New Leaf February 2020 Discussion • Anne of Green Gables by L.M. Montgomery

[issybird]

Originally Posted by gmw

I think it's already been pointed out, but the main problem I have with this scene is that it's the last time we see Diana as bookish. So either the scene is wishful thinking on the part of Mrs Barry, or the author changed her mind about what Diana was going to be like - and I'm inclined to believe the latter.

Yes, me too. Diana was only a ever projection, not a realized character. She was whatever Anne needed in a bosom friend at the time.

Originally Posted by gmw

I agree that there is considerable ambiguity in the character, and so your interpretation is there to be read. There is also the middle ground in which Anne is mostly sincere and is only unconsciously manipulative. Argument might be made that she found a winning formula and that became her habit.

Originally Posted by Catlady

I'm sure we're supposed to see her as charming and lovable; I think only people who enjoy being contrary would argue she's not.

I think the quite explicit and moral overtones to the book (written by a minister’s wife, no less) make the bad seed interpretation unlikely. But is is fun! Who among us didn’t feel some sympathy for the New Brunswick orphan who put poison down the well?

Originally Posted by Victoria

Good heavens you folks are harsh! Anne was manipulative because she admitted her disappointment about the ugly dresses? She was eleven years old. I think you’ve completely lost touch with your inner children!

There was a meanness about Marilla in regard to the dresses that was quite unsetttling. They were unnecessarily cheap and ugly, only a scant step up from the wincey. No more than an orphan living on charity deserved, it seems.

For the rest of it, it’s easy to argue that Marilla’s sternness and down-to-earthiness was exactly what Anne needed, and Marilla was right that she was absurd. If the dresses had been pretty enough but plain, i.e., nice fabric with pretty prints and not cut just marginally more than skimpy, I’d have no problem with them. But it’s clear they were hideous.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Victoria

Good heavens you folks are harsh! Anne was manipulative because she admitted her disappointment about the ugly dresses? She was eleven years old. I think you’ve completely lost touch with your inner children!

I agree that the intentions of the author are relatively clear, but I also think the ambiguities and/or inconsistencies do exist in the text.

Later in the story we hear something of the sad tale of Anne's life before arriving at Green Gables, and such a tale makes the idea that she would risk her position at her new home - which she obviously loves, if it's not all a dramatic put-on - seem unlikely in the extreme. Being forward and talkative and opinionated seemed unlikely enough, but yelling at her elders and then being reluctant to apologise? Being ungrateful for new clothes? It doesn't seem to fit with what we learn of her history.

But noticing such things is, perhaps, a little uncalled for in a children's tale. These are the sorts of little problems that can arise in any fiction that's trying to be real enough to be almost believable, but also idealistic enough to present a wholesome tale. The author neatly minimises the problem by separating the history somewhat from the early behaviour, so the reader is less likely to make the unwanted connection.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by issybird

.....There was a meanness about Marilla in regard to the dresses that was quite unsetttling. They were unnecessarily cheap and ugly, only a scant step up from the wincey. No more than an orphan living on charity deserved, it seems.

For the rest of it, it’s easy to argue that Marilla’s sternness and down-to-earthiness was exactly what Anne needed, and Marilla was right that she was absurd. If the dresses had been pretty enough but plain, i.e., nice fabric with pretty prints and not cut just marginally more than skimpy, I’d have no problem with them. But it’s clear they were hideous.

Yes I thought the passage made it clear that Marilla used spare cloth that she didn’t really like or value herself. As you say, it was good enough for an orphan. I was also struck by the comments about where she’s planned to put the little boy - it was neat and clean, but he wasn’t going to get an actual bedroom.

I think the point of the dress vignette was more to show where Marilla was at the time, rather than being about Anne’s disappointment. She had lost touch with her own childhood feelings. And she wasn’t expecting to become attached to Anne or the little boy they’d expected. So I have a suspicion the dresses would have become prettier over time, even if Matthew hadn’t put his oar in.

