Blog Post #1-Close Reading of Gustave Dore’s Illustration

Though I closely examined all of Dore’s work in his collection of illustrations titled London: A Pilgrimage, for my close reading I settled on image #9 in the collection. This image portrays the housing developments of the time in London. There are a few aspects of these developments that really stood out to me. First of all, the are all connected in a row, with absolutely no space in between each of them from side to side. The main row of the houses featured as the subject in the illustration seems to go on almost into the foreseeable future as it may be. Viewers of the image can tell that the houses represent lower class living because not only are the houses all crammed next to each other, but they are very small in terms of the width of each home. They all span only the width of one window, with what would appear to be a few feet of space on each side of the window. Even without ever having been in these houses, viewers can almost feel how tiny they would be just by looking. Each house does have a back patio, where some people are featured to be utilizing in the image. This space contradicts the modern use of a back patio, how most would see it as extra space to use to enjoy the outside while at home. But, these spaces are strictly seen as functional—with many of them having laundry lines and barrels for storage. This again emphasizes the idea of the poorer working class inhabiting these houses.

Another characteristic of this image is the ominous tone it gives off to viewers. It almost seems as though there is no sunshine at all in the sky, everything looks so dreary and dark. Considering that whatever medium Dore used to create this piece was just black or gray, it is evident that no actual color was ever going to exist, but viewers can get a good idea of how the tone is intentional through his shading. Dore makes the sky look darker than the subject of the housing, and it almost seems as though he’s casting some sort of shadow on the row as it moves further back in the image. Since this illustration is depicting housing of that of the lower class, the tone of the image seems to mimic how people view this class of Londoners. Overall, the piece gives a very specific idea of London living, one that most viewers most likely do not want to experience.

Henry Mayhew’s “Watercress Girl” and G.M.W. Reynolds’s Mysteries of London depict the two differing sides of defeating one’s poverty and accumulating wealth which becomes hard work versus theft. Each text makes its own statement in terms of how people choose to create their wealth in a time when poverty is common throughout the area. While Mayhew’s “Watercress Girl” presents an image of working how one can in order to make money, Reynold’s first few chapters of Mysteries of Londonpresent the narrative of taking another’s wealth and claiming it as your own.

Mayhew’s “Watercress Girl” presents a conversation with an eight-year-old little girl about her life in the city of London. The girl tells of the little money that she is able to make by buying cresses and selling them to the people who walk through the streets. She tells of the sharing of spaces with her parents and three siblings and how she must work in order to help out her family. While she describes some days as making a good amount of money, she also recounts how some days she is treated rudely as people want to only pay her what she herself paid to get them. In the tale, Mayhew notes how the girl though so young has the mentality of a woman. “Watercress Girl” shows the effects that poverty in nineteenth century London impacted the family dynamics and the lives of each child. While most children have little more to concern themselves with than what to play, this girl is forced by poverty to stand out on the streets and work attempting to make enough money to help out her family. Through the girl, Mayhew presents poverty in London as a problem that ages those effected forcing them to become a part of the work force that they should not have to experience until a much later age. The tale acts as a commentary towards wealth as it shows that wealth is to be accomplished through hard work and takes time to achieve for all those involved.

Reynolds’sMysteries of London presents a conversation between two men in an uninhabited house where they are hiding the wealth that they accumulate within the walls. These men a seen to be burglars who have only been coming into the wealth through theft against homes and people that they see to be easy targets for one reason or another. Through these men, Reynolds is showing a way in which some individuals chose to fight poverty and develop wealth in nineteenth century London. These men thieve on the vulnerable as a way of making money for themselves that instead of sharing or putting to good use as buying their own house, they choose to hide it away from the rest of the world. This thieving could lead to the potential poverty of those being stolen from and if not used leave the men with nothing as well. Reynolds shows how some chose to steal their wealth instead of working for themselves and finding their way out of poverty.

Mayhew’s “Watercress Girl” and Reynolds’s Mysteries of London present opposing images of the character of individuals within poverty as one side chooses work and the other chooses theft. The age difference between Mayhew’s girl and Reynolds’s two men is substantial yet the mentalities towards wealth could not be more different. While Mayhew depicts the pursuit of wealth and reaching out of poverty as a means to help one’s family, Reynolds shows the pursuit of wealth as purely selfish. Mayhew shows that hard work in the face of poverty creates more value in the wealth that comes out of it while Reynolds’s shows that theft in pursuit of wealth leads to a lack of value in the wealth one possesses as they will always want more. These two tests depict images of poverty and wealth in nineteenth century London through the means in which individuals would choose to live their lives.

