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