminist kind of book where women never appear except marginally. (The modern style book is Francine du Plessix-Gray where she pretends to write the book on Sade’s wife; she doesn’t but the wife is there a lot, say even 30% of the time is taken into consideration.). This would suggest no one in Powell’s era could give a damn about the women and also that in the earlier era no one did.

Well if so, why was it deleterious to the man’s career?

It’s also so frustrating to be told this kind of generalization repeatedly and then never told what it means, who it concerns.

The books which begin with Elizabeth Armistead for example or are about her, bring her in, but she is but one of Fox’s women and came later in his life and what he did with her may have been wholly unusual for him. Not so small peeves: when Mary Davies allows her book about Armistead and Fox to be titled The Harlot and the Statesman: The Love Story of Elizabeth Armistead and Charles James Fox makes me loathe to buy it, plus it’s expensive, priced at $25 the least and only available from UK booksellers. Why is he the statesman? There is good reason to believe he did not act out of principle (actually Powell thinks he partly did – that he did really care about individual liberty). Why must she be referred to so stigmatizingly? The word would not have been used of her except maybe by Gillray in a cartoon (and he’s a cruel misgynist consistenty in his pictures)


Caroline Lennox Fox, Lady Holland (175), a reading, radical and intelligent woman – probably centrally important to Charles too, but marginalized in this book (except as the woman his father dared to marry)

Powell has persuaded me that Fox did work by principles, only that his principles were complicated (friendship came before an adherence in public to the principles of liberty) and shaped by the realities of party politics.

What a complicated story each phase of this man’s political life is. It takes a long time to read each page in order to comprehend what is meant fully. It’s revealing about the brutality of the politics of the later 1790s. The intense ruthless suppression of any dissent was as ferocious and relentless as anything done in France, short of the mass killings in the prisons and on the guillotine. I do love how Burke comes out for once as a neurotic mad-man — this fringe person despised for years and writhing under it, suddenly goes beserk when his order or group is threatened and how he is then used by the powerful for their purposes. To this we get these vivid vignettes of these arisocrats as violent thugs causing riots in the streets, not to omit really suggestiveness about Fox’s psychological motives: in parliament Fox was like someone on a listserv who can beat everyone else with eloquence; he can’t resist flaming others; there is a compensation for his looks going on too.

The ending written in this simple way, and becomes so moving as we watch the man die of dropsy. It’s deeply moving and and Charles James Fox’s last few weeks in power. He did on the last gasp speak extraordinarily for the abolition of slavery.

Nick had said the moving nature of the ending comes from the relationship with Elizabeth Armistead. I didn’t see that as any more central (or less) than from the time he began to live with her on and off at St Anne’s Hill. Like all women in this book she is barely characterized, kept in the margins. It is the one grave fault with the book.


Abolitionist, Thomas Clarkson (1760-1846)

And here is Nick’s fine assessment:

“I have now finished David Powell’s book Charles James Fox Man of the People (1989). Unfortunately, it is unscholarly – there are no notes, sources or bibliography. Of course it is designed as a popular biography, but that is no reason why a book should be unscholarly (as Jenny Uglow’s book on Thomas Bewick demonstrates). There are some things to be said in its favour…

1) precisely because of its light-weight nature it is an easy read and provides an introduction to the main course of Fox’s life, at least as far as his political career is concerned.

2) Fox himself is such a charismatic, and in the last 15 or so years anyway, of his life charming figure that I became fully involved with the narrative towards the end, and indeed was quite affected by the death-bed scene.

I am not going to attempt any sort of summary but very broadly Fox as a private man moved from hell-raising rake and gambler to devoted monogamist (he was completely in love with Liz Armistead and they were – especially by the standards of the late 18thC aristocracy – a truly devoted couple). Fox as a public man grew more radical as he grew older – a trajectory which always appeals to me, and goes completely against that nonsensical and absurd cliche about people becoming more conservative as they age. His courage in the 1790′s when he opposed Pitt’s repression at the cost of any sort of career, of his popularity, in the face of scabrous vilification and all the forces of the state is truly inspiring. It is certainly true that his earlier career did not suggest this kind of political dedication and there were and are plenty to accuse him of inconsistency – but what is very clear is that in the 1790′s he sacrificed any sort of ambition for the sake of principle.

The following are just notes on things which I particularly enjoyed.

Writing of the corruption of earlier 18thC politics Powell quotes an MP by the name of Hans Stanley who wrote…

If I had a son, I would say to him ‘Get into Parliament, make some tiresome speeches. Do not accept the first offer, but wait until you can make provision for yourself and your family and then call yourself an independent country gentleman’

which demonstrates that corruption in the British Parliament is hardly (as is claimed by the ignorant at present) new. Of course in terms of corruption Walpole himself set a standard which will never be equalled – at least he spent the proceeds well as anyone who has visited his Norfolk home at Houghton can attest.

One thing Powell does do well is to convey the stupidity, meanness and vindictiveness of George 3rd (the book is certainly a good corrective to that absurd Madness film); when Chatham died (the elder Pitt) George 3rd objected to his being buried in Westminster Abbey remarking….

This compliment is rather an offensive measure to me personally’

carrying his vindictiveness beyond the grave.

Reviewing the 18thC electoral system Powell gives a wonderful quote from Sir Philip Francis which shows that the election sequence in Blackadder series 3 (the Dish and Dishonesty episode) was not, in fact, so far from the truth. Here is Francis speaking of his election at Appleby….

I was unanimously elected by one Elector to represent this ancient Borough in Parliament….there was no other Candidate, no Opposition, no Poll demanded, Scrutiny or petition. So I had nothing to do but thank the said Elector for the Unanimous Vote with which I had been chosen

(actually thinking about it the election at Dunny-in-the-Wold was more democratic than this – there were at least other Candidates and a Poll in that case!).

Moving to Fox’s private life I want to cite a couple of passages illustrative of his devotion to Liz Armistead and the quietness of his domestic circumstances in later years. Here he is writing about Liz…

She is a comfort to me in very misfortune, and makes me enjoy doubly every pleasant circumstance of life; there is to me a charm and delight in her society, which time does not in the least wear off, and for real goodness of heart if she ever had an equal, she never had a superior…..The Lady of the Hill is one continual source of happiness to me’

He finally married Liz in 1795, though the marriage was kept secret for 7 years for reasons which are still not clear though it may be that he did not want her dragged into the extremely brutal political arena in which he was operating. Here anyway is John Bernard Trotter’s, Fox’s secretary, description of the Foxs daily round at their country home at St Anne’s Hill….

In summer he rose between six and seven, in winter before eight… After breakfast, which took place between eight and nine in the summer, and a little after nine in the winter, he usually read some Italian authors with Mrs Fox, and then spent the time preceding dinner at his literary studies, in which the Greek poets bore a principal part. A frugal but plentiful dinner took place at three….; and a few glasses of wine were followed by coffee. The evening was dedicated to walking and conversation to tea time, when reading aloud, in history, commenced, and continued till near ten. A light supper of fruit, pastry, or something very trifling finished the day, and at half past ten the family were gone to rest.

Now admittedly this is about as far from his younger hell-raising days as can be imagined, but I had no idea that Fox was like this in maturity – I had been utterly deceived by the popular (mis) representations. If for nothing else reading Powell has been worthwhile in correcting me in this misapprehension.

I’ll note for Ellen’s interest that Powell writes that Liz once had to ‘confiscate’ a copy of Fanny Burney’s Camilla when Fox began to read the newly arrived book aloud at dinner, and for my own interest that he maintained an acquaintance with Crabbe. Like Crabbe and Bewick (and it seems almost everyone) he became an amateur naturalist listing every flower and plant on his small estate.

Here is a poem Fox wrote to Liz on his 50th Birthday – the poem may hardly be called a classic but the sentiment is affecting -

Of years I have now half a century passed
And none of the fifty so blessed as the last.
How it happens that my troubles thus daily should cease,
And my happiness thus with my years should increase,
This defiance of Nature’s more general laws,
You alone can explain, who alone are the cause’

(in some ways Fox is a Byronic figure – the aristocratic rebel – but in his mature private life he could hardly be more different).

Fox was of course above all a magnificent orator – the greatest in a period of great orators (Chatham, Burke, Sheridan) and Powell quotes several of his speeches. I pick the following from 1800. Fox is replying to a suggestion that, rather than seeking peace with France, Britain should pause and see how events turn out. Fox replies to Pitt …

In former wars a man might at least, have some feeling, some interest, that served to balance in his mind the impressions which a scene of carnage and of death must inflict….But if a man were present now at a field of slaughter, and were to inquire for what they were fighting – ‘Fighting!’ would be the answer; they
are not fighting, they are pausing.’ ‘Why is that man expiring? Why is that other writhing in agony? What means this implacable fury?’ The answer must be ‘You are wrong, sir; you deceive yourself. They are not fighting. Do not disturb them; they are merely pausing. This man is not expiring with agony – this man is not dead – he is only pausing…..All you see, sir, is nothing like fighting – there is no harm, cruelty or bloodshed in it whatever; there is nothing more than a political pause.

This brilliant invective rings clear across the centuries as we consider the language used to cloak and soften the horrific realities of war.

In his very last speech in the Commons on 10th June 1806 Fox spoke in support of the abolition of slavery….

‘So fully am I impressed with the vast importance and necessity of obtaining what will be the object of my motion this night, that if, during the almost forty years that I have had the honour of a seat in Parliament, I had been so fortunate as to accomplish that, and that only, I should think I had done enough, and could retire from public life with comfort, and the conscious satisfaction that I had done my duty.’

He died on 13th September 1806 his last words being to his wife who was at his side ‘It don’t signify my dearest dearest Liz.’

Powell points out that by modern standards Fox was in many ways not a radical especially in his opposition to universal suffrage. However I found him a far more courageous and sympathetic figure than I expected and would certainly like to read a fuller more scholaryl book than this, which he most definitely merits.”


Barbauld’s once famous political prophetic poem

I answered Nick thus:

McCarthy in his book on Barbauld gives an effective description of the 1790s so we see how not just the radicals, but ordinary people with let’s say progressive ideas were frightened, and punished for the least appearance of enlightened thought or protest. The government was behind the riots at Priestley’s house and it together with power local people across the country repeated the same kinds of acts backed by military might and local ostracism, firing, and scapegoating. The Barbaulds were the type that were affected here, and many of their friends.

She like Fox was brave in the 1790s, but not quite as brave, only of course she was a woman so it wasn’t possible to stand on the world’s stage. She published then famous works anonymously; it was known they were by her, and she was partly protected because she was a woman. Who cared what she thought. I have a parallel passage to Nick’s by Fox in the 1790s where her idea that’s use language truthfully and say the thing a thing is is brought to clear power. Here is she arguing that the still powerful cruel idiocies about calling the blessing of God on your murderous activities (war) is somehow a moral thing to do. She writes in Sins of the Nation

we have calmly voted slaughter and merchandized destruction” – and urged that things should be called by their proper names: “When we pay our army and our navy estimates, let us set down – so much for killing, so much for maim­ing, so much for making widows and orphans, so much for bringing famine upon a district, so much for corrupting citizens and subjects into spies and traitors, so much for ruining industrious tradesmen and making bankrupts (of that species of distress at least, we can form an idea)


Read Full Post »

Solomon Naumovich Rabinovich, pen-name Scholem Aleichem (1859-1916)

Dear friends and readers,

Izzy and I went to see Scholem Aleichem, or, Laughing in the Darkness late Sunday afternoon. Bob (on Trollope19thCStudies) had recommended it a couple of weeks ago now. So now I’ll repeat the recommendation: it’s a fine film, one of the best I’ve seen in a while (really all summer).

