Gaskell explores the joy and pain of mismatched and thwarted love.

Sylvia's Lovers is my second Elizabeth Gaskell and although I must say I enjoyed North and South more than this, there is something that makes me sure that the book and the characters in it will haunt me for a while. Taking a place in seaside town of England in 1790s, this is a story about Sylvia Robson, who is caught between two very different but striking men. It is a powerful and sad book; it almost felt like reading a Greek tragedy taking a place in Victorian era. I thoroughly enjoyed the book and think that Gaskell is really skilled at building up interesting characters that both annoy and break your heart.

3.5 stars.

Definitely not Gaskell's best work, but still a pretty compelling story. Set during the Napoleonic Wars, this is a book that basically revolves around a love triangle that gets extra complicated when one corner of the love triangle gets pressganged. His romantic rival witnesses this and doesn't say anything to their mutual love interest.

Here's the thing though: This entire story revolves around Charley NOT ONCE sending word. Like, 18 months pass between Charley being pressganged and Sylvia marrying Philip. And then another 18 months pass between their wedding and Charley miraculously returning from the "dead". THREE STINKING YEARS.

Admittedly, he's meant to have been in a French prison for part of that. But DUDE. WRITE A FUCKING LETTER. Don't just reappear after three years away and expect a sixteen year old girl to have waited THREE FREAKING YEARS for you without having heard a single word. I mean, clearly the whole point is to set Philip up as the villain. But it's hard to see Charley as the romantic hero of the piece when he's so clearly a bit of a dick.

Essentially, I could turn this into a stereotypical YA book in which a teenage girl falls for a mysterious bad boy while ignoring the sweet, adorable boy next door. She and the sweet, adorable boy next door end up together, but she never stops pining for the mysterious bad boy.

Look, despite all of that, I actually did enjoy this one. The language took me a little while to get my head around - lots of Northern style speech, but also a lot of "thou"s and "thine"s because some of the characters are Quakers. There was a lot less in it about whaling than I anticipated, which was a pleasant surprise, and though the ending was abrupt, it did actually manage to give me feels. So. There's that.

Essentially, I love Gaskell's storytelling a lot, particularly her ability to tell working class stories within a larger historical narrative. Not her best, but still pretty good.

(Edit: After some thought, I'm giving this a tentative 4.)

Maybe 3.5 stars? But something tells me that I may drop this rating to 3 stars down the line...or up it to 4. I think it's because of Philip Hepburn that I'd rather give this novel a 4 star rating as I enjoyed reading about him.

Firstly, what a bad title. It's very off-putting. And it should have just been named Philip by Elizabeth Gaskell.

As for the story, I was so immersed in it. Even when, somewhere in the middle, it did become a bit of a drag, the novel sensed that the pace had to be picked up, and so it did. But while reading it, despite my liking for the story, I tried to pinpoint why I'd not be convinced on giving this 5 stars. And I think it had to do with the core conflict of the novel. Although the plot was engaging and moving,

the conflict of Philip trying to win over Sylvia and Kinraid coming in the way or something coming in the way, lingered from start to end in such a stagnant fashion. Yes, the conflict developed, but its essence didn't alter and felt so drawn out that it was becoming wearisome. Especially to look at it from Philip's view - Gaskell didn't give the guy a break!

That's why I honestly think the ending ruins it for me and is why I'm even hesitant about giving this at least 4 stars. It wasn't the right solution/ending for such a worn-out conflict. Should have just let Philip live.

I found this review on Wiki which I totally agree with: 'John McVeagh has pointed to a "sudden lapse into melodrama" which "reduces and cheapens an interesting story'.

Gaskell's writing
This was my first Gaskell novel and I do enjoy her writing. Although this particular book had strong dialect which took me sometime to get used to, Gaskell's writing in of itself is very accessible to understand. However, in comparison to her contemporaries, I don't think her characterisation or writing is as brilliant. Not to say her characterisation is poor or anything - far from it - but speaking in terms of craft alone, her characters aren't as multi-dimensional or nuanced as, for example, Eliot's or Hardy's.

This is not at all a negative from Gaskell's novel but only an observation. I don't depend on extremely nuanced characters to like the story (because hello Mill on the Floss - such intricate characters for a book I'd rather throw in the fire), but just a side note from a writing perspective on differences in masterful characterisation. It's an individual element I appreciate on its own. The only character that would be the exception is Philip here. To an extent though. He wasn't multifaceted but he was thoroughly fleshed-out; we got inside his head and psyche. I really like him as a character!

I hated how Sylvia treated him after their marriage.

Edit: I realise that, although I say Philip was fleshed out and we got inside his head, that did peter out in the last quarter of the novel. I read somewhere that some felt the story rushed in the end, and it does ring true when I remember that Philip’s thoughts weren’t as elaborate towards the end. What shame.