This week on the show, Sean is forced to confront some . . . questions . . . about The Warden presented by David and Heidi (and David suggest a narrative theory that is definitely worth taking seriously). Happy listening! Close Reads HQ is a community-supported endeavor. Please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber to ensure we can keep on making the content you value.
Job loss can completely turn a person/families life upside down. While a single person's job loss may not be an evil on a grand scale it is a personal trial. Love all the other comments on here. That was the only piece I had to add to the conversation.
The teaser at the end of this podcast: CloseReads in England?!!! Yes, let’s go see the National Gallery’s Whistlejacket painting please. Exciting hint indeed
At the risk of exposing myself as the least well read person in this chat, I thought I'd just chime in and say the Warden's narrator reminds me of Gonzo and Rizzo in "The Muppet Christmas Carol", which is a movie that I absolutely LOVE since it is the only version of the story I am familiar with. So that is not at all a knock on Trollope.
Thanks for selecting such an interesting book. This is my first Trollope and I am getting a lot out of it.
Regarding the narrator, I am surprised there is such a discussion about whether that character should be taken literally on both the "who could he/she be" and on the "I don't want his/her opinion, I want to form my own" counts. As a reader, I feel like someone is telling me a story about an event in their community -- it is a different experience than being a cinematic observer which I think most books with 3rd person narrators use. When my friends and colleagues tell stories, I usually hear a lot of editorializing based on "what everyone knows" or general gossip (e.g.,
"I heard that Mrs. Grantly put her husband in his place that morning.") When I experience those discussions in real life, I know that the information is an agglomeration and often provides unnecessary and undesired editorials.
I really like this structure and agree with Ethan that a key theme is how we should hear/understand what we experience in life. We (almost) never have the full story. I am finding it enlightenig to read a book with that same level of knowledge (and not feeling like there is a "unreliable narrator" who I should be working to figure out when I am hearing the truth vs falsehoods.
I have a lot of questions about how the story advances. I am looking forward to the next few weeks.
Woah woah woah, the legal opinion is a big deal guys. It's the dramatic irony. The lawyer says that the responsible party for the over-payment is the CHURCH. That is right but the irony is that nobody understands the legal opinion. Mr. Grantly claims his whole raison d'etre is to protect the church, but instead of figuring out how to protect the church, he is gleefully saying that the Church didn't do anything wrong. Meanwhile, Mr. Harding is beating himself up because he thinks he got off on a "technicality" when it is true that it is the church's fault and not his own...and the very people who he should be talking to about how to remedy the fact that he might have received too much refuse to see that and so they can't offer any solution to him. Meanwhile, Mr. Bold wants to use the legal system to seek "justice" but doesn't understand how to go about it..and he thinks if he is proven right in court that he is morally right, which is untrue also. The legal case creates the internal drama for all 3.
I am a lawyer and feel like Grantly's reaction happens a lot...I explain why the case will be dismissed and the client runs around saying "I did nothing wrong!" I just think to myself "that's not what I said at all." Our human system of laws is necessary and important to us living together as a society. But it is a human-created system and not up to the task of judging souls...how could it be up to that in the end? It's not a human's job.
What a great conversation! It's making me consider how unique the Victorian novel is with its melodrama (outsize emotions, outsize situations), its narrative voice, and the way it approaches duty v. desire. I just finished reading The Mill on the Floss by George Eliot and she does the same thing that Trollope does with John Bold with one of her dislikable characters. This is an early Trollope novel, so Trollope's craft improves. Two of Grantly's children have roles in subsequent Barsetshire novels. (He also seems to have forgotten about two of Grantly's children in subsequent novels, lol.)
I think the conversation at the end of the podcast about what the characters want and how duty plays into the story is fascinating. It made me think that Mr. Harding's conscience is really the moral center of the novel more than the narrator's opinions. Mr. Harding has a regard for both John Bold and Archdeacon Grantly. I don't think we necessarily have to like both those characters like Mr. Harding does, but I think that we have to take seriously the strength of character in Mr. Harding that enables him to like (and sometimes forbear with) two such different men.
Maybe I’m not reading the story correctly, but in my opinion the melodrama isn’t as big of a deal...Mr. Harding is not shattered over the loss of his living or job, but over being perceived as being corrupt. He has lived his whole life believing he is moral and good but is now questioning the ethics of his situation. What makes this more complicated is the fact that “everyone” around him is also questioning his virtue, which creates both internal and external pressure. On the same hand, I think Eleanor’s melodrama is not necessarily over the loss of a living but over the effect this is having on her father. So, I think the question is more of what Mr. Harding and Eleanor are reacting to. If they’re reacting this way to the loss of income and position, it is over the top. But if they are struggling through issues of identity and self-worth, I believe they’re justified. But maybe this is just my enneagram 4 wing talking. Also, I’ve only read up to Chapter 11, so maybe future chapters will illuminate this further.
Its funny how differently I have been interpreting the book. I think the melodrama and narrator give the book an irony that I think is the whole point. I don't trust the narrator and think his conclusions and descriptions are to be read as if you are hearing the story at tea; i.e. there is a true kernal with a load of drama placed on top.
It reminds me of scenes from David Copperfield where the narrator is remembering things so foolishly as to be comedic. Like the scene where David is robbed by a waiter of sorts and the narrator describes him as being helpful.
I think without the irony, the point of the book is somewhat lost in that it's actually about how we should read the newspaper, how we should consume second hand stories, and how we should show sympathy for those that have been dragged into British table talk without a chance to speak up for themselves.
Bold in this reading is "Noble" per the narrator, but the foolishness of the narrator is supposed to highlight how unthoughtfully people can give motive and pick sides in the local politics.
But I could be reading into it a whole lot of things that really aren't there.