It’s a biographical study of the *Solomon Naumovich Rabinovich*, once a leading Yiddish playwright. Sholem Aleichem is the pen-name of his imagined narrator; apparently Aleichem presents himself as a disembodied persona. He is a part author and or owner of his sad-tragic-comic tales. His characters part respect him (especially the older/father figure): they know they like the tunes; they learn to know and love the words. They converse, and then argue. Mr Perry deplored that so now all Eliza Austen has to do is renew her relationship with William Radcliffe. He cares for real people mirrored in the book’s stories.

The film done with great finesse, candour and insight and sensitivity too. The film-maker, Joseph Dorman, has woven a life through the works in the way of recent written biographies. The viewer more or less follows the trajectory of Aleichem’s life filled out by over-voice comments and commentaries by educated people (and one relative) about these stories and their relevance to Aleichem’s character and life story. (The mode of interview reminded me of NOVA specials). We don’t get an interpretation of the stories for their own sake or a description of their aesthetics. Instead the work is made to reflect the life and used where it would come in the life and it takes up space: the writer is described as writing the work as it’s described. The result in this film is the life is illuminated and so are the stories. The quality is like that of a PBS series some years ago (maybe decades) about a group of American poets supposed to reflect also on American life.

The film done with great finesse, candour and insight and sensitivity too. The viewer more or less follows the trajectory of Aleichem’s life filled out by over-voice narrator storytelling and comments and by commentaries by educated people (and one relative) about these stories interspersed with the life chronology and representations of his works. The mode of interview, with the interviewee in his or her study, reminded me of NOVA specials.

The idea at the heart of the film is to examine the issue of individual identity as it relates to the person’s culture. The point is made the Jewish identity that Aleichem captured and spoke to in his work is now vanished sufficiently so that if you want to present any of them dramatically you have to change the values and what happens in the stories. So when his stories of Tevye, the dairy man, were transformed into Fiddler on the Roof, a successful Broadway musical and film, even the opposite meanings are projected. So when at the end of the story upon which Fiddler on the Roof is based the daughter does not leave the father; she does not go off with her husband in Aleichem’s story, that’s a happy ending (in a semi-tragic tale mind). People who have seen Fiddler on the Roof will recall the daughter does leave, leaves for the successful modern life and that’s the happy ending.

What was especially excellent was how the voice-over narrator, quotations from the stories, pictures, and commentators conveyed the quality of Aleichem’s writing. The theme they emphasized is caught up in the film’s subtitle: laughing in the darkness. Aleichem had himself been the son of a man doing somewhat better than the others in the shtetl; when he was 13, his father lost the money he had had and business. They were bankrupt. The father had sent his son to some sort of secular schooling and even after he found he had no money managed to send him to a high school equivalent where he was reasonably educated. The young man obtained a job as a tutor with a wealthy family and the daughter and he fell in love. He was ejected, but she followed him and they married. Eventually he inherited his father-in-law’s fortune. With that he and his wife moved to Kiev and he started up a periodical and lived the life of a bourgeois intelligentsia person. He lost his money (was not practical) and had to turn to his mother-in-law for help. Periods of poverty alernated with periods of relative prosperity. He saw much in life, the way much is conducted utterly irrationally. The vision of his works seems to be wild laughter in the face of underlying hysteria.

Nothing could be further from Fiddler on the Roof whose feel of the past is nostalgic, sentimental, and comfortable with life. I’ve seen the musical three times on stage and know it rejoices in being alive and suggests the future to come is good.

So I’m not sure this kind of change is from change of identity; often fine works when turned into movies have their essential meanings reversed, partly because the more intelligent thinking reader is only a small part of a mass audience, partly because reading alone to the self invites the text to become about vulnerable asocial experience while watching in a crowd must please the crowd so substitutes strongly socially-oriented perceptions of experience. But it seems to be obvious that the culture Aleichem recreated in his works is now gone from us, and the film was making the point that a new culture had arisen from the old. That people of Jewish ancestry have had to make new or different identities. I agree with that.

I know that I have created a kind of identity for myself and am moved by such stories of such attempts. Mine emerged from my reading of English novels and memoirs from the time I was an adolescent (P. L. Travers’s Mary Poppins in the Park) to when I got my Ph.D. and went to England, and then married an Englishman. I like to read novels of hybrid-cultures, say Anglo-Indian where you find individuals struggling to find themselves, create some identity they can endure, bear with and the price of this. This is Jhumpa Lahiri’s powerful theme in Namesake.

But it is also a common theme in books today — or how we read them. In my classes last term we treated Graham’s Ross Poldark as about a couple who are individually trying to survive and build lives for themselves which are unconventional while they remain safe. We discussed Andrea Levy’s Small Island as about how one can’t escape a painful identity which is not you but used against you by the society around you. So maybe this modern take in the film tells us more about us than Aleichem. Or as much.

The tone of the talk in the film was upbeat throughout but if you listened to the content what was said was grave. The film’s least upbeat tones were reserved for the death of Yiddish. A library filled with books in Yiddish was filmed. The point was no one or few can read them now. A rich literature just “thrown away” the narrator said, without examination. It was that Yiddish was stigmatized and so it was not wanted.

I know that Yiddish was not the only dialect of Hebrew mixed with a local language across Europe. Yiddish grew up in Eastern Europe (my grandparents spoke Yiddish, my mother used to be able to understand it when it was spoken to her) and was found in German to the Eastern European countries and to Russia, but a different dialect, a compound of Hebrew and Spanish grew up in Spain called Ladino developed and spread across Spain and into Greece, Turkey, the Balkans. So Yiddish was not universal in Europe for Jewry; it could have become universal say through the publication of its newspapers (my grandfather used to read one as I recall) and books in the US and elsewhere, and Aleichem spent much of his genius, money, talents, time trying to create this literature from scratch. But it had no hegemony through power structures. Probably it needed to be taught in public schools run by state gov’ts and was not.

For me the stunning thing was the sheer amount of photos, and films of 19th and early 20th century Jewish life in Russia in the communities where Jewish people were forced to live and also some cities apparently individuals could live in (Kiev, where Aleichem during a period of strong prosperity lived for a time). One could see village life, the intense poverty of these people (often they are dressed in very heavy clothing, even in their houses, signalling how cold it is there), photos of the killings (corpses) left over from the mid-century pogroms which drove Jewish people out of Russia to the US (some stayed in the UK en route), photos of Jewish communities and Aleichem’s funeral in NYC (1913-1916). Of course many photos of Aleichem; one grand or great-granddaughter was one of those interviewed.

It was very moving. The auditorium was full, I’d say mostly of Jewish people, though the clientele of this West End Cinema movie house was there too. It’s located in Georgetown and is a genuine art theater. It’s the place where we have seen European HD operas. They had The Anchor (about a working class woman English writer who died young, she lived in the equivalent of welfare projects in the UK up north); next week they’ll have a film about the use of ballet in opera; Izzy and I saw Cave of Forgotten Dreams there two weeks ago. People applauded Scholem Aleichem at the end. However, we saw the film in the only theater in all the Maryland, Virginia and DC area it was playing in. The usual supposed art cinema (independent) Izzy and I go to was said to be having this film soon: Cinemart he calls his theater. He is about 2 blocks (NYC style) from a local Jewish Community Center (where Izzy nowadays goes for a social club she enjoys) and in May each year his theater has a festival of Jewish films half-hosted by the JCC but I can see he’s hedging because he really plays semi-popular films and if a film doesn’t get a big enough audience quickly, it vanishes from his theater.

Go see it if you can.


Read Full Post »

Elizabeth (Jill Townsend) gives birth to Valentine: season 2 begins and ends with Elizabeth in childbirth

Dear friends and readers,

I’ve been reading away towards the paper I intend to write on “Liberty” (in the complicated 18th century sense) in the Poldark novels, which basically has meant finishing re-reading the first seven novels, and will include reading a couple more of Graham’s non-Poldark novels, a couple of popular historical fictions mean to provide liberal-leftist point of view with a usable (exemplary) past, and finally a few essays of parts of books that might be relevant (on historical fiction, on the revolutionary politics of the era, on specific subjects, say corrupt elections, the Peninsula wars, Cornwall).

I know that when I originally began reading the Poldark novels I watched the whole of the first season (1975-76) of the Poldark mini-series, and posted a long blog on all 16 episodes (based on the first four novels, Ross Poldark, Demelza, Jeremy Poldark, Warleggan): An 18th century Cornish Che Guevara, but while I watched, and wrote a posting to Eighteenth Century Worlds for each of the 13 episodes of season two (based on the next three, The Black Moon, The Four Swans, The Angry Tide), I never wrote a blog. This second series had a hard time gaining the momentum of the first, but as it proceeded turned into equally intelligent well-done popular televisual art, and seems to be liked. I also watched the 1996 film adaptation of the eighth Poldark novel, The Stranger from the Sea, and discovered it has been wrongly damned and utterly misrepresented in the popular press.

So, what I’ve decided to do is thread in a few blogs on the films while working on this paper. Tonight the opening four parts of Season 2 which reprise some of the material of Season 1 and adapts with some changes The Black Moon. The second series ably fulfilled the role of historical costume drama as romance, adventure story, political and woman’s film too.

Episode 1

George, hard, wily, resentful, domineering

The episode sets up the antagonism between Ross (Robin Ellis) and George Warleggan (Ralph Bates) as central to the coming series; this in fact supersedes Ross’s homecoming. George has enclosed his land again, set up man-traps, is continuing to rack-rent and throw people out of cottages; after the loving reunion of Ross and Demelza (Angharad Rees), done very strongly so the two actors clearly got along (semi-joke alert), we are introduced to Demelza’s two brothers, Drake (Kelly McNally) and Sam (David Delve) their methodism and relative ignorance/innocence set before us and they are provided with a house, and jobs (Drake is set up as carpenter). Demelza’s brothers have gotten religion. A satire and exposure/satire but also much sympathy with methodism as a means of self-respect and rebellion has begun. Ross is again involving himself on behalf of the powerless and vulnerable, the miners, his tenants.

The character of Aunt Agatha (Eileen Way) and her antagonisms to George and his cruelty to her are well done as also (quietly implicitly) Jill Townsend’s Elizabeth. The actress had to get across the frustrations and miseries of a repressed conservative woman, not easy — especially without flashback or voice-over (which the series of the 70s eschewed). The best scene is the terrible childbirth where she screams: “I hate you I hate you” in the midst of her long agon, and we are not sure if this is Ross or George she refers to. We watch her give birth. There is a (for the 1970s) frank, powerful and effective scene. Unlike the Pallisers (5 years earlier), we just don’t sit outside with the (here putative) father and grandfather, but we are allowed in. Bloody, in pain, linen upon linen soiled and messed and used, hours and hours suggested and much misery and screams. The doctor, Behenna (Hugh Dickson) being there is seen as useful (as he is not in the novels) Even her ridiculously impeccable hair up to now, gets all wretched and messy.

Very good is the use of Jud Paynter (Paul Curran) and his wife Prudie (Mary Wimbush) as bringing in the doubts about Elizabeth’s birth, the obsession of George with his son. I’ve also put in the album a still of Warleggen bullying Elizabeth’s boy by her first husband (threatening to flog him). He is among several whose leg is almost done in by the mantraps — which are historically accurate. The actors for Paynter and Prudie go right back to the roles in the way of Ross and Demelza.

Some flaws: The writer is Alexander Baron, usually very strong, but producer has changed (!) to Anthony Coburn, and we do have less effective use of landscape; it’s as yet a backdrop rather than integrated as it was in the first season; the director is now Philip Dudley. They are stuck with some improbabilities beyond Elizabeth’s pregnancy by Ross (which comes from the conventions followed in the book): Ross’s re-appearance has to be explained; George and Elizabeth have to be provided with a new house. I’ve read since watching the first (Poldark’s Cornwall by Graham) that the film-makers did not succeed in obtaining as good a house as the one which served for Trenwith nor did they have full rights of ingress and egress. And Judy Geeson is back as Caroline Penvennen, just as absurdly overdressed, and the unfortunate scene where they all (Caroline, Ross, Demelza) greet one another again would be much better were they in their real 20th century clothes.

