Consistently rated as American’s favorite book second only to the Bible, Gone with the Wind has undeniably shaped America’s culture and helped serialize the romantic ethos of ‘The South’. Written in 1936 it was an instant hit, selling more than a million copies before being turned into arguably the first blockbuster film three years later. Gone with the Wind follows the life of Scarlett O’Hara for around 15 years observing the start of the civil war and the tumultuous reconstruction that followed. This book has often courted controversy and how could it not? This is a story of the south, by someone who loved the south. —-Main Characters—- Scarlett The epitome of a southern belle, except that her charms are only skin deep. A beautiful headstrong girl who has always been the center of attention, surrounded by suitors and always pampered. As a main character I have never liked anyone less. The whole book is from her point of view which in the early part of the book is the same as being stuck inside a ditzy 17-year-old girl’s head. Scarlett isn’t stupid per se, but nothing abstract interests her, as such, much of the philosophy of the South is omitted from the book and instead is presented through motifs. Honestly this might be for the best, as because of this the book seldom gets bogged down in preaching for a way of life that we as a society have decidedly rejected. Scarlett may not be stupid in a classical sense, but she is clueless how to live life and to know what she really wants. In many ways she is the most believable of the main characters and while it is often not pleasant to be stuck in her head, I feel the same way about being stuck in my head sometimes.
Rhett Played by Clark Gable in the movie and there is no one else who could have played him. The description of Rhett in the book matches Clark Gable to a ‘T’ down to his mustache. Me thinks this is no coincidence. It is hard not to love Rhett, he is never in society but always above. He is all the mythical ‘man of the world’ stereotypes rolled into one. He is wise in the ways of women, drink, gambling, politics, and as a cherry on top, drops well placed references to ancient Greek literature. A cynic that sees through the pretensions of society, but still has a heart of gold and a strong character. In short Scarlett may not have known what she wanted but Margaret Mitchell definitely did and now I think I do to.
Ashley Scarlett’s forbidden love interest, he is the focus of her attentions for most of the book, but is married. Ashley represents the last of the old guard and is the southern gentleman par excellence. Where Rhett’s cold pragmatism and cynicism allows him to adapt, Ashley’s character is set in stone. Once the south falls, he is a fish out of water, the last of a dying breed. He was an enlightened southern gentleman and was against the war, but still fought in it. Planned on releasing his slaves upon inheritance of the plantation, which never happened. His inflexible character spells his doom, for all his strong character he never seems to be able to do anything, as the world he was made for no longer exists.
Melanie Melanie is married to Ashley putting him off limits to Scarlett and herself at odds with her. Melanie is the friend we all wish we had, but personally never hope to be. Her character is incapable of seeing bad in people. She befriends Scarlett even though Scarlett hates her because she is married to Ashley. Melanie fails to see through Scarlett’s thin veneer of politeness and only assumes the best of her. Where it says to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves Melanie ignored the first part. That is not to say she was weak, as often times she was a bulwark against chaos, but she was unbelievably naïve. To me this is less attractive than Dostoyevsky’s idiot who always tells the truth because there is nothing in that formula that requires ignorance. The question still lingers, does it make for a better life to be naïve and trusting? Melanie would say yes.
—–The Good———- By the time you finish this book you feel older than when you started. The phrase ’tour de force’ is often applied to books and it fits here. A true epic with ambitious scope and wonderful character development. It is one of those books that seeps into your real life. You start to see things differently because of it. There are a few central themes in the book, the main one is resilience, but the one that most interested me is the question that it raises, most especially in our modern context and that is: What are we as twenty first century humans to make of the Southern Gentleman? The answer has been simple, you vilify. The southern gentleman is a fabrication, in reality they were ill-bred cruel vindictive hicks who would rape their slaves and beat them to death for overcooking breakfast. Is this true? Margaret Mitchell refuses to take this route. She clearly has a bias, make no mistake, but the South, with its people she portrays are a proud group of people with strong convictions and an unshakeable sense of honor. The southern gentleman according to her, is a sort of reincarnation of the knight, or samurai. He is an individual who would rather die than compromise. Is this true? The answer seems obvious, what Margaret Mitchell was writing was a form of propaganda. Why? Because it showed a clear good guy/ bad guy scenario where the north came in and burned Atlanta to the ground, pillaged and stole from the destitute survivors, while the South fought bravely to protect their ideals from despotic rulers. Since, this is true does it also mean that the modern conception of the Southern Gentleman as hick/ sadist is also propaganda? I think one valuable takeaway is that people are almost always fighting for and doing what they think is right. The good guy/ bad guy language is post processing. The second observation from this book is that the south has an undeniable romance that is nonexistent in the south. Was there something special about the opulence that was created off the backs of slave labor that created the romantic ethos? Why exactly was it there? It shows up in the antithesis to this work (Uncle Tom’s cabin) as well, so it seems hard to believe it was entirely fabricated. The south has the same charms that the old aristocracies had. This charm doesn’t seem to exist anymore. Why?
——–The Bad——– There were a few points in this book where I wondered if I would actually end up liking it at all. Most of these moments involved love triangles, soapy drama and cliché romance writing. I am not the best reviewer on that type of writing because it is not my cup of tea.
———The Ugly——— Slaves serve as a background detail in the book. It was remarkable how little they were mentioned. This itself could be interpreted as the oppressive class suppressing speech. That being said Mitchell did not mince words when they were mentioned. The slaves in GWTW were largely portrayed as happy simple creatures, one generation removed from the jungle. Children under the civilizing influence of their beneficent masters. As I said earlier this book falls into the “Anti-Uncle Tom’s Cabin” category. There is actually a “reverse” underground railroad story where a slave is taken up north and “freed”, this slave gets so tired of his freedom that he sneaks back down south to be reunited with his master. I feel like there could be some parallels made between existentialism and established dogma, but I digress. Ashley, after the war, joins the Klu Klux Clan which is portrayed as a group of patriotic southerners fighting against corrupt carpet baggers. Rhett murders a black man for speaking “uppity” to a white woman and it is written off as “what else was a southern man to do?”. Pretty much every “decent” slave in this book was similar to the role Samuel Jackson played in Django. Mitchell would have called him a house n****r the highest station for a black person in the south. The main black character in the book is known as Mammy. We never learn anymore about her personally, other than she is fiercely loyal to her mistress (again I note would anyone protest not knowing Geeve’s full back story?). In the movie Clark Gable became close friends with the actress playing Mammy. She was not invited to the premiere because at the time theatres in Atlanta were segregated, this enraged Clark Gable who threatened to not go to the premiere if she wasn’t invited. Furthermore, she went on to win an Oscar for the role but was not allowed to attend the awards dinner. All that on top of the fact that she was hated by a lot of black people for playing the role at all.
——-Conclusion———- This book has its controversy, but I personally feel like it deserves the recognition it received. By the end of the book, I found myself deeply invested in all the characters. It also made me see the south in a new light, not as an institution worth rebuilding, but as something more than how it is typically portrayed in our modern context.