Eliot's excellence

[Rupali]

Maggie Tulliver is the symbol of women emancipation. She is a metaphor for the dilemma of a human being between free will and pre-determination. Her going against the social dictum shows the man's eternal quest to conquer and run the qorld according to his own wishes and wants, whereas the ultimate flood is the re-enactment of the ultimate flood, where God plays a bigger role in determining the fate of humnas.<br>Overall, it is fantastic novel, that is meant for people who can think ahead of their times.

[jinjang]

I think The Mill on the Floss is the best of George Eliot. Maggie loved many people around her with her full heart, which was her painful dilemma. Her death seemed inevitable to resolve all her troubles. She was forgiving but the world around her wasn't. The love between Maggie and Stephen was to me heartbreaking and I wished they could be together because the society does not give much to an individual in the end. I am compromising with Stephen for Maggie to betray her trusting cousin Lucy and her faithful, forgiving, and always giving friend and lover Philip. I agreed more with Stephen's arguments when he tried to persuade Maggie to elope with him, than with Maggie. But, the book would not have become a great one and Maggie wouldn't be Maggie if Maggie eloped with Stephen. Let it rest there and I will mope and grunt for the unhappy ending. Maggie, dear Maggie, I would love you as Philip did!

The fall and recovery of the upper-middle class Tullivers were certainly realistic and well-planned as Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks. The bickering and interfering relatives are as common as any time of the human history.

Here are my pick of some quotes from the book:
"(T)here is nothing more widely misleading than sagacity if it happens
to get on a wrong scent, and sagacity persuaded that men usually act
and speak from distinct motives, with a consciously proposed end in
view, is certain to waste its energies on imaginary game. Plotting
covetousness and deliberate contrivance in order to compass a selfish
end, are nowhere abundant but in the world of the dramatist: they
demand too intense a mental action for many of our fellow-parishioners
to be guilty of them. It is easy enough to spoil the lives of our
neighbors without taking so much trouble: we can do it by lazy
acquiescence and lazy omission, by trivial falsities for which we
hardly know a reason, by small frauds neutralised by small
extravagances, by maladroit flatteries and clumsily improvised
insinuations."

"All people of broad, strong sense have an instinctive repugnance to
the men of maxims; because such people early discern that the
mysterious complexity of our life is not to be embraced by maxims, and
that to lace ourselves up in formulas of that sort is to repress all
the divine promptings and inspirations that spring from growing
insight and sympathy. And the man of maxims is the popular
representative of the minds that are guided in their moral judgment
solely by general rules, thinking that these will lead them to justice
by a ready-made patent method, without the trouble of exerting
patience, discrimination, impartiality, without any care to assure
themselves whether they have the insight that comes from a
hardly-earned estimate of temptation, or from a life vivid and intense
enough to have created a wide fellow-feeling with all that is human."

[Lokasenna]

I can't say I was a huge fan. While I agree that Maggie is an interesting comment on the place of the female in society, I can't help but feel that the ending was a cop-out, something Eliot herself admitted to.

The novel prepares us for a fight against humanity, not nature. Sure, there are lots of references to drowning and the river throughout the novel, but they stick out because they are incongruous; they do not move with the plot.

As such, the whole flood thing feels like a rather pathetic deus ex machina for Eliot to end the novel quickly; I have to say, the whole melodrama of the thing, I would suggest, reflects the authour having given up any serious concern for her characters.

It was the first Eliot I have read, and it has subsequently moved her other novels down my "to read" list...

[jinjang]

I can't help but feel that the ending was a cop-out, something Eliot herself admitted to.

The novel prepares us for a fight against humanity, not nature. Sure, there are lots of references to drowning and the river throughout the novel, but they stick out because they are incongruous; they do not move with the plot.


You are sagacious on the plots, aren't you? You would have another person on your side: my husband refuses to tell me the story of a book because he thinks my knowing the story would spoil my pleasure of reading it. The general plot of a book is not as important to me as great paragraphs I quoted above. Let us put aside the death of the protagonist by a "unnatural" natural disaster at the end. How about the parts describing the Tulliver family and their relatives and how about the development of love between Philip and Maggie and between Maggie and Stephen? It did not stir your heart and you did not feel with them?

[wessexgirl]

I can't say I was a huge fan. While I agree that Maggie is an interesting comment on the place of the female in society, I can't help but feel that the ending was a cop-out, something Eliot herself admitted to.

