Middlemarch by George Eliot

What are your thoughts on this novel, which has been called the best novel written in the English language? Is such a lofty claim justifiable?

Here's my thoughts:

There are some great parts in Middlemarch: mainly those centred around the barren marriage of Dorothea, a virtuous young woman, to Edward Casaubon, a scholar obsessively persuing academic work that had been superceded by current German scholarship and refusing to publish anything. However Middlemarch is not the sum of its parts. Some of the characters are two-dimensional, particularly the love interest, wayward artist Will Ladislaw and the ending, though perhaps "realistic" is disappointing.

Eliot as a writer makes her intellectualism clear on every page, leading to a lot of dry moments where you have to flick back to the notes to make sense of it. It's as if she's purposely trying to not sound like a female novelist so she decides to be terribly serious, albeit it with some nice moments of wit. As a novelist, she does not show the skill of Dickens or Hardy. Middlemarch is really a character study of Dorothea and a moral lesson in social responsibility. The little intrigue that there is is in the manner of Dickens but without his passion behind it. It feels as if it was added purely to keeps us reading what is quite a long book.

The novel is quintessentially Victorian, with all the pros and cons of Victorian literature. The pros are the study of the social customs of the middle classes and how these affect the characters' lives. The cons are the clutter, discussing minor characters instead of focusing on the main plot. Therefore this is quite a stuffy read, as opposed to Dickens or Hardy.

It is a must-read for anyone interested in 19th century literature but as a read for anyone else, I would probably not recommend it unless you have the patience of a saint.



EDIT: can someone add a poll?

I don't think so. I read it and considered it dull compared to her earlier works such as "Silas Marner" and Mill on the Floss." I don't think I'm alone in that assessment. I have an old literature book from 1900 that said her later works such as "Middlemarch" and Daniel Deronda had "more tedious passages" and"on the whole, duller characters." To each his own, however.

It was an interesting book, as I had not read any of her work before, but I would baulk at saying the best novel in the English language. She built up the characters in a commendable manner, especially the loveless marriage of the two main characters and some of the other personalities were also depicted well through the dialogue involved.

It was in a way, almost refreshing to read a story with a considerable element of implicit romance that never strayed once down the path of sexuality. Victoriana at it’s peak?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MANICHAEAN

It was an interesting book, as I had not read any of her work before, but I would baulk at saying the best novel in the English language.

---

I agree. I can see why it might have been selected but I don't really agree. Saying that, I can't think of any English language novel that would rival the Russians or the French.

I'm inclined to agree with Manichaen that it is a major example of Victoriana.

I've now finished Middlemarch and it is the epitome of Victoriana. I wouldn't call it the greatest novel written in the English language though, not even one written in the 19th century.

I don't remember it much, but I do remember thinking it was an excellent novel when I finished, and I voted based on that. It's true that it's rather tedious, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mona amon

I don't remember it much, but I do remember thinking it was an excellent novel when I finished, and I voted based on that. It's true that it's rather tedious, though.

---

It's very cluttered I found and incredibly didactic, yet there's some good stuff in there.

I had to read diagonally, found it boring. It lacked humor and suspense. The story never really aroused my interest.

I think it's acclaimed because it contributed to realism in English literature. It's influenced by French writers like Balzac and Flaubert. It shows the life of ordinary people in an English provincial village. Virginia Woolf called it one of the few English novels written for grown-up people.

Eliot seems to be more concerned with politics than with fiction. The novel's large cast isn't organised as well as it might be in a Dickens novel.

Middlemarch was the first novel I read as part of my undergraduate degree. I don't remember much about the intricacies, of which there are many, but I do recall describing it as essentially a study in the re-evaluation of ideals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

Eliot seems to be more concerned with politics than with fiction.

---

I don't understand this - the references to the Great Reform Act are only background to the panoramic study of an English provincial town and characters

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

The novel's large cast isn't organised as well as it might be in a Dickens novel.

---

I love Dickens, but I'd never say he was organised. His first great success, Pickwick Papers doesn't even have a plot. His most organised plot, Tale of Two Cities has the least interesting characters. I'd have thought the interlocking stories in Middlemarch (Dorothea, Lydgate, Fred and Mary, Bulstrode) are very satisfactorily interlocked to give a sense of a whole society, with the individuals all presented with sympathy, even Causabon and Bulstrode at some point.

