Lucy,
"Osborne is not a man of action; he seems to suffer from apathy and inaction and prefers to maintain the status quo and not upset his father. People like this delay the inevitable, which is what Mrs. Gaskell is doing to maintain the interest of the reader.
I am a bit confused with Osborne's character, he took immediate action to find Aimee and marry her, as Gaskell said,
"no moss grew under his feet." Yet, he comes home after he has stashed his young orphan, very innocent, wife, in a town where no one would know the name, Hamley of Hamley's Hall, and he dallies around the house acting like he is not married at all. He knows his father has little to no money left, because of him spending it for the more expensive decorations and furnishings for Aimee's hideout cottage, when she would have been very comfortable and happy with simple things, so why hang around at all, as miserable as it is making everyone? (I ask rhetorically) Yes, I can see he would want to give Aimee nice things, but it was not his money to squander. He may not want to upset his father, but indeed he has done just that. He has not maintained the status quo, he has married outside his region, religion and status. Until the squire dies, I don't see Aimee coming to Hamley Hall. And if and when the squire does die, can Aimee assume the position of the lady of Hamley Hall, and be acceptable in this very snotty and prejudice town? I seriously think not. I can almost see Osborne taking what ever inheritance he does get and leaving to live in France with Aimee. Would he not be there now, if he could afford it? Did he not come home, only because he was sent for, because his mother was dying?
The squire senses, Osborne has set his own future in motion, on the notion the squire will die, and he will have his money. This seems to be what has hurt the squire the most. So very sad.
Jonathon, I agree, the squire is pretty much taking account of his life now and realizes he does not fit in with the new and changing lifestyles. He is longing to be with Mrs. Hamley. The fight is out of him, now that he has lost his wife, his estate's value, his money, his relationship with Osborne, and feels his son is just waiting around for him to die.
Lucy, Yes, the Kardashians are a good comparison to the people of the Towers.
Sad to admit, I am a Kardashian junkie.
I also see Clare as the self centered, egotistical character as you. But....I think there is more to her not wanting Molly too close to Lady Harriet. There seems to be a secret that Clare, Cynthia, Lady Harriet and Preston all have, and Molly is a threat to finding out what is it. Clare does not want her anywhere near Lady Harriet, because we can all see Harriet just speaks her mind, with no care, and this is really making Clare crazy, as in seeing red as a bull!
JoanP,. Good point, is Gaskell preparing the readers for a change, and taking us into a more liberal, modern time for England?
Gaskell seems to contradict her very self, with almost every character in the book. A bit confusing, I might say. No one is who they seem to be. Just when I think I have a fix on one character, something changes, and blows it all out of perspective. Where the first part of the book was fun and humorous, this second part has been very sad, frustrating and mysterious. For a Duchess to dress as a simple waif, coming to a ball, is unthinkable. She is a Duchess, and has an image to keep up. This is fodder for gossip, which indeed the townspeople are doing. Ughhh....What was the purpose of the entire lateness to the ball, and the Duchess's attire? It was so inappropriate and lacking in etiquette. Gaskell has us coming and going.......with no sense or sensibility. Now, that sure was a Freudian slip of the tongue, as in seeing her much like Jane Austen.
Mamma Mia I am so confused with these past chapters.
