I was so impressed with the tour today! I always knew that the population of London   has had to endure horrendous impoverishment, but I didn’t know the full extent of it in terms of hygiene and health (except for the Bubonic Plague of course). I love how we were told about the different signs of wealth like the color of brick or the location of the railways. Some of the things our tour guide told us about the drinking water and sewage made me gag, and I’m surprised that Gaskell doesn’t provide more description of the poverty in her novel, especially considering the amount of dialogue and imagery. I feel like the poverty is something that would catch the attention of young readers more. Instead of plowing through the “pointless” description, they would be more engaged with the material while also learning more about the history of London. Another thing I want to talk about is the class issue. Gaskell beautifully lays out how class is divided up and how they both need each other but refuse to compromise. to provide contrast to this argument, I think it was you (McLeod) who said it perfectly: “The workers can run the factories without the master, but the masters can’t run the factories without the workers.” Using this as a jump off, I would argue that the rich want to keep the poor in the ghettos so they don’t lower the market value of the rich neighborhoods. Like you said before our Brick Lane tour, the East end (brick lane) neighborhood is dirtier with more trash on the streets and is just less aesthetically pleasing altogether. However, the prices for homes, land, and business spaces are going to stay low in that neighborhood while the other sides of London (not all) will stay high. London wants to keep what we know as the color-line in tact. The rich want to keep the drugs and railways in the slums, and it will probably stay that way for quite some time.