Margaret Mitchell, Her Biographers, and the Conclusion to Gone with the Wind

Editors' Note: Today we are pleased to feature our first post by a guest blogger here at How We Do Run On.  The following post was written by GWTW fan Shaninalux, who noticed something quite strange in several biographies about Margaret Mitchell: the authors were all over the board in describing MM's opinion about the conclusion of GWTW and her actual intentions.  So Shaninalux tracked down the information directly from the source--in the form of a July 1935 letter from MM. Here's her account of the situation and what she discovered.  Many thanks for Shaninalux for sharing this with us! --iso and Bugsie

After Margaret Mitchell submitted the GWTW manuscript to Harold Latham of Macmillan in April of 1935, he sent it off to Professor Charles W. Everett of Columbia University in order to get Everett's review, thoughts and opinions. Everett submitted his report to Latham in early July, and Margaret Mitchell responded to Everett's report in a letter back to Latham on July 27th. However, the content of the Everett report and Mitchell's response to it have, I believe, been misinterpreted in several ways in the various literatures available on Margaret Mitchell.

Unfortunately, it appears that the Everett report, in its entirety, is no longer available. In Southern Daughter, published in 1991, Darden Asbury Pyron indicated in his footnotes that the report could not be found in either the Macmillan Archives (located at the New York Public Library) or the Mitchell Archives (located at the University of Georgia). The report did seem to still exist at the time Anne Edwards was writing Road to Tara, which was published in 1983, as she cited its exact date (July 2, 1935) and page length, and even gave its location as the Mitchell Papers held within the Macmillan Archives at the New York Public Library. I recently attempted to get a copy of the report from the NYPL, but was informed that it was not part of the Macmillan Company Records, the Margaret Mitchell Author File or the Macmillan General Correspondence File. But I was successful in getting a copy of Mitchell's July 27, 1935 response to the report.

The best that can be cobbled together of the Everett report is a large portion of it contained in Mitchell's first biography, Margaret Mitchell of Atlanta, written by Finis Farr and published in 1965. That portion of the report, coupled with other smaller quotes from it cited by Mitchell in her response to Latham is quite possibly all that can be gleaned today as to its original scope and content.

The report contains sections roughly corresponding to an introduction, summation/synopsis, review and recommendations. Everett was wildly enthusiastic about the manuscript, to say the least, but he expressed some suggestions for improvement. In her July 27th letter, Mitchell responded to these suggestions in a very simple and logical format; namely, she placed all of Everett's suggestions in quotations, and then responded to them individually. Accordingly, it is quite simple to determine which lines are the suggestions expressed by Everett, and which are Mitchell’s responses to those suggestions. And Everett’s suggestions addressed by Mitchell were as follows:

"the author should keep out her own feelings in one or two places where she talks about negro rule"

"And to refer to Mammy's 'ape face" and her 'black paws' seems unnecessary"

"As it is there may be a bit too much finality in Rhett's refusal to go on.......I think she gets him in the end.....And it might not hurt to hint as much a little more strongly than the last lines."

"I prefer the version where Kennedy dies of illness to the Ku Klux one, exciting though that is, because the K.K.K. material has been worked pretty hard by others." 

--Charles Everett's comments from Margaret Mitchell's letter of July 27, 1935

Both the third and the fourth suggestions are indented off in their own paragraphs, and like the others, are contained in quotations. However, it is Mitchell's response to the third suggestion, which has, I believe, been misinterpreted. This was her response to that suggestion, typos included:

"As to this criticism---I havent reread that part of the book in over two years. Due to my unfortunate habit of writing things backwards, last chapter first and first last, it's been a long time since I even looked and it and hardly recall what's in it. But he's probably right. My own intention when I wrote it was to leave the ending open to the reader (yes, I know that's not a satisfactory way to do!) My idea was that, through of several million chapters, the reader will have learned that both Pansy and Rhett are tough characters, both accustomed to having their own way. And at the last, both are determined to have their own ways and those ways are very far apart. And the reader can either decide that she got him or she didnt. Could I ask you to with hold final criticism on this part until I have rewritten that and sent you the whole book to look over again? My vague memory tells me that I had done no more on that chapter than synopsize it. Perhaps a rewriting would bring it more closely to what the adviser wanted."

--Margaret Mitchell's comments from her letter of July 27, 1935

And then, about half a page later, in the section where Mitchell responded to the concern about which version of Frank Kennedy's death to use, she suggested that she complete the book with the KKK version, and if that did not meet with approval, change it back to the first version. She then added:

"The same applies to remarks written above about the ending. If you dont like the way it looks when you get the final copy, tell me so and I'll change it. I'll change it any way you want, except to make a happy ending."

--Margaret Mitchell's comments from her letter of July 27, 1935

In Road to Tara, however, Anne Edwards misattributed Everett's words to Margaret Mitchell herself. This misattribution has the effect of indicating that Mitchell foresaw a reconciliation between Scarlett and Rhett. With regard to the July 27, 1935 letter, Edwards wrote:

"She agreed with Everett at this time that there might be a bit too much finality in Rhett’s departure, but added, “I think she gets him in the end.” This seems to be the only time she ever made such a statement in a letter or interview. She conceded that it “might not hurt to hint as much a little more strongly,” adding, “My own intention when I wrote it was to leave the ending open to the reader. (Yes, I know that’s not a satisfactory way to do!)” She had not read that section of the manuscript for two years and did not even have a copy. Her “vague memory” was that she had done no more than synopsize that chapter and she suggested to Latham that perhaps a rewrite would bring it closer to the more definite ending that Everett wanted."