This was the first time that I have ever read Arthur Conan Doyle’s short stories about Sherlock Holmes. To my surprise, the adventures are from the point of view of Sherlock Holmes’ partner in sleuthing, Watson. The Sherlock Holmes short stories are set in London in the 1890s. London as a setting plays an important part in each storyline. Overall, the setting in a big city creates interesting characters for Sherlock to investigate. When I think of being able to see a bunch of different type of characters, I tend to think of cities before I think of countries or suburbs. From Adventure 2: The Red-Headed League, Sherlock Holmes says: “I know, my dear Watson, that you share my love of all that is bizarre and outside the conventions and humdrum routine of everyday life.” Another important part of the city compared to any other setting is the way news travels. In this adventure, it was important for the client, Mr. Jabez Wilson, to see the advertisement to be a part of the Red-Headed League. In cities, particularly, it is easier for news to travel. Newspapers are something that everyone in the city is expected to read in the 1890s. Sherlock Holmes being in the city of London plays an important role as well. First would be the economic struggles between the rich and poor and how they treated each other in London. As shown in this adventure, John Clay went to great lengths to satisfy his greed. When I think of the typical criminal, I think of one that just robs stores, however, these criminals realized that they had to get creative in order to gain more money. Another aspect that is specific to London is the way the city is set up. As explained by Arthur Conan Doyle, the city of London seems to be a lot of shops and businesses all close together. In the Red-Headed League adventure, the Cellar of the bank was close enough to the basement of Mr. Wilson’s pawnshop for the criminals to make a whole in 8 weeks that is deep enough to get into the bank. Imagining Sherlock Holmes in a city like Pittsburgh may work for a specific type of adventure, but overall Sherlock Holmes is better in London and adds to the success of the series overall.

Charles Dicken’s Oliver Twist is described by the narrator as a melodrama of the tale of an orphan boy named Oliver Twist. His tale is one big series of unfortunate and fortunate events. The theme of death runs throughout the entire book. For Oliver, even when the chapter entails fortunate events for him, he still has death or deathly omens around him that foreshadow his future.

A less fortunate time for Oliver was in the fifth chapter of the book. Oliver is taken to the Sowerberry’s where he is to be an apprentice for an undertaker:

“But his heart was heavy, notwithstanding: and he wished, as he crept into his narrow bed, that there his coffin, and that he could be laid in a calm lasting sleep in the churchyard ground, with the tall grass waving gently above his head, and the sound of the old deep bell to soothe him in his sleep” (Dickens, 34-35)

At this moment in the book, Oliver had to leave all of his friends and people he knew at the workhouse. Oliver being taken by the undertaker is interesting not just for the storyline, but for Dickens. First, Oliver being the Undertaker’s apprentice got him closer to death than he had ever been before. As an apprentice, Oliver views funerals with Sowerberry. Oliver at this point in the story is working with death and since he sleeps under the counter with the coffins, he is seeping among death as well. This is one of the times in Oliver’s life where he is trapped by death. As for Dickens, it is interesting that he decided to have the undertaker buy Oliver from the workhouse. This mirrors the undertaker at the beginning of “A Christmas Carol”, the Undertaker is at Marley’s funeral. Another similarity between Oliver Twist and “A Christmas Carol” pertaining to death is how both of the stories begin. In “A Christmas Carol”, the first line in the short story is: “Marley was dead”. Dickens opens with what some authors have as the rising action or climax to other stories. However, this isn’t Marley’s story. In Oliver Twist, Dickens begins with the death of Oliver’s mother. This adds another layer to Oliver’s character throughout the book: the death of Oliver’s mother after birth lurks in his brain. This is a metaphorical shadow that follows Oliver in his tale.