Episode 2

There is a repeating motif here: the revenant. Ross is a revenant. He first appeared at the opening of Season 1 a revenant from the American wars; now he’s a revenant from the French and Irish ones, and he’s preparing to return not to a war set up by a civil authority, but to smuggle out a man in danger of torture and death. This will give him a chance to be a revenant once again. It’s a powerful archetype: Martin Guerre comes to mind. This time though Ross is not leaving behind people who were glad to see the back of him as a young rebel, who sought to replace him (Charles and Francis Poldark), who hoped him dead (the Warleggans) but Demelza.

The series improves, markedly. Partly that’s because much of the hour is filmed on location in Cornwall. When they do this, the series often soars. It seems to fill the actors with intense energies as they act out these adventurous and romantic scenes among these sublime places.

Here Demelza’s younger evangelical brother begins a love romance with the governess hired by Elizabeth to care for her boy, a poor cousin, Morwenna Chynoweth (Jane Wymark); the two are defying the prohibition to live any life of her own.

As we have this couple beginning to defy the status they have been given, so there are scenes taking place in the established church where the local vicar, Rev Odgers (Esmond Webb) becomes angry and resentful at Demelza’s two brothers’ Methodism. In the church they do not wait for George Warleggan and Elizabeth to arrive and start singing on their own. George sees this as subversive and it is, disruptive of the establishment hierarhcy, ignoring who is supposed in power.

Dr Ennys (Michael Cadman replaces Richard Morant, and is somehow not as right for the role) has been captured aboard a ship, and is in prison, probably tortured, and Ross insists in trying to go free him — risking his life. Demelza’s understandably not keen. She’s pregnant and even if she weren’t, needs Ross — he’s the Captain remember, the one with property and prestige and now they’ve her brothers to keep too. These scenes between Demelza and Ross constitute a motif of the hour — they are taken from an important element in the books: Ross’s restlessness, which continues for all 12 books.

There are more scenes of George Warleggan bullying Aunt Agatha and her needling him. It’s hard to feel for Elizabeth when one sees her cold snobbish behavior to her cousin-governess, her lies, and her despising of the people in church. But this time through I know the actress is trying to show us a woman who has made a bad decision and can’t come back from it. She does not agree with George. She would not throw the Crane brothers off their land; she is pressured into signing a document which kicks them off. Ross didn’t want them either but to make up for his leaving Demelza he gives them land.

Ross and Tholly (Ducan Lamont) planning their expedition, making their deal

The hour ends with Ross’s planning his attempt to rescue Enys. He secures the help of Tholly Tregirls, a pirate renegade type (as Ross does in the book).

Episode 3

Drake running towards Morwenna and Geoffrey Charles, playing on the beaches

The stories that intensely resonate are in fact the new ones and stories that fit with cliched paradigms: like the young woman, Morwenna, forced into marriage, the young man, lower class, excluded. As I wrote, Graham sometimes (as many historical novelists do) imitates 18th century novels. So the new matter is that of Morwenna (Jane Wymark) who comes hired as a poor cousin to be the governess of Elizabeth’s son by Francis Poldark. She and Drake Crane, brother to Demelza, meet on the seacoast where she walks with the boy, fall in love — there are sublime scenes of them in caves, playing with the boy, filled with remarkable good feeling and a kind of controlled wildness.

Morwenna and Geoffrey Charles (Stefan Gates)

This would be like Romeo and Juliet but for the realistic vile bargaining between George and Whitworth (Christopher Biggins),the vicar who buys Morwenna as his wife. George is led to bribe the vicar with a large dowry in order to set up this alliance. These scenes have real bitter resonance as they show the money and class and patronage systems at work. Morwenna is susceptible to bullying because she cannot think of how to say she wants someone of a lower class and doesn’t want someone like Whitworth, who will aggrandize her status and that of her family and bring her much money too.

George Warleggen, husband to Elizabeth, stepfather to the boy, loathes Ross Poldark, Drake’s brother-in-law, especially for his sympathies for the poor; he stands for the new kind of capitalist. Elizabeth has learned a wrong lesson from life: it’s not so much that you need not marry for love and marriage has nothing to do with love, but rather that you, as a woman, should not sell yourself for money and for family aggrandizement.
You need not follow romance in order not simply to sell out for position. We see in these episodes that Elizabeth learns she made a bad bargain after all: she’s not being taken to London and being forced to do things that are cruel and wrong to the tenants, to Drake, to her son, Geoffrey Charles (for whom she does care very much) and she does feel it.

However, she does not see what is done to Morwenna is equally a violation. So get the story where Elizabeth and George are trying to coerce Morwena into marrying an unfunny Mr Collins type, more like Solmes from Clarissa, only instead of a fatuous ass, we have a genuine obtuse male who thinks it’s his right to demand sex from his wife, even when it’s plain she loathes him.

Great anxiety is created for the characters we sympathize with, just as in Season 1. Again the central characters — Morwenna and Drake — are so appealing, decent, idealism, loving — they meet in a church to talk, the boy facilitating this by his presence. But the acting and scenes don’t quite come near what’s needed: the problem is the books are have too strong tabooed material sexually and the point of view and acting of the 1970s is not inhibited enough to pull it off. Ellis does have a much easier role than say McNally or Biggins; he is the action-adventure rebel-hero, the man of high integrity who is also a dream-revenant and his rescue of Enys is partly out of love for the coquette-gay lady, conventional romance, e.g.,

Ross promising Caroline to rescue her bethrothed, Enys

What will come in Four Swans (the next four episodes of season 2) is the transgressive story about Demelza’s adultery with Hugh Armitage (Biran Stirner) whom Demelza falls in love with but also uses out of insecurity and despair over Ross’s continuing real attraction to Elizabeth, and sense he still owns Elizabeth. This is really kept up as interesting sheerly because he is intent on rescuing Enys partly out of love for Caroline — another woman again. And Demelza is pregnant. There is much really sore material here, but the series writer (Alexander Baron) did not have the insight into sexuality or didn’t want to present it on TV (limited view of what one could show).

Episode 4

The casual near-execution of Ross

George Warleggan throws Drake Carne in prison for stealing his stepson’s Bible. Drake did not, he is accused and has no recourse. Warleggan is the magistrate. He wants to put an end to Carne’s love affair with his cousin-by-marriage, he loathes Carne as Ross’s brother-in-law. George will prevent the stepson from testifying and hang Drake. And we get a scene which implies the necessity of threatened (and real) violence. George will not listen to Ross’s pleas for justice or truth and so Ross says he will not stop another retaliation of the men thrown off their land or out of jobs through George’s use of enclosure and substitution of flunkies at the mines. So George lets Drake go.

We see Ross (active-adventure hero) rescue Dr Enys from a vile prison where most are dying just as he did Jim Carter in Season 1. Here it’s complicated because Ross travels as part of a envoy of emigres in the counter-revolution. Now we see as the previous episode Orwell’s dictum: all torture and kill and all lie about it. In the previous episode Ross was almost executed by the emigres who caught him, now it’s the turn of the revolutionaries to be those determined to keep people in prison to die and kill anyone trying to free these men. Again we are bucking whoever is in authority. (Very Graham this.)

Poldark and his men are almost killed by the French soldiers, and one thing I admired was that the violence was not overdone nor underrated. Ross has made the mistake of trusting someone to help him get in; he pays this man who then turns him in while in the prison. Now I know this is not in the book and Ross’s near execution is not either. It’s an over the top piece of drama which allows a climactic close and to show us next time how both sides do atrocities. Baron would know this: he was in Franco’s Spain, wrote about it, so in this disguised drama we see a significant point about torture and execution then and now made.Ross himself kills others lest he be killed (they can afford to take no prisoners he says), and one of his band is killed: but it’s not glamorized and (as in the first season) feels realistic. The head of the emigres is brutally killed — his family had been guillotined. A hard role not that well played but at least it’s there.

Ross and his men’s boat was spied and an ambush set up; since they are our heroes spy the spies and kill them first. I felt also some knowledge of what warfare is (marauding bunches of men, bonded together, destroying and murdering) was before us. As with another mini-series from this era, To Serve Them All My Days, we are to feel that pacifism won’t do — each person is out for himself in this new France and is just as egoistic.

They do outdoors or location scenes in this second season as brilliantly as they do them in the first. The actors appear to enter into it fully. Robin Ellis does ride his own horse and we get closeups of him exhilarated. The scenes of the boat by the coasts are not computer generated but photographed scenes the actors really did.

The whole sequence takes up much of the fourth episode. It’s sandwiched with the opening cruelties of coerced marriage backed up by Morwena’s having bought into how she cannot marry Drake as beneath her and being sneered at, berated as “loose” and “a wanton” for meeting Drake in church. The same pastor who drove Sam Carne from the church to make one of their own snitches on the pair to make brownie points.


Elizabeth’s hand: pressured into signing documents by her husband

In the two central books on historical fiction and historical romances I’ve been reading (two yesterday) I’m again and again told popular fiction rarely avails itself of an opportunity to expose the injustices and outrages of established orders, that (among other things) it’s demanded of a huge majority of people to labor for very little at hard long jobs to support the wealthy luxurious life of the few. Well, not so in Graham’s fiction and in the best of these mini-series episodes not so at all too. In the fourth episode of Season 2 Poldark finally takes off, comes into its own and offers the sweep and passion of the last 10 or so parts of Season 1 by just just exposure.

Both Season 1 and Season 2 could taken straight from E. P. Thompson, Douglas Hay, Peter Linebaugh’s Albion’s Fatal Tree. One learns there that The reason for savage laws executing anyone stealing a small amount of clothes was to keep up the appearance that law was equal. Each rare time a wealthy person was executed a great deal was made out of it. The use of formalism was also to fool English people into thinking the courts worked by some high principle. Season 1 had the long episodes about poaching and smuggling; this one has more on prison life, corrupt execution of the laws, enclosure and later we see a man hung who rioted to keep food prices down. Graham’s book show despite Draconian ferocious punishments groups of people continued to smuggle, pick up food and whatever they could from wrecks on the British shores, poach (vast lands were enclosed and these had huge numbers of livestock — intense temptation to those on the edge of starvation), and write menacing letters threatening hard violence both on their own account and in general on behalf of their class. So it wasn’t such a deferential society after all. Nor blandly pro-law and order.

In both season 1 and season 2 we get scene upon scene of the horrors of prison life with an insistence that many people were thrown into them for long periods to die miserable, at the will of magistrates intent on making an example or personal vendetta.

What is not done justice to are the subtler politics; the elections, the discussions in the film (taken from the book) of the French revolution, the connections between the enclosures, the bribery and coercion using loans and the political choices made by George Warleggan and his father (less in evidence in Season 2 because the original actor was not brought back).

The Black Moon and these episodes also contain some obsessive patterns across Graham’s other books: the coerced woman and raw deal she gets, rape (both marital and as part of love relationships), illegitimacy which threatens a male protagonist’s identity. In Poldark, much is intertwined. The baby born to George Warleggen, Valentine, is really Ross’s because Ross raped Elizabeth, and we know Ross could have been the heir to Agatha’s property, not Warleggan. Unless Ross ends up hanged or dead, or transported.


Read Full Post »

Cate Blanchett and Richard Roxborough as Yelena and Uncle Vanya

Dear friends and readers,

Last night at the Kennedy Center we saw a supposedly comic Uncle Vanya. The Australian company whose best known actor is Cate Blanchett is touring again. Upton, her husband, the translator, so it’s his text. Last year they brought Streetcar Named Desire. It was curious to see the play done for sheer nervous fibrillating laughter and the audience (natch) wanting to laugh along. When are there not such people in an audience? Polonius: “he’s for a gig or he sleeps.”

