To what extent can Marian be seen as an unsympathetic character?

innocence attached to the image of the virgin, depicts a more sympathetic side to Marian. Leo also uses imagery of fairytales, ‘Maid Marian of the Greenwood’, and ‘a fairy princess’ paralleling Marian to something that is pure and innocent, almost portraying her as a heroine. However, it could also be argued these terms illustrate the falseness of her heroic side, just as the fairytales are fiction. Marian exploits her privileged financial position and Leo’s naivety to her advantage, putting Leo in a difficult position. Marian’s god-like generosity begins to seem merely a form of bribery to secure Leo’s messenger services. She buys him a new outfit, with the pretence of friendship and a genuine liking; however, there are deeper, darker reasons for her kindness. Wanting to meet Ted in Norwich, and as a means to buy Leo’s loyalty, as later on when Marian becomes cross with Leo because he refuses to take any more messages she says “We took you into our home, and this is how you repay us!” The suit is also a symbolic mockery on Marian’s part, the ‘Lincoln green’ of the suit, which Leo believed represented Robin Hood, making him strong and brave, was really meant to symbolise naivety, Marcus reveals the true meaning ‘It is your true colour, Marian said so.’ Leo realises ‘it had been a subtle insult meant to make me look a fool.’ This portrays Marian’s unsympathetic side, making a joke at the expense of a young boy’s feelings. However, some may argue Marcus could be lying to Leo, as a means to emotionally wound him in their verbal war. Leo is also witness to Marian’s wrath. He sees both the sides to her when he refuses to take her messages, the sweet-natured, soft speaking ‘fairy princess’ illusion is shattered when she spitefully spits ‘I won’t speak to you again!’ and ‘she almost struck out at me in her fury.’ Leo crumbles under her transformation and takes the message regardless of his moral sense of duty. Marian’s insensitivity has reduced Leo to tears, his loss of Marian’s friendship ‘cut even deeper than her cruel words.’ Whilst Leo is upset, he is now full of realisation ‘everything she had done for me had been done with an ulterior motive.’ He begins to see clearly the deception he has been a central part to. ‘Marian’s duplicity kept pricking at me, each with its separate sting.’ Whilst on the surface Marian’s attempts to secure Leo’s attention and spend time with him appear as acts of friendship and mutual appreciation, it transpires her actions have ulterior motives. Excusing him from family activities on the pretence they would bore him and inviting him to stay at Brandham for another week, when really all she requires is his messenger services. Leo now recognises how he has been a pawn in Marian’s grand scheme, her Jeckyll and Hyde syndrome leaves Leo with an unnerving feeling that he doesn’t really know her at all. Marian exploits Leo’s fear and misguided sense of duty to continue taking their messages, forcing him to compromise his own moral beliefs for her. His moral dilemma and extreme unhappiness at Brandham is highlighted in his letter to his mother, ‘it’s wrong, very wrong’. Hartley portrays Marian as being indifferent to Leo’s moral compromise. She is highly aware of Leo’s awkwardness in the situation, yet only sees as far as her own selfish wants and insists upon his help. When Leo wavers in his loyalty to her Marian verbally attacks him, ‘you’re not sorry in the least. You couldn’t care if I dropped dead in front of you.’ Marian’s manipulation has sunk to new depths, critics argue her emotional blackmail of a child adds weight to the argument that Marian’s unsympathetic trait is prevalent throughout the novel. Leo is even uncertain if she loves her own mother, ‘Did Marian love her, That I could not tell.’ If Marian can appear unloving towards her own mother, it speaks volumes about her character. Marian makes reference to her mother in the epilogue, ‘mother had to go away’, her casual and flippant tone makes it out as something quite insignificant. The truth that her mother was committed to a mental institution, because of the discovery of Marian’s affair does not seem to bother her in any way. Hartley presents Marian’s feelings towards Ted with similar ambiguity. Some critics have argued it was an affair of lust not love. Her harsh statements about Ted’s demeanour after his tragic death, ‘Ted was as weak as water’ support this argument. However, others have adopted the perspective that there was real emotional attachment, reflected in her reaction that Ted might be going to war, ‘she stares ‘stupefied’ and full of ‘astonishment’, conveying the idea that her feelings for Ted were genuine. Alternatively her response towards Trimingham left Leo ‘a little shocked by her callousness’ implying any show of emotion towards Hugh is a deception. However, in the Epilogue Marian seems to have hardened her heart in matters of love, with unsympathetic remarks about Ted. ‘If he had more brains he would not have blown them out.’ and his ‘silly scruples’, conveying the idea that she was the one that made him overcome