Viginia Woolf said of it ""the magnificent book that, with all its imperfections, is one of the few English novels written for grown-up people." By which I suspect she meant among other things, it has a mature attitude to sexual relations, although hardly spelt out. All those irritiating, drippy, saintly, sexless angels in the house which male Victorian novelist liked (Dickens' Amy, Thackery's Amelia Sedley, Trollope's Lily Dale) are mercifully absent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruggerlad

I don't understand this - the references to the Great Reform Act are only background to the panoramic study of an English provincial town and characters

---

I'm not referring to the Reform Act but the novel's didactic nature. At times, Eliot seems to be teaching a lesson rather than writing a novel. Of course, all novels have an element of political opinion but Eliot's opinion sometimes overshadows the novel.

Quote:

---

I love Dickens, but I'd never say he was organised. His first great success, Pickwick Papers doesn't even have a plot. His most organised plot, Tale of Two Cities has the least interesting characters. I'd have thought the interlocking stories in Middlemarch (Dorothea, Lydgate, Fred and Mary, Bulstrode) are very satisfactorily interlocked to give a sense of a whole society, with the individuals all presented with sympathy, even Causabon and Bulstrode at some point.

Viginia Woolf said of it ""the magnificent book that, with all its imperfections, is one of the few English novels written for grown-up people." By which I suspect she meant among other things, it has a mature attitude to sexual relations, although hardly spelt out. All those irritiating, drippy, saintly, sexless angels in the house which male Victorian novelist liked (Dickens' Amy, Thackery's Amelia Sedley, Trollope's Lily Dale) are mercifully absent.

---

As for sexual relations, I had absolutely no sense of that, explicit or implicit. As for Thackerey, Amelia is clearly a contrast to Becky, so you can't accuse him of writing "saints". Dorothea is the most saintly of all Victorian characters (minus a few Dickens ones). I don't think it's a particularly male trait of the Victorians to write sexless women- what about Hardy? His women are some of the most spirited in 19th century literature, and the most believable.

You may be right. I haven't read Middlemarch for some years, but I can't remember any particular political opinions. Dickens' views on individual political issues were much more obvious. What views did you have in mind?

I may have misunderstood Woolf's comment about "written for grown-up people" as a reference to sexuality. Explicit sex just isn't mentioned by any Victorian author.

However I've just read this year David Copperfield and Adam Bede. In both of them there is a working class girl who'd like to be a lady (Little Emily and Hetty Sorrel) who is then easily seduced by a gentleman. Dickens tells us nothing of the process (let alone the sex). We are shown Hetty's progress in detail and subtlety. George Eliot wins hands down there in maturity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

However Middlemarch is not the sum of its parts. Some of the characters are two-dimensional, particularly the love interest, wayward artist Will Ladislaw and the ending, though perhaps "realistic" is disappointing.

---

Oh dear! I came to Middlemarch from reading most of Ibsen, Henry James and Dostoevsky - all deeply psychological.

As a study of the psychology of commonplace human interaction, George Eliot is magnificent (and I love The Mill on the Floss, ending and all). In particular I enjoy the ambivalent psychological portraits of Lydgate, Casaubon, Celia Brooke, Sir James Chettam, Rosamond and Fred Vincy, Will Ladislaw, and Mr. Walter Vincy and Mrs. Lucy Vincy. By contrast, Caleb Garth, his wife and daughter present a fascinating panorama of tolerance and magnanimity in dealings with the breathtakingly narcissistic Fred Vincy. The interdependence among the characters is impressive. As for the plot switching around: that's life.

In recent times I've struggled to find much human depth in Thomas Hardy, and I avoid Dickens.

That's fine explanation of why Middlemarch is the important novel it is. (I have to say I am appreciating Dickens far more now, but I'll save my comments for a Dickens thread. Basically he's dealing with myths and archetypes.)

Two comments on the Fred/Mary/Caleb subplot:

A I think they show up the tacky side of the presentation of "virtuous" characters, particulary beautiful young women, that I find in Dickens and other male Victorian novelists. The Garths aren't too good to be true. And I suspect the tacky aspect of Dickens' portrayal lovely innocent young women is because I suspect a slimy element of sexual titillation there.

B I'd not noticed Fred being narcissistic - my impression was he was a right charmer - but then narcissists often are. So is Fred is sister's brother in a deeper sense?

