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
Great Job, Grayson! You covered so much! It's awesome that we've all read the "convergence" criticism. can't wait to talk about it in class. I'm glad you talked about the marriage of opposites and how Dorothea and Will fit that ideal. We definitely talked about that before and it'll be interesting to reflect on it now.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome! I did not read the Edwards article, so I am intrigued why she did not like the novel. Did it fail for her as a well-told, interesting story? Or was she reading as a critic might, full of preconceived hopes about theme and symbolism that were dashed against what Eliot actually wrote? Sometimes I think critics have educated themselves right out of being able to enjoy a story as a good read, stifling their natural instincts in favor of what they have been taught is "good" literature.
ReplyDeleteYes, great post Grayson! I enjoyed what you said about the marriages of opposites too and how it would not be right if Dorothea married someone like herself. I think that Eliot sets us up in the beginning with Causabon and her loyalty and it was nice to have a strong sense of Dorothea through that relationship. The fact that she then marries her late husbands nephew is another great curve ball that Eliot uses to possibly show the strength of their love for one another regardless of the past and/or to acknowledge the "new" and courageous Dorothea.
ReplyDeleteI liked your blog, Grayson. Thoughtful and interesting.
ReplyDelete