The Wide, Wide World and Scribbling Women -The Toast

Skip to the article, or search this site

Home: The Toast

WWW_Home_BookThis post, and several others to appear in due course, are generously sponsored by a gentleman-scholar from County San Francisco, supportive of the production and assessment of nasty novels, dealing familiarly with gamblers, misandrists and flashy reprobates. Said gentleman-scholar has re-upped his donation, so keep pitching me, academics longing for freedom.

In the opening chapters of Susan Townsend Warner’s The Wide, Wide World—a runaway bestseller upon its 1850 publication—the following exchange takes place between our lachrymose young protagonist, Ellen Montgomery, and her dying mother (I’ve pared off a lot of excess verbiage; Hemingway Warner ain’t):

“Mamma, what does that mean, ‘He that loveth father or mother more than me, is not worthy of me’?”

“It means just what it says. If you love anybody or anything better than Jesus Christ, you cannot be one of his children.”

“But then, Mamma,” said Ellen, raising her head, “how can I be one of his children? I do love you a great deal better: how can I help it, Mamma?”

“You cannot help it, I know, my dear,” said Mrs. Montgomery, with a sigh….“But yet I know that the Lord Jesus is far, far more worthy of your affection than I am; and if your heart were not hardened by sin, you would see him so.”

[…] “Mamma,” said Ellen, after a little, again raising her head, and looking her mother full in the face, as if willing to apply the severest test to this hard doctrine, and speaking with an indescribable expression, “do you love him better than you do me?”

[…] Mrs. Montgomery answered steadily, “I do, my daughter;” and, with a gush of tears, Ellen sank her head again upon her bosom. She had not more to say; her mouth was stopped for ever as to the right of the matter.

1Yes I know GAHHHHHHH. It is so, so tempting to simply end the essay right here, as it was to chuck the book clear across the room upon reading this passage. But in the latter case, I read it on a Nook (free Project Gutenberg epub, woooo), and I was at the time in Serious Research Mode for a currently-languishing historical romance set during the California Gold Rush, and it seemed important to read the same novels my heroine would likely have read. (Fun fact: Jo reads it in Little Women; Alcott mentions her crying as she does so, and it’s my headcanon that those were tears of rage.) So I persisted, through oceans of Ellen’s tears, through paper-thin villains who don’t love Jesus, through the eventual lesson that Ellen will only find happiness by deferring to God as personified by older men. I am really quite surprised I finished it, though my husband will attest that I yelled at the page regularly. Previous installments of this series have praised their subject, or at least found them interesting; I cannot in good conscience recommend that anyone read this book. Ever.

Here’s a brief summary: Ellen and her doomed, sainted mother fall on hard times when her attorney father loses a suit (shades of Warner’s own life: she spent her youth living comfortably in Manhattan until her father was ruined in the Panic of 1837, after which she and her sister Anna supported the family with their writing). Forced to take a job in Europe, Mr. Montgomery takes his ailing wife with him but places his daughter in the care of Miss Fortune Emerson, an aunt who runs a farm in the New England countryside. Aunt Fortune is less than pleased to have a meek city girl on her hands, and Ellen’s life becomes defined by chores she’s clueless about and periodic bouts of weeping and/or praying. Eventually she becomes acquainted with Alice Humphreys, a minister’s daughter who takes Ellen under her wing, constantly reinforcing the theme of submission to God’s will—God being conveniently embodied in Alice’s father and brother, John Humphreys. When Alice dies (of course she dies), she insists that Ellen become the daughter of the house, and Ellen joyously does so, taking over domestic duties for the male Humphreys while John becomes her mentor and spiritual advisor. Once she moves to Scotland to live with distant relatives, the Lindsays, she’s so successfully absorbed his worldview that she can withstand their less-conservative Christianity (they drink wine, and think it’s silly of her to spend hours every day reading her Bible). The ending is oddly abrupt—it’s obvious that Warner intends Ellen to marry John (even though she refers to him as her brother ew ew ew), but she never makes it explicit. We’re assured that she perfects her submissiveness, however:

coverThe seed so early sown in little Ellen’s mind, and so carefully tended by sundry hands, grew in the course of time to all the fair structure and comely perfection it had bid fair to reach; storms and winds that had visited it did but cause the root to take deeper hold; and at the point of its young maturity it happily fell again into those hands that had of all been most successful in its culture.

So there we have it, America’s first bestseller. Sigh. The impulse to simply attribute the book’s having gone through fourteen editions in two years to “Americans have always been idiots, I mean do you know how many copies of Fifty Shades of Grey I sold? LITERALLY THOUSANDS” is nigh irresistible. But that’s sloppy analysis. Didactic Christianity and the reinforcement of the patriarchy pervaded much of the writing of the period—this book, however, was wildly successful, the Republic’s most popular novel until it was eclipsed  Uncle Tom’s Cabin two years later. I think it’s rightly forgotten, but something must have resonated with the readers of the day, so I’ll make the attempt to suss out what that is.

It’s all the more important not to simply jettison The Wide, Wide World because then, as now, fiction was largely read by women, and in fact Warner’s success and publishers’ subsequent scrambling for the next mega-bestseller ushered in a decade where sentimental novels by women writers dominated the landscape. And then, as now, fiction read or written by women is often considered frivolous at best, dangerous at worst. Nathaniel Hawthorne charmingly remarked in an 1855 letter to his publisher, “America is now wholly given over to a damned mob of scribbling women, and I should have no chance of success while the public is occupied with their trash.” Because of this mainstream stance, female protagonists of novels almost never confess to reading them, and often dismiss them out of hand. Ellen is no exception, assuring John Humphreys “I knew you did not like [novels], and I have taken good care to keep out of the way of them.” A strange tension for readers, to say the least, to be taken to task by a heroine for the act you’re in the midst of.

