Quote:
Originally Posted by Bookworm_Girl
I think he was less self-important than the other male characters. But, perhaps Gilbert needed minor flaws in comparison to the saintly Helen? None of us are sinless from the religious perspective. I don't think he could be as pure as her to fulfill the feminism themes of the novel, which emphasized the superiority of the female character, Helen, over the males despite their gender or class positions.
|
Based on your comments, I've rethought Gilbert. No, he's not despicable, which needs to be kept for Arthur and his cronies (although the attack on Lawrence is deeply troubling). What he is, is no better than all his petty, judgmental neighbors for whom he has such contempt. He and Eliza were pretty well matched - underlying malice which they would act on, and in Gilbert's case, it could take a physical form. The only real exceptions in the immediate neighborhood were the saintly (yet ugly, alas) Miss Millward and whichever Wilson brother loved her. They both had "R" names. In addition to all the "H" names, there were also four last names beginning with "M" and the Wilson/Wilmot problem!
This leads me to something else I noticed; people tended to be all good or all bad. You can argue Gilbert was an exception and that Helen was his redemption. Nice that she came with pots of money, too!
Overall, though, I think the only truly mixed character was Walter Hargrave. Even the former reprobates Lowborough and Hattersley underwent a total transformation.
The problem with Gilbert's being redeemed, however, goes back to the narration. It would have been nice if in retrospect, Gilbert had exhibited more remorse about his treatment of Eliza and his attack on Lawrence, and had tempered his judgments of his neighbors. But no, Brontė had him write his letters as if he were in the moment, instead of decades later. One of the many technical failings of the book.