Gaskell's Flawed Characters

While reading some of these criticisms most seemed to be more in talks with another critic than Gaskell's novel entirely. The John Lucas essay "Why We Need Mary Barton" offered more confusion than an answer to his initial question and really just helped to befuddle me as a reader. I still have no idea why this book was needed based on Lucas' ideas. The other more tangible essay is Lucas' "Carson's Murder and the Inadequacy of Hope in Mary Barton" where he explains the flawed John Barton became more of a scapegoat and flaw than Gaskell had originally intended.

Lucas explains that the basic story and progression of John's character is rather well implemented and works well in the novel, but when harry Carson is murdered, Gaskell takes an easy road out of developing his character any further and lets him fall by the wayside. Gaskell, Lucas argues did not want to show John could rise above his inherent economic and personal woes and instead goes the other route and shows his complete demise into oblivion and death. Lucas even places one of Gaskell's own quotes as defense of John's character, saying he was "the person with whom all my sympathies went" and then disproves her own point. John Barton is not or doesn't stay a sympathetic character for long and once he murders Carson, he goes off the deep end and never shows any type of characteristics that he may improve in his mental state. It is this that Lucas says is the point where Gaskell takes the easy way and just forgets about him as a character and stops developing him for favor of changing genres and jumping into the ploy of reuniting Mary with Jem, making John's death all the more easy for her to commit as an author. Even the ending takes a simpler route by situating the characters left alive in an all new environment where their past endeavors really have no bearing on their situation. everything is tied up too nicely with Jem being vindicated and moving away with Mary while even Margaret gets a happy ending in marriage and so to do those that aren't dead. Gaskell seems to play right into the idea of over simplifying and glorification of the once bleak outlook on life that all of the novel's characters shared. Now the sun has come up and the sky is blue, figuratively as Gaskell hints the world is a much better place for no apparent reason at all and the small amount given back to John's character fails in making him carry any sympathies to his grave because his character just stops developing and rather than trying to show complex character growth of his recovery, she offs him as Lucas agrees, in an easy and scapegoat-ish way. I agree that towards the end Gaskell's characters falter and fall flat in their growth and the ending is too neat and tidy with very few loose or realities in it. everybody seems to make it out pretty well and even those that die are said to be in a better place than impoverished Manchester.