In William Wordsworth’s poem “Composed Upon Westminster Bridge, September 3, 1802” he describes a beautiful scene looking out onto the Westminster Bridge. His description is very specific to London, and would never be used to describe common American cities. Wordsworth starts off the poem by saying “Earth has not anything to show more fair”. The speaker describes London as being an incomparable place. London is like nothing else that Earth has to offer. Wordsworth uses the word “fair” in the first line of his poem, which is a word that has been seen in another one of his poems “She Dwealt among the Untrodden Ways: “—Fair as a star, when only one is shining in the sky”. I think that Wordsworth is using the word “fair” in the same way to describe London. However, the description he gives that really tells his audience how he views London is when Wordsworth writes: “Open unto the fields, and to the sky;/All bright and glittering in the smokeless air.”. This along with describing London as “silent, bare” tells the audience that Wordsworth finds beauty in what is quiet, but open and free. When I think of the average, beautiful American city I tend to picture New York city: fast moving, lots of twinkling lights, cars throughout the streets, citizens on their way to work. However, Wordsworth wouldn’t find as much beauty in New York City as he would London. London is serene, clean, and free.

The last three lines of Wordsworth’s poem makes me excited to go to London and see the sight for myself: “The river glideth at his own sweet will/ Dear God! The very houses seem asleep;/ And all that mighty heart is lying still!”. Wordsworth promises a calmness from the sunset behind the Westminster Bridge that can only be felt when you are actually there. It gives me a sense of longing for something I haven’t even seen with my own eyes yet.

When thinking about the poem it makes me think of English culture. What does the average day look like for someone who lives in London? It also makes me wonder what the English think that American cities are like.

External Sources

“fair, adj. and n.1.” OED Online, Oxford University Press, March 2018, www.oed.com/view/Entry/67704. Accessed 17 May 2018.

Wordsworth, William. “She Dwelt among the Untrodden Ways.” Poetry Foundation, 2018.

Flipping through John Thomson’s Street life in London, the photo that popped out to me the most was “Public Disinfectors”. Each of the photos in the album Thomson created has a light Sepia film due to the time period and how the photo film came out in 1876-77. However, this captures the overall melancholy mood that the men are emanating. At first glance, a viewer notices the two men on the right side of the photograph. These men are in bright white and are the focal point of the photograph. Although they are positioned to the right, they are more towards the center of the photograph than any other point in the photo. The man furthest to the right has a long beard and is looking off into the distance. His stance makes me feel as though he doesn’t want to be there. Typically, when someone is looking off into the distance they have a longing for something. Thomson captured this in this man. The man in white on the right has his hand on his hip and giving off the look of displeasure. In both men, you get a sense that the job that they are working for is something that they do every day. As a viewer, I get a sense of monotony. From the title, the viewer can infer that two men in the white are the “Public Disinfectors”. The mini description that is given underneath the picture says: “[The Public Disinfectors] constantly face death to save us from peril”. This statement Is very ironic since the speaker is saying that the men are putting their lives at risk so no one else has to or they must face death so that no one else has to face death. The speaker makes it sound as though peril is of more danger than death itself. However, when put into context (VictorianLondon Street Life Historic Photographs written by John Thomson) explains that the workers put themselves in danger so that the rest of the city can stay safe. These type of men are very heroic when thought about in this way. However, the men are standing on both sides of a cart—I’m guessing to house their disinfectant supplies. The men are situated on both sides of the cart, similar to mules or donkeys carrying supplies. The way the men are situated around the cart looks humiliating in a way, nowhere near heroic or noble. It is also interesting that the two men’s uniforms are all white. Usually when someone works with death or is celebrating the life of someone (ex. funeral) the person wears black. The men are constantly facing death, yet they are wearing white. This makes me think of ghosts walking through London. At the same time, the men wearing white could give them a sense of hope, since they are saving lives by putting their lives in danger; instead of ghosts, they could be seen as the angles that are saving London. The only other aspect of the picture is the other man wearing an all-black suit and tall black hat. He is facing the two men in white directly and has his fist clenched. He seems to be the disinfectors superior. The one that is sending them into their death, which is why it feels right that he is wearing the color black. He creates lots of tension and the picture and makes the other two men awkward and inferior in relation to the man in all black.

External Sources

Thomson, John. Victorian London Street Life in Historic Photographs. Compiled by Adolphe Smith, New York, Dover Publ., 2000. Google Books, books.google.com/books?id=pA7CAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=public+disinfectors+definition&source=bl&ots=g9B5unBDk8&sig=HjjMG1qE8Hei6eERiY_WPE3Uak8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj28KWw_YzbAhVhoFkKHZEVBGEQ6AEIWDAF#v=onepage&q=public%20disinfectors%20definition&f=false.