--excerpted from The Road to Tara, by Anne Edwards

Considering that Anne Edwards is the last of Mitchell’s biographers to have actually seen the Everett report, I find her attribution of Everett's words to Mitchell herself to be quite irresponsible.  And for what it may be worth, it should be noted that at the time Road to Tara was published, Anne Edwards’ GWTW sequel was not yet officially moribund.

Darden Asbury Pyron in Southern Daughter and Molly Haskell in Frankly, My Dear also misinterpret Mitchell’s July 27th response, but in their cases, do so in a manner which suggests that Mitchell opposed the idea of an eventual Scarlett and Rhett reconciliation. With regard to this subject, Pyron wrote that Everett’s suggestion about the ending “was the only place where he recommended specific and discreet changes in the novel.” However, this is incorrect, as the other suggestions for changes indicate. Pyron then quoted most of Mitchell’s response, but also included the portion made half a page later, which has the effect of making it appear as though it were all one organic thought. His analysis was then as follows:

"No happy ending: that confirmed the basic object of the story. Her response, however, reveals two levels of ambiguity about the conclusion. In the first place, her own language and motives here are ambiguous. She takes with one hand what she gives with the other. While declaring that she really intended all along an “open ending”, she undercuts that assertation with her own suggestion that the weight of the narrative was completely against reconciliation. In the second place, while she rejects a happy ending, she offers to make any changes short of that. She declares the willingness, in effect, to make the clearly unhappy ending not happier, but at least less clear."

--excerpted from Southern Daughter by Darden Asbury Pyron

It is here that Pyron then devised an interesting concept as to how Mitchell altered the manuscript to appease Everett’s concerns:

"While she refused to write a hopeful, much less happy, resolution, stylistic and internal evidence, coupled with Everett’s recommendation, suggest that she did indeed alter the text here along the lines that the reader suggested. In its published form, the novel ends naturally on page 1035, when Rhett leaves. “He drew a sharp breath and said lightly but softly: “My dear, I don’t give a damn’”….It marks the perfect end. In its published form, however, the novel does not end here. It runs on an additional page and half. This coda (marked off in the the text by asterisks), undermines the power of this natural ending even as it opens up the possibility that Scarlett might indeed redeem her marriage. It fits ill….If this ending still has credibility within the whole sweep of the novel and within the definitions of the heroine’s character, it smacks rather of Charles W. Everett’s concerns than Peggy Mitchell Marsh’s."

--excerpted from Southern Daughter by Darden Asbury Pyron

The “coda” as so named by Pyron, would then consist of everything after Rhett’s declaration of disinterest, and conclude of course with “tomorrow is another day.”  However, though this theory may be interesting, it is entirely inaccurate. The portion of the Everett report contained in Farr’s Margaret Mitchell of Atlanta appears to contain his complete synopsis of the original manuscript. And Everett’s synopsis concludes as follows, “She decides to go back to Tara. Tomorrow she can think what to do, how to win Rhett back. Tomorrow will be another day.”

Unless he was more than unusually prescient, I find it difficult to see how Professor Everett could have commented on something that wasn't already in the original manuscript in the first place. I'm also a little perplexed as to how Pyron, who cited Farr in his footnotes as his authority on the Everett recommendations, could have missed the synopsis. But to use Pyron’s own words, it is clear that, the “possibility that Scarlett might indeed redeem her marriage” was already in the manuscript when it was first submitted to Macmillan.

In Frankly, My Dear, published in 2009, Molly Haskell took this a step further. At the start of her book, Haskell questioned how “inveterate hopefuls among Mitchell’s fans and the best-selling sequel to the contrary, can anyone over the mental age of fifteen believe that the star-crossed lovers will ‘get together’ one day?" And indeed, in her analysis of the Everett report and Mitchell’s response to it, she echoed Pyron’s mistaken theory about the “coda,” but also added that “My dear, I don’t give a damn” is how the manuscript “originally ended.” And Haskell found Mitchell’s July 27th response to be “a little gem of pseudo-accommodating evasion.” As Haskell saw it:

She begins by saying that her intention (if she remembers correctly, since “it’s been a long time since I even looked at it”) was to leave the ending open.  But “my idea was that, through several million chapters, the reader will have learned that both Pansy and Rhett are tough characters, both accustomed to having their own ways. And at the last, both are determined to have their own ways and those ways are very far apart. And the reader can either decide that she got him or she didn’t.” The reader can have whatever fantasies her or she wants, but her view of the matter is pretty clear: two obstinate antagonists whose separation is inevitable.

--excerpted from Frankly, My Dear by Molly Haskell

However, as the actual response indicates, Mitchell had no trouble remembering her intention to leave the ending open, and was instead referencing the exact content in that portion of the book as what she had not looked at in a long time. In addition, Haskell curiously omitted the “But he’s probably right” portion of Mitchell’s response from her discussion.  That clause, which indicates a measure of agreement on Mitchell’s part with Everett’s position, contradicts Haskell’s suggestion that Mitchell herself opposed the concept of a Scarlett and Rhett reconciliation.

Personally, I find the ending of GWTW to be a masterstroke. I believe Margaret Mitchell when she wrote that her intention was to leave the ending open to her readers, and that there really isn’t a hidden meaning beyond that. Moreover, I’m also convinced that there isn’t really a correct answer to the question of whether or not Scarlett and Rhett eventually reconciled. And it is quite disappointing that Mitchell’s biographers, either by design or slipshod research, have recast this clear intention to serve their own purposes.