linh15_10's review against another edition
slow-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? It's complicated
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? It's complicated
2.0
This kinda felt like Christian propaganda
ipb1's review against another edition
4.0
I enjoyed this, but should confess that I spent my College days eating dinners under the gentle and benevolent gaze of Elizabeth Gaskell (well, under her portrait at any rate - her hubby was an earlier Principal of my College) so I have a bit of affectionate bias towards her and a forgiving attitude to her well-intentioned excesses. Like Dickens she does manage to combine moments of quite startling gritty realism with great dollops of mawkish sentimentality.
In Ruth she gives us a 'heroine' so pure (one obvious 'sin' aside) that she makes the likes of Agnes Wickfield or Esther Summerson look like nasty pieces of work. Her rather inflexible and unrelenting (post-shag) sense of virtue and propriety does become a bit wearing. But the inner-life of the victimised woman isn't really the focus here and Gaskell uses Ruth to take a broader sweep at the hypocrisies and inconsistencies of Victorian morality through the attitudes and actions of the characters around her. Still, an enjoyable and very readable novel, if less rounded than [b:North and South|512710|North and South|Elizabeth Gaskell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1391158399l/512710._SY75_.jpg|1016482].
In Ruth she gives us a 'heroine' so pure (one obvious 'sin' aside) that she makes the likes of Agnes Wickfield or Esther Summerson look like nasty pieces of work. Her rather inflexible and unrelenting (post-shag) sense of virtue and propriety does become a bit wearing. But the inner-life of the victimised woman isn't really the focus here and Gaskell uses Ruth to take a broader sweep at the hypocrisies and inconsistencies of Victorian morality through the attitudes and actions of the characters around her. Still, an enjoyable and very readable novel, if less rounded than [b:North and South|512710|North and South|Elizabeth Gaskell|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1391158399l/512710._SY75_.jpg|1016482].
laurenjpegler's review against another edition
4.0
Elizabeth Gaskell will forever remain a favourite Victorian writer of mine. She knows how to write an engaging and truthful story of life. I really enjoyed this one! As expected, we sympathised with Ruth as a fallen woman, rather than scorn her like most books from this time do.
Spoiler
Just can’t believe it ended that way. Ruth decides to care for a man who deserted her, and ends up catching his illness, which eventually kills her. Brutal, unnecessary and just cruel. It kind of takes away from the overall sympathetic tone of the story. Kinda makes me question if Gaskell was trying to end the book in a way that society would expect?kathryn14's review against another edition
3.0
Tedious & disappointing
This will be the only time I read this book ... In this life
6/10
This will be the only time I read this book ... In this life
6/10
eriberry's review against another edition
challenging
dark
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? Yes
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
4.5
heather_freshparchment's review against another edition
emotional
reflective
sad
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? A mix
- Strong character development? Yes
- Loveable characters? It's complicated
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.5
Content Warnings
Graphic: Pandemic/Epidemic and Death
Moderate: Pregnancy, Religious bigotry, Grief, and Abandonment
Minor: Suicide attempt
samrossvolante's review against another edition
4.0
It took me a good while to get through this! It’s not a very difficult read, but I did feel I had to be in a certain kind of mood to sit down and continue it.
I enjoyed this novel. It was rich in visual description, and there were many sympathetic (and at times amusing) characters. I particularly liked Jemima for her passion and Mr. Benson for his conscientiousness. At first, I was mildly confused and irritated about the forays Gaskell took into exploring plot-lines seemingly irrelevant to Ruth, but they interested me and I grew to understand their significance in building a wider picture of Ruth’s world and the kind of people she interacted with.
I generally find it difficult to assess the discussions of gender in a novel that was written in the nineteenth century, because there were many different ideas about women and sexual relationships floating around at the time. They were all on a scale between fairly progressive and irredeemably backwards! However, the novel’s many female characters all took starkly different stances towards being a woman and, indeed, their romantic and sexual relationships, or lack thereof. Of course, these were mostly in keeping with the generally-held sociological beliefs of ‘respectable’ Victorians, but they were still interesting to compare and contrast.
