Quote:
Originally Posted by Catlady
I don't see how this is much of a feminist novel--it is to a point, with Helen defying convention and leaving her husband, but that is undercut by her return. Really? Bronte couldn't have just had mean old Arthur die offstage and free Helen to marry again (or live happily alone)? No, she has to have noble Helen burnish her halo and return to caress the fevered brow of her oppressor. Such saintliness!
|
I thought Helen's return to nurse Arthur was flatly unbelievable. She had escaped from him with such difficulty, and he destroyed her first plan entirely, that I can't imagine she'd risk herself, and her son, by getting within his orbit again. Suppose he refused to let her leave? He could. Suppose he refused to let her take Arthur? He also could do that, legally. And that ridiculous statement she made him sign - he could easily have destroyed that.
And while I'm on the subject, it was flatly unbelievable he didn't destroy her diary after he read it, or even more to the point, keep it under lock and key for evidence.
Quote:
|
While I'm hating on Helen--the doctoring of booze to make her son sick was horrifying.
|
Yeah, that's not going to fly with a modern reader at all. I suppose the Methodists of the day applauded it as a tactic. But then, it was equally horrifying the way society thought that a five-year old should be drinking wine.
Going back to your first point, I initially thought this had pretensions to feminism, with Mrs. Markham's "all for the man" attitude and Rose's objections. But that was pretty much it.