A Description of Millenium Hall, and the Country Adjacent: Together with the Characters of the Inhabitants, And such Historical Anecdotes and Reflections, As May excite in the Reader proper Sentiments of Humanity, and lead the Mind to the Love of Virtue.
by Sarah Scott
- For Thursday, January 17: Read pages 50-109.
- For Tuesday, January 22: Finish novel.
23 comments:
Since we are having a snow day on Thursday, we will discuss the entire novel in class on Tuesday. Please follow our original schedule for posting your comments.
Well, I just finished the first part of Millenium Hall, and I have mixed feelings about this novel. The plot so far seems to be well conceived, and, from what I can tell, it feels like it was written with the best of intentions. However, in my opinion, the book is poorly written (there, I said it!). The writing is dull and, in spots, somewhat clumsy, and the odd (or at least unfamiliar) use of commas makes it difficult to read with any kind of immediate comprehension. (Also, there are too many names that start with ‘M’). It does improve as it goes along, though; I struggled with the first twenty or so pages especially, but now have become interested in the characters.
I admire Miss Melvyn’s and Louisa’s fineness and determination to maintain the highest degree of informed morality. Although I doubt that such perfection really exists in any human, I really wish it could and did, and I enjoy reading about this type of character, although they usually make me feel rather small. (Our Dr. Burgess would probably say that this is the result of living in a “guilt society”; I prefer to think of it as proof that I haven’t become too hardened or jaded to appreciate true goodness, even if it is invented). Reading A Little Princess always made me feel the same way.
I love the idea of the utopia the women have created comprised of kindness, generosity, industry, and improvement, but I bristled a little at the hint that poor people must be treated like children by the “gentry”, being led and instructed in every detail of their lives. I do agree, though, that cleanliness is of paramount importance, and I like how that detail keeps coming up. At first I thought of the place as something like a communist society, but I guess it’s really more like a republic, with the “superior” ruling benevolently over the others.
It’s interesting that, although the hall is woman-centered, its inhabitants don’t seem to feel any aversion for men, and the travelers are made extremely welcome. And though man is vilified in the person of Mr. Hintman and ridiculed in that of Sir Charles, Mr. D’Avora is good and sensible – at least, so far.
While I can’t say I’m exactly looking forward with pleasure to reading the rest of the book, I am curious to know the rest of the story.
I am enjoying Millenium Hall so far. I like the idea of a separate community from the normal corruption of the mainstream society. These women residing in the hall seem to have strong connections and love for one another. I also like how they have such a strong emphasis on devoting themselves to and finding pleasure in helping others. I really like how they seem to see that as the highest form of fulfillment. However, I'm not sure how pleasurable it would be to live in the story's depicted society because it seems so strict and orderly. The women seem to always be employed in some kind of productive activity. It seems a little far-fetched to me that these women were completely content with a seemingly limited variety of activities, even though they do specify that they pride themselves for having a variety of occupations to amuse themselves and still be productive. They, the women who run the hall, are very religious and seem to impose their views on the others there, seeming to say that their views are the only correct ones. I liked the background stories for Louisa and Miss Melvyn. They both were very intelligent and mature beyond their years, possibly due to them both having been mentored by strong intelligent women, Miss Melvyn by her mother, and Louisa by her aunt. They seemed instantly drawn to each by their similar histories of losing their female mentor. Another interesting comparison is the father role for both these women. Miss Melvyn's father is weak and inferior to his wife, easily controlled. Whereas Louisa's adoptive father is wealthy, giving, and supportive, but who they find out is not to be trusted. So both men are depicted from a negative perspective on the whole.
I have very much enjoyed this story so far and look forward to reading further.
I think I have slowly come to enjoy Millenium Hall. When I first started reading it, I hated it. It moved so slowly and the language and punctuation did not make for an easy read.
I really didn't 'get into it' until the second part of Mrs. Morgan and Miss Mancel's stories. However, I did have some problems with Miss Mancel and Miss Melvyn. For one, every time I read 'Mancel' or 'Melvyn' I had to stop and think about who it was. Too many M's-confused the hell out of me. Then I got a little tired of the goody-goody Miss Melvyn and I was ready for her to just let Lady Melvyn have it.
