Victorian Literature Blog #1: Contemporary Reviews of Mary Barton

Contemporary Reviews of Mary Barton Written By Elizabeth Gaskell

First of all, I have to say that I really loved this book! I was not sure what to expect because of the time period in which it was written (simply because I have not read much from this era) but it really amazed me how even after all of these years, time and a century later, it truly held my interest as a reader and was very engaging throughout all of it. In reading the reviews from the back of our Norton Critical Edition of Mary Barton it was not surprising to me that several of the reviews held a high praise of Elizabeth’s first ever novel for various different reasons because those are the ones I also agreed with!

Summary:

I looked at the first twenty pages that are provided in the “Contemporary Reviews” section of the book (through the Edinburgh Review from April 1849 written by W. R. Greg) and it was very pleasing to see that most of the reviews spoke very highly of this novel and of Gaskell’s writing in general. However, of the few that I read, I really liked the review written by John Forster in 1848 from the Examiner (367-368). In this review, he very simply, yet directly explains the reasons he liked the novel Mary Barton. Forster seemed to not only see the political/economical tendencies, but also recognized and praised the beauty, art and message that Gaskell included. In other words, he acknowledged the merit beyond the idea of this text being a “political novel”. He even states, “We should convey a wrong impression if the reader supposed the book to be a political novel. It is not that” (Forster 368). The review continues expressing how this text is written with passion, simplicity, honesty, from experience and with hope (in regards to the time and economy in which it was written). As Forster’s writing comes to a close, it is clear that this is only a small section of this review that Norton chose to include, although I would be very interested to see what else was said when specific instances were examined in more detail.

Analysis:

Of the reviews that I read, this specific one really stood out to me because I felt that John Forster was recognizing the book in its entirety. He was looking at it from ALL angles. While this is often looked at as being a social or political novel, it is still a novel. It is still a work of art. Forster brought this to reader’s attention; reminding us that it was not solely written with the intent of bringing awareness to the era in which it came to be. However, the British Quarterly from the Unsigned Review (from 1849) was a review of Mary Barton that did strongly criticize Gaskell on several issues, but on such things as the political end of it. That was a review that I most definitely did NOT agree with. I felt that they were extremely too critical (and in-turn, negative). Forster acknowledged and saw the good in all that areas that the British Quarterly saw as bad. They said in this review that, “[It does not] represent anything to which an actual counterpart may not be found” and that it only, “gives a one-sided picture” (370-371). Upon reading this, I thought to myself, “well duh! It is a novel. It’s telling a story”.  It’s not an incorrectly written history book, nor do think Gaskell intended it to be a history based factual book. On the other hand, Forster supports Gaskell’s writing by saying, “The aim is [rather] to lessen the interval that separates them (rich and the poor), and show with what advantage to both each might know more of the other” (368). In other words, Forster saw the bigger picture; he supported and saw the positives in the writings in Mary Barton as well as took it for what it really was, a story. There were reviews out there that found controversy in Gaskell’s writing, which is to be expected, but from a reader’s standpoint I stand strong in agreeing with those reviews that found the good and praised Gaskell for the work she shared with us! J