Victorians! discussion

Welcome to the final week of our read of The Egoist.
Please feel free to discuss any part of the novel.

Summary From https://oneyearinbooks.blogspot.com/2... :

“Crossjay's loyalty to Clara leads to his scheming to tell Vernon of what has happened. De Craye, however, gets to Crossjay first and manages to guess what he has to tell. De Craye lets Clara know, and she now has ammunition against Sir Willoughby when he once again tries to convince her to marry him. In front of her father, Clara tries to get Sir Willoughby to admit that he has proposed to Laetitia. Pushed into a corner, Sir Willoughby eventually has to give up his game. Because he (mistakenly) believes De Craye to be the "other man," Sir Willoughby tells Clara that she may be free only if she were to marry Vernon. It turns out that Vernon is actually in love with Clara, and so the two of them are engaged. Laetitia is eventually compelled to give in to Sir Willoughby, her father needing money and the rest of the town exerting further pressure on her. Still, Laetitia gets the last word in that she identifies Sir Willoughby as an egoist, and also vows that she does not love him. Upon Sir Willoughby accepting such conditions, she agrees to marry him. Additionally, she compels him to forgive Crossjay as well as the driver, Flitch (whom he has also banished). Sir Willoughby assents to all, and "salutes [his] wife!" True to comic form, the narrative ends with tidily with these two pairs.”

Critical Analysis from https://oneyearinbooks.blogspot.com/2... :

“CRITICAL APPROACH/ANALYSIS:
E.M. Forster holds up Meredith as an exemplar when he talks about plot: "A Meredithian plot...rather resembles a series of kiosks most artfully placed among wooded slopes, which his people reach by their own impetus, and from which they emerge with altered aspect. Incident springs out of character, and having occurred it alters that character." More specifically to The Egoist, Forster is impressed by the mystery and suspense created by the "concealed emotion" of Laetitia Dale: Forster claims that the novel does not reveal the extent to which her mind has changed until the great midnight revelation in which she refuses Sir Willoughby.

Forster's admiration of Meredith rightly focuses on the importance of character changes in relation to their experiences, though I don't quite agree with his estimation of Laetitia (In the chapter which describes Laetitia and Clara in conversation, Laetitia ends the conversation with the observation, "Miss Middleton, you have a dreadful power"--this, I think rather obviously signals that Laetitia is headed towards enlightenment as far as Sir Willoughby is concerned). With other characters as well, I think that the trajectory of change isn't particularly unexpected or surprising, rather, their trajectories seem rather mapped out from the start and certain results seem inevitable: Clara is bound to become more and more frustrated as she repeatedly petitions for release (thus the "rupture" in her decision to run away is highly predictable), Sir Willoughby is bound to be brought to his knees when the situation unravels out of his control. Oliphant's review signals this sense of inevitability and predictability, though Oliphant deems The Egoist as hence a failure, because it drags on and on.

I argue, however, that the predictable changes in character are in part what make The Egoist an effective "comedy in narrative" (as Meredith intended) rather than a novel or a comedy in the dramatic sense. George Woodcock points out that the witty, dialogic nature of the work and also the somewhat ridiculous tying of loose ends with the double marriage at the end render it more akin to dramatic comedy like The Importance of Being Earnest. At the same time, however, the "comedy in narrative" has markedly "narrative" elements including a high dose of irony, especially when the narrator slips into moments of free indirect discourse, or he gets into characters' heads by other means. A particularly memorable moment is when the narrator describes Sir Willoughby playing out the entire scene of his meeting with Clara years later when she will repent of being a spinster, and he will welcome her back generously. Throughout the work, the narrator includes the reader in his position of ironic distance with first-person plural statements; as Virginia Woolf remarked, "Meredith imagines us capable of disinterested curiosity in the behaviour of our kind." From this position of distance, Meredith accentuates the ridiculousness of Sir Willoughby's egoism and the blindness which it places on him.”

You summarise the novel much better than I can.
I would like to read another Meredith novel at some point in order to see if 'The Egoist' is a typical example, but for me, unfortunately, I was relieved to finish it. There were moments when I did engage with the writing, but perhaps I wasn't in the right mood for this particular novel, as I struggled to muster any sustained interest in the characters or plot. It didn't seem to have any of the depth of other great Victorian novels which address the situation of women as captives to male caprice, but I don't think Meredith's aim was to write that type of novel, so the failing is probably with me as a reader.

I completely agree, Clari. It was very different experience reading The Egoist, than something by Trollope, Gaskell, or Collins. Even when other Victorian authors had an agenda, like inheritance laws or the state of debtors prison, a more typical Vic still maintained character development and plotting. Perhaps their focus was entertainment with enlightenment on the side. Whereas Meredith had those flipped.

I felt much the same, Clari. It was hard going at times, a very roundabout way of writing and much longer than I felt was needed.

Having said that, I enjoyed some of the dialogue, especially among the minor characters, and I liked the farcical elements, such as Crossjay overhearing the conversation, and De Craye stopping him getting to Vernon to tell all.

I’m interested by the critical analysis, Renee, as I agree with Woodcock that it’s often akin to dramatic comedy. It may have worked better as a play, with the single setting of the Estate and more reliance on dialogue than prose. I found it interesting overall rather than engaging.

Pamela wrote: "I felt much the same, Clari. It was hard going at times, a very roundabout way of writing and much longer than I felt was needed.

Having said that, I enjoyed some of the dialogue, especially among..."

I just read your excellent review, Pamela. You make some great points. I think the story would have worked better as a play, such as The Importance of Being Earnest and Other Playsn. As stated in the Oliphant review, the novel has dragged “on and on,” whereas 3-5 Acts would have necessarily limited the verbiage.