I did like the story of Miss Mancel and Mrs. Morgan though because I think it is a beautiful story of a real friendship. There are very few of us who are still very close to childhood friends.
I also like how opinionated the ladies are. Anytime Lamont seems to question their beliefs or ways of doing things, there is always some woman who will speak up and put him in his place. I like that.
Millenium Hall started out slow, and while it still isn't really a page turner, it has gotten much better.
I really didn't expect to like this book. It took me a bit to get into it, and to really appreciate the idea of this progressive society of women.
The history of Miss Mancel and Mrs. Morgan interested me very much and has added a lot to the story, making the characters more three-dimensional.
I love the compassion and care that these women employ in their everyday dealings. I'm looking forward to finishing the novel tonight.
It is hard for me to comment about only the first part of the novel having read the novel once before, but I'll try. Most have already commented on how difficult it is to actually get into this novel, which I agree with. Also, much of the focus of the above comments has been on the background stories of Louisa Mancel and Miss Melvyn/Morgan, which are vital to the understanding of why the society forms and how it runs and such, I think. However, what I found myself wondering about this time as I read the novel was how is this society that these women have formed different than the one they are "running" from? Does not capitalism still play a huge part in the way MH is set up? For example, there are still housekeepers, servants, lower-class women, children, etc. Everyone still seems to have a "station" in life. If this is a society that is meant to turn away from the "fashionable upper-class" and court behavior, then why is there still so much labeling and perhaps even marginalization of certain tasks as not being valued as much as others, i.e. "accomplished" tasks verses learned subjects? Those were just a few issues that I had thus far, and will continue to have until the novel ends (fair warning). I would have a field day with a Marxist reading of this book!
Okay so I finally finished reading the novel. Overall, it was pretty good and the concept of the female utopia was very interesting. However, it was a really hard novel to finish because it lacked momentum. I think both the language and the style of the novel maybe wasn’t the best choice. The language seemed a little odd and dry, and I found myself having to re-read several passages for better comprehension. As for the style of the novel, I felt like having all of the different histories broke up the story too much. I would be reading along and getting more and more into it and then it would switch to the history of another character and I would have to start getting back into it. I realize the histories were essential to the story, but I wonder if there could have been a better way to include them.
I also agree with Elizabeth that Miss Mancel and Mrs. Morgan’s names were very easy to confuse, but reading the history of their friendship was, in my opinion, the best part of the novel. Their friendship was very inspirational both for them and all the other ladies in the society. The most shocking part of the novel was when Mr. Hintman’s true purpose for his generosity was discovered, and then he had a stroke (which I only understood after looking up the term “apoplexy” that was used in the novel) just before he came to take Louisa away. It was amazing how God always seemed to step in and protect and provide for the ladies of this society.
It was also interesting to me how much this novel centered completely on the goodness and gentleness of women. Any men mentioned in the novel were made to appear corrupt and inferior to the women of the society. Any mention of sex made the act out to be a sin. This somewhat presented a problem for me. I, being as what I would consider an intelligent and well-educated female, am intrigued by romance and would find a life based solely on female friendship to be incomplete. I know these women were portrayed as very strong individuals, but their isolation from reality made their version of a female utopia a little hard to accept.
Other than the few grievances I have brought up, I enjoyed reading the novel. It gave me a different perspective of the lives of women, and how our lives and roles have changed throughout history. The simplicity of their society and the happiness it gave to each of the ladies was very inspiring to me. In a society that now revolves around so much television, radio, partying, and living rich and lavish lifestyles, it is inspiring to see such happiness arise in these women simply from them receiving excellent educations in all areas and having strong female friendships. I would definitely recommend this novel to other females to read.
It was a relief to finish that book, but I did enjoy it. I liked the general idea of community and caring for all others and posing an example for the rest of the world to see. They seemed perfectly content and fulfilled which lead to other's believing that their way of living is the "correct" way, which in the end inspires Lamont to pick up Christianity. Religion was an incredibly strong theme throughout the novel. All of the women's stories went into depth about their not being complete until they had attained some religious education or experienced "God's Providence" as some miracaulous experience in their lives. I did very much enjoy this perspective on the perfect society, despite (and somewhat because of) it being different from my own.
the last comment was mine (Allison Morris...MysticAlli88). sorry I got confused on how to put in my name.
