Academic Suicide?
I really god damn hate some of the kids in my honors class. You know, hardcore grade nazi overachievers. Anyway, I got an email today from Dr. Casey which she sent to everyone in the class. She wrote this:
Andrew raises some very interesting questions about today's discussion. Worth thinking about and replying to, so wade in. Just hit "reply all" when you answer and we'll all get your comments.
emc
And here are Andrew's comments:
Dear Dr. Casey,
Today in class we discussed the controversy regarding the title of the novel we read. The debate confused me. Was the debate whether the title of the novel should be "Mary Barton" or "John Barton," or whether the main, central protagonist was Mary Barton or John Barton? These seem to me to be two different questions, yet the underlying assumption in both groups' arguments was that the title should be named after the protagonist of the novel. I do not think that this is true at all.
For instance, in Dr. Kraus' English Inquiry class last semester I read a novel called "Bodega Dreams," the "Bodega" of the title referring to a character called Willie Bodega in the novel. Although Bodega is an important character, he is not the main protagonist, yet he appears in the title. The title is effective, however, because this particular character evokes the theme and mood of the novel in ways which the main protagonist would not. Thus, the name in the title is not necessarily the main protagonist.
Similarly, it seems to me that "Mary Barton" is an almost identical case. Although Mary Barton seems to be the central protagonist in the novel, John Barton embodies the working class struggle and tragedy in this industrial novel. Therefore, I think that although Mary Barton is the protagonist of the novel, I also believe that "John Barton" would have been a better title (if Elizabeth Gaskell wished the novel's theme to be about the struggles of the working people in Manchester, which is what I think she intended from the preface).
This last point leads to a further complication: the disparity between the author's intentions for the novel, and the novel she actually produced. Despite the author's intentions, Mary's love story occupies a significant part of the novel, which arguably detracts from the "condition of England" theme. If Gaskell's intentions for the novel were as I mentioned above, I think that this may be a flaw. Whatever the case, it seems that the author's intentions for her novel as stated in the preface do not match up with the novel she wrote. If the title of the novel was supposed to best describe the novel, (regardless of the author's intentions), I think that "Mary Barton" is the better title.
In conclusion, I will summarize the three points I have tried to make:
1. Mary Barton is more of a central protagonist than John Barton.
2. Titles do not necessarily have to include the name of the protagonist, but can include someone else who better evokes the mood and theme of the novel.
3. There is a disparity between what the author intended to write, and what she did write. She intended for "John Barton" to describe her book, but it seems that "Mary Barton" better describes her book.
Perhaps these points are very trivial and confusing, but do you see the distinctions I have disussed as being valid points?
Sincerely,
Andrew Prinzivalli
Here is what I wrote back:
I definitely agree with the second assertion. God knows The Great Gatsbysounds better than The Generally Unimpressive Caraway.
But I do think that Gaskell succeeds. She does shed a great deal oflight on the trials of the Manchester working class. The whole love story drama is simply a vehicle. To better illustrate my point I’m going to use an absurd analogy:
When a child needs to get a shot, the doctor distracts it with a stuffed brontosaurus. In terms of this novel, the child is the reader, the shot is the plight of the working class, and the stuffed brontosaurus is Mary’s love story. Nobody wants to get a shot, just like nobody wants to hear such horrible things as in MB. Just as the child doesn’t realize it was poked until it’s over, the average reader doesn’t realize the message before the happy ending. A spoon full of sugar makes the hideous reality go down, as a depressing Mary Poppins might say.
Oh well. My two cents. Or pence.
EDIT: and it goes on, with a reply from someone else:
I think the toy brontosaurus example hits the mark. It seems to me that Gaskell employs strategic maneuverings throughout MB. Namely, she realizes that following John Barton around Manchester for four-hundred pages while he slowly "clems" and ruins his health from opium overdose may have been difficult to write and also difficult on the reader. Rather than make this mistake, she spends much of her book on a romance- - which is more interesting-- in which the poor underdog Jem Wilson wins the affection of Mary Barton over the dashingly rich foil Mr. Carson. Still, John Barton remains central to the story. He haunts each chapter like a specter, even when he makes no appearances. By the time John reappears on the scene, Gaskell has caught the attention of her reader (through the romance and page after page of suspense building) forcing them to take their "shot" and finally listen to what John Barton has to say.
