Essays in Criticism

Out of the many essays in this section, I chose to read 'Hardy's Moment of Vison' by Virginia Woolf and 'Decent and Sexual Selection: Women in Narrative' written by Gillian Beer. Woolf's begins her essay by stating, "Some writers are born conscious of everything; others are unconscious of many things," (400). Woolf places Hardy under the category of the 'unconscious' and says it is part of his strength as well as his weakness as a writer. Hardy's imagery throughout all his novels seems to take the reader to that particular place and time and make him feel as if he is seeing what the characters are seeing, and more. Woolf mentions this as Hardy's "moments of vision," (401). However, she says that after these 'moment of vision' the novels often become, "lumpish and dull and inexpressive," (401). She also says, "It is as if Hardy himself were not quite aware of what he did, as if his consciousness held more than he could produce, and left it for his readers to make out his full meaning and to supplement it from their own experience," (401). After this paragraph, Woolf begins to relate and compare many of Hardy's other characters (not in Tess) and the way they are all somehow linked by this great amour of imagery and unconscious thought. I have not read any other hardy novels so I can't make the connections she makes. 

The next essay I read was Gillian Beer's 'Decent and Sexual Selection' which, in the beginning, talks more about Darwin and his writing than Hardy's writing. Beer discusses how Darwin flipped the natural sexual selection from female selecting males to males selecting females. In almost very aspect of the animal kingdom, females make the sexual choices; however, Darwin takes this idea and argues that, in the human world, men select women. In Darwin's The Decent, Darwin says, "Man is more powerful in body and in mind than woman… therefor it is not surprising that he should have gained the power of selection," (447). Beer also mentions the idea of "survival of the fittest" and how women way of survival come from their beauty. Men are more likely to choose a beautiful woman and that woman's genes are the ones to be passed on. So, although Tess is supposedly from a rich family from her father's side, her beauty is the source of all the male attention. This beauty comes fro her mothers side. 

I thought it was very humorous to come across a quote like Woolf's after today's discussion in class (Ryan I thought you in particular would get a kick out of it). "It is as if Hardy himself were not quite aware of what he did." This quote seems to support or theory that Hardy's explanation of Tess' fate was not completely truthful, mainly because he doesn't really seem to be sure what kind of message he is trying to send. I realize this may not be exactly what Woolf was saying, but I thought it was interesting that it's almost exact what we talked about today in class.

Contemporary Critical Reception

As we have discussed in class, the contemporary critiques of Tess of the D'Urbervilles were fairly mixed between those who loves the novel, those who appreciated the Hardy's style but did not particularly like the story, and those who hated the novel. One critic in from The Athenaeum ends his essay on Hardy's bleak and sometimes unpleasant style by stating, "Tess of the D'Ubervilles is well in front of Mr. Hardey's previous work, and is destined, there can be no doubt, to rank high among the achievements of Victorian novelists," (382). The first line of the next essay, from The Illustrated London News, reiterates the previous authors statement by saying, "Mr. Hardy's new novel is in many respects the finest work which he has yet produced," (382). Also like in the previous essay, this author criticizes Hardy's dark and pessimistic style and says many readers will be disapproving of the book because they do not want to be disturbed by what they are reading (I think we can all agree that Tess is more than a little disturbing). This author mentions that many readers to not like unhappy ending because unhappy ending cause them to "appeal to the conscience" which is always looking for the "the traditional pattern of right and wrong," (383). Because of Hardy's successful attempt to accentuate the fact that the purest of women are the easiest victims, this author declares hardy to be "one of [the] brave and clear-sighted minority," (383). The essay from The Spectator states that "Mr. Hardy has written one of his most powerful novels," (384). This essay talks about the idea of naturalism and the idea that there is no "higher power" that saves the characters from a cruel life. From the side of the reviewers who did not like the novel, we have an article from The Saturday Review. The opening line of the essay states, "Let it at once be said that their is not one single touch of nature either in John Durbyfield or in any other character in the book," (383). Seeing as this novel's central theme seems to be one about naturalism, this is a pretty big statement. The essay goes on to discuss how Hardy's detailed description of Tess's physical attributes do nothing for the readers. The author gives another lofty statement when he says, "t matters much less what a story is about than how that story is told, and Mr. Hardy, it must be conceded, tells an unpleasant story in a very unpleasant way," (384). The last review I will mention (in this part of the blog at least) is the letters sent between Stevenson Discuss and Henry James. Stevenson wrote to James, "The good little Thomas Hardy has scored a great success with Tess of the D'Ubervilles, which is chock-full of faults and falsity and yet ha a singular beauty and charm," (387). James replies, "I do not know that I am exaggerative in criticism; but I will say that Tess is one of the worst, weakest, least sane, most ovule books I have yet read," (387). 

