GWT--where is everyone?

Rhea

Rhea

Cathlete
I'm almost at the end of the seige of Atlanta and the birth of Melanie's baby... how 'bout the rest? I know some of us speedy readers are already done! I'm managing a few pages a morning. So far, it is the only time I'm able to get some reading in...

No pertinant thoughts here. The only thing that has crossed my mind lately is that no matter how much Ms. Scarlett complains, she still does all the nursing and taking care of people. She definatley doesn't back down on her promises either.
 
I really don't have much time to read. I'm only on page 42.:eek: I'm enjoying it but I have a feeling it's going to be months before I'm finished.

Yes, Scarlett's one tough broad!

Marcy
 
Well Rhea is way ahead & Marcy is way behind. I guess I'm Goldilocks today, I'm about 250 pages through.

Yep, Scarlett is the O'Hara rock. I think what's most interesting about it is she's the exact opposite of what she was raised to be. You know, the delicate flower who can't lift a finger to do anything for herself. Instead she ended up being the woman she was really meant to be.

Imagine Scarlett in the 21st century? Look out Cathe! LOL!
 
I finished last week. (What can I say? When I get into something, I kinda get obsessed, and since I wasn't sleeping due to a bad cold/cough, I stayed up late reading!)

I think Scarlett is different from any other heroine I've ever read. I could not imagine a book today being written the way GWTW was, even if it covered the same subject.
 
Hi everyone I was a little late getting started i was so sick over thanksgiving week. I am on chapter 21. I forgot how much I love this book!! I love the Rhett/Scarlett relationship. She tries so hard manipulate him and gets so frustrated when he doesn't respond like the other boys...One question I have always had(maybe stupid) but did Ashley really love her or was it all in her head??

Tracy
 
I think Ashley was more in *lust* with her, than love, but he was so above board and 'honorable' that he had to call it love. She couldn't see that he really only wanted her body, while Rhett, who could have any woman, wanted her mind. Scarlett and Ashley both did the same thing: fell 'in love' with the image of what the other person was, not with who they really were.

I've read GWTW a zillion times, countless times, since I was 16 and home from school with mono :) I'm re-reading it again (a copy, not my 1939 version!!). I love it as much as ever.

Whenever I get in a pickle, I always think "What Would Scarlett Do?" :D
 
Gone With the Wind...hmmm interesting book - I have read it many times. I thought I might ask a question, though. Before I do, I have to let you know that I am a historian at UVA, and I write/teach Civil War and Reconstruction history...so these kind of questions always come up. I admit that Margaret Mitchell rendered some beautiful prose. Heck, she beat out Faulkner for the Pulitzer! Still - the overall tone of the book seems, to my 21st century sensibilities, somewhat....well....dated. I was wondering how all of you felt about the overt racist stereotypes, the sentimentalism associated with plantation South and the Klan (Frank Kennedy, Ashley Wilkes, and even Rhett Butler all happily join). I have assigned readings from GWTW - it is a wonderful teaching tool and a time capsule for the era in which it was written - a near perfect representation of the "Lost Cause" interpretation of the war. Still - I am wondering what could be the explanation for the book's longevity? Is it really just that good?
I am not making judgments - I really want to know why this book continues to appeal to so many. I might even discuss your answers in an upcoming article than I am working on (I'll give you credit :)).
Keith
 
Hi Keith (and everyone);

You're an historian at UVA? That's so cool! I'm an historical archaeologist in MD, my focus is archaeology of the African Diaspora. I had seen the movie (multiple times), and read the book for the first time about 1 month before it was suggested as a "book club" book here on the forum. I know the book is popular, and it is POWERFULLY written, totally worth reading. But, like many beautifully written, powerful books, it is also dangerous, because it is so persuasive.

I had just had a powerful (mostly negative) response to the book, and didn't want to be negative about anything on the forums. But I'd be happy to share my opinion with anyone if they PM me. I'm also happy to keep my opinion to myself! Peace!

Lisa/Afreet
 
Hi Keith,

I think that GWTW has to be read with the understanding that what you read is Margaret Mitchell's view on how things were. I've done some reading on her and she was somewhere between 10-17 before she even knew that the south lost the war! She spent her childhood on the laps of Civil War generals who loved recounting their stories to her, but neglecting to say "oh and by the way we lost!"

I've read a lot of historical fiction and it really is a very well written book and the amount of detail and the depth of the characters is incredible. In waiting for the DVD to become available at the library, I found another video that you might find interesting. It's called "The greatness of Gone with the wind: a light & enlightening look" by Professor Elliot Engel. Obviously his own views, but some interesting details about MM, her life and the writing of the book.

I finished the book last week and I'm actually a couple hundred pages into the sequel. I read the reviews and really debated whether or not to read it as they fell into one extreme or the other of either really hating it or loving it with nothing in the middle. So, far I'm enjoying it.
 