I agree that Marilla’s down-to-earthiness was a good balance for Anne. Some of the sternness was unfamiliarity with children, and softened. The rest was what she considered to be her duty.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by gmw

I agree that the intentions of the author are relatively clear, but I also think the ambiguities and/or inconsistencies do exist in the text.

Later in the story we hear something of the sad tale of Anne's life before arriving at Green Gables, and such a tale makes the idea that she would risk her position at her new home - which she obviously loves, if it's not all a dramatic put-on - seem unlikely in the extreme. Being forward and talkative and opinionated seemed unlikely enough, but yelling at her elders and then being reluctant to apologise? Being ungrateful for new clothes? It doesn't seem to fit with what we learn of her history.

But noticing such things is, perhaps, a little uncalled for in a children's tale. These are the sorts of little problems that can arise in any fiction that's trying to be real enough to be almost believable, but also idealistic enough to present a wholesome tale. The author neatly minimises the problem by separating the history somewhat from the early behaviour, so the reader is less likely to make the unwanted connection.

I think this is an excellent point and also results from LMM’s essential weakness as a writer of novels*, namely that her forte was the short story. It’s been noted that Anne is really just a series of vignettes; LMM can’t plot for the long-range. So I think character, backstory, whatever, are always fluid in service of that particular vignette. Something like a soap opera, in fact, where you’re not supposed to be too good at remembering. Or even supermarket tabloids; how often can Harry and Meghan reasonably be expected to be divorcing?

It even ties into the dress issue. Anne brags that Marilla isn’t stingy and we have no reason to think she is. You might expect pretty but plain attire, which would be enough for Anne to mourn the sleeves. Would it have provided the opportunity for Matthew to put his oar in? Hideous even he couldn’t miss.

Diana is another example, as said above. Amorphous. Serves whatever purpose needed in that vignette.

*She had one more glaring weakness which becomes more and more apparent as you read more of her work. She’s got essentially two themes: orphans and romance later in life.

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by issybird

I think this is an excellent point and also results from LMM’s essential weakness as a writer of novels*, namely that her forte was the short story. It’s been noted that Anne is really just a series of vignettes; LMM can’t plot for the long-range. So I think character, backstory, whatever, are always fluid in service of that particular vignette. Something like a soap opera, in fact, where you’re not supposed to be too good at remembering. Or even supermarket tabloids; how often can Harry and Meghan reasonably be expected to be divorcing?

And how many times can ‘Jen & Brad’ reunite and have a baby? I agree with this critique as well. I had a child’s perspective that she’d written a novel, but it’s actually a series of sketches. I’ll always treasure the book, but I can why others may not.

Issybird’s observation about LLM’s strength & weaknesses regarding longer works brings to mind an excerpt my sister typed out and sent me, from one of Montgomery’s letters. She talks about needing to lengthen one of her shorter works, and also mentions not wishing to develop Anne further. (Apologies if transcription errors have crept in).

Letter to George Boyd MacMillan Feb. 20 1910

‘I had no idea it was going to be this long before I should get around to answering your letter. It was not for lack of time-I had too much time. But ever since New Year’s I have been suffering from a nervous breakdown and my doctor advised me to do as little mental work, even letter writing, as possible.

I suffered from insomnia and a dreadful sort of restlessness, which when it took possession of me seemed to unfit me utterly for anything which required the least thought...

You will remember that last spring I sent you my serial story “Una of the Garden.” Well, my publishers thought that if this story were a little longer it would do well to be issued in a book form. Accordingly about the beginning of November I went to work at it. I had to have it done by the first of the year.

It was originally about 24,000 words long. I expanded it to 48,000. This meant writing it over twice and as the time was short I had to crowd three months work into six weeks. I had besides to suffer a good deal of worry connected with family and personal concerns; and altogether, as I have said, the result was a nervous breakdown.

