7 Comments
User's avatar
Alice Wells's avatar

Well, you could argue that Gaskell could have written a more rounded account but that wasn’t the purpose of the book as she saw it. I think she wanted to counter the hostile reception (in some cases invective) that JE elicited from some quarters, and that was Gaskell’s main objective. Did she achieve that goal - debatable.

Expand full comment
Henry Oliver's avatar

I agree! I also don’t think biographers have to be critics. She was writing a study of how talent worked.

Expand full comment
Alice Wells's avatar

Yes, it does give an intimate portrayal of how she and her sisters worked but that wasn’t the main reason she was asked to write it. Her brief was to correct the perception of Charlotte by some outraged critics - who were generally out of step with the general public and for the most part loved it. I think she stuck to the brief pretty closely and would argue that Gaskell, if anything, overcooked it.

Expand full comment
Henry Oliver's avatar

She massively over cooked it! I think it’s most valuable today as a record of how a great writing talent develops works and emerges. Critics of her are just less interested in that than the more directly literary question.

Expand full comment
Alice Wells's avatar

Yes, agreed. It is a fascinating read and I loved it for that reason above all others.

Expand full comment
Henry Oliver's avatar

The silly thing is that Jane Eyre is about talent too--so Gaskell is a sort of commentary of the novel just not as directly as some people would like

Expand full comment
User's avatar
Comment deleted
Jul 9, 2023
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
Henry Oliver's avatar

So glad you enjoyed it on your birthday 🥳

Expand full comment