Reading the Chunksters discussion

I have read that some feel the book would be better called Gwendolen Harleth and focussing on her rather than Daniel Deronda. I disagree. Without Daniel Gweystory is only half told as she is greatly known and changed through him. I also feel Daniels story is interesting and the two characters together with their intertwined life’s is a great aid to the author to give each depth and complexity that would be missing with such.

Thanks Tracey for stepping in and covering for Dianne.

So in this section we can finally talk about the novel as a whole (I finished it in mid-January but that is because I don't like reading multiple fiction books concurrently). I felt a bit uneasy about Eliot sending Daniel and Mirah sailing off towards Zion at the end, but at least she resisted the conventional happy ending of bringing Gwendolen and Daniel together. To be honest although I found some of the discussion of Jewish identity interesting there was a little too much of it in the end - full marks to her for avoiding obvious stereotyping though.

I read somewhere that Eliot caught herself being unwittingly and casually anti-semitic, having imbibed her general views from the surrounding culture, and so set out to inform herself and combat her own ignorance through knowledge - hence the level of detailed sympathy we find here.

Given the various gestures to other Victorian novels (Pride & Prejudice, Sense & Sensibility), Eliot, I think, is deliberately subverting the expected outcome. Though the Hans, Deronda, Mirah triangle is somewhat clumsy, I felt.

I love this book for its expansive view of Victorian society: it's intelligent as well as gripping. Gwen's character arc is powerful and quite unlike that of most Victorian female characters.

I also like the way Eliot takes the stereotype of the brooding, rich, powerful though secretly passionate 'hero' and shows the reality and dysfunction of those tropes via Grandcourt.

Hugh wrote: "Thanks Tracey for stepping in and covering for Dianne.

So in this section we can finally talk about the novel as a whole (I finished it in mid-January but that is because I don't like reading mult..."

I agree that it was a little overkill and the book could have been about 100 pages shorter without too much loss. I am wondering if Eliot was aware that this may be her last work and so was putting as much of her ideas down as possible.

Roman Clodia wrote: "I read somewhere that Eliot caught herself being unwittingly and casually anti-semitic, having imbibed her general views from the surrounding culture, and so set out to inform herself and combat he..."

I found Hans to be weak characterization which was surprising in a book that had such great characterization otherwise. I feel that Hans and Gwendolen's sisters are weak points in the story.

I don't really know how to express my opinions about the ending. It seems to end too quickly, even though it is very wordy, as if she has to explain to her readers the "why" of everything. I wonder why Eliot found the need to introduce Ezra's and Mirah's father at the very end. The character does nothing for the story unless it is to show that Mirah and Ezra turn out to be strong adults who are not intimidated by him any longer. It also seems awkward to have the love scene immediately after the father steals the ring. Eliot seems to be a very intelligent writer, but I feel she was tiring and wanted to be done with no loose ends.

I agree with Tracey's opinion that the two main characters are so entwined together that they both influence each other. Without Gwen, Daniel would not change his judgmental ways - he did judge Gwen's actions in the beginning - and Gwen certainly would not see herself as selfish and wanting to be better without Daniel.

I don't think this book will ever be considered a favorite of mine, but Daniel will probably be one of my literary crushes for a long time to go. He had such an integrity.

I cannot wait for the next chunkster. When do we nominate and vote?

Tammy Dayton wrote: "I don't really know how to express my opinions about the ending. It seems to end too quickly, even though it is very wordy, as if she has to explain to her readers the "why" of everything. I wonder..."

I agree that the ending seemed a little rushed. From my research, at the time Eliot wrote Daniel Deronda she was living with George Lewes whose health was declining. This may have caused her to rush the book to complete it and her mind would not have been able to concentrate as well as previously. Also, she herself had kidney disease in the last few years of her life, which could be why a throat infection caused her death; her system was weakened already at the time of DD.

As to the next book. I only know it will be a contemporary chunkster. I am sure Dianne will cover it when she gets back.

One of the reasons I nominated this book was because I really enjoyed Sophie and the Sybil by Patricia Duncker, a novel which is quite largely about George Eliot's latter years and what inspired Daniel Deronda, and I wanted to understand the context of that story better.

Hugh wrote: "One of the reasons I nominated this book was because I really enjoyed Sophie and the Sybil by Patricia Duncker, a novel which is quite largely about George Eliot's la..."

That looks an interesting book. Thanks for nominating DD.

Hugh wrote: "One of the reasons I nominated this book was because I really enjoyed Sophie and the Sybil by Patricia Duncker, a novel which is quite largely about George Eliot's la..."