PS I avoid D H Lawrence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruggerlad

I'd not noticed Fred being narcissistic - my impression was he was a right charmer - but then narcissists often are. So is Fred is sister's brother in a deeper sense?

PS I avoid D H Lawrence.

---

I read Sons and Lovers recently. The book was OK, but the Lawrence portrayal of himself as Paul Morel was chilling.

As for Fred, his narcissism, like sister Rosamond's, is almost beyond belief. Particularly before and after he induces poor Caleb Garth (his fiancées' father) to guarantee his high-living debt. As a result, Caleb loses money long saved for his son's education - money which well-educated Fred would never think of repaying! Fred could hardly have gone to his rather wealthy, miser of a father for money. Afterwards, Fred is very sorry - sorry for himself, that is.

But you're so right about him being a charmer - all part of George Eliot's genius. Even her explicit philosophical/psychological musings tend to be brilliantly original.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruggerlad

You may be right. I haven't read Middlemarch for some years, but I can't remember any particular political opinions. Dickens' views on individual political issues were much more obvious. What views did you have in mind?

I may have misunderstood Woolf's comment about "written for grown-up people" as a reference to sexuality. Explicit sex just isn't mentioned by any Victorian author.

However I've just read this year David Copperfield and Adam Bede. In both of them there is a working class girl who'd like to be a lady (Little Emily and Hetty Sorrel) who is then easily seduced by a gentleman. Dickens tells us nothing of the process (let alone the sex). We are shown Hetty's progress in detail and subtlety. George Eliot wins hands down there in maturity.

---

I think "written for grown-up people" means that it was written for a mature and educated audience rather than implying that Middlemarch deals with sexuality.

As for political opinions, it's more like moral opinions. This is particularly apparant in the character of Will, who is very two-dimensional and only exists to fancy Dorothea and spout things about caring for your fellow man. Despite Dorothea supposedly being unconventional, she is domesticated by the end and chastised for her ambitions of education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

As for Fred, his narcissism, like sister Rosamond's, is almost beyond belief. Particularly before and after he induces poor Caleb Garth (his fiancées' father) to guarantee his high-living debt. As a result, Caleb loses money long saved for his son's education - money which well-educated Fred would never think of repaying! Fred could hardly have gone to his rather wealthy, miser of a father for money. Afterwards, Fred is very sorry - sorry for himself, that is.

---

This also annoyed me [SPOILER]- why would Mary even entertain marrying such an immature man, especially when he takes money off her family? Childhood love or no childhood love, I don't think that anyone would marry a man who did that, even if it was carelessly.


As for Lawrence, although his novels can be uneven and occasionally verge on parody, I think he's quite a daring writer and ahead of his time. We have him to thank for the dissolution of censorship in literature (in Britain that is).

I am reading Middlemarch right now and I do like it. So Will will not be developed, it's a pity, because I consider Dorothea's marriage to the old Casaubon a mistake. If she wanted to gain more knowledge, she could have as well married Sir James Chettam and read her books. At least he would show her a greater amount of affection.

As for Fred and Mary, I like this couple, doesn't Fred do anything later on that redeems him on indicates that he has changed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

I think "written for grown-up people" means that it was written for a mature and educated audience rather than implying that Middlemarch deals with sexuality..

---

I don't think Middlemarch deals with sexuality: it just seems to me the area in which its maturity is most obvious in comparison with Dickens, Thackery and Trollope

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

As for political opinions, it's more like moral opinions..

---

So it isn't political, is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aylinn

So Will will not be developed...

As for Fred and Mary, I like this couple, doesn't Fred do anything later on that redeems him on indicates that he has changed?

---

Fred and Will are, like most of the characters in Middlemarch and most of us, not exactly perfect. Thus Eliot portrays them. Take them as you find them: and so it happens in this true-to-life, adult novel. Compromises in choosing one's partner and friends are part of life, then and now.

Who wants to die a spinster? :rolleyes5:

I’m a bit hazy about the details and I hadn’t thought about it before, but here’s a theory about Fred. The Vincys are aspirationally pretentious. They’ve made their money in Trade, but want their children to be Gentry – Rosamund has airs and graces and Fred has his gambling debts, all suitably posh.

But Fred, despite his boyish irresponsibility, has a warmer heart than his family and no social pretentions. He is attracted to the Garths by mutual affection and that they are just more human. (As Jane Austen would say, the Garths, unlike the Vincys, are rational and have taste, understanding and true elegance of mind.) So he turns to them as just more relaxed and sympathetic.