It seems to me that the mere fact that there are so many mixed feeling about this novel means that it had the effect that Hardy might have wanted it to have. If he wanted everyone to love it, he might have added some positive plot twists or at least given the story a happy ending; however, it does not seem to me that Hardy cared much of people liked the novel. It seems like a statement about he, himself, feels about life and that's all that really mattered. I am no expert, but that is what I got from the interview. 

The review I loved the most was the interview with Mr. Hardy. There is nothing I love more than to hear an authors explanations behind their work. I love to know what made them decide to create the world in their novels and to be aware of the small details that they had in mind while they were writing, even if they did not share them in the story. My favorite quote from the interview was, "But indeed I little or nothing to do with it. When I got to the middle of the story the characters took their fates into their own hands, and I literally had no power," (388). When I read this quote for the first time, I was deeply moved by it.I think that great authors don't just think of a story than write it. They start with one simple idea and feed and nurture it until it grows into what it is supposed to be. The second time I read the quote, I saw a bit of irony in it. We have talked several times about naturalism and how hardy wanted to get the point across that people do not have "free will" and cannot make their own choices. Yet, he said that his characters "took their fates into their own hands," and he had no choice but to write it that way. This is a complete contradiction to a major theme of the novel itself. I don't know if Hardy did this on purpose but I see it as very ironic. 

Recent Criticism

I really enjoyed the first of the two articles I read for this blog. Robert B. Heilman's "'Stealthy Convergence' in Middlemarch" focused on Eliot's ability to subtly combine the lives of two seemingly separate groups of characters. Heilman compares the quote, "a stealthy convergence of human lots," (61) to the common expression "no man is an island," (619) but he quickly states the small but very important difference. He emphasis of the Middlemarch quote is "different: less on the denial of separateness than on the almost imperceptible, or unperceived, process by which apparently independent lots turn out to be related," (619). Eliot does not lazily patch together her plot by skipping from one character set to the next without transition. In fact, she is able to make that transition from one to the other with the reader barely even noticing. Heilman uses the example of the first transition from Dorothea and Casaubon to Lydgate and Rosamund. After becoming engaged, Dorothea and Casaubon are the talk of all the neighbors. The neighbors are talked about by the other people in the town at a dinner. This is where Eliot makes the transition. After the dinner party, Lydgate begins to think about the difference between Dorothea and Rosamund. The next chapter opens with Lydgate and a whole new set of charters and their problems. Gradually, Eliot begins to mix the lives of the two groups until the lives of each depend on the lives of the other. The characters become so entwined by the end of the novel that the reader beings to think of them, not as two factions, but as a whole unit. The transition is so smooth that the reader does not feel like the story is being interrupted every time Eliot wanted to talk about the other character set. 

Another part of the article that I thought was particularly interesting was the fact that each of the marriages in Middlemarch was a union of opposites. The down to earth Lydgate marries the selfish, self-indulgent Rosamund. The lost Fred Vincy marries the sensible Mary Garth. And last but not least, the strong, dutiful Dorothea married the romantic Ladislaw. Instead of pairing her characters according to similarities, Eliot pairs them by differences (except for Dorothea's first marriage to Casaubon. Although they seemed very similar and compatible, we all know how happy that marriage was.). I thought this was a really interesting point (thanks for pointing it out today Cory). 

The second article was less impressive, at least in my opinion. The author, Lee R. Edwards, begins the novel by talking about the impact that Middlemarch had on her life. She was at first inspired by the energy of the women, especially Dorothea. However, as she moved through her description of the novel, she began to talk about how disappointing the novel was (I had a hard time fallowing what she was trying to say). Edwards admits that although she fell in love with the novel at first, she misread it. She believed Dorothea possessed an energy to make a place for herself and changer her place in the life she was living.  But according to Edwards, Dorothea had loses her energy to change throughout the book and becomes a captive in her own society. In the end of the article, Edwards describes her feeling towards Middlemarch as, "alternately angered, puzzled, and finally depressed," (630). 

Reading the article by Heilman (as well as the discussion from class today) has helped me make sense of the marriage between Dorothea and Will. Although I am usually satisfied with the "love conquers all" kind of ending, I was unsure about why Eliot decided to have Dorothea marry Will. Throughout the novel, Dorothea seemed like such a srong, grounded character and it didn't seem like her to marry Will. But after reading the article, I understand that she married Will because he was her compliment, not her substitute. Like I mentioned before, most the characters in the novel married someone with the opposite personality, for better or for worse. It wouldn't have been right if Dorothea married someone just like herself. I feel like that would have undermined the entire plot that Eliot was building in the first place. 

