Welcome to conversations on a new book, which is in a genre we seem to turn to at least once a year: a novel about (or from the perspective) of a clergyman. We’ve done books on Catholic priests, country ministers, Orthodox monks, and others. In Anthony Trollope’s
Having read the whole novel before having a chance to listen to this first episode… I had to laugh and nod when Heidi said “times have NOT changed”. That was one of the biggest ultimate takeaways I got from this delightful book. It even has several pages on “cancel culture” in the media. So humbling and hopeful at the same time. Human nature is inexorable.
When I think of crusading reformers, it makes me say Bold is an 8. Harding as a 9 makes perfect sense - he desires peace above all else, which leads to indecision...or he’s potentially a 6 since he’s basically controlled by fear. Grantly...maybe a 3 (ambitious), but 1 could fit too.
I was so happy to have close reads do this book. I really appreciated the discussion of the narrative voice. I didn’t really think about it at all first go around so it’s nice on this second read to have a new thing to pay attention to. He reminds me, in some ways, of George Eliot in Middlemarch where you get that very specific judgement of characters/being told how to think of them. Also had no idea of the Dickens connection/contrast but now I’m seeing it all over, so again fun thing to think about. Trollope is someone who I think would appreciate “Chesterton’s Fence,” don’t tear something down until you fully understand why it’s there in the first place/know its history. And that’s the mistake Bold makes. Meanwhile Grantly wants the “fence” to stay up but for all the wrong reasons. Finally, I think Trollope is someone who would prefer reform from inside institutions rather than from outside.
I think the second book in this series, Barchester Towers, actually sheds quite a bit of light on the nature of the narrative voice; its tone is more hidden at the beginning of the first novel. Within the second book, some of the "resolution" at the end of the Warden is completely undone at once, and it becomes evident very quickly that the narrative voice is ironic and humorous, adding an entirely new layer to the story. In many ways, Trollope's tone is comparable to Austen's satiric short writings and when my students read him, they usually find the narrator to be funnier and funnier. Rather than ordering us what to think regarding the characters, I think the narrator's voice allows us to step back from the drama and realize he is laughing at all the characters. Yes, there is a serious moral dilemma here, but the danger is to take the book too seriously. Really, this flaw is one the characters themselves all have in common. We commiserate with them, we enjoy the charm of the village, but we also bemoan the politics that accompany any group of people and see the "bubble" each character is living in. This ironic tone keeps the story from becoming tedious and the clear depiction of human follies makes us laugh, the same way we shake our heads over Mr. Collins' fawning nature in Pride and Prejudice. The Warden is both a story and a literary critique, warning us away from purely didactic tales.
I have not listened to the episode yet, but the setup of the conflict over Hiram's will reminds me a lot of the nursing home plotline in Better Call Saul. In both cases, there's something that is pretty clearly wrong or unjust, but the motives of people who are trying to "fix" the problem are mixed at best. As a (no longer practicing) lawyer myself, I'm really interested in these questions of what to do when the way forward to right a wrong is not readily apparent or may have some unintended negative consequences, especially when people's advocacy is colored by their own hope of personal gain.
I'm glad that so much time in this episode was used to consider the narrator's perspective. I finished the book last week, and I was fascinated by it the entire time I was reading.
My perspective: the narrator has a clear opinion on the matter, but not to the detriment of the love he has for each of the characters save, perhaps, Tom Towers. He laments that Bold and Grantly each eschew empathy to focus on the reactionary and impersonal institutional aspects.
Really enjoyed the conversation even about the narrator. The Dickens comparison is what came to my head. The narrator seems a bit untrustworthy or naive about realities at some points, and at others very pointed and critical but funny. Enjoying the style overall.