On one hand, I think the ideal of female utopia represented in the book is one that perpetrates the male myths that we encountered as a class in the Convent Tales. The idea that women need to be and would ideally choose to be isolated from men, sex and any worldly temptations holds up a harmful standard about women’s basic nature as weak and women’s sexuality as being easily corruptible or to easily enticing for men. This in some way represents to me the same line of thinking that justifies the imprisonment of women in places like the Magdalene Asylum. The absence and the admonishment of sex made it clear that these women symbolized a community that was non-threatening to the virtues of men, although men could still fantasize about what went on behind closed doors.
On the other hand, I understand the concept of the female utopia and being isolated from men and the flaws of the outside world as being empowering. However, from a purely radical perspective, without a presence of lesbian relationships this concept of empowerment weakens. There are many feminists who say the women’s revolution can only take place once every woman is a lesbian, rendering men useless. So the concept of women living alone together reminded me, as a reader, of the island of Sappho and that female utopia. Of course there are also many women who argue that women don’t need sex to be empowered or to render men useless.
Finally, the women of the novel prove to be independent and capable of running their own “society” although it still carries many of the flaws of the patriarchal system, ie. Hierarchy/class system and religion. The novel failed to represent female empowerment in the fact that their structure of society was based on ideals of patriarchy. This failure is represented in the class system as well as the introduction of religion into the women’s lives and the imposition of that religion, (a patriarchal invention if there ever was one.)
I did end up liking the novel much more as it went along and the story unfolded. It still lagged in spots, but had some Austenian moments, too. I think what I liked best were the bits of philosophy that concurred with my own convictions. Call it vanity, if you must, but, at the same time, recognize the humility in the pleasure that comes from validation. The most striking instance of this was on pages 164-165, when Mrs. Trentham (at least I think it was she speaking; at times it was hard to tell) talks about how dissipation and egotism spreads from class to class, with each group deciding they are due things they can’t really afford. I think this can definitely still be applied to today’s society: economically disadvantaged people spend money they don’t have or that should be spent otherwise on things like expensive clothes, electronics, computers, cable TV, etc. So many seem to think that they have some kind of inherent right to these material possessions, just because the things exist and because other people have them. (I feel I can say this without malice, having never been particularly “advantaged” myself).
One of my favorite bits of the book came at the end (and not just because it meant I was finally finished with it, although that may have played a part). Like the above example, the words are as true now as ever. Lamont has decided to look further into Christianity, and explains his former disdain for it: “the doctrine seemed to have so little influence on their [Christians'] actions, that he imagined there was no sufficient effect produced by christianity to warrant a belief” (248). I don’t claim to be a Christian, nor am I trying to “bash” the religion. I’m just saying, based on my observations, that this is a remarkably accurate point.
I’ll most likely keep this book and read it again; I’m sure I’ll get more pleasure from it on a second reading. I think it has important messages; it’s just hairy to plow through the dullness to get to them.
By the way, I’m Lori Ann. I’m not using another name in order to conceal my valuable commentary from the Internet world; I just think it’s fun to rename myself.
I must agree with Phaedra above when she says that this is similar to a Sappho female utopia in the sense that their could be, if you chose to read into certain scenes that have homosocial overtones. For example, when George will not allow Miss Melvyn to bring Louisa Mancel into their home to live with them because he does not want someone in their house that his wife loves more than him.
I like the theme and sense that MH is a family to these women. The 18th Century tends to have a running theme of the motherless daughter, but the girl usually squanders her fortune, ends up pregnant, and in a convent or some such alternative. These women fall on hard times because of familial circumstances, but as we discussed in class, they stay out of trouble for the most part or there is divine intervention at the precise moment it is needed. I can't help but tie MH to a convent; however, in the sense that these women have been in trouble and seek solitude or shelter in this place. For some does it seem like punishment? Harriet, for example, losing her beauty and escaping to the "convent" not to be seen. Just a thought. I tried to read this from a different angle knowing what I know now about the novel, and it was interesting. I recommend going back and re-reading novels after a few years. It really is surprising!