And even sensible girls like Mary can feel great attractions to bad boys, particularly if they are charmers with a good chance of being tamed. (Is that what happens at last? I can’t remember.)

Is it stated Fred is a looker? If he takes after his sister it is quite likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruggerlad

I don't think Middlemarch deals with sexuality: it just seems to me the area in which its maturity is most obvious in comparison with Dickens, Thackery and Trollope

---

I still don't get how the portrayal of sexuality in Middlemarch is more mature by its absence. Sure, Eliot is not obliged to discuss it but that does not have a bearing on the novel's maturity. It is not the mere presence of sexuality that makes a book mature or immature. Is Tess of The D'Urbervilles more immature because it deals with sexuality?

Quote:

---

So it isn't political, is it?

---

Morals are political. Morals are shaped by society- for example, in Western society, marrying your cousin would be seen as immoral and incestuous, whereas other cultures would not see it as a moral issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruggerlad

I’m a bit hazy about the details and I hadn’t thought about it before, but here’s a theory about Fred. The Vincys are aspirationally pretentious. They’ve made their money in Trade, but want their children to be Gentry – Rosamund has airs and graces and Fred has his gambling debts, all suitably posh.

But Fred, despite his boyish irresponsibility, has a warmer heart than his family and no social pretentions. He is attracted to the Garths by mutual affection and that they are just more human. (As Jane Austen would say, the Garths, unlike the Vincys, are rational and have taste, understanding and true elegance of mind.) So he turns to them as just more relaxed and sympathetic.

SPOILER:


And even sensible girls like Mary can feel great attractions to bad boys, particularly if they are charmers with a good chance of being tamed. (Is that what happens at last? I can’t remember.)

Is it stated Fred is a looker? If he takes after his sister it is quite likely.

---

Yes, Fred is tamed. But I don't know how Mary could marry him when he owes her family.

Fred is meant to be a looker. In the BBC production, he's played by Colin Firth's little brother :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

I still don't get how the portrayal of sexuality in Middlemarch is more mature by its absence. Sure, Eliot is not obliged to discuss it but that does not have a bearing on the novel's maturity. It is not the mere presence of sexuality that makes a book mature or immature. Is Tess of The D'Urbervilles more immature because it deals with sexuality?

---

Maybe it's a deadend, but I'm comparing the portrayal of relations between men and women in George Eliot and Dickens, where the attitude to women is often blatant male fantasy. Don't understand your reference to Tess. Crudely, my point was that acknowledging sexuality is a more mature attitude. Tess would therefore be more mature.

I'll just shut up about this now. Virginia Woolf had a point about Middlemarch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruggerlad

I’m a bit hazy about the details and I hadn’t thought about it before, but here’s a theory about Fred. The Vincys are aspirationally pretentious. They’ve made their money in Trade, but want their children to be Gentry – Rosamund has airs and graces and Fred has his gambling debts, all suitably posh.

But Fred, despite his boyish irresponsibility, has a warmer heart than his family and no social pretentions. He is attracted to the Garths by mutual affection and that they are just more human. (As Jane Austen would say, the Garths, unlike the Vincys, are rational and have taste, understanding and true elegance of mind.) So he turns to them as just more relaxed and sympathetic.

And even sensible girls like Mary can feel great attractions to bad boys, particularly if they are charmers with a good chance of being tamed. (Is that what happens at last? I can’t remember.)

Is it stated Fred is a looker? If he takes after his sister it is quite likely.

---

I completely agree, except I would replace boyish irresponsibility with infantile self-absorption.

The brilliancy in all this lies in Caleb Garth's angelic offer of a job - a partnership - to Fred. Who would have imagined! Not Mrs Garth, and not me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruggerlad

Maybe it's a deadend, but I'm comparing the portrayal of relations between men and women in George Eliot and Dickens, where the attitude to women is often blatant male fantasy. Don't understand your reference to Tess. Crudely, my point was that acknowledging sexuality is a more mature attitude. Tess would therefore be more mature.

I'll just shut up about this now. Virginia Woolf had a point about Middlemarch.

---

Okay. So you mean the portrayal of relationships rather than the portrayal of sexuality? I'll go with you on that one. Middlemarch still has some sentimentality but it is less sentimental than some other novels. Maybe that's why Virginia Woolf said it was a novel for grown-up people. Also, the intellectual allusions add to this impression of a "serious" novel. So, I can see there being truth in Woolf's comment.