Work Cited

Eliot, George, and Bert G. Hornback. Middlemarch: An Authoritative Text, Backgrounds, Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 2000. Print

Contemporary Reviews

Summery: 

As I read through the contemporary reviews of George Eliot's Middlemarch, it was hard for me to find a strong unifying theme but I think I found at least a small one. Each critic gave Eliot due credit in her ability to create a strong, well developed story; however, they were not fully satisfied. Henry James says, "Middlemarch is at once the strongest and one of the weakest of English novels," (p 578). 

Eliot's ability to develop her characters throughout Middlemarch makes readers able to relate to at least one, if not more, of the them. One critic says, "Never before have so keen and varied an observation, so deep an insight into character and motives, so strong a grasp of conceptions, such power of picturesque description, worked together to represent through agency of fiction an author's moral a social views," (573). With this novel, Eliot was able to convey the way she saw the lives of people in society at that time. Young women who read the novel are able to relate to a number of the women throughout the story and sympathize with them. They could strive to be like Dorothea morally and religiously and hope they aren't like Rosamand. Eliot was able to accurately develop the phycological triumphs and trials that many people go through in their daily lives. By doing this, she was able to make most readers sympathetic to characters they wouldn't usually be sympathetic to. 

On the other hand, one or two of the critics agreed that Eliot was detached from her writing, and all agreed that her novel fell short in some way or another. Leslie Stephen says, " (Eliot) seems to be a little out of touch with the actual world, and to speak from a position of philosophical detachment which somehow exhibits her characters in a rather distorting light," (586). This statement stems from the argument that many people are "mostly fools" and Eliot was disheartened by this fact. Her lack of development of Will Ladislaw, who seems to be her hero of the story, is another let down for the critics. She does such a great job developing the other Middlemarchers, yet she leaves Will as a character who hardly grows at all throughout the story. 

Analysis:

What I found most interesting about these reviews was their comments on Eliot's ability to make the reader sympathize and relate to a character. One example I liked the most was Bolstrode. Although many people don't like to admit it, we all make small excuses to make up for the mistakes we have made, or are currently making. Or we try to justify our "evil" actions by doing something good before or after. We all want to balance our "karma" so to speak. I think this is why we sympathize with Bolstrode so much. Although he does things that society may consider morally wrong, he does not see the error he is making. He honestly thinks he can make up for his past actions by spending the money he practically cheated to receive on a good cause. He wants to do good with his money, but he does not see that many people think of it has tainted anyway. I think Eliot did a really great job bringing out that mental and moral struggle within several, if not all, her characters. Because of this, readers are able to sympathize with characters and recognize part of the characters in themselves. 

Work Cited: 

Eliot, George, and Bert G. Hornback. Middlemarch: An Authoritative Text, Backgrounds, Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: Norton, 2000. Print

Mary Barton: Contemporary Criticism

For this blog on the more contemporary criticisms of Mary Barton I chose to read the article Maternal Authority in "Mary Barton" by Hilary M. Schor. I chose this article mainly because it sounded interesting and unlike anything we have talked about so far in class. The main point of Schor's essay was the importance of a mother or at least a mother-like authority. Although Mary's mother dies in only the second chapter, she still has her long lost Aunt Esther who does everything in her power to look after Mary's best interest, even though Esther herself is a lowly prostitute. When Mary believes her mother has come back from the dead, she is surprised to find Esther instead, as if Esther has actually replaced Mary's mother altogether. To the working class in the novel, a mothers authority is a comfort rather than a constraint. To have a mother watch after you is to have someone care for you and "freedom [there] seems to be nothing more than desolation-- the desolation of the unloved and unwatched over," (559). Esther took on the motherly role by watching over Mary, even if it was from afar. She did everything in her power to make sure Mary did not suffer the same fate that Esther had, she even ended up in jail trying to help Mary. 

Schon goes on to argue that in order for the characters in the book to turn towards a motherly authority, they had to make themselves children, for there are no mothers without children. After Mr. Carson refuses to forgive John Barton, he watches a young girl forgive a boy who knocks her over. The girl forgives him instantly saying he didn't know what he was doing. This leads Carson to the Bible, and ultimately to forgiving John Barton. When John asks for forgiveness he is making himself the child and by forgiving him Carson makes himself "Christ-as-mother," ("Christ" because he came to the conclusion through the Bible) (563). The characters of the novel had to assume one of two roles: the protected or the protecter; the mother or the child. Many of the people in the novel assume each of the roles at different times and after doing so undergo a change in character that often turns the tides of the novel itself.