Some argue that Ruth isn’t really a “fallen woman” due to the fact that so many extenuating circumstances (such as her age at the time of her “fall” and her status as an orphan) were thrust upon her by Gaskell. While I think she still counts as a “fallen woman”, I agree that Ruth’s virtues and innocence could potentially have been too greatly exaggerated. However, this book was clearly not dedicated to absolute realism, and Ruth isn’t the only character who seems at least mildly unrealistic to me (Mr. Bradshaw joining her in that number). Also, I understand that Ruth had to be the way that she was in order for Gaskell to almost “justify” writing her story.
On a narrative note, there were a couple of things that seemed a little too convenient, which would have seemed less so had they been established earlier on in the novel (e.g. the milliner in Eccleston - it would make more sense for Ruth, Jenny or someone else to have encountered her at the beginning of the novel). The boy Bellingham saved from drowning becoming his groom was a nice touch, though.
All in all, an interesting book which I’d recommend to those with an interest in “fallen women” and Victorian literature in general.
I enjoyed this novel. It was rich in visual description, and there were many sympathetic (and at times amusing) characters. I particularly liked Jemima for her passion and Mr. Benson for his conscientiousness. At first, I was mildly confused and irritated about the forays Gaskell took into exploring plot-lines seemingly irrelevant to Ruth, but they interested me and I grew to understand their significance in building a wider picture of Ruth’s world and the kind of people she interacted with.
I generally find it difficult to assess the discussions of gender in a novel that was written in the nineteenth century, because there were many different ideas about women and sexual relationships floating around at the time. They were all on a scale between fairly progressive and irredeemably backwards! However, the novel’s many female characters all took starkly different stances towards being a woman and, indeed, their romantic and sexual relationships, or lack thereof. Of course, these were mostly in keeping with the generally-held sociological beliefs of ‘respectable’ Victorians, but they were still interesting to compare and contrast.
Some argue that Ruth isn’t really a “fallen woman” due to the fact that so many extenuating circumstances (such as her age at the time of her “fall” and her status as an orphan) were thrust upon her by Gaskell. While I think she still counts as a “fallen woman”, I agree that Ruth’s virtues and innocence could potentially have been too greatly exaggerated. However, this book was clearly not dedicated to absolute realism, and Ruth isn’t the only character who seems at least mildly unrealistic to me (Mr. Bradshaw joining her in that number). Also, I understand that Ruth had to be the way that she was in order for Gaskell to almost “justify” writing her story.
On a narrative note, there were a couple of things that seemed a little too convenient, which would have seemed less so had they been established earlier on in the novel (e.g. the milliner in Eccleston - it would make more sense for Ruth, Jenny or someone else to have encountered her at the beginning of the novel). The boy Bellingham saved from drowning becoming his groom was a nice touch, though.
All in all, an interesting book which I’d recommend to those with an interest in “fallen women” and Victorian literature in general.
yers's review against another edition
2.0
There are many aspects in this story that makes you jump in exaltation yet Ruth as the protagonist with her constant self-afflicted tribulations as penitence turns you off. Literally, in the first 200 pages of the book Ruth is either weeping or grayed out in a corner with no dialogue. If at any point you want to believe the Plot is saved by the immaculate narrative of Mr. Benson, his sister, Sally and Mr. Farquar then all building blocks fall down with Ruth's ignorance, proudness and derangement with culpability. Her notions of love and twisted devotion are highly blurred as much as her path to redemption. Our villain, Mr. Bellingham is so atrociously rotted and depraved that all of Ruth sacrifices are just condemned to be foolishly futile. Elizabeth Gaskell was praised during her time for her advocacy, but "Ruth" is not one of her better works unfortunately.
abigailellen's review against another edition
3.0
while ruth’s death is often read as punishment, especially by modern readers, it’s proven to be much more than that. gaskell is reproached for not allowing her corrupted yet repenting heroine to live, seemingly cutting ruth’s life short in order to punish her. but gaskell’s implication - no, outright declaration that ruth is admitted into heaven, despite being a “sinner”, is a literary move beyond daring during the victorian period.