annotated bibliography

Carse, Wendy K. “A Penchant for Narrative: Mary Smith in Elizabeth Gaskell’s Cranford.” The Journal of Narrative Technique 20.3 (Fall 1990): 318-330. Web. 14 Apr 2012.

Critics have disagreed about the narrator of Mary Smith; is she the “generic narrator,” “the voice of Cranford,” or is her function more complex (Carse 318)? Carse suggests that because Mary involves herself and is involved by the Cranford ladies, she is able to find interesting information and move the plot (323), but also “judge, and articulate the value of Cranford” (328).

Croskery, Margaret Case. “Mothers Without Children, Unity Without Plot: Cranford’s Radical Charm.” Nineteenth-Century Literature 52.2 (Sept 1997): 198-220. Web. 14 Apr 2012.

Croskery makes the case that representation of sympathy in writing cannot follow the obvious narrative, and she also represents the contradictory views of modern criticism; if Cranford has no plot, “how does it captivate the reader” (201)? Croskery claims that Gaskell (in the guise of the narrator, Mary Smith) solves the problem by “consistently, humorously, energetically, and creatively elud[ing] traditional linear plot” and reforming the city of Cranford through sympathy (205, 220).

Dodsworth, Martin. “Women without Men at Cranford.” Essays in Criticism 13 (1963): 132-145. Print.

With this essay that became controversial among literary critics, Dodsworth changes the scholarly attitude toward and criticism of Cranford. Before the publication of this essay, critics assert that “the book has no structure” and is based on character (Dodsworth 132). Dodsworth contends, however, that “the force of the novel lies in plot” and the lack of unity in plot evidences Gaskell’s failure (133, 137). Many, including Croskery, Fowler, and Wolfe on this list, have responded to this essay with opinions on Dodsworth’s claim.

Dolin, Tim. “Cranford and the Victorian Collection.” Victorian Studies 36.2 (Winter 1993): 179-206. Web. 14 Apr 2012.

Dolin compares Cranford to the Crystal Palace at the Great Exhibition, two collections of Victorian “things,” and claims that all collections are distinguishable by gender, for example, women’s collections were showcased in the home. He also attributes the “narrative discontinuity” to a deliberate choice of creating a representative collection (186, 193).

Fowler, Rowena. “Cow in Grey Flannel or Lion Couchant?” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 24.4 (Autumn 1984): 717-729. Web. 14 Apr 2012.

In her article, Fowler asserts that contrary to critics like Dodsworth and Wolfe, the women of Cranford are not defeated by their singleness or their lost hopes. Although the characters in Cranford are silly old ladies, they are also “the winners, the survivors, the heroines” (728).

Hopkins, Annette Brown. “Knutsford Immortalized and Other Matters.” Elizabeth Gaskell: Her Life and Work. New York: Octagon Books, 1971. 102-118. Print.

This book, originally published in 1952, shows the mindset of readers before the 1960s when Dodsworth’s article “Women without Men in Cranford” appeared. Though Hopkins writes subjectively, with phrases such as “[Gaskell] could not have been otherwise than delighted with… the sketches by Hugh Thomson” (103), she includes many interesting and personal facts regarding Mrs. Gaskell and the publication and writing of Cranford; multiple authors on this list use her work to reference letters from Dickens to Gaskell.

Louttit, Chris. “Cranford, Popular Culture, and the Politics of Adapting the Victorian Novel for Television.” Adaptation 2.1 (2009): 34-48. Web. 14 Apr 2012.

In describing the recent uprising of Victorian novels readapted for the television screen, Louttit claims that Cranford and other BBC series such as Bleak House have, in taking artistic liberties that some criticize, created a genre. Though critics of these series argue that in adapting texts, original conventions are “radically alter[ed],” Louttit retorts that these alterations are necessary to form to popular culture and are actually much less radical than one might expect within a culture overpowered by sexuality (Louttit 36) 

Meir, Natalie Kapetanios. “’Household Forms and Ceremonies’: Narrating Routines in Elizabeth Gaskell.” Studies in the Novel 38.1 (Spring 2006): 1-14. Web. 14 Apr 2012.

Meir compares Cranford to the popular domestic manuals for Victorian women and claims that the novel’s organization is based on “eating rituals” and the plot focuses on struggles “with social conventions (1). Although Gaskell satirizes Victorian conventions through the over-exaggerated concerns of the Cranford ladies, Meir claims that Gaskell is actually normalizing specific social behaviors (2).

Recchio, Thomas. Elizabeth Gaskell’s Cranford: A Publishing History. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate Publishing Group, 2009. Ebrary.com. Web. 14 Apr 2012. 

Recchio details the first appearance of Cranford in Charles Dickens’ Household Words, the evolution of illustrations included in its many editions, as well as its’ subsequent adaptations for the schoolroom, the stage, television, and even audiobook.

Reddy, Maureen T. “Elizabeth Cleghorn Gaskell (29 September 1810-12 November 1865).” British Short-Fiction Writers, 1800-1880. Ed. John R. Greenfield. Dictionary of Literary Biography Vol. 159. Detroit: Gale Research, 1996. 122-133. Web. 14 Apr 2012.

This biography briefly summarizes Gaskell’s parentless childhood and conventional married life with William Gaskell, a Unitarian minister, with whom she had four daughters and one son. Reddy notes that Gaskell’s most productive literary years coincided with her busiest years as a mother and describes her obsession with the roles of women. Gaskell’s relationships with Charles Dickens, George Smith, and Charlotte Bronte are illustrated and three of her short stories are summarized.

Wolfe, Patricia A. “Structure and Movement in Cranford.” Nineteenth-Century Fiction. 23.2 (Sept 1968): 161-176. Web. 14 Apr 2012.

Wolfe agrees with Dodsworth’s claim that there is a movement from rejection to acceptance of male figures in Cranford; however, the book’s “structure and movement are dependent on the heroine’s psychological make-up” and the women are not defeated (162). She separates the novel into sections dominated by the psychological states, specifically shown by reactions to events, of first Deborah and then Matty Jenkyns.