I agree with Gaskell that the book should have been named John Barton, but, we still have to remember, not everyone has the insight to identify the brontosaurus.
Andrew raises some very interesting questions about today's discussion. Worth thinking about and replying to, so wade in. Just hit "reply all" when you answer and we'll all get your comments.
emc
And here are Andrew's comments:
Dear Dr. Casey,
Today in class we discussed the controversy regarding the title of the novel we read. The debate confused me. Was the debate whether the title of the novel should be "Mary Barton" or "John Barton," or whether the main, central protagonist was Mary Barton or John Barton? These seem to me to be two different questions, yet the underlying assumption in both groups' arguments was that the title should be named after the protagonist of the novel. I do not think that this is true at all.
For instance, in Dr. Kraus' English Inquiry class last semester I read a novel called "Bodega Dreams," the "Bodega" of the title referring to a character called Willie Bodega in the novel. Although Bodega is an important character, he is not the main protagonist, yet he appears in the title. The title is effective, however, because this particular character evokes the theme and mood of the novel in ways which the main protagonist would not. Thus, the name in the title is not necessarily the main protagonist.
Similarly, it seems to me that "Mary Barton" is an almost identical case. Although Mary Barton seems to be the central protagonist in the novel, John Barton embodies the working class struggle and tragedy in this industrial novel. Therefore, I think that although Mary Barton is the protagonist of the novel, I also believe that "John Barton" would have been a better title (if Elizabeth Gaskell wished the novel's theme to be about the struggles of the working people in Manchester, which is what I think she intended from the preface).
This last point leads to a further complication: the disparity between the author's intentions for the novel, and the novel she actually produced. Despite the author's intentions, Mary's love story occupies a significant part of the novel, which arguably detracts from the "condition of England" theme. If Gaskell's intentions for the novel were as I mentioned above, I think that this may be a flaw. Whatever the case, it seems that the author's intentions for her novel as stated in the preface do not match up with the novel she wrote. If the title of the novel was supposed to best describe the novel, (regardless of the author's intentions), I think that "Mary Barton" is the better title.
In conclusion, I will summarize the three points I have tried to make:
1. Mary Barton is more of a central protagonist than John Barton.
2. Titles do not necessarily have to include the name of the protagonist, but can include someone else who better evokes the mood and theme of the novel.
3. There is a disparity between what the author intended to write, and what she did write. She intended for "John Barton" to describe her book, but it seems that "Mary Barton" better describes her book.
Perhaps these points are very trivial and confusing, but do you see the distinctions I have disussed as being valid points?
Sincerely,
Andrew Prinzivalli
Here is what I wrote back:
I definitely agree with the second assertion. God knows The Great Gatsbysounds better than The Generally Unimpressive Caraway.
But I do think that Gaskell succeeds. She does shed a great deal oflight on the trials of the Manchester working class. The whole love story drama is simply a vehicle. To better illustrate my point I’m going to use an absurd analogy:
When a child needs to get a shot, the doctor distracts it with a stuffed brontosaurus. In terms of this novel, the child is the reader, the shot is the plight of the working class, and the stuffed brontosaurus is Mary’s love story. Nobody wants to get a shot, just like nobody wants to hear such horrible things as in MB. Just as the child doesn’t realize it was poked until it’s over, the average reader doesn’t realize the message before the happy ending. A spoon full of sugar makes the hideous reality go down, as a depressing Mary Poppins might say.
Oh well. My two cents. Or pence.
EDIT: and it goes on, with a reply from someone else:
I think the toy brontosaurus example hits the mark. It seems to me that Gaskell employs strategic maneuverings throughout MB. Namely, she realizes that following John Barton around Manchester for four-hundred pages while he slowly "clems" and ruins his health from opium overdose may have been difficult to write and also difficult on the reader. Rather than make this mistake, she spends much of her book on a romance- - which is more interesting-- in which the poor underdog Jem Wilson wins the affection of Mary Barton over the dashingly rich foil Mr. Carson. Still, John Barton remains central to the story. He haunts each chapter like a specter, even when he makes no appearances. By the time John reappears on the scene, Gaskell has caught the attention of her reader (through the romance and page after page of suspense building) forcing them to take their "shot" and finally listen to what John Barton has to say.
I agree with Gaskell that the book should have been named John Barton, but, we still have to remember, not everyone has the insight to identify the brontosaurus.