I bring it up because this rendition will be touring and it seemed to me that in 2011 yes these people’s troubles may seem silly (absurd) to many people. After all they are not being threatened with losing their houses, not having any income, being murdered or imprisoned for subversive activities. (The director, Tamar Asher, set the action not in the 19th century but during a communist regime.) The harder attitudes of today which preclude sympathy were also on display.

Something lost, a lot lost, a whole idea of what matters in life lost. The Louis Malle version (he was the director) with Wallace Shawm as Uncle Vanya and Julianne Moore as Yelena (he’s a tragic-poignant figure in the great movie, Vanya on 42nd street) was a real doing of the matter; so too a local DC rendition I saw some time ago done by the Arlington Washington Shakespeare company where a local fine actor, Brian Hemmingsen, played Vanya brilliantly as angry as well as depressed.

I remember we read a parodic dectective story by Chekhov on Trollope19thCStudies a few seasons ago: The Shooting Party. Chekhov had apparently been reading Dumas, Collins, Dickens, and other mystery writers — perhaps Poe in translation too. And he wrote a tongue-in-cheek version of this genre before it began to bloom and form with the full excrescences we see say in Sherlock Holmes — with the parodic or ironic aim of beating them all at their own game. Such novels include beautiful descriptions of rich landscapes and houses, well, he has them; they include super-smart detectives and investigators, well he has one but this being an ironic fiction, we are to see our narrator is a moral fool. They are male clubby in atmosphere (this being a work by a man of superlative perceptive he anticipates the feel of Sherlock Holmes). We are to have a victim heroine done in by sexual abuse, and she appears. The remarkable thing is this story appeared before the Sherlock Holmes series: Chekhov ferreted out the central features and absurdities of the detective story very early. There the comedy was intended, he saw the masculine tropes of the Sherlock Holmes paradigms — intuited them as they were just developing.

Uncle Vanya is by contrast a serious, inexorable and even grim play. The fine ethical idealism of Uncle Vanya helps destroy him. And Sophie chooses to stay by his side. If one were to generalize from this 2011 Sydney Theater treatment of this play, it would be a disbelief in the ability of human nature to do anything useful or feel for one another. Well, not everyone is quite this way even if the public structure of things just now and all rhetoric seems to embody this belief. Ruthless selfishness, performativity what is pushed on everyone if not as a good, as a necessity.

The way the play was done reminded me of Auden’s poem, “September 1, 1939.” People remember and repeatedly quote lines from the first stanza which this morning seem to be a good description for what has been done in the powerful echelons of gov’t in the US and their result since the later 1990s and this first decade of the 21st century: “As the clever hopes expire/Of a low dishonest decade:/Waves of anger and fear.” Auden though move away from the strictures of the world as he hears them:

“The enlightenment driven away,
The habit-forming pain,
Mismanagement and grief:
We must suffer them all again,”

to add his voice to those raised in opposition:

“Defenseless under the night
Our world in stupor lies;
Yet, dotted everywhere,
Ironic points of light
Flash out wherever the Just
Exchange their messages:
May I, composed like them
Of Eros and of dust,
Beleaguered by the same
Negation and despair,
Show an affirming flame.”

Across the way, in the great hall itself at one end, between 6 and 7 there had been a countervailing force. On the Millenium Stage (for free), the Ebony Hillbillies, an all black band of people dressed down: shabby clothes worn with panache, hats with flare, hair done jauntily, the one woman in the group, heavy, and dressed extravagantly with lots of material swathing here and jewelry galore. The talk from the lead singer/talker was quietly honest: he spoke of slavery and the lies told about it: they were not happy campers and ran away a lot. The songs mostly rollicking, exhilarating forms of release. The music was marvelous, much percussion and bells. She got up to do one number half-dancing where she told us to get ourselves a “big fat daddy” (a fat lover) and enjoy ourselves in our kitchens. A high point. The audience had more black people in it than usual and most people appeared to be having a very good time. It was crowded; we found room on a stair. Two elderly black ladies not far from me, dressed very primly, hardly reacted; perhaps they disapproved, hard to say. The laughter of the Hillbillies was good-humored, kindly as opposed to the meanness to come of Uncle Vanya across the hall.

A promotional shot on the roof of a building (appropriately enough)

The sky comes through often enough. The evening outside in the portico and along the terraces was balmy, the colors of the air a lovely twilight coming on. This way of doing Chekhov’s play refused to recognize that heart-break has any validity. It must be laughed at. I cannot find any adequate stills on the Net of Shawm and Moore, only of her crying with the sneer under it “Julianne Moore loves to cry; she loves to be naked too”), just one thumbnail.

I didn’t get much to eat. The way the cafe was set up I was not permitted to pick and choose from different dishes, but must take sausage with the pasta (I dislike sausage, it makes me sick) and could not have the good salad unless I chose that. In the event Jim said plates near by showed there was little sausage. I didn’t want an expensive beef dinner and haven’t got the teeth to eat hard salad. So I had a small plate of butterfly-shaped pasta drowned down with lots of wine.


Read Full Post »

Birds feeding (Frederick Wiseman’s Central Park, 1989)

Human life is everywhere a state in which much is to be endured, and little to be enjoyed … In solitude we have our dreams to ourselves, and in company we agree to dream in concert — Samuel Johnson

Dear friends and readers,

In Frederick Wiseman’s Hospital (1970) a doctor is trying to help a homeless woman who has been thrown out of her house; her family will not have her with them; her mother will not return any phone calls. It seems she is either a lesbian or transvestite, she has no skills, no proper clothes, no certificates of any kind, and she has no job. To survive, she prostitutes herself. She has attempted to get welfare for herself and been denied. We watch and hear this doctor talk to a Miss Hightower who ignores all the details of the woman’s plight and demands that the woman’s mother come in and fill out papers and tell her income. Miss Hightower will make no promises that she will help this woman for real. First her mother must show and (apparently) “they’ll go from there.” The doctor tells Miss Hightower that the woman’s mother will not come in, will not report her income, is not sharing it with the woman in any case. Miss Hightower appears not to hear. He gets testy and demands she commit to helping the woman so he can send her over there, secure for her eventually a tiny income. If not, he feels he must put her in institution for her safety (she is beaten up badly). If he does this, given her depression and what the institution is like, she will deteriorate and probably never get out. He keeps asking for this, keeps asking Miss Hightower does Miss Hightower want to help this particular woman who needs help, want to address herself to this woman’s needs. Miss Hightower hangs up.

The rules used to exclude this woman and throw her on the streets are deliberately put there to exclude her. If this one didn’t work, there are others further down the line.

Of course she doesn’t want to help this individual. She wants to get paid, and she is paid as a front, a patsy, for pretending to do what she has not been given the wherewithal to do and what she herself probably doesn’t want to do, probably does not know how. She herself probably despises this woman — that shores up her self-respect. The segment put me in mind of Samuel Johnson’s two part Rambler on the History of the prostitute Misella.

For the past three or so days I’ve been reading Maggie Mahar’s Money-Driven Medicine, and have watched some Frederick Wiseman films: Hospital (1970), Near Death (1989) and Central Park (1989); a few weeks ago I saw most of Juvenile Court (1973). I’ve mentioned these films before in a comment to a blog on New York City and a blog where I outlined Marcia Angell’s important articles and books showing that no longer can anyone trust to any published research in US medicine so much has the profit motive & cost of overhead come to trump all other general motives in American medicine.

A Metropolitan Hospital doctor telling an Administrator at New York Hospital they sent a patient to them in such a way as to endanger her life (no papers, no explanation, nothing done that needed to be done), something he does regularly (Hospital)

I’ve come back to Wiseman and medicine because I devote one-third of the course I teach (Advanced Composition in Natural Science and Tech) to how people practice, and really experience medicine in our world, to what is modern medicine, what is sickness (how do we define it, how treat what we consider or define as illness). The couple of hundred pages of Maggie Mahar’s book demonstrate the chilling truth of Angell’s work (and that of many other writers on medical science). The brutal treatment meted out by society in general through the powerful groups that together make up the medical world, which includes outright direct victimizing of patients, systematic lying (my experience bit home here: I am regularly referred to services the person knows is no use or won’t help), bizarre injustices are glimpsed and dramatized in Hospital (not by the staff who I rush to say are trying to help people suffering from them, but do not begin to have adequate funds or equipment); the dominance of technology is one of the themes of Near Death.

Tonight I want to begin a different angle, simply or more generally attempt to characterize Wiseman’s films for themselves — not apart from the issues and places and worlds he chooses to film as one cannot, but as a body of great filmic art. I read a surprisingly hostile article, Bill Nichols, “Fred Wiseman’s Documentaries: Theory and Structure,” Film Quarterly, 31:3 (Spring 1978):15-28; two worshipful books, Frederick Wiseman, edd. Joshua Seigel and Marie-Christine de Navacelle, a series of interviews, which begins with one long one of Wiseman; Thomas W. Benson and Carolyn Anderson’s Reality Fictions: The Films of Frederick Wiseman, analyses zeroing in on a few of his films, and a book of screen plays of the toughest of them, Five Films by Frederick Wiseman, transcribed and edited by Barry Keith Grant, foreword by Wiseman (Titicut Follies, High School, Welfare, High School II, Public Housing).

I want to emphasize one aspect — a dual note — that characterizes all those I’ve seen and read about thus far. An at once pervasive and unacknowledged compassion for, a tireless patience with all living creatures, from plants and animals and the notorious (often mentioned) shots of passing people doing unstaged things upon which no apparent meaning is imposed

Morning walk, walking the dog (Central Park)

together with, an unflinching willingness to look at the hard realities of life, no compromises with demands one accentuate positives (what’s there from the camera eye is there), scrutiny of privacies normally somehow obscured (people somehow are not allowed the usual hiding in full view), which includes ignoring tabooes and presenting what makes us queasy if it’s part of the scene. Now of course (reminding me of Diane Arbus) he does choose matter and places, often institutionalized space (where we are made to see the institution working out through its agents and customs) which are harrowing. In this blog I am myself flinching, not showing the people near death on their machines, people (in Hospital) vomiting; I did not snap many pictures from Juvenile Court:

The young man is being sentenced

I choose quieter ones:

The waiting “room,” corridors in Metropolitan hospital with gurneys lined up

or shots of people trying to help one another, in teams:

One, two, three heave … a patient is anesthetized; we see how labor intensive hospital work in and how many people have to be available all at once and then disperse (Near Death)

I just love the films for trying to get us to reflect on life as it really is and to care. The films are rich in life, and they celebrate life too.

Thousands are watching and listening in the grass; there’s an equivalent series of shots of Pavarotti singing in twilight

One essay by David Denby, “Comfort for the Tough-Minded,” where Denby says how Wiseman is angry too, and not just at injustices, but the difficulties of being alive, intractable social behavior, but then focuses on Wiseman as “a poet of the unheralded people of good will,” people “doing difficult thankless work.” Frederick Wiseman, the Samuel Johnson of films: Johnson continually offers tough-minded comfort.

Thus, I couldn’t understand Nichols’s hostility because of course the films are constructs; the individual shots are framed, and then the juxtaposition set up by Wiseman, and then the choice of what to include and exclude, how can they not be? It’s not a trick not to have a narrator; the camera is a non-imposing narrator who leaves the viewer be. Wiseman does capture people acting the way they feel they must or ought to in crisis situations and tries for instances where they can’t shape their behavior (not altogether successfully — there’s a lot of playing to the camera in Neath Death and the political group scenes in Central Park).

Wiseman did come from a privileged background (he went to Williams College and Yale Law) but he has left conventional structures to make his films and distribute them (wikipedia). He’s very smart and keeps returning to those people he recognizes as articulate, perceptive, and with power in a situation and those people whose natures make them speak and emote candidly. While his early work is filmed in public places where the dispossessed, powerless, hurting show up on their own or are forced to show up, his later work takes us to places the rich and their servants inhabit (Neiman Marcus as Store) and he is examining issues beyond that of power: in Near Death we are confronted with the problem of what to do about or with terminal illnesses which defy our understanding, dying people, and then death. I’ve not seen Ballet, Aspen or La Danse.

