Gone with the Wind by Margaret Mitchell (Part III of the review)

 Part I here and Part II here. 

Okay, so let's get real about some of the criticisms of the book. I've tried to remain mostly spoiler free in these reviews. but I'm going to talk about plot points in this post. 

There are a number of legitimate criticisms of the book. The first is obviously its portrayal of black people, frequently describing them as non-human, stupid, or incapable. There are lines in the book about how all the slaves at Tara (Scarlett's family plantation) and Twelve Oakes (Ashley's family plantation) were happy. The use of the n-word abounds. The treatment of Prissy and Mammy, even after they were freed, is abhorrent. 

I think this is all fair criticism. I also think it's an important artifact of its time. I am not dismissing the racism of the book. This was how Mitchell was writing about the 1860s in the 1930s. The novel is Scarlett's perspective and Scarlett is a very imperfect character and only really concerned herself with things for her own comfort and perspective. To her, all the stereotypes of black people may have seemed true, although how she could think black people were stupid when Mammy was in her life is puzzling. But that's the point, isn't it? Scarlett is not reflective about other people at all. She even admits in the end chapters that she never understood Rhett or Ashley. If she never stopped to really think about the most important men in her life, why would she bother to think about things like slavery? Scarlett literally thought the Civil War was not a big deal at the beginning of the novel. 

So, yes, there's racism. I think it's important to read books that show us that side of American history. It's important to hear and see it and think about how things are different and how things are the same. If you are a sensitive reader, this might not be the book for you. 

Another big criticism is the glorification of white supremacy and the romanticism of the Confederacy. It's not a Confederate soldier who nearly rapes Scarlett - it's a Yankee. It's not the Confederate soldiers who use Tara as a way station after the war that causes such money issues for Scarlett - it's the Yankees. The Confederates may have lost the war, but they were in the right.

In the context of the book, though, of course that's what Scarlett thought. She doesn't read books, she doesn't care about current events, and she's solely influenced by the people around her. If they all think this, why wouldn't she? Why would anyone expect any different? Also, as J pointed out in a comment on this post, Scarlett sees through some of it. She thinks the war is wrong, people are dying for principles, and that the cause is not worth the effects of the war on everyone from soldiers to civilians. 

For people who say this is Confederate propaganda, I have to say that they must be reading a different book than I am. It actually seems like an anti-war book to me full stop. There is definitely a feeling of romanticizing the plantation life in the antebellum period, particularly early on in the novel, but if you read the entire book and still feel that way, that says more about you and your own values than it does about the words in the book, full of descriptions of the terrible impacts of war on soldiers and civilians alike, property destruction, and ruin of community and that's before you get into the chaos and fear of the post-war period. 

Okay, let's move on to the Ku Klux Klan. Scarlett is vehemently against the organization because she thinks it's unnecessarily dangerous. She thinks that KKK members are fools. Her second husband kept his membership a secret from her (as did Melanie, Ashley, and India) because he knew she wouldn't approve. I actually read the book as vehemently anti-KKK and was surprised to see that  a criticism of the book was that it supported the KKK. Sure, Scarlett wasn't against it because she cared about black people, but she wasn't for it. I actually think it's to the book's credit that it addressed the KKK in this way. It would have read like Mitchell was nervous to address it head on if she'd left it out.

Yes, Mitchell was writing to encourage people to feel sympathy for the Confederacy. That still has impacts today. But if you read the book, as a truly thinking person, while you may feel badly for some of the characters, they're also all pretty terrible, so I didn't feel terrible for any of them. *shrug* Your mileage may vary on that. 

I feel a bit that I am going to come off as a Confederate sympathizer with this review. I am not. I don't actually think the book makes it seem like the Confederates were the good guys. I think a lot of the strongest defenders of slavery come from characters were are absolute idiots - in Chapter 57, Scarlett and Ashley have a quarrel over using convict labor at the sawmill and this happens:

“I’m not afraid of what people say as long as I am right. And I have never felt that convict labor was right.” [This is Ashley.]
“But why — ”  [This is Scarlett.]
“I can’t make money from the enforced labor and misery of others.”
“But you owned slaves!”
“They weren’t miserable..."

Scarlett is a selfish insufferable human who thinks using convict labor is better than using freed slaves for stereotypical reasons and Ashley says his slaves weren't miserable. But Ashley's an idiot. He is a member of the KKK. I don't actually read this passage as saying slavery was good. *shrug* It's all in your lens, I guess. (I do read it as convict labor is okay, which is wrong on another level, but Scarlett is portrayed as willing to do just about anything to make money, so I take that with a grain of salt.)

Let's talk about Margaret Mitchell. She was born in 1900, decades after the end of the Civil War. She was a journalist and Gone with the Wind is her one and only novel. Imagine writing ONE book and it's THIS ONE. Her grandfathers were both in the Confederate Army and didn't learn that the Confederates didn't win the Civil War until she was ten. She heard stories about the Civil War from family members growing up. One of her mentors was Thomas Dixon, Jr., a charming (/s) man who supported eugenics and the Lost Cause of the Confederacy. I've no doubt that Margaret Mitchell would not be a good hang and that she did intend for this book to be read as indeed romanticizing the Confederate cause. But the author's intention is not always how the reader interprets and that's the case for me while I was reading this book. 

Anyway. This book is a masterpiece. It raises so many interesting questions (most especially how does Mitchell write characters who are so terrible and yet so compelling) on so many topics and I find it remarkable, especially considering that it was a debut novel. Feel free to come at me in the comments. What do I have wrong here?