The suffering of nervous maladies is quite indescribable. I should far rather endure physical pain. Apart from the restlessness which was so marked a feature of my case, the most distreesing symptom seemed to be a horrible dread of the future-of any future. I felt frightened of life-any life, even a most happy and pleasant one...

“Anne of Green Gables” sold better this year than last, which my publishers tell me is a very uncommon thing. I suppose the two books help to sell each other. I have been flooded with letters entreating me to write a third Anne book and the Page Co. are also very anxious for it; but I feel I simply could not do it. The freshness has gone out of the Anne idea. It may return some day. But unless it does I shall never throw any further light on Anne’s career. That must be left to the “scope of the imagination.”

It’s bit staggering to read about the time pressures Montgomery was working under, let alone having to manually retype everything. Add to that the personal gremlins and family pressures she was contending with, and there wasn’t much room for creative genius. So as Matthew would have said, “allowances can be made”. It’s quite amazing she was able to write what she did. But in any case, she wasn’t interested in taking Anne further, and perhaps wrote longer works because her publishers found that they sold better.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Victoria

Good heavens you folks are harsh! Anne was manipulative because she admitted her disappointment about the ugly dresses? She was eleven years old. I think you’ve completely lost touch with your inner children!

Hah. It's precisely because I am in touch with my inner child that I know all about being manipulative!

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by gmw

Later in the story we hear something of the sad tale of Anne's life before arriving at Green Gables, and such a tale makes the idea that she would risk her position at her new home - which she obviously loves, if it's not all a dramatic put-on - seem unlikely in the extreme. Being forward and talkative and opinionated seemed unlikely enough, but yelling at her elders and then being reluctant to apologise? Being ungrateful for new clothes? It doesn't seem to fit with what we learn of her history.

Originally Posted by Victoria

Yes I thought the passage made it clear that Marilla used spare cloth that she didn’t really like or value herself. As you say, it was good enough for an orphan. I was also struck by the comments about where she’s planned to put the little boy - it was neat and clean, but he wasn’t going to get an actual bedroom.

The whole idea of adopting a child to be a servant is upsetting in the first place, though I suppose it wasn't unusual. Marilla and Matthew wanted unpaid labor, not a child to love--as apparently Anne's previous "parents" also did. It's also pretty horrifying that an orphan would just be sent out somewhere, with no vetting of any kind on either side. I guess there was no official adoption either, or any sort of follow-up, which I suppose would mean Anne could have been sent back at any time and had absolutely no recourse if she'd been maltreated (except poison in the well).

[Victoria]

Originally Posted by Catlady

The whole idea of adopting a child to be a servant is upsetting in the first place, though I suppose it wasn't unusual. Marilla and Matthew wanted unpaid labor, not a child to love--as apparently Anne's previous "parents" also did. It's also pretty horrifying that an orphan would just be sent out somewhere, with no vetting of any kind on either side. I guess there was no official adoption either, or any sort of follow-up, which I suppose would mean Anne could have been sent back at any time and had absolutely no recourse if she'd been maltreated (except poison in the well).

Unfortunately very true. Montgomery said the Cuthberts intended to send him to school and ‘do right by him’, but it was luck of the draw. I suspect most weren’t lucky.

[Bookworm_Girl]

Organized foster care didn’t exist in the US until the 1920s. I only learned about the Orphan Train movement when I listened to Christina Baker Kline's Orphan Train last year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_Train

It seems that Canada was similar. This book on the subject of adoption in Canada has an interesting abstract.
https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com...91231-0157.xml

Formal adoptions were rare—rather, apprenticeships, farm placements, and domestic service positions were secured for the young inmates. The late 19th century saw middle-class reformers promote a more nurturing environment for children, which resulted in a number of social reforms directed at improving their health, welfare, and education. As part of these reforms, the state took responsibility for child protection.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Catlady

The whole idea of adopting a child to be a servant is upsetting in the first place, though I suppose it wasn't unusual. Marilla and Matthew wanted unpaid labor, not a child to love--as apparently Anne's previous "parents" also did. It's also pretty horrifying that an orphan would just be sent out somewhere, with no vetting of any kind on either side. I guess there was no official adoption either, or any sort of follow-up, which I suppose would mean Anne could have been sent back at any time and had absolutely no recourse if she'd been maltreated (except poison in the well).