I will add this to my reading list. I'm now fascinated by George Eliot.

Daniel Deronda fulfilling his grandfather’s sephardic desires, Mordecai/Ezra imparting his Judaic wisdom on Daneil, the union of the Sephardic and Ashkenazi split as seen in the marriage between Mirah and Daniel, it’s the epitome of a poetic ending for Daniel Deronda. While likable, were the coincidences believable…do they even have to be believable considering coincidences are a motif in Victorian Literature to move the plot along? I noticed this earlier in the book, when Eliot builds upon Mirah’s story; Deronda wanting to find her brother and in the next moment he finds an Ezrah Cohen…and then Mordecai. Or, how about the marriage proposal to Mirah…how was that moment where Mirah is in a frenzy looking for Daniel’s ring the most perfect time to propose to her? Yes, his intention was to alleviate her stress in the matter, to share in her grief for her father’s misguided ways; but was that really the “seize the moment” for a marriage proposal? When did he become so Jewish, and how Jewish did he have to be to leave Sir Hugo in the manner he did? I don’t know?

Eliot makes it evident that something has always been missing from Daniel’s life, that he always felt as if he never belonged; yet, she missed the mark in conveying that what was absent from his life was really religion. Was it intentional for her to write about his ties to Judaism to be innate?

I felt the same (missing the mark) about Gwendolyn’s story line as well. What was it about her relationship with Daniel that humbles her enough to do the 180? These are the moments where I always catch myself reading with modern day eyes instead of Victorian eyes, what was once gradual and an in-depth narrative quickly becomes faster paced and coincidental. The issue that I have is that Eliot only touches on these aspects for both Daniel and Gwendolyn as a means for making sense of the decisions they make in the end. I noticed it, I just didn’t find those details to be substantial enough to be attributed to the life changing paths they decided to take. I also wondered why Eliot didn’t do much more with Gwendolyn in the end. It’s as if what she endured because of Grandcourt’s death took the wind out out of her sails and the zeal from her life. Gwendolyn was one of the more robust characters in this novel, often depicted as the woman who would not bend to society’s whims; yet, in the end she succumbs to living a more quiet life, does she not?

As far as Sir Hugo and Daniel, as close as they were, did it appear to anybody if there was any real loss for Daniel in terms of Sir Hugo? This was the most bittersweet moment for me, reading about their good-bye's with one another. Although, they would always be a part of each other's lives, I could only read it as a final good-bye. I was unable to see a future that could be occupied by both men, knowing Daniel chose to identify and root himself in his Jewish heritage. To my understanding, Sir Hugo continued to have faith in Daniel to not become an overbearing Jewish zealot and he was happy to have a true heir to his fortune through sons his daughters would bear. Daniel, to me, is so content in the end, Sir Hugo is quickly forgotten...No? I believe there may have been greater sadness on Sir Hugo's part, and not nearly enough on Daniel's. Also, if I may say...Daniel may have grown up without his real parents in his life, but he was raised by his "real" parents (Sir H & Lady M). I can't help but attribute Daniel's loving and compassionate nature to Sir Hugo who raised him as if he were his very own son. Who would Daniel have been had he been raised by both Leanora and Ephraim? He would have been a neglected child, and definitely not the Daniel I know him to be.

I’ve commended Eliot in her ability to build upon, adding layers to her story while enriching her characters in the first half of the book; I believe in this second half she may have fallen short…just a little. Regardless, Eliot’s writing style and stories are captivating enough leaving this reader wanting more. I was glad to have read, “Daniel Deronda,” in the end. I give it 3.5 stars.

Hugh wrote: "Thanks Tracey for stepping in and covering for Dianne.

So in this section we can finally talk about the novel as a whole (I finished it in mid-January but that is because I don't like reading mult..."

To be honest although I found some of the discussion of Jewish identity interesting there was a little too much of it in the end
See, I think she should have done some editing in the middle of the novel where it's also heavy; in doing so, maybe she could have expanded on other aspects of the story...more time spent on the characters.

Tammy Dayton wrote: "I don't really know how to express my opinions about the ending. It seems to end too quickly, even though it is very wordy, as if she has to explain to her readers the "why" of everything. I wonder..."

It seems to end too quickly, even though it is very wordy, as if she has to explain to her readers the "why" of everything.
It's a Victorian thing, and it's not nearly as bad here even though it's noticeable. Have you ever read The House of the Seven Gables? It's quite evident there, but more so.