Geskell began writing Mary Barton in order to distract herself from the death of her infant son, at the insistence of her husband. Because she was writing through a pain no mother should ever have to endure, it makes sense to me why a "mother authority" is so present throughout the novel (although I never thought about it that way before reading this article). I though Geskell did a great job incorporating her heartbreak in the book without making it the main focus. The death of the infants in the beginning of the novel, Mrs. Wilson's devastation over Jem's arrest and Alice's attachment to her foster son were all great examples of the struggles mothers endure, although they were not by any means the central theme of the book. It was not until I read this article did I even consider the role of maternal authority in this novel. 

Work Cited

Gaskell, Elizabeth. Mary Barton. Ed Thomas Recchio: A Norton Critical Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 2008. Print.

Mary Barton

In this blog, I will summarize and analyze two essays regarding Elizabeth Geskell's Mary Barton, both of which were written a year after the novel was published.

Summery:

The first essay was an unsigned review from the British Quarterly that was written in 1849. Shortly into the critical review of Mary Barton, the critic states, "The author of 'Mary Barton' has given by no means a fair picture of the attitude which the two contending partied (workers and masters) usually assume towards each other," (369). He (assuming the author of this particular review is a man) goes on to describe the parallels between the murder of an actual mill owner, Mr. Thomas Ashton, and the murder of Harry Carson in Mary Barton. Some of the similarities include the fact that Carson was shot close to his father's home, as was Mr. Ashton and also that a reward of £1000 for the discovery of the murderer. He also mentions how Mr. Ashton was in fact a fair master and his workers were not even involved with the strike during the time of his murder. He then goes on to describe the violent natures of the workmen and how they would often spend any money they earned, regardless of the wages they earned. 

Throughout the rest of the essay, the author talks about the working conditions of the mill. He says that the conditions depicted in Mary Barton were inaccurate, claiming "that the labour in a cotton-mill, especially for the women and the young people, is extremely light," (372). He also lists various statistics regarding the amount of reported accidents in the mills. 

By contrast, the second essay is full of praise for Mary Barton. Also anonymous, the writer of this essay says, "the authoress has chosen an exceptional instead of the normal condition of social feeling, as the subject of her fiction," (374). He goes on to praise Gaskell's use of imagery, her development of characters, as well as her overall organization of the the novel. Although the essay overall applauds Mary Barton, the author also touches on a few criticisms as well. He says, "Mary Barton is so strong in genuine excellence, that it can well bear a faithful criticism," (378). The author mentions inconsistencies to characters of both Mary and John Barton as well as touching on the unfair depiction of the masters that was the topic in the first essay.

Analysis:

I thought the first essay I read was very interesting. While reading the novel, it is hard to see the masters as anything but selfish and greedy with no thought about the people they employed. After reading the first essay, I began to rethink the way I saw the masters. I began to wonder if they were really as bad as they were portrayed in Mary Barton. Even though the essay was successful in making me stop and think, I still noticed how the whole essay was almost dripping bias. It was almost as if the writer of the essay was a mill-owner himself. I think he made fair points that not all masters were horrible to their workers, but I feel like he discredited himself when he began to "bash" the workers in the same way that Gaskell shed a negative light on the mill-owners. I think there are two extremes in the situation, but Geskell's novel was closer to the middle than the essay. There was one point however that the author made that I thought was good. He mentioned how it was very unlikely that the workers would go on strike when there was little work. Man will do almost anything to survive and it does not seem to be in our nature to make hard times even harder. Going on strike during prosperous times, however, could very well have the desired outcomes. This is the one valid point made by the first author. 

The second essay was full of praise and I agree with that praise on all levels. The one areas where I disagreed with the essay was when the author criticized the inconsistencies in Mary and John's characters. I believe it is those very inconsistencies that gave Mary and John and believable aspect. There are very few people who are exactly the same no matter who they are around. Mary's change in character between her two lovers is exactly how most young women would act, even today. John's changes throughout the book are just testaments to how hard times can change even the most sturdy of men. Without these inconsistencies in character, I don't think the story would have the depth that is otherwise does. It would not have been as believable. 

Work Cited

Gaskell, Elizabeth. Mary Barton: Norton Critical Edition. W.W. Norton & Company. 2008.