Resuscitation (Near Death, 1989)

I even long to see Domestic Violence because I might learn something new about an important problem.

But I must to sleep now (it’s near 2 a.m.) and have to come back to this after watching more of his films and then add to the blog or write another because one blog cannot do justice to Wiseman.

So will end on a few thoughts I had after watching Juvenile Court and thinking about the invisible institutions that make Central Park what it is — on institutions. How do institutions impinge on our lives? We meet them in the form of people; they are embodied that way; in school it’s a teacher or administrator or some official in an office with power; in hospital doctors and nurses, in corporate headquarters people in charge; when we want a job, it’s personnel. We want benefits and we have to go to Social Security or some agency supposedly empowered to help us. The police and court system constitute an institution. What happens when a policeman (or woman) stops a person who is jaywalking and begins to dislike the person because they don’t seem obedient or are not conforming in some way the policeman asssumes all should? not interacting as expected? People end up being punished for what they are.

All the intense dislike of bureaucracies in the films are a reaction to coping with powerful institutions that shape our lives from the moment of birth. We might say the obstacle is the illegitimate and unfair norms of the institution’s biased and self-interested agents who act out exclusionary and disciplinary practices.

Now the institutions are precisely the kinds of places Wiseman films:

Agencies empowered to help us
Medical establishments: hospitals, doctors’ offices
Stores – store where we buy things when they are very big operate like institutions
Arts places — where art is done, achieved, funded

And then in his film we watch people coping, both the agents and those acted upon. Those made to conform to the institution’s needs — in one sequence in Central Park a communist group is forced to shut down because desperate for money they were trying to sell things. It was allowed for them to present their cause but not be vendors. The Conservatory which runs the park cannot allow the place to be run over by salesmen. How is the thing set up? fairly? We are (I think) supposed to see Central Park is and love it tenderly for its inclusiveness, its beauty for all.

Teaching students Shakespeare’s sonnets — the man is aware a camera is on him. but he does not make up his techniques falsely and they consist of a repetition of words forcibly said in the hope of getting something across to students sitting in a row on a bench (Central Park)

If the place or experience is set up fairly, if it’s cruel, crushing, what should we do about it. (See at opening of blog incident where Metropolitan hospital doctor phones Welfare)

An ICU nurse towards the end of Near Death avers she believes in all she does as helpful, she cannot but do it.

As I say, this is not the only central issue of his films, but it is one many of them encompass.

Woman who is near deaf and can’t see very well, she needs medication and can’t afford it; the nurse-clerk appears to be asking her to fill out a form which will eventuate in someone aiding her. The woman tells the pitiful sums she must get up for rent, phone, heat, and says she wants to remain self-supporting. We don’t know that the woman did get any effective help.


Read Full Post »

Helen McNicholl (1879-1915), In the Shade of the Tent (1914)

Dear friends and readers,

I’ve been meaning to tell people who come here that I’ve moved and changed my other blog and invented a third.

First, I moved my Reveries under the Sign of Austen to wordpress. This is a more appropriate space, as many blogs here have themes and are essay-like, and people can subscribe to this blog, but I moved because I became unable to cope with the constant disappearance of livejournal and the freakish working of their software as it was attacked repeatedly this summer.

So here’s an explanation why I moved it and that it is really a continuation of the old blog, with the difference I’ll try to keep on (however widely conceived) topic:

A Continuation

And two first typical blogs:

Women’s friendships and the gothic in Davies’s Northanger Abbey films

Jane Austen’s Letters: Letter 35, Tues-Wed, 5-6 May 1801, from the Paragon

The space in which my older Austen Reveries blog lived (so to speak) is now a blog meant to be personal, autobiographical, seasonal: Under the Sign of Sylvia. My gravator or icon is now Harriet Walter as Harriet Vane. I first explained my pseudonym once again: Why Sylvia. Then I wrote a new blog in the new style intended, it’s about a central breakthrough in conception about myself I had this past year:

Upon realizing I have many Aspergers traits.

I used Nell Blaine’s Cookie Shop once before on this blog in an attempt to talk about myself and my conversion experience into feminism: This long morphing life so have used a different picture to capture a summer’s day (what it is as I type this) in a mode congenial to my own, an woman impressionist unfortunately not well-known, Helen McNicholl, In the Shade of the Tent (see above): one woman is reading, the other painting; I like to think they are friends and wish the image had come out with a little less yellow.

Now this blog will be for Everything Else! and I conclude with Claire Genoux’s Saisons du corps as translated by Ellen Hinsey, New European Poets, Miller & Prufer eds.

If I had loved better
these days with their good smell of bark
these copper twilights
the mountains exposing their toothless jaws
if I had walked more upright
along trails that lead toward dawn
where faith shelters us from doubts and time

if I had known how to savor the full laugh
of the river that rocks in its fleece of leaves
my head held to the trunk’s pillow
my cheek cast amidst thyme
if I hadn’t fled like a coward to the back streets
and believed in the false lights of the city
in its burning waltz of noise

perhaps I wouldn’t–stumbling
rake my wooden head against the walls of night

The French original:

J’accepte Vie d’être votre hôte
de manger votre terre jusqu’à l’indigestion
de boire dans vos gobelets de craie
la lumière cachée des saisons le miel refroidi de vos fleurs
et mille liqueurs grossières

vous voyez j’obéis
les os bougent parfaitement dans le cuir de ma peau
et je colle mon ventre au ventre des hommes
j’obéis même si je me mouche dans votre nappe
que je crache dans vos plats

quand j’aurai bien ri bien usé la corne de mon cœur
j’accepte oui l’effroi
docilement dissoudre ma détresse de cadavre
mais durant cette sieste
enrobée dans votre drap de ravines
mon ventre bombé contre le ventre de la terre
que je jouisse de vos rêves de lait et d’astres
que tous ces repas de fortune pris jadis à votre table
aient la légèreté sur mon crâne et l’ivresse folle
d’une petite neige de printemps

Go gentle reader into the world here, of lakes, of houses and the past hidden in the woods, and what lies all about.

John Atkinson Grimshaw (1836-93), Evening, Knostop, Old Hall (1870)


Read Full Post »

Carrie Brattle, “castaway,” her hands appealing to someone inside a closed window (from The Vicar of Bullhampton, vignette by Henry Woods)

Dear friends and readers,

A couple of months ago I saw a Call for Papers on Patrick Leary’s Victoria listserv for a Northeast Victoria Society Association (NVSA) conference to be held at Columbia University, NYC, in April 2012. The place was convenient, the time appealed; Jim could come with me and enjoy himself during the day while I was at the conference with the two of us getting together each evening. The perspective and topics seemed to fit my desire to explore and write about Gaskell’s dramatization of disabled characters and the people (mostly women) who cared for them. The conferees were calling for papers showing Victorian writers who did not fit at all into present cliched ideas about the era, who broke our orthodoxies and conventional norms. The trouble was that to do this right would take several months of reading Gaskell carefully and books and essays about her. I haven’t got the nerve to give a superficial paper based on the reading I did with two members of Women Writers through the Ages last year — or the reading with other friends of her novels on other listservs in previous years.

Then a couple of weeks ago it came to me that I could write and deliver a paper on Trollope showing how the illustrations for his novels (which he involved himself with) provided contrapuntal readings of his novels such that alternative norms of behavior, values at variance with, and experiences undermined, subverted, provided values at variance with the explicit orthodoxies of his man plot-designs and characters. I remembered how frequently the pictorial narratives appealed sentimentally to the female reader, focused on minor women in the book, dramatized details and scenes not in (though consonant with) the novel at hand. In the above vignette for Trollope’s The Vicar of Bullhampton, the novel’s “fallen woman” or “castaway” is shown in a scene not in the novel; she is either fleeing the court where her brother has been tried to murder after he has been shamed by the community’s attitude towards her or appealing to someone on the other side of a closed window in a thicket of a garden. Neither moment is dramatized in the novel; both show her in a mode of open vulnerable distress which reveals the cruelty and unfairness of the way she’s been treated.

Well for the past three days I’ve been pulling out, breaking open and rereading my old stacks of notes on the original illustrations to Trollope’s novels, and a select group of novels that I’d like to write about – masterpieces once or still often dismissed, or put aside as having concerns no longer in fashion: Castle Richmond is a novel partly about the 1847-48 famine and has a homoerotic secondary story, as well as older heroines whose marriage is dubious or who sexually desire a handsome young man; The Last Chronicle of Barset, once Trollope’s signature book, centers on a gifted man whom his society’s treatment has driven into an angry depression to the point he’s distracted, confused, unable to function: instead of looking at him through normative lens, the pictures see the world through his eyes. The Vicar of Bullhampton I’ve mentioned. Also novels which will enable me to show the influence of these illustrations on film-adaptations which use an analagous methodologies (inventing scenes not there originally which create contrapuntal or self-reflexive corrective meanings): shots in Davies’s He Knew He Was Right and The Way We Live Now are derived from some of the the original illustrations of these.

Emily (Laura Fraser) and Louis (Oliver Dimsdale) Trevelyan: a confrontation late in the movie modelled on Stone’s conception where Davies has subtly elaborated on Trollope’s language to suggest any love’s destructiveness

I also dipped into these novels and taken down a copy of The Vicar of Bullhampton to add to my evening’s reading this coming month. And I read four essays on this and Castle Richmond and Last Chronicle and one on the collaboration nature of Millais’s and Trollope’s intertextualities in Millais’s illustrations to 6 of Trollope’s novels.

And, gentle reader, I’ve been trying to include Dickens’s Little Dorrit in my overall reading and watching budget by listening in my car to an abridgement of said novel brilliantly read by Anton Lesser and slowly going through Davies’s wondrous film adaptation once again.

The caricature style of illustration is as expressive as the idyllic one. The statue in the center of the room of a mother leaning over a child with love, re-appears in variations of grief, distress and longing in Davies’s film adaptation of Bleak House and presentations of Anna Maxwell Martin as Esther and Gillian Anderson as Lady Dedlock,

One result: today I wrote a 500 word proposal which I’ll be revising tomorrow, putting away until Saturday, and then sending off to the email addresses of the conference organizers. I’d like to go to the conference even if my paper is not accepted, but were it to be I could hold my head up more, experience and demonstrate more that I’m part of this scholarly Victorian world (which I am) and thus participate in and enjoy the experience more. I think I might have said on this blog that my review of The Politics of Gender in Anthony Trollope’s Novels: New Readings for the Twenty-First Century, edd Margaret Markwick, Deborah Denenholz Morse, and Reginia Gagnier did appear in Nineteenth Century Contexts this past spring, 33:2 (2011):190-92. I will put this up on my website later this week. And my paper, Trollope and TV: Intertexuality in the Pallisers series may well be published in a coming volume on adaptations of 19th century novels.

I’m remaining a Trollopian in other ways. Izzy and I listened to Timothy West read aloud the whole of Barchester Towers recently and for a new radio system I bought for my car I’ve purchased the whole of The Last Chronicle of Barset read aloud by Simon Vance on CDs burnt with MP3s, considerably cheaper than a set of CDs made from tapes. It is a pleasure Izzy and I can share — as well as music she has burnt CDs for in our car.


Read Full Post »

Dear friends and readers,

Another in my series of foremother poet blogs, a third recommending an anthology: Jane Dowson’s Women’s Poetry of the 1930s. This anthology suggests that much as I loved Alison Light’s Forever England and Nicole Beauman’s The Greatest Profession, both on women novelists and memoirists from early to mid-20th century England, Light’s suggestion that women novelists have been ignored because they were as a whole group conservative, won’t stand up to scrutiny. In fact there were many women of the left around, and Dowson has gathered together some of the finest.

Let me briefly tell of four: First, Nancy Cunard (1896-1965). Born very rich, she became a fervent fighter “for the cause of the dispossessed” (Jane Dowson’s words).