I wonder why Eliot found the need to introduce Ezra's and Mirah's father at the very end.
I thought it was to build on the theme of gambling; it's effects on the gambler and those involved; how it's a sickness, a compulsion, that has the ability to deplete one of any moral senses, etc. Didn't Eliot at one point describe Lapidoth and his addiction to have a greater effect on the body than hunger, or something like that?

Lapidoth is incapable of understanding remorse-he's become a sociopath, like Grandcourt.

I think you're also right about Eliot bringing Lapidoth back to further shed light on the children who show compassion to a father who deserves none...the children being who they are in spite of their father, they are able to grow from it. Gwendolyn has no father figure in her life and grows up to be spoiled, lacks empathy, hates both men and people; Daniel grows up with a father figure, not of his own blood, and he is nurturing to an extreme and even motherly to those who are in need of it; and, the Lapidoth children have a father figure who is the most unsavory of characters, yet the kids are the opposite...aside from Daniel's scenario, I really think it's about oppression and how we choose to grow from it.

I agree with Tracey's opinion that the two main characters are so entwined together that they both influence each other.
I didn't think they were entwined nearly enough. Their brief interactions with another, more often than not, read to me to be too superficial. The few times the waterworks flowed and the fist was bitten, seemed overtly dramatic because they lacked substantiality. There was no sense of intimacy emanating from either when in one another's company, other than they were attracted to each other.

I don't think this book will ever be considered a favorite of mine, but Daniel will probably be one of my literary crushes for a long time to go. He had such an integrity.
I concur! But, he's got nothing on Gone with the Wind's Rhett Butler...Swoon!!!

Ami wrote: "Daniel Deronda fulfilling his grandfather’s sephardic desires, Mordecai/Ezra imparting his Judaic wisdom on Daneil, the union of the Sephardic and Ashkenazi split as seen in the marriage between Mi..."

I agree with much of what you write. I liked your point about Daniel's real parents. Sir Hugo was to me probably the best character in the story.
Some say there may be a God gene and I agree that some people have more sensitivity and are attracted to religious matters. Daniel, I feel probably had this and Judaism with its history and dedication I could see would appeal to Daniel. He is a man who would need a vocation in life.

Ami wrote: "Tammy Dayton wrote: "I don't really know how to express my opinions about the ending. It seems to end too quickly, even though it is very wordy, as if she has to explain to her readers the "why" of..."

I think Gwendolen and Daniel thought on one another more than the times they actually shared the same room and in this way were entwined.

About addiction, it causes a very real physical change in the brain with certain neuronal pathways becoming deeply embedded. Sort of like a railway line where the train constantly goes over it; that line becomes clear and the train goes down it smoothly whereas an unused line becomes covered with weeds.

Tracey wrote: "Ami wrote: "Tammy Dayton wrote: "I don't really know how to express my opinions about the ending. It seems to end too quickly, even though it is very wordy, as if she has to explain to her readers ..."

I think Gwendolen and Daniel thought on one another more than the times they actually shared the same room and in this way were entwined.
I've been wondering about this ever since I commented about it in my post. You're right, they did often think about one another when not in each other's company. Did you find Daniel's relationship with Mirah convincing for the very same reasons, or was it something different for them? See, I found his interactions with Mirah to be soulful and endearing, even if they too were rarely with one another. What I'm trying to figure out is if, perhaps, my bias towards Mirah was in fact clouding my judgement?

Ami wrote: "Tracey wrote: "Ami wrote: "Tammy Dayton wrote: "I don't really know how to express my opinions about the ending. It seems to end too quickly, even though it is very wordy, as if she has to explain ..."

Daniel had a very real emotional attraction towards Mirah right from the start whereas with Gwendolen this happened slowly after she became vulnerable. I am not sure he thought of Mirah as much as Gwendolen throughout the novel but he certainly felt more for her. I think it is this stirring of feeling that caused him to act on Mirah's behalf and defend or be drawn towards what was precious to her.

Tracey wrote: "Ami wrote: "Tracey wrote: "Ami wrote: "Tammy Dayton wrote: "I don't really know how to express my opinions about the ending. It seems to end too quickly, even though it is very wordy, as if she has..."

Yes, I read it this way as well. I was really hoping I was being objective in my assessment of their relationships, considering my like for Mirah and dislike for Gwendolyn.

Ami wrote: "Tammy Dayton wrote: "I don't really know how to express my opinions about the ending. It seems to end too quickly, even though it is very wordy, as if she has to explain to her readers the "why" of..."