Also thought everyone would enjoy this bit about the author from an Essay by Jay Parini on being a prolific writer:
A servant awakened Trollope each morning at 5, seven days a week, bringing him a hot cup of coffee (tea came later in the morning). In an English country house, in midwinter, this early rising was not an attractive prospect, especially in the age before central heating and electric light. But Trollope had his demons. By 5:30 he was at his desk, rereading the previous day's work and making small corrections for roughly half an hour. By six, he was clocking himself at the usual thousand words per hour. He completed his daily quota of 2,500 words (in today's terms, ten double spaced typed pages) by 8:30, when he got himself dressed for breakfast. After eating a hearty meal, he went off to work in the Post Office, where he was high official. Two weekdays, instead of going to the office, he would spend the day on horseback, hunting foxes. Evenings were spend with his family or at his club. This routine almost never varied throughout his life.
I’m not convinced that the narrator has picked a side. I think he’s done a brilliant job showing the flaws of all the parties and poor Mr Harding caught between two different duties --and two strong personalities who both want to tell him what his duty is--and not sure what his right path is. And grasping at his own comfortable life while his conscience is pricking him that maybe he’s a bit too comfortable. But the strong flaws of both Grant and Bold, and the greed of the bedesmen, make it hard to see that anyone is clearly in the right. There are good arguments on all sides and also flawed human beings with mixed motives. I love that Trollope shows us the complexity of the situation without making me feel that there is one clear path that is right. I can’t foresee the end of this tangle and I like that.
But I do believe he is critiquing the greed and the unmoving conservatism of the institutional church and wants us to see that the churchmen are often much more concerned for the preservation of the institution and for their own comfort than in serving their flocks and caring for the poor. None of the churchmen come off as saintly. It’s hard for me not to see the narrator as sympathetic to the need for reform in the church, even if he thinks Bold is going about it the wrong way. It should be reform from within, and Bold is just a bit too eager to tear things down --without seeing that perhaps there are good reasons for the Warden to have a decent living and prudent reasons why giving the bedesmen too much of the money might not be completely for their good.
I care! 😂 I'm a huge Trollope fan, and I enjoyed this conversation so much! I think you all brought up so many good points that are going to continue to be relevent through the novel. I love Mr. Harding and his gentleness. He does tends towards passivity but he’s more active than the Bishop. 😜 I think the other interesting part that comes out in the first five chapters is how the bedesmen are tempted towards the promise of extra money even though they have all their needs provided for and a caring leader in Mr. Harding.
Having read the whole novel before having a chance to listen to this first episode… I had to laugh and nod when Heidi said “times have NOT changed”. That was one of the biggest ultimate takeaways I got from this delightful book. It even has several pages on “cancel culture” in the media. So humbling and hopeful at the same time. Human nature is inexorable.
When I think of crusading reformers, it makes me say Bold is an 8. Harding as a 9 makes perfect sense - he desires peace above all else, which leads to indecision...or he’s potentially a 6 since he’s basically controlled by fear. Grantly...maybe a 3 (ambitious), but 1 could fit too.
After reaching the Muppet discussion in this episode, all I can picture is Sam Eagle as Jonathan Bold😂
I was so happy to have close reads do this book. I really appreciated the discussion of the narrative voice. I didn’t really think about it at all first go around so it’s nice on this second read to have a new thing to pay attention to. He reminds me, in some ways, of George Eliot in Middlemarch where you get that very specific judgement of characters/being told how to think of them. Also had no idea of the Dickens connection/contrast but now I’m seeing it all over, so again fun thing to think about. Trollope is someone who I think would appreciate “Chesterton’s Fence,” don’t tear something down until you fully understand why it’s there in the first place/know its history. And that’s the mistake Bold makes. Meanwhile Grantly wants the “fence” to stay up but for all the wrong reasons. Finally, I think Trollope is someone who would prefer reform from inside institutions rather than from outside.
I think the second book in this series, Barchester Towers, actually sheds quite a bit of light on the nature of the narrative voice; its tone is more hidden at the beginning of the first novel. Within the second book, some of the "resolution" at the end of the Warden is completely undone at once, and it becomes evident very quickly that the narrative voice is ironic and humorous, adding an entirely new layer to the story. In many ways, Trollope's tone is comparable to Austen's satiric short writings and when my students read him, they usually find the narrator to be funnier and funnier. Rather than ordering us what to think regarding the characters, I think the narrator's voice allows us to step back from the drama and realize he is laughing at all the characters. Yes, there is a serious moral dilemma here, but the danger is to take the book too seriously. Really, this flaw is one the characters themselves all have in common. We commiserate with them, we enjoy the charm of the village, but we also bemoan the politics that accompany any group of people and see the "bubble" each character is living in. This ironic tone keeps the story from becoming tedious and the clear depiction of human follies makes us laugh, the same way we shake our heads over Mr. Collins' fawning nature in Pride and Prejudice. The Warden is both a story and a literary critique, warning us away from purely didactic tales.