Here is a scathing poem Cunard wrote as an address to the pilot of a plane which just bombed a Spanish village (1930s):

To Eat To-Day

They come without siren-song or any ushering
Over the usual street of man’s middle day,
Come unbelievably – abstract – beyond human vision ­
Codicils, dashes along the great Maniac speech.
“Helmeted Nuremberg, nothing,” said the people of Barcelona,
The people of Spain – “Ya lo sabemos, we have suffered all.”

Gangrene of German cross, you sirs in the ether,
Sons of Romulus, Wotan – is the mark worth the bomb?
What was in it? salt and a half-pint of olive,
Nothing else but the woman, she treasured it terribly,
Oil, for the day folks would come, refugees from Levante,
Maybe with greens … one round meal- but you killed her,
Killed four children outside, with the house, and the pregnant cat.
Heil, hand of Rome, you passed – and that is all.

I wonder – do you eat before you do these things,
Is it a cocktail or is it a pousse-cafe?
Are you sitting at mess now, saying “visibility medium …
We got the port, or near it, with half-a-dozen,” I wonder­
Or highing it yet, on the home-run to Mallorca,
Cold at 5000 up, cursing a jammed release …
“Give, it ‘em, puta Madonna, here, over Arenys-
Per Bacco, it’s nearly two – bloody sandwich it’s made down there -
Aren’t we going to eat to-day, teniente? te-niente?”
Driver in the clouds fuming, fumbler unstrapping death.
You passed; hate traffics on; then the shadows fall.

On the simple earth
Five mouths less to feed to-night in Barcelona.
On the simple earth
Men tramping and raving on an edge of fear.
Another country arming, another and another behind it ­
Europe’s nerve strung like catapult, the cataclysm roaring and
swelling …
But in Spain no Perhaps, and To-morrow – in Spain, it is, Here.

A brief review of an edition of her poems; an excellent concise account of her life (Leslie M. Blume in the Huffington Post); a photo which captures something of her character in her face:

Then a novelist, Winifred Holtby (1898-1935), whose Anders Woldby and South Riding (adapted twice for mini-series on British TV), a couple of us on Women Writers Across the Ages have recently read together:

Boats in the Bay (1933)

I will take my trouble and wrap it in a blue handkerchief
And carry it down to the sea.
The sea is as smooth as silk, is as silent as glass;
It does not even whisper
Only the boats, rowed out by the girls in yellow
Ruffle its surface.
It is grey, not blue. It is flecked with boats like midges,
With happy people
Moving soundlessly over the level water

I will take my trouble and drop it into the water
It is heavy as stone and smooth as a sea-washed pebble.
It will sink under the sea, and the happy people
Will row over it quietly, ruffling the clear water
Little dark boats like midges, skimming silently
Will pass backwards and forwards, the girls singing;
They will never know that they have sailed above sorrow.
Sink heavily and lie still, lie still my trouble.

A dual life of her and Vera Brittain who was Holtby’s partner, enabling her to publish and responsible for the posthumous publication of South Riding against the fierce opposition of Holtby’s mother.


And last for tonight Ruth Pitter’s (1897-1992) whose poetry is moving and (like Elizabeth Hands) keeps her individual life before us:

Old, Childless, Husbandless

Old, childless, husbandless, bereaved, alone,
She knew more love than any I have known -
Familiar with the sickness at its worst,
She smiled at the old woman she had nursed
So long; whose bed she shared, that she might hear
The threadbare whisper in the night of fear.
She looked, and saw the change. The dying soul
Smiled her last thanks, and passed. Then Mary stole
About the room, and did what must be done,
Unwilling, kind heart, to call anyone,
It was so late: all finished, down she lay
Beside the dead, and calmly slept till day.
Urania! what could child or husband be
More than she had, to such a one as she?

Her partner was a woman and they kept cats:

The Talking Family

With the early morning tea
Start the day’s debates.
Soon the Talking Family
Gathers, gravitates
To the largest room and bed,
That all may share in what is said. All the Cats forgather too,
With a calm delight,
Tab and ginger, long-haired blue,
Seem to think it right
That they should share to some extent
In this early parliament. Perhaps they only want a drink
(Which of course they get)
But myself I like to think
That the Cats are met
Because this animal rejoices
In the sound of human voices. What they are we do not know,
Nor what they may become.
Perhaps the thoughts that ebb and flow
In a human home
May blow to brightness the small spark
They carry through the vasty dark.’
- “Perque pruinosas tulit irtequieta tenebras”. – Ovid.

Ruth Pitter

Pitter was lower middle class in origin and wrote in a traditional style. No wonder she was ignored. Larkin remembered her and the feminist movement has helped.

And not least was Valentine Ackland (1906-69):

Communist Poem, 1935:

‘What must we do, in a country lost already,
Where already the milIs stop, already the factories
Wither inside themselves, kernels smalIing in shelIs,
(‘Fewer hands – fewer hands’) and alI the ploughed lands
Put down to grass, to bungalows, to graveyards already.

What’s in a word? Comrade, while stilI our country
Seems solid around us, rotting – but still our country.
Comrade is rude, uncouth; bandied among youths
Idle and sick perhaps, wandering with other chaps,
Standing around in what is stilI our country.’

Answer them: Over the low hilIs and the pastures
Come no more cattle, over the land no more herdsmen;
Nothing against the sky now, no stains show
Of smoke. We’re done. Only a few work on,
Against time now working to end your time.

Answer: Because the end is coming sooner
Than you allowed for, hail the end as salvation.
Watch how the plough wounds, hear the unlovely sounds
Of sirens wring the air; how everything
Labours again, cries out, and again breeds life.

Here is our life, say: Where the dismembered country
Lies, a dead foeman rises a living comrade.
Here where our day begins and your day dims
We part – announce it. And then with lightened heart
Watch life swing round, complete the revolution.

Since’s Ackland (born Mary Kathleen McCrory) is nowhere as well-known as her long-time partner, Sylvia Townsend Warner, and was herself a lesbian, Valentine Ackland, I emphasize a few salient facts which many accounts obscure or distort. Brought up Anglo-Catholic; when young, married, she left her husband, and lived a highly unconventional sexual personal life. She met Warner in 1930, with whom she lived mainly in Dorset for the rest of their lives. She initiated her and Warner’s activities in the Spanish civil war, socialist and pacifist activities. Like Nancy Cunard, Ackland wrote a series of articles for the Left Review about the deprived condition of the poor in the 1930s. The Left Review published her poetry, reviews of books about the Spanish war, and translations. With other women writers of the 1930s (Winifred Holtby, Storm Jameson, Naomi Mitchison), she also attended a Congress of Writers in Paris in 1935, and another similar congress in New York in 1939 (where a major topic was the contemporary loss of democracy). She worked actively to help Spanish Republic (driving a lorry, working at Tythrop House, a home for Spanish refugee children). She left an autobiography, For Sylvia: An Honest Account (written 1949). Late in life she became a quaker.

To use Emma Donoghue’s term in her Passions Between Women, Ackland was the female husband of the pair.

Sylvia smoking at her desk (I must write a blog for her too)

Like Kerrigan’s, Honey’s and Paula Feldman’s anthologies, Dowson makes a strong case for publishing anthologies of women’s poetry: “‘Humming an entirely Different Tune?’: A case study of anthologies: Women’s Poetry of the 1930s.” Beyond showing how necessary, vital it is to keep women’s literature alive and in print and part of a tradition we can (ourselves as women) find, create meanings from, not be humiliated in public and then silenced by “respectable” criteria — to make women’s anthologies. Only here does the other set of highly varied complex criteria count and come forth. (AT the conference I was at the men merely sneer or refuse to recognize what you are saying as having any validity (reminding me of religious people about Darwin), or complain men suffer worse. we have to develop a separate criteria for women’s arts, be this in visual, dramatic, poetic, or novelistic art. A week or so ago I tried again on Eighteenth Century World at Yahoo: a definition presented to the group of historical fiction would simply have denied that women wrote any good historical fiction, which is patent nonsense. I tried to present the alternative criteria and some samples, but the silence that greeted my argument told me I had gotten nowhere.

I should like also in this posting about foremothers to say I’ve moved my Reveries under the Sign of Austen blog (a foremother to us all), to Word Press. This blog has its own complement of foremother poetry. My first was Caroline Bowles, an effective poet (1808-77) of blank verse, and my last blog Mary Hays, a biographer, polemicist, and feminist (1760-1843).


Read Full Post »

Jealousy is a very strange thing is it not? … jealousy or in its lesser form possessiveness — inhabits us all. It is like a microbe that lives within any family, touches all human relations. Perhaps it is the least admirable of feelings … Ross to Demelza on her rejection of Valentine, Bk 1, ch 11, p 129

” … in this life it is better to live by absolutes, not to live by subtle dealings that no one can understand … Harriet to Ross, Book 3, Ch 5, p 467)”

Jeremy Poldark (Ioan Gufford) and Ben Carter (Hans Matheson) rowing into Nampara Cove (1996 Poldark, Stranger from the Sea)

Dear friends and readers,

It’s been a couple of weeks now since I finished Bella Poldark, the 12th and last of the Poldark novels. Written a year (2002) before Graham died (2003), this book brings the series to a fitting conclusion: the tragic death of the boy Ross Poldark impregnated Elizabeth Chynoweth Poldark with on the night (May 2, 1793) he raped her. I have put off writing this blog because I don’t have any fitting pictures for Valentine and the characters he involves himself with, the older adult lives of Ross and Demelza Poldark’s daughters, the widowed Clowance and young woman, Bella, and the new characters to become central to the novel, the disabled Music Thomas and Agneta Treneglos. Still I don’t want to leave the story unfinished, so will use what I can of Cornwall, and from the 1977-76, 77-78 and 1996 movies.

I fell into this book more intensely than I have for the last three. It was a little bemusing to consider there had been 11 years between the last book (Twisted Sword) and this one (Bella) and the opening chapters which insistently and moving record the grieving of the characters, some more overtly because they have such bitter memories of their own (Clowance who now knows for sure that she was never really married to Stephen as his first wife was still alive when he married her) or this young man was central to their existence (Demelza, his mother). It’s a felt death like this was a real person not a character.

The slow motion build-up of all the veins in the novels over several is partly what gives the books their feel of reality, for Jeremy Poldark first appeared for real as an adult presence in the eighth book (Stranger from the Sea) — though his birth was the culmination of the third (appropriately as it now turns after named after him. Since Jeremy’s birth was a first culmination and stood for continuing ongoing hope in Ross and Demelza’s marriage (Jeremy Poldark, the 3rd novel), his death is indeed the penultimate dark note in this series. Valentine’s is the last. I especially regret having no image for him (by an actor)

One element in it for me throughout has been is that I’ve bonded with Graham’s central character again and again and through these the implied author. That is probably central to my experience of comfort books: I bond with someone or a presence in the book. I’ve loved Ross, Demelza, Jinny Carter

Jinny (Gillian Bailey) and Jim Carter (Stuart Doughty) (their wedding day, he died early in the series, of disease and starvation in prison)

Drake Carne, Mowenna, Elizabeth (yes), and (to a lesser extent), Sam Carne, Emma Tregirls, and Rosina Hobyn, and by the end of the series Clowance, Jeremy and felt obscurely deeply even for Valentine and his ape.

The instinctive feminism of the series is still strongly in evidence, but in a new way, a new set of circumstances worked out to show women getting a “rough” or “raw deal” (Graham’s words in his Memoir): we see how a woman has no control over her children, the child may just be taken from her and no matter what others think of the father, they will not help her to get her child back but rather push her into going to live with the father/husband again. Further, that in last novel (a development out of the 11th) Graham shows real empathy with disabled people too — in a male and a female character. He shows how the local society’s response to them makes them what they are in part (better functioning or less). We see how risky it is especially for women who are susceptible to sexual bullying and rape (and death). In the male we may have the first autistic character to be dramatized in popular fiction. An unsung beauty in Graham.