I certainly feel like I got a lot more out of the novel after our discussion in class. For some reason it never occurred to me that the narrator of the story was a male until we started talking about it in class. That was a bit of a shocker for me! But after going back and re-reading the beginning again I wonder how I didn’t figured that out. I guess I just ran with the idea that Sarah Scott was the narrator.
Anyways, after now reading the novel and discussing it in class, I have come to appreciate the novel better than I did at first. Although it is still not my favorite novel by any means, it did bring up some very interesting perspectives. Scott’s portrayal of the female utopia and the strong values of education and friendship were very intriguing. In many ways I wish our society today focused more on strong, deep friendships and well-rounded educations. I wish more people possessed the desire for knowledge that many of the women and male instructors in the novel did. Although one problem I had was that the women were never said to be educated in science, math, or other academic studies. They were mainly educated in arts such as reading, playing instruments, and crafts. It was almost as if women were seen to be incapable of more academic knowledge.
It also seemed odd to me that in a novel written to portray a female utopia, that so many of the girls grew up without a mother figure. They reunited with their mothers later in their lives, but for the entire time they were developing they lacked a parental female. It kind of made me wonder if there was an underlying message there that maybe in order for a female to mature and be virtuous, she mustn’t be influenced by another female. I don’t know I just thought it rather odd.
I also didn’t appreciate some of the religious aspects of the novel. I understand that the exceedingly virtuous females were presented in accordance with the utopian ideals of the novel, but I didn’t feel like their characters were real. They reminded me so much of Christians that I have met that are completely fake. As I said in class, I just couldn’t help but think of most of the females in this novel being like the Stepford Wives. They just tried to be so perfect but it seemed like it was all for the love of being virtuous rather than for God. As many of you have already brought up, I think I would really like to come back to this novel in a few more years and get a different perspective on it.
After our discussion in class on Tuesday, I started thinking more about Millenium Hall and the "elitist" views these women had about God and religion. You would think that since all of these women came to understand God without seeking this education directly, they would understand that often it is better to make such important discoveries on your own. I guess what I'm trying to say is that figuring something out on your own is better than having someone teach or (or worse, having it forced on you). Anyway, the women of Millenium Hall might be considered elitist in that they considered themselves the possessors of knowledge that others did not have, and they were better than these other people because of this difference. However, most elites generally don't care to share the thing (whatever it is) that sets them apart from the whole. In the case of the women of Millenium Hall, the opposite is true.
As many of you have noted, this book began a bit dry. I haven't read texts from this time period in a few years, so I am afraid I may have some comprehension errors-so bear with me.
I agree with mysticalli88 idea of a female centered utopian society. I also agree with Alice's statement that "It’s interesting that, although the hall is woman-centered, its inhabitants don’t seem to feel any aversion for men, and the travelers are made extremely welcome."
Although these women agree to live by certain rules, they do anything but shun men and as a result, various men, especially Lamont, are "saved" by their morals and their living by examples. Lamont changes from "an infidel" to telling our narrator "that their religion must be the true one" (55; 248).
I also find it interesting that the ending of the novel encourages the reader to go out and create a society similar to this. "I shall think myself fortunate in communicating it" (249). This mirrors the Christian ideology of missionaries who view their sole purpose is to being salvation to others.
This ending makes me uneasy-though I cannot explain why. I know that each of the characters in the novel have overcome hardships and have found peace and salvation through religion. But the fact that these women model through example provides genuine virtue (though I agree that all people have faults). Again, I can't explain why, but the ending doesn't seem to fit for me.
Most of the women in this book have lost their mothers and/or dear caretaker and have suffered great poverty as a result of inheritance and lack thereof. Since each woman is destined to be poor at one time or another, it shows the lack of options for women at this time period and also the kindness of strangers and acquaintences. -jill
I found the book tedious to read, the characters unbelievable, and the plots contrived. I also had some problems with the philosophies of the author particularly regarding religion and economics.
By relegating so much of the action to the workings of divine providence, I felt that the author was actually undermining the idea of the capability of women to overcome adversity and work toward control of their own lives.