It’s hard to look at history and think that there was a time when people married solely for money and status; completely separating love from the equation. Pride and Prejudice examines both marriage and love together, even though many of this time thought it was unobtainable. Jane Austen is known to be a satirical writer. The most obvious point she makes is about marriage primarily for social status. I find it interesting that Jane Austen herself never married in her life. I’ve come to the conclusion that she didn’t marry due to the social norms of her time period. Austen sets up the Bennet family close to what she lived through growing up in the Austen household.  Austen grew up with seven siblings, her sister and herself being the only females. However, just like the Bennet household, her father had no dowry to give to Jane for whenever she was ready to marry. The Austen family was facing financial difficulties. People suppose that this could be a reason why Jane Austen and her young flame Thomas Lefroy didn’t work out: For Thomas would not have to marry down if he truly wanted to be with Jane Austen. Later in Jane Austen’s life, Harris Bigg-Wither proposed to her and after accepting she ended up breaking the engagement. There was much speculation as to why Jane Austen would have ended the marriage, and especially at her age. During the Georgian Era, it was nearly impossible for any woman over the age of 30 to marry. Jane Austen was certainly getting “older” for the Georgian marriage standards, but I believe Jane Austen felt the marriage was forced. Jane Austen society expected her to marry whoever was willing to propose to her, whoever did would know that they wouldn’t get much financially in return. Jane Austen wanted to marry for love and this is why I believe she never married anyone in her life. In Pride and Prejudice, Charlotte and Elizabeth share a scene where they talk about the possibility for Mr. Bingley and Jane to be married. Charlotte first gives her opinion:

“But though Bingley and Jane meet tolerably often, it is never for many hours together; and as they always see each other in large mixed parties, it is impossible that every moment should be employed in conversing together. Jane should therefore make the most of every half hour in which she can command his attention. When she is secure of him there will be leisure for falling in love as much as she chuses.” (Austen, 23).

Austen gives the voice of society. Austen’s society believes that one must first claim a man’s attention, and then once he is “secure” or once he is most likely to propose, then they have time to fall in love later. Austen’s society is built on strict social manners and customs that no one would dare to go against (except maybe Austen herself). For example, as seen with Mr. Collins and Elizabeth, it was common for a lady to turn down a proposal and for a man to continue to propose before a lady fully accept the offer. Mr. Collins described this in Chapter 19:

“that it is usual with young ladies to reject the address of the man whom they secretly mean to accept, when he first applies for their favour; and that sometimes refusal is repeated a second or even third time.” (Austen, 105).

In response to Charlotte, Elizabeth tells her: “But these are not Jane’s feelings; she is not acting by design” (Austen, 23). Austen is trying to show her audience that there are people who fall in love first before they marry.  Austen wants her society to see that marriage does not have to just be about the cash flow of families or a specific structure to get someone to marry you. Instead, Austen is using Jane and Mr. Bingley’s love to show her audience that people can fall in love with someone for love, and perhaps why this is so significant to Pride and Prejudice overall. For Jane, it worked out that she fell in love with someone who will help her financially in the future, but was not the main reason for why she wanted to marry Bingley.

Blog Post 3: Close Reading Images

The two images that I had decided to delve into for my close readings are Covent Garden Flower Women by John Thomson, which is part of his Street Life in London series published from 1876-7, and The Stalls, Covent Garden Opera by Gustave Dore which is part of his London Illustrations series. The two images are very different but they have one similar theme: women and Covent Garden.

The women in Covent Garden Flower Women are standing outside of the huge opera hall waiting for the theater goes to come out. They would then “set up shop” as it were on the side walk and sell their wares, hoping that the ladies would hang off of their gentlemen’s arms and ask for a flower bundle or two. A scene very similar to this is the beginning of “My Fair Lady”, a favorite musical of mine. In this picture however, there is no sign of Eliza Doolittle speaking horrible English and starting her rags to riches story. Instead there are three women wrapping their flowers getting ready for the next rush of customers. Their clothes are a little shabby and their skin a little grimy but this is a picture that reflects simplicity and honesty. The coloring of the picture does make the depicted seem a little gloomy with its washed-out browns and greys, which helps bring a hint of melancholy to the picture. These women are few, poorer than most and stand outside most of their days selling flowers to the rich.