I probably have not done real justice to the specific historical and political juncture (the 1820s) than I should have done. I needed to know more about Caroline of Brunswick than I do, of Canning, Liverpool, the specifics of war and politics in Europe and the UK.


Ross Poldark (Robin Ellis) as outside (1977-78 Poldark, Pt 11)

Bella, Book 1: Valentine

The novel is divided into five tight chunks, each one named after a central character in it. As in the case of Graham’s 2nd, 3rd and 4th novels (each named after a character), this does not mean the character figures centrally in all or even the majority of the scenes, nor that they are the teller. It’s rather that they as a central concept or presence is brooding over the book. Here it’s Ross’s illegitimate son’s amorality and his relationship to Ross; by the book’s end the rumors about Ross as father are brought before thickly before us (everyone knows), made probable (someone asks why he did not call his child by Serena, Ross instead of George) and it ends on a conversation between Demelza and Ross where they skirt around this. He is led to pay more attention to Valentine form Valentine’s beginning to come to him, both of which are partly brought on by the death of his legitimate and (now realized fully) much beloved older son, Jeremy.

It begins with a landscape — very typical and the character leading is Valentine. I knew eventually he must take central place, and it seems he will. In this opening he is doing much mischief — quietly and in ways people don’t do anything about. He has an odd step from his rickets and is recognizable from this. Ross Poldark is the POV and encounters Valentine coming back from the Treneglos house, where he has been visiting – he says a kitchen maid, Carla May. ‘

In the next segment Demelza tells Ross there is probably no such person, but rather Valentine is visiting the daughter of the man who owns the house, Agneta Treneglos, and it emerges quickly that Graham has invented another disabled person: something is wrong with her mental abilities but like Music Thomas it’s ambiguous. The ugly thing is this makes her desperate and vulnerable to Valentine and thus amuses him.

In a second encounter with his (biological) actual father, Valentine proposes that Ross come in with him on new smuggling schemes. The narrator is careful to reassure us that Ross will not; the aim of the scene is to set a plot in motion and reveal more of this young man — he is reaching out I suppose. We also hear once again of Selena, Valentine’s pregnant wife and how she has tried to slit her wrists — he’s said to be a sadistic kind of lover too. None of this feels melodramatic in the text and none is improbable or anything anyone does anything about.

A second character emerging is Clowance who lives apart from her parents at Trenwyn, now keeping up Stephen’s business. She is invited by George Warleggan’s wife, Lady Harriet to a party where Harriet is trying to get her to start accepting courtships and introduces a viable candidate, so to speak, a Mr Prideaux who then persists, and makes the mistake of when he finds her in Truro inviting her to have tea with someone he thinks she’ll like to be with: Cuby Trevanion Poldark.

The meeting is bitter and difficult for Clowance still holds Jeremy’s death against Cuby. Jeremy would not have joined the army but for Cuby’s first rejection of him is Clowance’s view. No one of Jeremy’s family takes any joy or interest in the congratulations people give them over his “hero’s glorious death.” Clowance does not visit her parents to avoid telling them (she’d be tempted) how Stephen betrayed her by marrying her bigamously, and to avoid Cuby who is there with Noelle, the first grandchild, a lot we are told. Though she has returned to early loyalties too and stays with her brother whose scheme it had been to marry her to Valentine. It was Valentine who broke that off.

Small theads start up again: Paul Kellows, the only one left of the three who robbed George Warleggan, now half-thriving, Dr Enys called in to the birth of Selena’s child (we realize Ross’s second grandchild), and Caroline to accompany Demelza to London. Ross and Demelza’s second living daughter, Isabella-Rose now 17, is still in love with Christopher Havergal who comes to propose marriage and say that preparatory to that (if she’s too young), she should come to London to have good masters for her singing.

Ross (John Bowe) and Demelza (Mel Martin) in bed together (96 Poldark)

Demelza and Ross have a long scene of talking in bed too: this indwelling between them endows the whole narrative with memory. She is now looking at the reality that only one small child is left to her. Two dead (Julia long ago, and now Jeremy), one staying away (Clowance) and at age 17 (Demelza’s age when she married Ross), Isabella-Rose to leave too. The one left the baby, Harry, had late in life — an afterthought. I felt for her loneliness. How lonely I am. And Ross? he could return to Parliament but his business which was to end the war in France, help his son, Jeremy, is now useless and as he looks out he sees not prosperity but more misery.

The government we are told is stopping war spending and the result is wide spread lack of jobs — this book was written 2001-2. Also the technological changes are throwing out more and the first grumblings of the Captain Swing riot begun. What to do in such a world?

A sort of dark mystery is brewing: it seems there have been a series of murders of women unexplained and un-investigated because so little is known about these victims. Menial marginalized females. Ross admits that some of Valentine’s ugliness comes from his having had a terrible childhood after his mother, Elizabeth died, as George Warleggan while keeping his word to treat Valentine as his son, never loved him, endlessly distrusted him, and now they are permanently estranged. Valentine to give him his due comes to his legitimate father with the news he is calling his son George; he is cold and distanced, but it doesn’t take much to realize this is a sort of attempt to heal the breach. It does not. If anything Harriet’s favoring Valentine, just embittered George further.


Trenwith, the ancestral home of the Poldarks (Goldolphin House, Cornwall)

Book 2: Agneta

The second book is named Agneta, after this mentally disabled young woman Valentine has been taking sexual advantage of for months. So Graham has brought to the fore his interest in people ambiguously disabled who are at great risk from the society since it refuses to help them at all generally. (There is a scene in the first book of cur types jeering at someone which links up to this theme.) Her father, John Treneglos actually visits Ross to demand some sort of reparation or help or revenge on the assumed supposition Ross is responsible (as Valentine’s real father), and Ross must tell him he has no control over this man.

The book begins with a set of letters: from George Canning (the closest Graham gets to providing a world historical character): he is urging Ross to return to public life and by way of chatting provides scenarios of politics across Europe and the Peterboro Massacre. It’s not only highly unusual to get such a knowing discussion of politics in and out of the UK in 1818 but one from the strongly leftist point of view — I rush to say that’s not Canning’s but is conveyed by Graham as the invisible narrator who writes from a perspective that lets us go beyond Canning’s point of view. I am again at something of a loss for knowing little of foreign affairs, especially George Liverpool, then prime minister and powerful.

From Clowance to an upper class young man who wanted to marry her (natch) and whose great house estate she and her mother visited, Lord Fitzmaurice. Again a large picture of society from this angle provided. Finally the young gifted daughter of Ross and Demelza, Isabella-Rose comes home from London with her suitor, Christopher Havergal. Now a whiff of the silver fork world from the point of view of fringe people

This is going to be backdrop for a character who is at risk as autistic.

Valentine is now accused of the murder of Agneta. She was seen (and we experience this scene) chasing after him, and he politely turning her away. She then went home after which she disappeared. After a several day hunt, her body was found with her throat brutally cut with slashes of knives – the way one of the marginalized women of the district was found. In her case her relatives did care: Ruth, who once wanted to marry Ross, her husband, this girl’s father, John. Even if she was disabled they loved her — maybe all the more in a curious twisted kind of way.

There is no evidence to convict Valentine whatsoever beyond the community knowledge he seduced, played with and then turned her away. His wife, Selena, has left him and gone to live at Cardew, with her father-in-law, George Warleggan who would not have taken her in but for Harriet. He is the putative grandfather and Harriet the only grandmother in place.

Ben Carter, now risen to become Ross’s foreman, is slowly coming to accept that Music Thomas is his brother-in-law and we see him walk with Music and Esther Carne, another (low) relative of Demelza and Sam. As to class and type they are suited at any rate. And Bella comes home to be with little Henry. Valentine does visit this family.

Hanging over the narrative is a sense of fear that there is a murderer in the community and we fear for everyone.

From the 96 Poldark, this suggests a hunt for a dangerous man

It might seem an otiose sort of plot-design to have a man who every probability points to murdered a young woman be turned into a suspect no one can arraign for lack of evidence and because he seems to have an air-tight alibi. But I see that Graham is after another sort of game here.

The book is another instance of Graham’s instinctive feminism. In order to help exonerate himself and get people to endure and talk with him, to keep himself inside his community, Valentine begins to black-mouth this young woman. He sneers at the idea she was “simple-witted” and begins to spread rumours she regularly had sex with many men and was a calculating wanton loose woman. The reality is that when she did go to parties, she was very bad at coping with male aggression and harassment and she did like to be the center of attraction and momentarily would be lured to private spots and let a certain amount of sex go on. That’s all that’s needed for many people in the area to dismiss her death as deserved. And among those who know that Valentine is a liar, is capable of blackening the girl this way, and doubt his alibi (his mother-in-law, Lady Harriet) the portrait of the girl rings ‘true enough’ that she too dismisses the girl.

Yesterday I read an article in Women’s Review of Books about a continuing spate of murders of factory and other marginalized women of all sorts along the Mexican-US border on the Mexican side. It’s been known about for years. It’s sometimes referred to as the femicide going on in Ciudad Juarez. The reviewer of the book, Making a Killing by Alcia Gaspar de Alva, with Georgina Guzman, Margaret Randall ends up contextualizing this ongoing slow slaughter with larger spates of murders (the supposed suicides of Orhan Pamuk’s Snow) with the continuing cultural disregard, fear and dislike of women we see today in many forms. Recently here in the west in 3 rape cases and recently a young woman accused of murdering her 2 year who was acquitted: there was no outcry against acquitting the rapists as there has been again acquitting this woman.

This is what Graham is showing us. He repeatedly has her relatives grieving and horrified and unable to defend her – because they buy into the same values, Their only defense is that she was disabled. That does not prevent people from assuming she was “loose.” Dr Enys testifies in a judicial way and is not heard.

The one person who acts on the supposition that Valentine is dangerous is his wife. She finds herself coerced into returning to his house and a couple of days later flees with her daughter once again as far as she can: a relative in London.

Elizabeth (Jill Townsend) realizing she had bound herself for life to a cruel tyrant (77-78 Poldark)

The depiction of this adds to the depictions of marital rape, of his heroine Demelza’s liaison and her refusal to stay in London as someone unsuited to cope, and the death of his other heroine, Elizabeth, as an escape from the misery of a life subjected to a man who thought Valentine not his and memories of a rape which did cause the existence of this boy make this aspect of liberty in the novels clear. The conventional stories of say Verity marrying the man she loved against her family’s will don’t come near these in power or radicalness — though it’s unheralded and done so quietly in and outside these books. That Agneta is also disabled adds to the point and shows an instinctive reaching out to who is hurt most.

There are stretches of the non-alive kind of thing one sees in all the books after The Angry Tide, as, for examples, we visit Geoffrey Charles (with Demelza) and see his wife is pregnant again. Graham is playing with his characters’ previous histories and moving them around the board but he is still interested in the history. So the framing is signficant: Philip Prideaux, interested in Clowance, visits the High Sheriff of Cornwall who confirms a picture of law and custom in the era. Despite draconian punishments, many crimes are committed with impunity because 1) this sort of thing is part of reality all the time, and 2) there is no organized police, and we get a sketch of the glimmerings of a police and other community organizations to deal with crime first in 1820.

Valentine has had the nerve to show up to his half-brother Geoffrey Charles’s party at Trenwith — where all the characters are brought together. It’s like OJSimpson showing up to a party of movie colleagues on the day after the trial acquittal. He is all aplomb, talking to others, but curious, he brings a sidekick plus an ape, Butto, who he has rescued from a savage organ grinding master who was torturing the poor creature (burning its feet) to make it dance. We see him provide a comfortable place for the creature to sleep that night. He identifies.

The non-alive stuff continues: Ross dances with Harriet, supposedly this is to make frissons in the narrative and there is strain between him and Demelza as they remember their previous history. Demelza is of course still so beautiful, &c&c. This won’t do.