It occurs to me to wonder at Matthew’s and Marilla’s motivations in adopting a boy. The putative reason, of course, was that the typical French hired hand wasn’t reliable, with implications of being both not hard working and also, presumably, willing to walk away. Whereas I have to assume that an adopted boy would be both cheaper (food and clothing only and you know that he’d have had to miss school during spring planting and harvest time), but also more “tied,” with the perhaps even explicit threat of being sent back if he didn’t shape up. The implications are worse than they appeared to me at first.

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by issybird

It occurs to me to wonder at Matthew’s and Marilla’s motivations in adopting a boy. The putative reason, of course, was that the typical French hired hand wasn’t reliable, with implications of being both not hard working and also, presumably, willing to walk away. Whereas I have to assume that an adopted boy would be both cheaper (food and clothing only and you know that he’d have had to miss school during spring planting and harvest time), but also more “tied,” with the perhaps even explicit threat of being sent back if he didn’t shape up. The implications are worse than they appeared to me at first.

They did mean to do right by the lad, he would have been treated as well as most farm boys were treated by his parents (right down to missing school during busy times and being housed in a spare corner). They had no one to leave their farm to so the prospective boy would have inherited that as well if everything worked out.

On the other hand a number of Montgomery's other works make it clear that she fully realized the misery such a placement could end up being.

[Dazrin]

The background on what adoption was like is an area where I have been intentionally ignorant. The hints about what could have been, and what had been for Anne with her foster parent's/guardians, were bad enough. I'm sure it would be interesting in a morbid and educational way but when reading an old favorite like this, I don't really want to delve too deep into parts of it. This re-read and discussion has already taken more of the luster off the book than I expected going into it.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

The background on what adoption was like is an area where I have been intentionally ignorant. The hints about what could have been, and what had been for Anne with her foster parent's/guardians, were bad enough. I'm sure it would be interesting in a morbid and educational way but when reading an old favorite like this, I don't really want to delve too deep into parts of it. This re-read and discussion has already taken more of the luster off the book than I expected going into it.

Yeah, I know what you mean. I don't normally participate in the book clubs but came into this thread because of my memories of reading the Anne series. I probably should have stayed out of here and just continued to remember it fondly.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Dazrin

The background on what adoption was like is an area where I have been intentionally ignorant. The hints about what could have been, and what had been for Anne with her foster parent's/guardians, were bad enough. I'm sure it would be interesting in a morbid and educational way but when reading an old favorite like this, I don't really want to delve too deep into parts of it. This re-read and discussion has already taken more of the luster off the book than I expected going into it.

Originally Posted by 4691mls

Yeah, I know what you mean. I don't normally participate in the book clubs but came into this thread because of my memories of reading the Anne series. I probably should have stayed out of here and just continued to remember it fondly.

These comments illustrate why I would never nominate a book that I loved unreservedly as a child. I can and do reread childhood favorites, and I can see flaws in them with adult eyes, but I love them anyway and don't want to lay them open to criticism or have to defend them.

[CRussel]

So, a bit of googling on the role of Anne, and why it's important to Canadians, yields some interesting results. First, of course, would be the article in The Guardian by Margaret Atwood referenced earlier, but then this other article in The Guardian I also found of interest.

Also, the Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) article 5 Reasons, and The Canadian Encyclopedia article.

There was also an interesting article in the NYTimes written about the most recent adaptation, Anne with an E. I'm not at all sure I agree with what it says, but interesting.