Wives and Daughters (Hardcover)

She does a sublime job of populating a village with memorable and distinct characters. The story centers around the Gibson family, first Molly and her father, gifted surgeon Dr. Gibson. Eventually Mr. Gibson realizes that Molly needs a mother to guide through her "young womanhood," and so he marries the superficial, exceedingly self-centered, but ultimately harmless Hyacinth Kirkpatrick. The new Mrs. Gibson brings with her her breathtaking beautiful but troubled daughter Cynthia (anagram). Along with this family, we follow the Hamleys with their rich past and future which is inextricably linked with the Gibson's -- Molly's especially.

While the author patiently delineates all her characters, I agree with an earlier post that said she could have benefitted from a great editor. Some of her observations ARE redundant. How many descriptions do we really need about Molly's goodness, Mrs. Gibson's selfishness, Cynthia's beauty, etc.?

Moreover, contrary to what Gaskell intends, I think the true heroine in the story is Cynthia. Cynthia is both selfish and kind, witty and naive, winning and annoying, pitiful and enviable -- in essence, she's a fully characterized, complex human being. Molly, who is so wondefully patient and good and sweet and caring and loving, is a shell of a girl compared to Cynthia. There are no shades to Molly. Why the intended heroine of the story lacks dimension is beyond me. Nearly every other character is allowed contrarian thoughts and feelings, whereas Molly occasionally borders on peevishness or impatience only to retreat back to docility.

Having said that much, I did enjoy the book immensely and was more than a little disappointed that Gaskell's untimely death forever suspends Molly and Roger in a state of unfulfilled love. Yes, my imagination can provide the ending easily but I would have loved to have read Gaskell's exquisite conclusion.

I would not put Elizabeth Gaskell in the same league with Jane Austen or George Eliot. Although, I think Gaskell's story has more immediate social relevance than Austen, her writing is simply not as good. For one, Austen's dialogue is incomparable. Austen's social commentary is so intertwined with her characters that you hardly perceive the narrator. She speaks through her creations. Gaskell's personal beliefs leaks through. George Eliot is in a class of her own; her writing is so subtle yet powerful you don't realize how great she is until the end when you put down Middlemarch and are in awe. Her characters, the village, the story is so richly textured that few novels even approach Middlemarch to be considered a masterpiece.