Hi Lisa - A pleasure meeting you - I studied West Africa as an outside field (with Joe Miller...a real task master) and I taught a section on W. Africa and the African Diaspora for a year. Not my area of expertise...but fascinating nonetheless. I have borrowed some of the ideas posited by Africanists over the past decades - concerning collectivities, identities (national, for lack of a better word, and otherwise) and applied them to my work on the US.
But back to GWTW - I agree that the book conjures up some pretty disturbing images...images that are still very much embedded in our national fabric. I often question why these images are so hard to shake.
I showed some of student scenes from The Birth of a Nation last Spring - they were horrified. But the film is informed by exactly the same myths, legends, and warped that formed the backdrop of GWTW. Admittedly, Mitchell was not quite as harsh. But still...

So - How are things in MD? I am eagerly getting ready for winter and next semester!
Talk to you later
Keith

BTW - I didn't mean to butt in to everybody's conversation with my hyperanalytical questions. Like Lisa, I would love to continue the conversation by PM, here, or where ever :)
 
Thanks for your response Cathy - oh yes...that's the way MM and lots of other people saw things at the time. It is almost exactly the same as Clause Bowers's Tragic Era. But I wonder why so many are still enthralled by the book
Keith
 
m keith said:
But I wonder why so many are still enthralled by the book
Keith
Click to expand...

Personally, I don't put myself in the enthralled category and actually can't see myself ever feeling the need to read the book again, but I did find it fascinating and educational. Being from the north, it was really my first exposure to how people in the south viewed the war and how they continued to view it afterwards and how it still impacts the views of many today.

My guess is that what attracts people to the book are the characters and the depth and fullness of them. Scarlett and Rhett are by no means a typical hero and heroine. Heroes and Heroines tend to be on the side of good and Scarlett and Rhett are all about themselves. The contrast of the "good" in the book in characters such as Melanie make the contrast even more dramatic. When Scarlett and Rhett "do good" it almost always had a side benefit to them or they just feel the need to keep up appearances and conform just enough to societal pressures to maintain the appearance they want to create.
 
LauraMax!

I got my BA at W&M! Anthropology, though, not History. But I lurked a little bit in that department.

--Lisa
 
Afreet said:
LauraMax!

I got my BA at W&M! Anthropology, though, not History. But I lurked a little bit in that department.

--Lisa
Click to expand...

Cool! Which history profs? Jim Axtell was my thesis advisor--12 years later & I still haven't figured out whether I loved him or hated him. :D When were you there? I wonder if we've met? ;)
 
I'm having trouble summing up how I feel about the book. I definitely enjoyed reading it, although it was soooo long! I think that by today's standards, that probably would have been divided into 2 or 3 books.

I was at the same time fascinated, offended, annoyed, and amused by it. The characters were very well developed. It is interesting how one can feel for Scarlett, although she has so many unpleasant qualities. She is a strong woman, but she thinks only of herself. When she does something positive, it is only because she will benefit in some way. And when things fall apart for her, you can't help but think that she brought it all on herself and deserved what she got, and yet still be disappointed that it didn't all work out.

I found the historical aspects of it very interesting, particularly because I live in Atlanta. The places seemed so "real" to me because I know where they are. And although the accuracy is questionable especially given Mitchell's background, it is an interesting window into how Atlanta fared during and after the war. It is also interesting how many of the images she created are still part of the image we have now of the South's role in the Civil War.

The racist aspects are so offensive I am shocked. I assume that's how people actually felt, or at least the people that Mitchell grew up with. I am amazed that she would put that in print with her name on it. Part of me feels guilty for liking the rest of the book with some of that stuff in it.


Again, this still barely scratches the surface of my reaction to the book. I'm not sure I can ever adequately describe how I feel.
 
I was there 1996-98 (I transferred in). The only prof I remember from history is Chandos Brown. Small world, though, innit??

Lisa
 
Afreet said:
I was there 1996-98 (I transferred in). The only prof I remember from history is Chandos Brown. Small world, though, innit??

Lisa
Click to expand...

Hey! I was there from 96-97! I never met Prof Brown though. What was his specialty? Did you ever go to Ironbound Gym? I worked there from 5-9 am for a year or two.
 
Whoa...

LauraMax said:
Hey! I was there from 96-97! I never met Prof Brown though. What was his specialty? Did you ever go to Ironbound Gym? I worked there from 5-9 am for a year or two.
Click to expand...

I was a member of that gym! I think I only had a membership for about three months in 1997, though. I usually went in the afternoon/evening, when the gym on campus was too crowded for me. Brown worked with Bill Kelso occasionally at the Center for Archaeological Research, I think he did early American History?
 
Afreet said:
I was a member of that gym! I think I only had a membership for about three months in 1997, though. I usually went in the afternoon/evening, when the gym on campus was too crowded for me. Brown worked with Bill Kelso occasionally at the Center for Archaeological Research, I think he did early American History?
Click to expand...

No, but I did know Kelso b/c I worked at Jamestown. AND Yorktown. I did school tours at Jamestown, I was in costume at Yorktown. :)

So what did you think of Ironbound? It was without question THE most disgusting gym I've ever seen! When I opened up at 5 am I'd turn the lights on & roaches bigger than my thumb would run for cover! :eek:

PS--sorry to hijack the thread!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top