And far, far more sensible girls than Mary have married far, far more selfish men than Fred on the basis that they are a bit of hunk.

I hadn't realised how much there is in Middlemarch, in particular this parallel and contrast between Fred and Rosamund: I'd written off the Garth sub-plot as the sentimental secondary love interest.

I still think Rosamund is the most interesting character in the book, and no one seems to have mentioned her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruggerlad

And far, far more sensible girls than Mary have married far, far more selfish men than Fred on the basis that they are a bit of hunk.

I hadn't realised how much there is in Middlemarch, in particular this parallel and contrast between Fred and Rosamund: I'd written off the Garth sub-plot as the sentimental secondary love interest.

I still think Rosamund is the most interesting character in the book, and no one seems to have mentioned her.

---

Yep, Rosamund is very much a product of her finishing school education. There's a bit of tragicomedy there.

If it wasn't for the Garth subplot, the overiding message of the novel would seem to be that all marriages are unhappy and doomed unless you're too dim to question it. Mary and Fred reap the benefits of patience.

You seem to suggest, kelby, that if you don't think your partner is perfect all the time, then the marriage is doomed. I think Gladys had a more realistic view of relationships.

The most moving moment I found in the book when I first read it is an example of married love, when Mrs Bulstrode hears indirectly of her husband's disgrace, and changes into a simpler dress and goes to comfort him with the one word "Nicholas". I used to weep when I read that.

I'm almost halfway through this book. Actually Fred does not seem to be so bad. He thought about repaying Garth, of course he being...well himself... expected that Peter Featherstone would leave him an opulent inheritance.

As for Rosamund, she is simply foolish, though in another way then her brother. She is in love with the prospect of being married to a man form an upper-class background who can elevate her standing in society. I cannot fathom how that marriage can not go wrong without her sweeping personality with someone else or Lydgate throwing away his idealism to a dust bin. At least Fred is in love with Mary and not some illusion of Mary like his sister.

Quote:

---

If it wasn't for the Garth subplot, the overiding message of the novel would seem to be that all marriages are unhappy and doomed unless you're too dim to question it.

---

I would say that the message of the novel is that you are bound to be unhappy if you have some unrealistic expectations and/or instead of seeing the other person for who they really are see what you want to see. Dorothea sees Mr. Casaubon as a stepping stone for her own enlightenment and she creates a false image of Casaubon, she thinks of him as a second Milton and someone who will help her to acquire knowledge, which is very far away from reality and of course turns out to be unhappy. The same thing I suppose will happen to Rosamund. I haven't read all the book, but I guess that Fred succeeds in making a good match, because he sees Mary for who she really is and is not disillusioned like Rosamund or Dorothea. If I am right, Celia Brooke and James Chettam should also be proved to be a good match at the end of the book.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruggerlad

You seem to suggest, kelby, that if you don't think your partner is perfect all the time, then the marriage is doomed. I think Gladys had a more realistic view of relationships.

---

I suppose it's the carelessness that annoys me- that it is okay for Fred to be useless because he's just a bit of a scamp. I guess I just don't see much depth in the characterisation- fair enough because Mary and Fred aren't major characters, but he doesn't seem repentent enough, considering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aylinn

I would say that the message of the novel is that you are bound to be unhappy if you have some unrealistic expectations and/or instead of seeing the other person for who they really are see what you want to see.

---

Yes, this is definitely the real meaning of the novel. However if you simply had the two central unhappy marriages, it would seem to be saying that marriage is unhappy. The Fred/Mary relationship clarifies the position on marriages: Dorothea and Rosamond marry hastily and repent at leisure. Casaubon and Lydgate marry because they feel that society expects it of them. Fred and Mary love each other more than those couples but wait until Fred grows up a little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruggerlad

And far, far more sensible girls than Mary have married far, far more selfish men than Fred on the basis that they are a bit of hunk ... I still think Rosamund is the most interesting character in the book, and no one seems to have mentioned her.

