Here is the trend for all those reading Gone with the Wind, comments, questions discussion etc etc etc
To be completely honest I never thought about actually reading this book ever. I used to see the posters of the theatre show on the tube but until now I had no desire to read it. I know that it is a love story ( a great one) and that its set in 1860s (According to the blurb). I have also resisted temptation to google the story so will start off reading with a clean plate. I’m sure as I go on, I will do some more research on the book as it is set in a particular time in history but for now I shall just read…
So I'm about half way through this epic love story, actually at a point where its quite depressing (with the war and Scarlett going back to broken Tara). I find this quite an easy read but there are a few things that I wanted to start discussing;
1)Is Margaret Mitchell being unnecessarily racist against black people? She often makes flippant remarks on the (bad) treatment of slaves? Although I suspect much of this is due to the perception of the times, for example the word ‘piccaninny’ is often used in the text or ‘darkies’. But generally all the black characters in the book are portrayed negatively, either too loud and overbearing (Mammy), or too stupid (Prissy). Or is MM relaying the sentiments of the times?
2)What do you think about how quickly Scarlett got married off in the end of part 1? Was this a shock for you? I thought it was interesting how MM spends 100 pages to building up Scarlett as this flirty, carefree girl that all the men want then at her heartbreak over Ashley, makes a this quick native decision to get married to Charles (while still loving Ashley). It makes Scarlett seem like this hot-headed woman, that does things on a whim.
3)Note the parallel between Scarlett’s rebellious nature and Rhett. For example, both oppose the war but whilst Rhett is socially banished as a social outcast, Scarlett internalises her flight against the war. Do you think that’s why these characters are attracted to one another? Typical story of denial, but of course they will end up together.
its a 900 page killer, but I'm beginning to understand why nani liked this book. The protagnist, Scarlett has some feature that remind me of things she said, although not saying Scarlett is anything like Nani, that would be sooo wrong.
I've quite far into the book, although slowed down extra reading due to exams.... I still haven't got to the part about Scarlett and Rhett realise they are in love... altough very close to it
The war description drags on, but I think its a device to make you realise the horror of it all. I think also at the time, people might not have read a lot of writing on the war, so MM does tend to reiterate this lots....
I finally finished this 900-page long epic epic epic! It was certainly not what I was expecting in a way. We never really got to see the relationship between Scarlett and Rhett being played out fully, with the ambiguous end of whether they each were going to be truly happy.
I felt the story was more about Scarlett’s love for Ashley and how she was able to atone that love. (until of course her realisation at the end that it was not him but the image of him that she loved).
I guess after 900 pages of will they/won’t there I was expecting some sort of conclusion of the Scarlett- Rhett saga rather then the ending of Scarlett- Ashley. With the idea that tomorrow is another day and we are lead to believe that in the end she will capture Rhett like all the other men she has been able to capture in the book, (Charles and Frank). Though Rhett is portrayed to be unlike other men, clearly an ambiguous ending. Perhaps there was to be a sequal but given how long this one took (and the popularity of this book) MM didn’t really have the incentive right?
I was more interested by the war and the socio- context that the book was placed in/ portrayed. For example, MM paints almost a positive role for the emergence of the KKK, through its justification. It almost seems localised rather then the large, violent organisation it really was/is.
Anyway, those of who have read the book get your questions, comments, (grievances of how long it was) flowing and discuss!
Here is the trend for all those reading Gone with the Wind, comments, questions discussion etc etc etc
ReplyDeleteTo be completely honest I never thought about actually reading this book ever. I used to see the posters of the theatre show on the tube but until now I had no desire to read it. I know that it is a love story ( a great one) and that its set in 1860s (According to the blurb). I have also resisted temptation to google the story so will start off reading with a clean plate. I’m sure as I go on, I will do some more research on the book as it is set in a particular time in history but for now I shall just read…
So I'm about half way through this epic love story, actually at a point where its quite depressing (with the war and Scarlett going back to broken Tara). I find this quite an easy read but there are a few things that I wanted to start discussing;
ReplyDelete1)Is Margaret Mitchell being unnecessarily racist against black people? She often makes flippant remarks on the (bad) treatment of slaves? Although I suspect much of this is due to the perception of the times, for example the word ‘piccaninny’ is often used in the text or ‘darkies’. But generally all the black characters in the book are portrayed negatively, either too loud and overbearing (Mammy), or too stupid (Prissy). Or is MM relaying the sentiments of the times?
2)What do you think about how quickly Scarlett got married off in the end of part 1? Was this a shock for you? I thought it was interesting how MM spends 100 pages to building up Scarlett as this flirty, carefree girl that all the men want then at her heartbreak over Ashley, makes a this quick native decision to get married to Charles (while still loving Ashley). It makes Scarlett seem like this hot-headed woman, that does things on a whim.
3)Note the parallel between Scarlett’s rebellious nature and Rhett. For example, both oppose the war but whilst Rhett is socially banished as a social outcast, Scarlett internalises her flight against the war. Do you think that’s why these characters are attracted to one another? Typical story of denial, but of course they will end up together.
More from me later…..
Good questions, Samina. I haven't actually started the book yet. Will return to this.
ReplyDeleteits a 900 page killer, but I'm beginning to understand why nani liked this book. The protagnist, Scarlett has some feature that remind me of things she said, although not saying Scarlett is anything like Nani, that would be sooo wrong.
ReplyDeleteI've quite far into the book, although slowed down extra reading due to exams.... I still haven't got to the part about Scarlett and Rhett realise they are in love... altough very close to it
The war description drags on, but I think its a device to make you realise the horror of it all. I think also at the time, people might not have read a lot of writing on the war, so MM does tend to reiterate this lots....
I finally finished this 900-page long epic epic epic! It was certainly not what I was expecting in a way. We never really got to see the relationship between Scarlett and Rhett being played out fully, with the ambiguous end of whether they each were going to be truly happy.
ReplyDeleteI felt the story was more about Scarlett’s love for Ashley and how she was able to atone that love. (until of course her realisation at the end that it was not him but the image of him that she loved).
I guess after 900 pages of will they/won’t there I was expecting some sort of conclusion of the Scarlett- Rhett saga rather then the ending of Scarlett- Ashley. With the idea that tomorrow is another day and we are lead to believe that in the end she will capture Rhett like all the other men she has been able to capture in the book, (Charles and Frank). Though Rhett is portrayed to be unlike other men, clearly an ambiguous ending. Perhaps there was to be a sequal but given how long this one took (and the popularity of this book) MM didn’t really have the incentive right?
I was more interested by the war and the socio- context that the book was placed in/ portrayed. For example, MM paints almost a positive role for the emergence of the KKK, through its justification. It almost seems localised rather then the large, violent organisation it really was/is.
Anyway, those of who have read the book get your questions, comments, (grievances of how long it was) flowing and discuss!