Because I am pragmatic by nature, I had a lot of difficulty understanding the economics of their society. Although some of their entrepreneurial projects were spoken of briefly in the discussions with the cousin, Mrs. Maynard, there was a better discussion of money management and capitalistic enterprise in Mrs. Trentham's story.
In spite of this discussion, I felt that the ladies were on their way to spending their capital and that they would eventually be left with no money to put into their investments to sustain their way of life.
Jeana
After the class discussion today, I became more charitable toward the author's accomplishment in writing MH. I think it is difficult to imagine a time we have not lived in, and Sara Scott did a commendable job of visualizing an ideal world based on Christian values sustained by women of like minds.
However, she was not able to overcome the limitations of her own education and class in society to imagine a society that does not have a common religion as its standard and whose classes are not dependent on heredity.
Although I thought the book terribly naive in some ways, her ideas were probably original and thought-provoking in her era.
I still think they ended up in financial ruin!
Reading the above comments I saw where someone (and I forget who) said that a life with all female companionship would be incomplete (because there are no men). I think I agree with that statement. I wouldn't necessarily use the word 'incomplete' to describe their situation or any single woman's situation. Obviously a life without a mate is certainly possible and fulfilling. I don't think the previous blogger meant to imply anything offensive or sexist though.
That said, I do think there is a lot to be said about male/female relationships. Women can benefit from the presence of men just as men can benefit from women. I think we each bring something different to the table.
It is hard for me to imagine living my life with only women because I have always been around men- and I enjoy men! Of course, I am certain I wouldn't enjoy the men in Millenium Hall because they are just awful. But that makes me wonder why Sarah Scott would write such awful male characters. Was it only to give a reason why these women ended up in MH or is it because she is a 'man-hater'?
So while MH may SEEM like a nice idea, I know I would hate it. I enjoy male and female companionship. And of course there are areas of women's lives (especially heterosexual women) where men can be of service...I mean c'mon, there is a lot to be said of sex.
Maybe Sarah Scott's husband wasn't good in bed?
Ha!
-Elizabeth Bowman Phelps
I got a lot of enjoyment out of reading the last comment (EBP), and she certainly brought up some good points. And while I don't want a man for sex, I'm certainly not "against" them and there are several whose company I really enjoy. I don't think it would be particularly difficult for me to live in an all-female society, but I recognize that something like that is NOT for everyone!
I can’t say that Millenium Hall is one of my favorite novels. In fact, it isn’t even close. However, I understand why it was written and even how it could be related to women today. In a way, it made me think of ‘The Golden Girls.’ You had a mother figure, a practical thinker, a materialist, and although no one really reminded me of Rose I’m sure they all had their “ditzy” moments.
I agree with Elizabeth when talking about male/female companionship, it’s a nice thing to have – sometimes. Other times, you wonder if you wouldn’t just be better off without them completely.
heehee - The Golden Girls; I hadn't thought of that one! And as for the "Rose" element, well, Rose was always doing volunteer/charity work . . .
This was not my first time reading this book (more like my fourth or fifth). The first time I read it I did not like it. I thought Austen's writing was indirect and "fluffy". The second time I read it, I became more involved with the characters and the reasons for Austin's subtlety of writing. I became particularly drawn to Darcy. The first three quarters of the novel lead us to dislike Darcy extremely, and I always thought this was little unfair. To me he seemed like a very underrepresented character, with a lot of negativity directed toward him, and no real defense or even response from him.
While Mr. Wickham was a character we were supposed to like, I always disliked him. His story about Mr. Darcy was just a little too convenient, and I was suspicious of that and his motives. Who knows of the late Mr. Darcy really did intend to leave an inheritance to Mr. Wickham, or if Mr. Wickham was simply one of those people who enjoyed others' sympathy.
By the third time through this book, I really enjoyed it. I was able to read between the lines in a way, and look at the intricacy with which Austen wrote, enabling her to create a micro-universe inside her novel much like the time period it's set in.
-Ava
hmm. sorry. somehow this ended up on the millenium hall page instead of the pride and prejudice page. my apologies.
-ava
Post a Comment