I have not listened to the episode yet, but the setup of the conflict over Hiram's will reminds me a lot of the nursing home plotline in Better Call Saul. In both cases, there's something that is pretty clearly wrong or unjust, but the motives of people who are trying to "fix" the problem are mixed at best. As a (no longer practicing) lawyer myself, I'm really interested in these questions of what to do when the way forward to right a wrong is not readily apparent or may have some unintended negative consequences, especially when people's advocacy is colored by their own hope of personal gain.
I'm glad that so much time in this episode was used to consider the narrator's perspective. I finished the book last week, and I was fascinated by it the entire time I was reading.
My perspective: the narrator has a clear opinion on the matter, but not to the detriment of the love he has for each of the characters save, perhaps, Tom Towers. He laments that Bold and Grantly each eschew empathy to focus on the reactionary and impersonal institutional aspects.
Really enjoyed the conversation even about the narrator. The Dickens comparison is what came to my head. The narrator seems a bit untrustworthy or naive about realities at some points, and at others very pointed and critical but funny. Enjoying the style overall.
Also thought everyone would enjoy this bit about the author from an Essay by Jay Parini on being a prolific writer:
A servant awakened Trollope each morning at 5, seven days a week, bringing him a hot cup of coffee (tea came later in the morning). In an English country house, in midwinter, this early rising was not an attractive prospect, especially in the age before central heating and electric light. But Trollope had his demons. By 5:30 he was at his desk, rereading the previous day's work and making small corrections for roughly half an hour. By six, he was clocking himself at the usual thousand words per hour. He completed his daily quota of 2,500 words (in today's terms, ten double spaced typed pages) by 8:30, when he got himself dressed for breakfast. After eating a hearty meal, he went off to work in the Post Office, where he was high official. Two weekdays, instead of going to the office, he would spend the day on horseback, hunting foxes. Evenings were spend with his family or at his club. This routine almost never varied throughout his life.
I’m not convinced that the narrator has picked a side. I think he’s done a brilliant job showing the flaws of all the parties and poor Mr Harding caught between two different duties --and two strong personalities who both want to tell him what his duty is--and not sure what his right path is. And grasping at his own comfortable life while his conscience is pricking him that maybe he’s a bit too comfortable. But the strong flaws of both Grant and Bold, and the greed of the bedesmen, make it hard to see that anyone is clearly in the right. There are good arguments on all sides and also flawed human beings with mixed motives. I love that Trollope shows us the complexity of the situation without making me feel that there is one clear path that is right. I can’t foresee the end of this tangle and I like that.
But I do believe he is critiquing the greed and the unmoving conservatism of the institutional church and wants us to see that the churchmen are often much more concerned for the preservation of the institution and for their own comfort than in serving their flocks and caring for the poor. None of the churchmen come off as saintly. It’s hard for me not to see the narrator as sympathetic to the need for reform in the church, even if he thinks Bold is going about it the wrong way. It should be reform from within, and Bold is just a bit too eager to tear things down --without seeing that perhaps there are good reasons for the Warden to have a decent living and prudent reasons why giving the bedesmen too much of the money might not be completely for their good.
I care! 😂 I'm a huge Trollope fan, and I enjoyed this conversation so much! I think you all brought up so many good points that are going to continue to be relevent through the novel. I love Mr. Harding and his gentleness. He does tends towards passivity but he’s more active than the Bishop. 😜 I think the other interesting part that comes out in the first five chapters is how the bedesmen are tempted towards the promise of extra money even though they have all their needs provided for and a caring leader in Mr. Harding.