Modern Criticism of Mary Barton

I just want to open with my silly frustration at the fact that the modern reviews of Mary Barton are longer than most of 19^th century reviews. Why? Why is that?! Because it’s an older book now there’s suddenly so much more to say?? Or is it because there’s more space to fill in the papers with book reviews nowadays? Grrr! Haha!

So because of the lengthy reviews, I chose to only discuss one of them instead of two or three. John Lucas seemed to have several things to say about Mary Barton and other reviewer’s opinions. The criticism I chose to focus on was Lucas’ discussion of [Carson’s Murder and the Inadequacy of Hope in Mary Barton]. In this selection, Lucas looks at Gaskell’s work in neither a positive or negative light. I assume he didn’t ‘take sides’ because he was writing in the 1960s and Gaskell’s portrayal of the British upper and lower class has influence on his personal life, unlike those reviewers back then who were likely to be condemning Gaskell because they were the mill-owners she wrote ill of. Therefore his analysis of Mary Barton is as objective as a modern critic might expect to be. He speaks well of Gaskell and her novel, except when it comes to her motivations in writing Carson’s murder. He acknowledges her political agenda in referencing liberalism but he does not condemn her for it. Instead he says, “Mary Barton is a remarkable novel because it so powerfully suggests the guilt at which all liberalism must eventually connive, and which therefore requires Mrs. Gaskell to put it behind her with a resoluteness for which few liberals would feel the need: …” (501-502). Thus Lucas approaches a topic of which we’re familiar with discussing: Gaskell’s sense of resolution and presentation of social solutions.

Now I could reiterate that question here and ask you, if Gaskell provided viable solutions to the social problems present in her novel. But it’s a bit of an open-ended question, isn’t it? Because Mary Barton was a novel focused on a group of individuals and their experiences within the system. Who can fault that description? It’s basically the bare bones of several novels, isn’t it? Therefore, I propose we assert that John Barton and Carson Jr. and Sr. are meant to be representations of both ends of the spectrum. Gaskell sets them up for the best and worst circumstances; the best being Carson Sr.’s forgiveness and reform, and Barton’s death rather than imprisonment; the worst being Harry Carson’s murder. Still…they are characters in a unique story, “even if Carson’s reform is genuine it is a purely individual matter, whereas one side of Mrs. Gaskell certainly hopes it will emerge as a general recommendation” (504).

I’m sure we can agree that Mary Barton took an interesting turn when Harry Carson was murdered. Suddenly it wasn’t a social problem novel so much as a murder mystery. Did Gaskell always intend for this plot/genre shift? Or was Harry Carson’s murder and the following investigation a cop out after realizing the hopelessness of everyone’s situation? Lucas thinks “There can be little doubt that Mrs. Gaskell always intended the murder to happen” (502). Okay. I suppose I can get on board with that. It makes sense that a hopeless situation escalate to murder…in this context (!) with the pressure of Chartist unions upon you. But Lucas has a point that Gaskell looks to the murder to make her way out of the complex web of industry life she’s portrayed. What’s great about Lucas’ review is that he both agrees and disagrees with fellow critics. Where one critic says the murder was too dramatic and was used as a fall back for Gaskell, Lucas asserts a sort of representative point of view which fits the story better as a “dramatisation of the fear of violence which was widespread among the upper and middle classes at the time” (502). Then it seems that Gaskell is hoping to follow a pattern: “class antagonism producing a violence from which springs reconciliation” (503). That’s a totally logical pattern. But does it only work in books or movies?

John Barton dies and Mr. Carson forgives him; his “forgiveness and vow of reform seem to represent a triumph for the best hopes of liberalism” (503). Perhaps that was Gaskell’s intention. If she can’t propose specific solutions, she can at least provide hope. However, according to Lucas’ review, it’s not enough.

Gaskell, Elizabeth. Mary Barton. Ed Thomas Recchio: A Norton Critical Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008. Print.