As Book 2 comes to an end, we have a new character introduced — it’s against the rules as Austen would say. A French fringe aristocrat drawn to Bella, a musician composer. If Graham had lived, this would be a new line which could move the story into Italy, and, to my surprise Book 3 is named after him: Maurice Valery. Like other conventional heroines, Bella now has several eager suitors — as does Clowance. Ho hum.

The interest of this part resides in this lurking murderer. Graham is bringing into his historical fiction his techniques from mystery stories. There is a genuinely anxiety producing fearful sequence where Demelza is coming home from visiting the Paynters late at night and feels the presence of someone following her .She hears a footstep, sees a shadow moving. I have this kind of sense and can intuit someone there when they are quietly so. It’s a street sense born of years of living in New York City (Manhattan, the Bronx). She tries to be calm, talks aloud to someone if they are there, but suddenly realizing this is serious — of course she’s thinking of these murders — she begins to run and succeeds in reaching her brother’s church and people. She asks someone to accompany her home and send someone to accompany her daughter who went walking to another house at night.

I do think it’s Valentine and the interest is that it is him, that is the psychology that is behind this man’s very sick behavior — for in a way he has been made sick by the way his parents and all around them behaved to him intimately and the values he found exemplified by powerful people and what he realized that as the favored eldest son of a rich and powerful man he could get away with and even seemed admired for – by other commonly vicious people. It reminds me of Graham’s Marnie where he explored this kind of thing.


Drury Lane Theater, end of the 18th century

Book 3: Maurice

The fiction now makes the argument implicitly — through story, dramatization, explicit comment — for sexual liberty for women as well as men.

Bella’s attempt to make a career for herself as a singer in London allows Graham to depict the commercial world of music in London in the early 19th century. What he shows reminds me closely of what is seen in Daniel Deronda. It’s all private concerts through patronage, tutoring and the reach of your teacher socially — after it’s been ascertained your voice is one which will please a different levels of crowds.

Valentine’s adoption of Butto enables Graham to show us the state of animal knowledge at the tie and how animals were regarded. This fits in with what has emerged as his interest in disabled people, how vulnerable they are (Agneta and Music Thomas), and what can be the fruitfulness of their lives if others will react with humanity and insight. I can’t tell whether Butto is supposed to be a chimp or bonobo or even orangutan (if the latter, the poor thing would be suffering even worse); I hardly think it can be a gorilla (too big) Of course he is growing up and becoming strong and violent under his imprisonment (for what’s what captivity no matter how humane feels like).

Fascinating how these historical fictions can deal with all sorts of issues …

While in London, coming out of a shop, Bella meets Letty Como who introduces herself to Letty, who clearly wants to show hersefl to Bella as Christopher Havergal’s coming wife. At first Christopher tries to brush the topic of this young woman off, but pretty quickly Christopher has no qualms in letting Bella knows that Letty is a prositute (high class, not in the streets) and once his mistress. As she questions him, it becomes obvious that “once” is an exaggeration. He saw Letty less than 3 weeks ago. It’s fine it seems for him to have a mistress, to deceive her: the tune “men were deceivers ever” is alluded to by Christopher.

Ben Carter marries Esther Carne (Demelza’s niece) and at the wedding, Valentine’s ape, Butto, shows up, disrupting the festivities. Again Ross is turned to — but before he can act, Valentine shows up to take his pet home. Geoffrey Charles grows very angry — as Esther’s employer and half-brother he has some authority to speak. Valentine gets the animal to leave.

Bella is home again and goes for a walk on the beach with Clowance, and the two talk indirectly of their intense disillusionment, As Bella is considering marrying, so Clowance remarrying Philip Prideaux or perhaps Fitzmaurice. Bella now speaks thinking about (the reader knows) this revelation of Christopher’s other activities and past (I’ll put it) and Clowance of Stephen’s betrayal of her by having married her while still married to another and his many lies. Fitzmaurice wants her to visit him at his country house. Bella says that men “think it is their right” to behave this way, and Clowance wonders about this “way of the world” and would not she be better off if she had had other young men besides Stephen? Should not she be “better equipped to take another husband.”

Demelza when young (Angharad Rees) with Hugh Armitage (Brian Stirne)r

If one thinks back to the all the incidents over the series of the novels, especially Demelza’s love affair with Hugh Armitage which Ross never got over though he expected her to accept his love for and rape of Elizabeth, the depiction of marital rape in the book (as what coerced marriage is about) and Emma who refused to marry Sam and married prudently after a series of lovers (fudged in the representation) you can see Graham is making a radical argument for women’s sexual liberty. This idea lies behind his Cordelia where an affair enables the heroine to grow up, and her inability to have an affair is part of Marnie’s disability.

This is not to say that the book suggests integrity and truth-telling not important. Paradoxically it does; rather he seems to be for open marriage if one can manage this. Very hard for human beings, especially men.

The next day Clowance and Bella visit Valentine who they think their cousin. He’s their half-brother. They find his house in a shambles, he half-drunk, so too Paul Kellowes and some prostitutes in the house. He is not repentant and repeats his demand that his wife, Selina should come home to him and live with hm on his terms. Right. They feed the poor chimp some bananas.

I don’t find the book melodramatic for it seems to me Valentine is real as are the other characters. It has taken a radical turn through the use of disabled characters, the adoption of a chimp to save it from torture, death, and this character the product of a rape neither man (George Warleggan or Ross) was willing to acknowledge generously.

Some lovely description of Cornwall:

A curtain of mist hung over the Black Cliffs at the further end of Hendrawna Beach, most of it caused by spray hitting the tall rocks and drifting before the breeze. There was a heavy swell which reached far out to sea, and a couple of fishing boats from St Ann’s had gone scudding back to the safety of the very unsafe har­bour. Gulls were riding the swell, lifting high and low as the waves came in; occasionally they took to the air in a flurry of flapping white when a wave unexpectedly spilled its head. No one yet expected rain: that would be tomorrow. The sun was losing its brilliance and hung in the sky like a guinea behind a muslin cloth.
Clowance squinted up at the weather. ‘Have you got a watch?’
[Bella] ‘No. Not one that goes.’

Clowance now has a letter in which a not-so-young young man proposes to her, Lord Fitzmaurice, in such terms of courteous upright abjection that it would not be out of place in Sir Charles Grandison. (Chapters 4-7). This will not do.

Bella elopes with Maurice Valery to Rouen where she has been sort of promised the leading role in Rossini’s Barber of Seville. She tells a false story to her mother in a letter (that she is chaperoned) when it is partly an escapade where in fact there is no firm promise and no chaperon. This is somewhat better but not much as we are expected to believe Demelza would accept this, so too Caroline’s aunt (with whom Bella was staying) without this being publicly declared “a ruin” (whatever the women might think privately). Plus the father, Ross, is supposed complacent. All anachronistic.

George Warleggan (Michael Attwell), first meeting with Lady Harriet (Sarah Carpenter (96 Poldark, Stranger from the Sea)

Better is George comes near death through falling off his horse into a fast running river near a mine, a partial replay of Francis Poldark’s death as we are with the man as he manages to find a ledge and hold on and wait. Only this man is saved by his much more vigorous alert wife, Harriet. She may not be much fun for him to live with but she’s an effective personality. He is not grateful to her dogs who did the scouting out of the shouts she hears when she draws near after she gets a map from the man he had been visiting on business.

Not so improbably and suddenly alive with the actual life that runs through these novels is Ross’s sudden visit to George when Ross hears he came near death. Ross has a proposition: he wants to buy up Valentine’s mine which Valentine has been supporting through smuggling as it’s not a working concern, as the smuggling agent has been arrested and will turn evidence if nothing is done to remove it from view. Ross’s motive is to spare “Elizabeth’s son.” George would have refused but again Harriet intervenes as this is just spite and moral stupidity. This is a good scene — as well as the near murder of a local peasant girl, Jean Heligan. We get a glimpse of the frightening tall figure in black with his rough knife. Jean is strong and throws him off and escapes. She tells her story to the magistrates. More than one man fits the description: beyond Valentine there is Philip Prideaux, who in the novel functions as agent for quite a number of people (police, Ross to Valentine unknown to Valentine to persuade him to give up this losing mine).

Valentine is nothing if not really perceptive — part of the fascination of the character is this. He sees through Ross’s ploy to keep him out of prison, but nonetheless lets Prideaux buy up Wheal Elizabeth. We get more of Valentine’s curious household (Chapters 8-9). Not only is there this ape which he really is fond of, but the Kellows, Paul continually drunk and Daisy now dying (she was the one seduced and abandoned by Stephen Carrington around the time he married Clowance). They are a family striken down by TB, with no help anywhere from anyone for real. Paul was one of the original three who robbed Warleggan’s bank, the only one left standing now.

As part of the mystery plot Paul informs Valentine that cleft where Agneta’s body has been found has been relocated and people are investigating it.


Clowance (Kelly Reilly) associated with a love of horses, of riding (96 Poldark)

Book 4: Clowance

Book 4 opens with a large political event: the coming to England of the unwanted Caroline. Having set the time by Caroline’s attempt to participate in the coronation, Graham reverts to his stories and there is again real power. Bella (Isabella-Rose – what a name) has become lovers with Maurice, and Ross comes to see her play in Rouen. He realizes that something intimate and real is going on between them, but before this can be taken further, the story reverts to Clowance and her acceptance of Lord Edward Fitzmaurice.

The decision comes out of a mindset that begins to resemble that of Elizabeth Chynoweth in the early Poldark books. Having experienced the realities of male deceit in sexual matters, and what love did not bring her (though the sex was good), she now wants to make a decision to marry on prudential self-interested grounds. We saw where that led ultimately Elizabeth. The first husband, Francis, ended up bankrupt, and because she could not get herself to continue a strong sexual life with him, had mistresses, and (because in his nature too) drank heavily; unable to cope with the corrupt driving types around him, he betrayed the hero (Ross), and then became depressed, self-destructed. George was a moral horror to live with and her attempt to control him ended in her death.

Bella’s decision might be said to resemble Demelza’s who simply went to bed with Ross when she could — as his servant, not brought up not to. Demelza’s turns out to be a love match, but I suspect Bella’s will not. Indeed there seems some danger she’ll lose her voice; if so, this is punitive and reminds me of other male fictions where the problem of a female’s ambition is solved by her losing her gift. Women authors do it too: George Eliot has a poem in this vein.

The story begins again to have intense feeling when we are told by a letter by Demelza to Clowance that Ross has returned with Bella very sick, “Morbid throat.” I know realize this is diptheria. Clowance determines to return home just as her letter accepting Edward reaches him and he frantically rides across England to reach her. He turns up and they realize they are strangers; both offer to back down. She thinks he sees her as this poor widow in a tiny cottage, which she is but we are asked to idealize this guy. He begins to remind me of Drake: Graham’s idea of a good kind man in deep love despite himself.

Ever available and convenient, Caroline (knows everyone of course) offers to give Edward a place to live while Clowance goes to help her mother nurse this sister.

The power of the narrative comes in here. It’s possible a couple like Ross and Demelza could lose another child. Jeremy now dead, they could lose this daughter in just the way they did the first (Demelza). Graham perhaps overdoes the parallel by having Ross remember the contrasting times of year, and he whitewashes what Ross did partly in reaction (led a riot) but the whole seqence is effective.

She could have died. Graham killed off Jeremy — and before that Francis, Elizabeth, Armitage. Death was common. She does seem to be coming through.

Drake Carne (Kevin McNally), Morwenna Chynoweth (Jane Wyman) with Geoffrey Charles (actor not listed) when young

I left off as Clowance and Edward are getting to know one another by walking along the beach – very much a reworking of the Drake-Morwenna romance.

For the finis

Bella goes on the stage cross-dressed as Romeo (in the spirit of Kemble)

and bonding with Elizabeth Chynoweth, Valentine’s mother:

When young

see comments.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 170 other followers