But it’s that disconnect, I think, that holds the key to the book’s effectiveness. The Wide, Wide World is not a realist novel; it is rather aspirational, even escapist. Ellen, her mother, and Alice are too good to be true, and I’d argue that contemporary readers (who, again, were mostly white, middle-class women) thought this too, or at least felt it on an unconscious level. In these paragons of female virtue, women saw themselves reflected imperfectly, as they were Supposed to Be; through Ellen’s “fair structure and comely perfection,” they could vicariously experience feminine success of a kind. It must have been immensely satisfying.

Anna Andersen has realized 100% of her teensy income results from writing, so she can safely refer to herself as a freelance writer. Wed to a rural mail carrier who regularly helps turtles across the street, she reads books, cuddles cats, and pens Destiel fanfiction in her Kansas hometown.

Add a comment

Comments (28)

Loading... Logging you in...
  • Logged in as
Fun fact: Jo reads it in Little Women; Alcott mentions her crying as she does so, and it’s my headcanon that those were tears of rage.
Isn't Jo reading it when Beth goes to visit the Hummels and gets ill? I feel we can blame this book for Beth's eventual demise.
3 replies · active 557 weeks ago
This book is a murderer
I don't know, because at that point I put the book in the freezer.
Oh I couldn't agree with you more! After reading your summary I can definitely see a correlation between Jo reading this book and Beth falling fatally ill.
I always read Hawthorne's comment with a sense of glee. You go ahead and rage ineffectually at the success of all those lady authors who were far outselling you, Hawthorne. I'm sure they're crying into their dollars.
3 replies · active 559 weeks ago
I'm sure E.L. James feels the same about Franzen. :D
I just have to leave this here (sorry, don't know how to embed links) https://twitter.com/TriciaLockwood/status/4869301...
Oh hey, this book! I worked as a research assistant to a professor who was writing a book on this and several other novels of the same period, and I'd never even heard of this before. I got a very skewed impression of what the hell it was about.
"God being conveniently embodied in Alice’s father and brother, John Humphreys." I had to read this several times before I realized that Alice's father and brother are not, in fact, the same person, and the book is not a horrifying 19th century Christian edition of Flowers in the Attic.
2 replies · active 559 weeks ago
Oops, that could've been worded better.
A WIDE, WIDE WORLD POST! YES! I read a bunch of "instructive literature" books, as my professor called them, for a class in college and hate/loved them so. Might have to do an 18-years-later revisit!
5 replies · active 559 weeks ago
I hear that Jane Austen as a kid hate/loved them too. You might have heard this too, but for reasons best known to Jane Austen and her siblings, they were obsessed with "A History of Sir Charles Grandison," which is an absolutely massive, humorless novel with a morally flawless gentleman hero as its protagonist. They thought it was hilarious and reread it constantly and wrote parodies of it and made references to it all the time, apparently.
I did not know that! I LOVE IT and am now Googling wildly. First up: a lecture called “Why on Earth Would Sir Charles Grandison Be Jane Austen’s ‘Favorite’ Novel?” YES! Thank you!
I'm so happy somebody else has read this! I'm still shocked I read the whole thing. On my honeymoon, no less.
Best/worst honeymoon read ever?!
We also watched many, many reruns of The Mentalist and Pawn Stars. It was a strange and wonderful week.
Putting this on the list (with Pilgrim's Progress) of "Books From Little Women That I Do Not Actually Want To Read."
1 reply · active 557 weeks ago
Oh my goodness, I had to read Pilgrim's Progress for a class! My teacher hated this story so much that she brought in a graduate student anxious for teaching experience to give the lecture. Never again!!
I love this series and never want it to end. It is relevant to all my interests. Thank you, oh worthy Gentleman Scholar!
If you get the Feminist Press edition of the novel from the 1980s (the one with the introduction by Jane Tompkins) it includes the unpublished final chapter in which Ellen comes back to New England married to John Humphreys. Apparently Warner sent the chapter to her publishers after they'd set the rest of the type and they decided to just leave it out.
1 reply · active 559 weeks ago
INTERESTING! I'll have to search that out, for full completist fury.
Charlotte Sometimes's avatar

Charlotte Sometimes · 559 weeks ago

Yes! Thank you! I've been hoping someone would write about this awesomely terrible book since this series started.

(And if there were any Australian Toasties who wanted to write about Seven Little Australians or the Billabong books that would be a Very Good Thing. *hint hint*)
2 replies · active 559 weeks ago
Oh man, I loved/hated Seven Little Australians so much as a kid. I might have to reread it now.
Charlotte Sometimes's avatar

Charlotte Sometimes · 559 weeks ago

Worth a reread I would say. I kind of hate it more now, but find it less rage-inducing than a lot of children's classics I've reread as an adult (Anne of Green Gables, Daddy-Long-Legs, anything by Louisa May Alcott).
Once again I appreciate Jane Austen-- Northanger Abbey, in addition to being by far her snarkiest book, also has this great passage near the beginning:

"Alas! If the heroine of one novel be not patronized by the heroine of another, from whom can she expect protection and regard? I cannot approve of it. Let us leave it to the reviewers to abuse such effusions of fancy at their leisure, and over every new novel to talk in threadbare strains of the trash with which the press now groans. Let us not desert one another; we are an injured body."
I thought Charlotte Temple was widely regarded as the first American bestseller. Does it not count because the first edition was published in England?

(Sorry, not much else to comment on with regard to The Wide, Wide World. I'm happily unfamiliar with the genre and hope to never be forced to read any of it. Well, any more - I already forced myself through the first Elsie Dinsmore one and it was horrible. Also the ones repackaged as classics for children when I was little.)

Post a new comment

Comments by

Skip to the top of the page, search this site, or read the article again