Middlemarch by George Eliot

[Gladys]

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.

[kelby_lake]

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.

[kelby_lake]

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).

[Aylinn]

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?

[Jackson Richardson]

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

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

So it isn't political, is it?

[Gladys]

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?

[Jackson Richardson]

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.

[kelby_lake]

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?

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.

[kelby_lake]

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

[Jackson Richardson]

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.

[Gladys]

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.

[kelby_lake]

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.

[Jackson Richardson]

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.

[kelby_lake]

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.

[Jackson Richardson]

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.