Meanwhile the inside of Covent Garden is bustling with the sound of society and culture. The Stalls, Covent Garden Opera depicts what happens on the other side of the big doors of the opera house. Inside there are many, many wealthy men and women who are waiting to be entertained by the show they’re attending. In this illustration there are many women sitting and standing about in their lavish clothing. Even in a simple drawing as this you can still see all the intricacies in their dresses, hats, gloves, shoes and even in their hair and jewelry. These women wear complexity while the women outside wear honesty and simplicity. These two pictures show the two sides of Covent Gardens, as well as the two sides of women in society at the time that these two images were created. This was the start of the middle class and poorer women were allowed to work as long as it was respectable (and sometimes even if it wasn’t). Women were objects of complexity and could dazzle in high society and yet most of them still worked off the street corners selling their wares as best they could.

Images:

https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/london-illustrations-by-gustave-dor

https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/objects/lse:yic445cir

Reading Night Walks you can sense how night life is a completely different in London. Reading this it seams like I’m reading what London is hiding through the day. Dicken’s kind of  goes into detail about the people who are homeless trying to find shelter anywhere they can and what they do at night. But reading this I think it goes into Dickens relationship with the city at night and just looking at his surroundings.

You can sense the loneliness of the night when he mentions, “We lost a great deal of companionship when the late public-houses turned their lamps out”. When the lights of the city die down the loneliness can start to creep in because everyone is at home sleeping. It could also mean that they are forgotten. In the daytime the streets are busy with people, you forget the surroundings around you.  “London would sink to rest. And then the yearning of the houseless mind would be for any sign of company, any lighted place, and movement”.

Throughout the whole essay he mentions a lot of places in London.  In this essay, you can really put a picture in your head of him walking through the streets of London at night and what he was seeing and feeling. “Between the bridge and the two great theatres, there was but the distance of a few hundred paces, so the theatres came next, Grim and black within, at night, those great dry Wells, and lonesome to imagine with the rows faded out, the lights extinguished”, you can really put a picture in your mind at what he is looking at and feeling. I think of London as this dark lonely night.

He describes these people as “houselessness”, instead of calling them homeless or poor.  I also observed in the beginning that he talks like he is houselessness, but in the beginning of the essay he talks about only being an “amateur of houselessness”. I wonder why he picks the word houslessness instead of homeless, poor, etc. Also, he describes himself as houselessness. Maybe it is just someone who isn’t at home?

Dicken’s mentions Convent-Garden Market where, “men and boys lying asleep under them”. The people who don’t have homes find a way to get by sleeping under wagons. Also, he mentions “children who prowl about this place; who sleep in the baskets, fight for offal, dart at any object they think they can lay their thieving hands on”. London is a big city which has poverty. Every city has it pros but it also has its cons. Children are in poverty trying to do everything they can to stay alive is a sad sight to see.

He really creates a detailed story of what he is seeing through the streets of London.

This illustration by Gustave Doré depicts a group of people, mainly children, huddled together on the side of a street in the night time. The mood of this illustration is overwhelmingly dreary. Overall it is a very dark image—the brightest point being the street lamp in the upper left-hand corner. The faces of the people are not only dark but are rather miserable as well. They are huddled together, sharing blankets, as if the only source of warmth they have is each other. The objects laying in front of the two main adults in the image look as though they could be all the belongings of this family, from vases to a violin. Such a dark, depressing image is clearly meant to evoke similar emotions in its viewer, as one cannot help but feel sorry for the people in the illustration. The image definitely appears to be a commentary on the living conditions that affected particularly women and children in London in the mid to late 19^thcentury. It is heartbreaking to see people living in conditions such as this—in the cold on the side of the street—but it is especially so to see children, or what could possibly be a family, suffering in this manner.

This illustration is reminiscent of William Blake’s poem “London” which details the tragedy that is the society of common men, women, and children in London. Within the first stanza, Blake says he marks “in every face I meet/ marks of weakness, marks of woe.” In this image, every individual has a face marked by woe. Both this illustration and Blake’s poem mark a dreadful time in London’s history and depict the miserable conditions of the every-day people.