his morals, she was the seducer. These seem very harsh statements, lacking all emotion. What she neglects to realise is that he only killed himself because he loved her so much he could not bear to live without her. She on the other hand, it is clear, did not reciprocate this vow, showing a very cold, uncaring characteristic. Marian displays duplicity in character when she socialises with Trimingham as well. Around her mother she is flirtatious and sociable towards Hugh, however, when her mother is not present she is inhospitable and aloof with him. This illustrates her deceptive and manipulative power. ‘Tell him I’ll sing if he will sing….. “She wore a wreath of roses.” This is a cruel request as she knows Hugh doesn’t sing, the death imagery used in the title of the song condemns their relationship on a symbolic level, the response is said to come as ‘a blow’ to Trimingham. Trimingham lives up to his aristocratic upbringing that dictates ‘nothing is ever a lady’s fault’ and is faithful and loyal to Marian until the end. It seems cruel and unsympathetic of Marian to take advantage of Hugh’s good nature. It might also be relevant to comment that the tragedy of the ‘Go-between’ depends on the book being set in a time when there was a more rigid class structure than today. The tragedy occurs partly because it is set in a time when women from monied classes did not work for their living. Thus Marian never really considers Ted viable as a husband because she does not want to give up the privileges of her social status and has no profession to support her, showing a very materialistic side to Marian, and portraying the idea that although she may have loved Ted, it just wasn’t enough. Critics have voiced the view that she could be seen as the tragedy. She had the courage to be unconventional and daring enough to have a passionate affair, but not unconventional enough to cast aside all social commitment, she had the intellect to realise the advantages to marrying Trimingham. She also lived in an age when there is a stigma attached to illegitimate childbirth. This explains Marian’s despair that she must marry Hugh even though it is Ted’s child that she is carrying. Hugh’s representation of the archer in the zodiac means Marian would have eventually gravitated towards him anyway as he can sustain her lifestyle, and is mentally strong, having survived the Boer War. Marian understands she must marry him, and is tough enough to endure, which could be viewed as an admirable quality. Marian can be portrayed as a character that carries an amount of sympathy as she herself is used as an ends to a means by her own family, as her marriage to Lord Trimingham will elevate her family’s social status. The Maudsleys’, being a nouveau – riche family needed to secure the marriage between Marian and Hugh so as to gain themselves a place in the established gentry. Marian displays her despair and upset at the situation, when Leo asks ‘But why are you going to marry Hugh if you don’t want to?’, Marian’s anguished response, ‘Because I must marry him…. I must. I’ve got to!’ This is due to social pressure which makes it impossible for her to marry a farmer, social expectation, her mother’s intention for her to marry an aristocrat, and also the fact that by this time she must know she is pregnant. This emotional display in front of Leo reinstates some sympathetic element Marian must possess within her. The glimmers of her humanity are exposed through her love for Ted, and a deep sadness about her circumstances. Her emotions are expressed effectively through the tears she cries in front of Leo. They help remind us that Marian is still human. In the Epilogue when the elderly Leo visits Marian it is Marian who underlines the serious flaws that were soon to develop in the 20th century. World War One seems to have claimed the lives of both Denys and Marcus. The deaths of Hugh and her two brothers were, says Marian, the fault of this hideous century we live in, which has denatured humanity and planted death and hate where love and living were. Her ironic choice of wording draws powerful parallels between the early 20th century and events that occurred at Brandham. Just as the potential of a new century has been spoiled by the hate and death that warfare entails, so too has the glory of life at Brandham been blighted by Marian and Ted’s love for each other, something that should have been glorious was forced by social structure of the time to become surreptitious and culpable. Their love led to Ted’s death and Leo’s jaded withdrawal from life. Leo becomes dehumanised by his experience at Brandham Hall just as the warfare of the 20th century dehumanised many people. The epilogue is useful is assessing whether Marian can be viewed as unsympathetic or just misunderstood, and whether old age has brought her the wisdom and notion of responsibility she lacked in her youth. Some may argue she was responsible, as in the end she does marry Hugh and gains all the titles, land and wealth that goes with it. However, others may argue her irresponsibility does not lie there, between whom she shall marry but in the lives she blighted and her pregnancy outside of wedlock. Marian’s comments on the past, when Leo visits her in the epilogue are blind and inadequate, ‘our love was a beautiful thing, we didn’t have a thought except for each other.’ Then she asks Leo who thinks they might have had more thought for him, ‘wouldn’t you be proud to be…. the child of so much happiness and beauty.’ This shows her lack of all moral responsibility, she openly admits she did not think of anyone else, not even Ted. If she had she would have realised that them being together was not viable, consequently she would not have put Ted through all the emotional torment he suffered at the though of being discovered and losing her, and quite likely Ted would not have committed suicide. Her lack of though for anyone else illustrates a selfish as well as unsympathetic streak, as she didn’t think twice about dragging poor Leo into the whole sordid affair. She comments on how Leo has grown up, ‘your all dried up inside.’ Critics have argued this reveals Marian’s naivety to her own responsibility. It seems a cruel statement to make considering she is primarily to blame. It also seems highly unsympathetic for her to try and explain what she did, and how she used Leo as a form of justification. Was Leo’s life really worth sacrificing for an affair that ended in tragedy anyway? Leo marvels ‘at the extent of Marian’s self-deception.’ It appears she has only retained her sanity through the years by creating an illusion to cover the horrific truth. This element to her allows for some sympathy felt by the reader towards her. Her ‘self-deception’ acts almost as a justification for her unsympathetic nature – she doesn’t recognise her wrongdoing. In the Epilogue Hartley presents Marian dwelling in self-pity, evoking a more sympathetic side to her that the reader is meant to be able to empathise with. ‘Her hair was bluish, her face had lost its roundness, her nose had grown more prominent and hawk-like.’ her fading beauty and decent from youth, ‘sitting with her back to the light’, illustrating how she has moved out of the light of youth, are both effective in evoking sympathy. However, there are subtle reminders, the cruel, unsympathetic Marian still remains part of this fragile old lady, ‘only her eyes…. kept their frosty fire’ the contrast in her character is still present, as are remnants of her unsympathetic side. She draws comparisons between herself and Nanny Robson, whilst in her youth she took advantage of Nanny Robson, blaming her poor memory as a reason so she could visit Ted, she is now herself the old woman. However, this fragile and fading appearance that we now see as Marian, cooped up in a little cottage, evokes sympathy in the reader. It is a stage of life many people can relate to, that of old age and the fear that is coupled with it. It is hard to perceive Marian as unsympathetic whilst she is in this state, as most of what we feel is empathy for her. Even after everything that has happened, Marian asks Leo to take one final message, ‘an errand of love’, showing she still can be manipulative and scheming in her old age. Time has not taught her the lessons she should have learnt back in her youth. However, critics have also argued that Hartley establishes a theme of forgiveness and reconciliation in the final lines. Whilst the epilogue evokes sympathy in the reader for Marian, there is little remorse or sympathy shown by Marian herself, she never apologises to Leo. However, I shall conclude with how Hartley begins, ‘The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there.’ This statement epitomises a central idea; how can we possibly judge, that which we do not understand? The historical and social context in which the novel is set is so apart from the world where the reader is accustomed, it is hard to comprehend what life was like in such a socially orientated era. Portrayed as malevolent and scheming, an evil hidden behind an exterior of beauty and supremacy, it is perceivable she is a very unsympathetic character. Her treatment of those she is closest to, her apparent coldness towards Ted’s death, and her inability to recognise her own responsibility towards the consequences that have occurred due to her affair, exemplify her unsympathetic nature. Within the story itself we are led to see a duplicity in Marian which discredits her morally. Her kindness in taking Leo to Norwich for the new suit is marred by her ulterior motive of meeting Ted. Her affection for Leo is undermined by her use of him. The birthday present of the bicycle which almost diverts him from his own belief in moral duty to leave Brandham Hall is intended to make him a more efficient go-between. However, it is also conceivable that Marian’s unsympathetic tendencies are born out of a frustration and deep sadness she feels, as a result of her position and circumstances. She herself, it can be argued, is a victim of the time and social expectation. It is apt to end on a collaborative note from Keats, a quote that illustrates the essence of Marian’s character, ‘La Belle Dame sans Merci’ - The beautiful lady without mercy; mercy for herself, or for others.