Job loss can completely turn a person/families life upside down. While a single person's job loss may not be an evil on a grand scale it is a personal trial. Love all the other comments on here. That was the only piece I had to add to the conversation.
The teaser at the end of this podcast: CloseReads in England?!!! Yes, let’s go see the National Gallery’s Whistlejacket painting please. Exciting hint indeed
This is probably the first time I have disagreed with David: the narrator is obviously a cat.
At the risk of exposing myself as the least well read person in this chat, I thought I'd just chime in and say the Warden's narrator reminds me of Gonzo and Rizzo in "The Muppet Christmas Carol", which is a movie that I absolutely LOVE since it is the only version of the story I am familiar with. So that is not at all a knock on Trollope.
Thanks for selecting such an interesting book. This is my first Trollope and I am getting a lot out of it.
Regarding the narrator, I am surprised there is such a discussion about whether that character should be taken literally on both the "who could he/she be" and on the "I don't want his/her opinion, I want to form my own" counts. As a reader, I feel like someone is telling me a story about an event in their community -- it is a different experience than being a cinematic observer which I think most books with 3rd person narrators use. When my friends and colleagues tell stories, I usually hear a lot of editorializing based on "what everyone knows" or general gossip (e.g.,
"I heard that Mrs. Grantly put her husband in his place that morning.") When I experience those discussions in real life, I know that the information is an agglomeration and often provides unnecessary and undesired editorials.
I really like this structure and agree with Ethan that a key theme is how we should hear/understand what we experience in life. We (almost) never have the full story. I am finding it enlightenig to read a book with that same level of knowledge (and not feeling like there is a "unreliable narrator" who I should be working to figure out when I am hearing the truth vs falsehoods.
I have a lot of questions about how the story advances. I am looking forward to the next few weeks.
Woah woah woah, the legal opinion is a big deal guys. It's the dramatic irony. The lawyer says that the responsible party for the over-payment is the CHURCH. That is right but the irony is that nobody understands the legal opinion. Mr. Grantly claims his whole raison d'etre is to protect the church, but instead of figuring out how to protect the church, he is gleefully saying that the Church didn't do anything wrong. Meanwhile, Mr. Harding is beating himself up because he thinks he got off on a "technicality" when it is true that it is the church's fault and not his own...and the very people who he should be talking to about how to remedy the fact that he might have received too much refuse to see that and so they can't offer any solution to him. Meanwhile, Mr. Bold wants to use the legal system to seek "justice" but doesn't understand how to go about it..and he thinks if he is proven right in court that he is morally right, which is untrue also. The legal case creates the internal drama for all 3.
I am a lawyer and feel like Grantly's reaction happens a lot...I explain why the case will be dismissed and the client runs around saying "I did nothing wrong!" I just think to myself "that's not what I said at all." Our human system of laws is necessary and important to us living together as a society. But it is a human-created system and not up to the task of judging souls...how could it be up to that in the end? It's not a human's job.
So, I enjoyed The Warden just fine, but I still feel the need to defend Sean a bit. Wasn't his pick for the year Viper's Tangle?
What a great conversation! It's making me consider how unique the Victorian novel is with its melodrama (outsize emotions, outsize situations), its narrative voice, and the way it approaches duty v. desire. I just finished reading The Mill on the Floss by George Eliot and she does the same thing that Trollope does with John Bold with one of her dislikable characters. This is an early Trollope novel, so Trollope's craft improves. Two of Grantly's children have roles in subsequent Barsetshire novels. (He also seems to have forgotten about two of Grantly's children in subsequent novels, lol.)
I think the conversation at the end of the podcast about what the characters want and how duty plays into the story is fascinating. It made me think that Mr. Harding's conscience is really the moral center of the novel more than the narrator's opinions. Mr. Harding has a regard for both John Bold and Archdeacon Grantly. I don't think we necessarily have to like both those characters like Mr. Harding does, but I think that we have to take seriously the strength of character in Mr. Harding that enables him to like (and sometimes forbear with) two such different men.
Maybe I’m not reading the story correctly, but in my opinion the melodrama isn’t as big of a deal...Mr. Harding is not shattered over the loss of his living or job, but over being perceived as being corrupt. He has lived his whole life believing he is moral and good but is now questioning the ethics of his situation. What makes this more complicated is the fact that “everyone” around him is also questioning his virtue, which creates both internal and external pressure. On the same hand, I think Eleanor’s melodrama is not necessarily over the loss of a living but over the effect this is having on her father. So, I think the question is more of what Mr. Harding and Eleanor are reacting to. If they’re reacting this way to the loss of income and position, it is over the top. But if they are struggling through issues of identity and self-worth, I believe they’re justified. But maybe this is just my enneagram 4 wing talking. Also, I’ve only read up to Chapter 11, so maybe future chapters will illuminate this further.
Really enjoying the conversations and book.
Its funny how differently I have been interpreting the book. I think the melodrama and narrator give the book an irony that I think is the whole point. I don't trust the narrator and think his conclusions and descriptions are to be read as if you are hearing the story at tea; i.e. there is a true kernal with a load of drama placed on top.
It reminds me of scenes from David Copperfield where the narrator is remembering things so foolishly as to be comedic. Like the scene where David is robbed by a waiter of sorts and the narrator describes him as being helpful.
I think without the irony, the point of the book is somewhat lost in that it's actually about how we should read the newspaper, how we should consume second hand stories, and how we should show sympathy for those that have been dragged into British table talk without a chance to speak up for themselves.
Bold in this reading is "Noble" per the narrator, but the foolishness of the narrator is supposed to highlight how unthoughtfully people can give motive and pick sides in the local politics.
But I could be reading into it a whole lot of things that really aren't there.