---

Mary will only marry Fred when he has proven he can hold down a job. Being a hunk is beside the point: Mary chooses Fred because, like her angelic father, she sees the good in him, which we see more clearly later in the novel. Rosamond is most interesting in that the character of others is revealed in dealings with her - particularly of Ladislaw and his relatives, Dorothea, and Mr and Mrs Vincy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ruggerlad

The most moving moment I found in the book when I first read it is an example of married love, when Mrs Bulstrode hears indirectly of her husband's disgrace, and changes into a simpler dress and goes to comfort him with the one word "Nicholas". I used to weep when I read that.

---

As did I. Moreover, a sister of the cold and self-centred Mr. Nicholas Vincy, the newly elected mayor of Middlemarch, is our Mrs Harriet Bulstrode! More brilliancies bearing out Virginia Woolf's assessment of the novel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aylinn

Actually Fred does not seem to be so bad. He thought about repaying Garth, of course he being...well himself... expected that Peter Featherstone would leave him an opulent inheritance.

---

Fred seems pretty woeful here too, as I see it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aylinn

If I am right, Celia Brooke and James Chettam should also be proved to be a good match at the end of the book.

---

The ending is rather more interesting than that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

I guess I just don't see much depth in the characterisation- fair enough because Mary and Fred aren't major characters, but he doesn't seem repentant enough, considering.

---

The depth and subtlety here lies precisely in Fred's inability to even understand repentance, let alone repent. Mary and Mr Garth, with full knowledge, take him as he is. :angel: :angel:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

The Fred/Mary relationship clarifies the position on marriages: Dorothea and Rosamond marry hastily and repent at leisure. Casaubon and Lydgate marry because they feel that society expects it of them. Fred and Mary love each other more than those couples but wait until Fred grows up a little.

---

I'm not at all sure that saintly Dorothea, after her initial shocks, does repent of her decision to marry in the weeks approaching the death of Casaubon. All things work together for good for resilient Dorothea throughout the novel. Nevertheless, she get even greater shocks soon after her husband's death.

Rosamond only repents because Lydgate can't long maintain her lush standard of living. She can be faithful to no one, ever, as Ladislaw is well aware! As for Lydgate, his teenage liaison with the murderous siren is more or less repeated in Rosamund, showing his tragic character flaw. Lydgate's ending is sad, whereas Rosamund is happy enough - as happy as she could ever be!

I don't think Dorothea openly repents but she is certainly dissatisfied.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

I don't think Dorothea openly repents but she is certainly dissatisfied.

---

Yes, but what exactly dissatisfies her in the last months of Casaubon's life?

I don't believe that her decision to marry is at issue here. Dorothea is fully reconciled to a choice freely made, however ill-advised. Her dissatisfaction lies in the bizarre state of mind that increasingly afflicts her husband and is reflected in grimly negative body language, tone and behaviour. Surely, this would leave any loving wife anxious and dissatisfied, for her husband's sake!

By contrast, when doting husband Lydgate is distraught over disastrous debts brought about though his wife's greed, Rosamond is anxious and dissatisfied for herself alone.

Rosamond is anxious and dissatisfied for herself but Lydgate is not blameless. For Rosamond- and indeed the reader- he falls short of our expectations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

Rosamond is anxious and dissatisfied for herself but Lydgate is not blameless.

---

What blame can you attach to Lydgate?

Certainly his choice in women is appalling - his first a murderer, his second with narcissistic personality disorder. He errs in keeping rapacious Rosamund in the luxury to which she has been accustomed, to the point of bankruptcy. And he perhaps might have been a little less zealous in tending the sick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gladys

What blame can you attach to Lydgate?

Certainly his choice in women is appalling - his first a murderer, his second with narcissistic personality disorder. He errs in keeping rapacious Rosamund in the luxury to which she has been accustomed, to the point of bankruptcy. And he perhaps might have been a little less zealous in tending the sick.

---

Basically this. For all his progressive views on medicine, he doesn't exactly have a progressive attitude towards women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kelby_lake

Basically this. For all his progressive views on medicine, he doesn't exactly have a progressive attitude towards women.

---

I wouldn't say that his not being progressive is a problem. His problem stems from the fact that he is a terrible judge of character, so he hasn't realised how spoiled she is. It isn't his fault that it is impossible to have a normal relationship with Rosamund. He talks about problems with Rosamund, who however does whatever she wants anyway. Like when she writes the letter, in which she asks for a financial help, to his cousin. Lydgate isn't the kind of man who dominates in a relationship with attitude "Listen to me woman, I'm your master." If he did, Rosamond would curse the day she agreed to marry him.