The novel prepares us for a fight against humanity, not nature. Sure, there are lots of references to drowning and the river throughout the novel, but they stick out because they are incongruous; they do not move with the plot.

As such, the whole flood thing feels like a rather pathetic deus ex machina for Eliot to end the novel quickly; I have to say, the whole melodrama of the thing, I would suggest, reflects the authour having given up any serious concern for her characters.

It was the first Eliot I have read, and it has subsequently moved her other novels down my "to read" list

Oh but Lokasenna Middlemarch is in another class......one of the greatest novels ever written. Don't move that one down, you'd be missing an absolute masterpiece.

[Lokasenna]

You are sagacious on the plots, aren't you? You would have another person on your side: my husband refuses to tell me the story of a book because he thinks my knowing the story would spoil my pleasure of reading it. The general plot of a book is not as important to me as great paragraphs I quoted above. Let us put aside the death of the protagonist by a "unnatural" natural disaster at the end. How about the parts describing the Tulliver family and their relatives and how about the development of love between Philip and Maggie and between Maggie and Stephen? It did not stir your heart and you did not feel with them?

Hmmm... Fair enough, I'll concede that in some places Eliot is extremely eloquent. However, I just think that the general style didn't really appeal to me - that's no comment on the author, merely one on my own tastes. And my personal interest in literature is, specifically, stories. I love a good plot, and I just felt that the novel fell a little short as it went on. The first two-thirds were good, but as soon as Stephen appeared, it went down-hill. Last year I went on a Victorian literature binge, and after having enjoyed Dickens, Collins and Wilde, and found this less enjoyable.


Oh but Lokasenna Middlemarch is in another class......one of the greatest novels ever written. Don't move that one down, you'd be missing an absolute masterpiece.

So I keep being told!:lol: As soon as I get chatting about Eliot with my friends, they keep telling me to go away and read Middlemarch... Yeah, I will at some point. I'm a medievalist lost in a maze of Victorian... stuff...

[jinjang]

Maggie struggles to fight off temptations. She is so bound by the customs, means, and her personal responsibilities. It seems so backward, pointless, and tedious. I say that not because I am free from these but because they affect me helplessly. A book appeals to us sometimes because it reflects our own lives.

[Truthlover]

My mother was born and grew up in a small town in Saskatchewan, surrounded by barren hills. There was only one book in the house, The Mill on the Floss, so she read it seven times. I hope there was also a Bible, since I recently saw an article on Eliot called "Good without God". I finally got around to reading the novel because I wanted to understand my mother better. What I most appreciated in the book was the fairness the author displays when examining the conscience of Maggy. The protagonist's decisions are fully open-minded. I liked especially the way she held up under the negative opinion of others. This reminded me of what Plato says in the second book of The Republic. Plato says that because the just man does not follow the opinion of other people but pursues justice for its own sake, the truly just man will be misunderstood and persecuted in this world. One thing about the novels of the 19th century: they hold up moral models for us. We fool ourselves if we think we do not need such models in the post-modern world. If such were true, why would we be overjoyed about a pilot saving so many lives by landing a commercial airplane in the Hudson River?

A man's righteousness is only complete and guaranteed when he takes on the appearance of unrighteousness --Plato's Republic.

[Enamored Reader]

I have just finished reading the novel, and I must say it was extroadinarily beautiful with its psychologic depth and outstanding imagery. I believe whoever did not enjoy this book is someone who did not care to take much interest on researching the author herself. Knowing where George Eliot came from adds depth to the novel, I think.
Aside from George Eliot's history, the novel is just a clear sight of masterpiece, (even with the some errors Eliot made). Eliot presents the image of a lonely, wretched young girl, who cannot truly age or mature with the persistant pressure and criticism of others- especially those whom should be close to her: her family.
Yes, Maggie is in need of someone to love her- but she'll never get love if she continues to resign from it. She longs for her brother's love above all else, and...yet that is the only love which seems the most distant to her. But the end of the novel shows us that Maggie's struggle and renunciation was not meaningless; she dies with Tom: she's burried with Tom: their epitaph reads, "In their death they were not divided". Anyone who did a little research would have understood the heaviness that George Eliot wrote with, as she was rejected from her family and longed for the revival of her relationship with her brother, too.
Maggie is the image of strong, independent, suffering woman. And with Eliot's multiple male characters in the novel, we see that Tom is proud, Phillip is 'womanly'/ but desperate for love, and Stephen is 'conceited'. Tom has a family love, Phil has a devoted love which calls for devotion back, and Stephen Guests's love seems of the sexual kind. Maggie battles between her love for Tom and her family (spiritual), her feelings with Phillip (intellectual), and her desires with Stephen (physical); thus, Maggie is in complete conflict with herself.
Knowing how much Maggie suffers and is torn apart, I cannot say anything more than that I pity her- I love her. And that love and pity is, I believe, what George Eliot was really trying to reach with us: that we need to love and pity people, for all people suffer and hurt.

