I really enjoyed Cranford's lightheartedness and humor. There were sad parts, such as the death of Captain Brown and the heartbreak that Peter caused both his parents, yet Gaskell didn't overwhelm her readers with depression and angst with these passages. And then this got me thinking: Why are books that are primarily full of gloom, despair, and suffering (think Dostoyevsky) more highly regarded and popular than lighthearted and easygoing novels such as Cranford?
A former boyfriend of mine would have hated this book, claiming it to be dull and not very thought provoking. (The only female writer he's every really liked was Virginia Woolf, so go figure)
Maybe it is because some readers believe that "simple" books illustrating the lives of simple people cannot possibly deal with dark themes such as death, love lost, and regret. I, however, think all three of these themes have been addressed and beautifully illustrated throughout this book.
I agree Anna. I find myself thinking back to a conversation we had earlier in the semsester about writers and how they manipulate your feelings. The way some writers can force you to feel something for a character even against your better judgement. For example, I know Stowe was trying to guilt her readers into loving and crying for little Eva. I, however felt it was a manipulation of the situation, and the books underlying themes. Stowe being able to twist up her readers in emotional angst can leave a reader feeling empowered by a cause or guilty of not feeling the way that Stowe or anyother writer may have wanted you to. I enjoyed that Gaskill allowed for independent thought among readers. Being able to draw my own conclusions is nice every now and again.
ReplyDelete