Wow Ami. Great points. Very third person omniscient.

Tammy Dayton wrote: "Ami wrote: "Tammy Dayton wrote: "I don't really know how to express my opinions about the ending. It seems to end too quickly, even though it is very wordy, as if she has to explain to her readers ..."

For not knowing how to express your opinion, I thought you did a great job! I enjoyed reading your assessments as well, using many of them to expand upon those little aspects of the story in my own post. Thank you for endulging me in conversation. ;)

I just finished up and I have enjoyed reading through the comments here. I felt the second half was enjoyable, but just didn't quite reach the strength of the first half. I just ordered Sophie and the Sybil. I'm trying to read a lot of George Elliott with another group and it looks like a nice edition to that project. Thanks!
I've tried to read everything written so far, but am I correct that Daniel would not have been able to marry Mirah without conflict if he had not been Jewish? I apologize if that's somewhere in the discussions and I missed it.
Hopefully now that I'm going to be able to keep up with the schedule for the next book, I'll keep up with the discussion!

Karen Michele wrote: "I just finished up and I have enjoyed reading through the comments here. I felt the second half was enjoyable, but just didn't quite reach the strength of the first half. I just ordered [book:Sophi..."

I've tried to read everything written so far, but am I correct that Daniel would not have been able to marry Mirah without conflict if he had not been Jewish?
Yes, it makes things easier. Although, to my understanding, it is of greater importance that the women be Jewish, as both religion and heritage are passed through the mother and not father...for the purpose of raising children. I think this is correct.

Better late than never I finally finished this today. It's been great reading through the comments and observations in this thread.

It's a funny book... we all seem to agree there's an unusual (im)balancing of story threads. I'm not sure we agree which pieces we'd have liked more or less of, but overall the pace is uneven and something is lacking. She's a wonderful writer overall, but this is no Middlemarch.

Having said that, it was wonderful to be immersed in this story - Juliet Stephenson's narration was (as always) glorious - and I give it a solid 4 stars.

I think more than others here I was particularly interested in Deronda's discovery and response to his jewish roots. I don't see this as about religion, to me it is very much more about identify and culture / heritage - identity being the predominant theme that I took away from the book.

I find it really interesting that Eliot created a zionist character and sent him off in the end to take part in the founding of Israel. I'd love to know more about how she came to write about this. Like others I've added Sophie and the Sybil to my TBR (thanks for the recommendation, Hugh) - can anyway say whether this is touched on in that book? I might have to look to a biography.

If anyone has read a great Eliot biography and can recommend, please do.

Ami wrote: "Karen Michele wrote: "I just finished up and I have enjoyed reading through the comments here. I felt the second half was enjoyable, but just didn't quite reach the strength of the first half. I ju..."

Yes that's right that Judaism is matriarchal and is passed through the mother's side. You can also convert to Judaism after appropriate supervised study / ritual.

As for whether there would have been conflict, that is very much up to the people involved. Lots of families where only the father is jewish by birth / conversion are raised with jewish cultural identity. But they might not easily gain membership in a synagogue, for example, or be able to live in Israel by 'birthright'.

My reading of Mirah and Ezra is that Mirah would not likely have accepted Daniel as her husband otherwise. Her Judaism was so central to her that it's hard to imagine she would have wanted to create a life with him otherwise. At least, it made it an easier choice for her.

Jen wrote: "Better late than never I finally finished this today. It's been great reading through the comments and observations in this thread.

It's a funny book... we all seem to agree there's an unusual (im..."

Better late than never I finally finished this today.
Absolutely! You did it! LOL!

She's a wonderful writer overall, but this is no Middlemarch.
No, it really was not...at all.

I don't see this as about religion, to me it is very much more about identify and culture / heritage - identity being the predominant theme that I took away from the book.
Okay, this had me reviewing my own thoughts about Daniel because it was important to me as well to understand his discovery of his Jewish roots. See, I lumped religion/heritage/culture all together, when you thought them as separate entities (I think?), and this makes better sense to me...to look at it in a three-pronged approach instead of just one, like I did...helps put things into better perspective, even now. Thank you.

If anyone has read a great Eliot biography and can recommend, please do.
I don't, but I know somebody else that may. I'll be in touch with you!

Yes that's right that Judaism is matriarchal and is passed through the mother's side. You can also convert to Judaism after appropriate supervised study / ritual.
Oh, good! I thought that's how it worked.

But they might not easily gain membership in a synagogue, for example, or be able to live in Israel by 'birthright'.
Great points! Thank you!