[fb0252]

I can't say I was a huge fan. While I agree that Maggie is an interesting comment on the place of the female in society, I can't help but feel that the ending was a cop-out, something Eliot herself admitted to.

The novel prepares us for a fight against humanity, not nature. Sure, there are lots of references to drowning and the river throughout the novel, but they stick out because they are incongruous; they do not move with the plot.

As such, the whole flood thing feels like a rather pathetic deus ex machina for Eliot to end the novel quickly; I have to say, the whole melodrama of the thing, I would suggest, reflects the authour having given up any serious concern for her characters.

It was the first Eliot I have read, and it has subsequently moved her other novels down my "to read" list...

too bad. u seem like an intelligent fellow. avoid croaking until you read middlemarch twice.

[Lokasenna]

too bad. u seem like an intelligent fellow. avoid croaking until you read middlemarch twice.

Well, thank you - unfortunately, intelligence and taste are two different things! I still haven't gotten round to reading Middlemarch either.

As I suggested, it's entirely subjective - half the stuff I read would bore the socks off most people!

[Gladys]

The novel prepares us for a fight against humanity, not nature. Sure, there are lots of references to drowning and the river throughout the novel, but they stick out because they are incongruous; they do not move with the plot.

As such, the whole flood thing feels like a rather pathetic deus ex machina for Eliot to end the novel quickly; I have to say, the whole melodrama of the thing, I would suggest, reflects the author having given up any serious concern for her characters.


And my personal interest in literature is, specifically, stories. I love a good plot, and I just felt that the novel fell a little short as it went on. The first two-thirds were good, but as soon as Stephen appeared, it went down-hill. Last year I went on a Victorian literature binge, and after having enjoyed Dickens, Collins and Wilde, and found this less enjoyable.

I've come from a year of reading Henry James to tackle first Middlemarch, then The Mill on the Floss, and I've begun Silas Marner today. I found the psychological portrait of the characters extraordinary in both novels. Maggie is convincing.

On finishing The Mill on the Floss, I tended to accept your view that the ending is a disappointing deus ex machina, although I loved the astonishing acceptance of Maggie by Aunt Glegg. But on reflecting - and I find reflection is always prudent on finishing literature - I feel that this ending is far from simple, let alone a cop out, despite George Eliot’s reported concession.

Undeniably Maggie’s ethical situation remains uniformly grim for almost all the second half of the novel, and on the raging torrent of flood-waters I see little change for the better. From her youth Maggie is motivated by love, even when shunned by her arrogant brother. That Tom welcomes her, his rescuer, shows that under life-threatening duress in a rising flood his rigid moral code becomes more accommodating, at least in the short term. But does this son of Mr Tulliver really change?

Why would Tom recklessly venture – with his sister - into the perilous current when he knows Lucy’s home is situated on higher ground? I would suggest that his proud emotions are floundering with the embarrassment of being rescued by his 'pariah' of a sister. He narcissistically wishes to show that he is as courageous as her. But he just shows himself reckless like his self-important father, Mr Tulliver, who gambles everything on a frivolous lawsuit at the expense of his family. Tom gambles away his sister’s life, and in death they are entangled - as the family had been entangled in bankruptcy. Is this romantic? I think not.

The death of brother and sister in the flood-waters is neither a happy ending nor a resolution of Maggie’s perennial struggle. She is simply short-changed yet again. And had they survived, Tom would have continued to oppose Philip, and her sad obsession with the shallow Stephen Guest would have continued to haunt her. And Stephen is such an unsympathetic character, with little moral sensibility, stalking her like a spider its prey.

Maggie is a supremely tragic figure in death as in life. I would rank this novel with Middlemarch and Dostoevsky's The Idiot.