That said, I enjoyed the novel. There were many funny scenes and I am glad to have read it. Like you, I suspect that it will bear a reread at some point.

Thanks Renee, I appreciate that. I am glad I read this with the group, your weekly summaries and everyone’s thoughts kept me focused, and in the end I felt it was worth reading.

In as earlier thread, I said that Meredith's style reminded me of a combination of "George Eliot (complex sentences) Henry James (commentary and dialogue over action) and Oscar Wilde (florid wit) put in a blender." However, I do agree with the previous comments that this section leaned toward the "Wilde" side. While that may be because we just read three Wilde plays and I watched a movie version of "Earnest," I did find myself visualizing this during its latter stages as a Wilde play. The settings could easily be staged.

I found this novel to be a quite interesting experience as I've been looking forward to trying Meredith some day. I was surprised to find Meredith's style to be so excessive and florid. While I did expect high level verbiage, I expected it to be in a less showy and florid and more intellectual and restrained manner.

I can see why Meredith was well-respected in his day and why he is less read in this day. He is just too much. In that way, his reputational arc reminds me most of 20th century author Thomas Wolfe. Both were highly respected in their day - Meredith was nominated 7 times for the Nobel Prize and Faulkner praised Wolfe as the best of the authors of their time - but both author's reputations faded over time. Meredith is more of an afterthought when 21st century readers think of Victorian authors. Wolfe's books did not make a dent in the Best Books of the 20th century polls so popular around 2000.

What Wolfe and Meredith have in common is writing with floridly excessive verbiage, a skill admired at the time but not as appealing to current readers. Wolfe's writing seems more descriptive and poetic (Wikipedia uses the word "rhapsodic) while Meredith's is wittier, sometimes tongue-in-cheek, and more intellectual. (Wikipedia uses the terms "aphoristic and allusive" and "syntactic complexity") I'd say Wolfe's language is more poetic but then Meredith is the one that was more of a poet. I think both authors' excessive verbiage, be it florid or poetically rhapsodic try the patience of latter-day readers.

While I often make fun of Wolfe's excess writing, I do have a soft-spot for Wolfe, dating back to from reading Look Homeward Angel with my freshman year of college roommate. I have even visited his childhood home/museum in Asheville, N.C. While I don't think I'll ever replicate that fondness with Meredith, I did find myself at times admiring some of Meredith's verbal gymnastics in this book. While, unfortunately, these moments of admiration did not amount to the majority of the time, it was enough of the time for me to rate this book as 3 stars rather than 2 stars.

I am ashamed to say that I have read no Thomas Wolfe, Brian. But you make me want to give him a try. :)

I also did not know Asheville as just hometown. It’s such a great, fun little city. I will have to check out the museum when I get there again.

I too think that this book felt like a play with its limited setting, plot and characters. I can imagine a skilled actor making Willoughby shine on stage and being one of those over the top characters that you love to hate.

What did everyone think of the marriage ending?

I have mixed feelings about the Egoist/Laetitia wedding. It is a shame that, during the time she loved him, the Egoist chose others to wed and then chooses her to be his spouse just when that love has dissipated.
However ultimately, for pragmatic reasons, I like the marriage. Laetitia is now 30ish, on the cusp of old maid status. The unfortunate reality of the times is the lack of lifestyle alternatives for women besides marriage. Basically, Laetitia cannot afford to be single forever. While she may not love him anymore, she once did, and I think she will tolerate him better than any other woman can. Also, I know of no one else she loves more, so no major setback on the love front. I do think the Egoist will encourage her intellectual development not just because he promised but because that it one of the things he is proud of about her - he wants to be able to brag about how smart she is. On his part, the Egoist gets a more intelligent, practical and relatively attractive woman than he warrants; also a woman that may encourage any personal growth he can possibly have. He may even love her, if that emotion is in his wheelhouse. So not a bad outcome for either of them or for the whole of society, if it results in a less obnoxious Egoist.

Completely aside - I thought Laetitia was an interesting name that I wasn't sure I had run into before. Then, just yesterday I saw an ad for a new HBO TV series starting August 30th that is in French with subtitles, and is called "Laetitia." This simultaneously releasing unrelated TV shows with similar names seems to happen when I read Victorians. In January of this year, when I was reading Gaskell's "Sylvia's Lovers" Amazon released a streaming movie called "Sylvie's Love." So one January day I read Sylvia's Lovers and then watched Sylvie's Love.

Brian wrote: "I have mixed feelings about the Egoist/Laetitia wedding. It is a shame that, during the time she loved him, the Egoist chose others to wed and then chooses her to be his spouse just when that love ..."

I was strangely thinking in very practical terms, that Willoughby, as heir to the estate, most central role in life is to provide a son for simple succession and to keep the estate whole. So he would have to choose a younger wife, especially with pregnancy and childbirth being so fraught with dangers even for women in their twenties. Earlier in the novel he is nigh on repulsed at Laetitia reminding him she is 30, but he seems to think in terms of his wife as a possession than the burden on her health in having her first child when she is older.

On the names those are interesting coincidences, Brian :D
I am familiar with Laetitia, but can't say from where! I think it is a more popular name in France.

My mother had an etiquette book by Letitia Baldridge from the 60s. I had the impression she was a big deal for that era.

Clari wrote: I was strangely thinking in very practical terms, that Willoughby, as heir to the estate, most central role in life is to provide a son for simple succession and to keep the estate whole. So he would have to choose a younger wife, especially with pregnancy and childbirth being so fraught with dangers even for women in their twenties..."

In the absence of a Willoughby son, I wonder to whom the estate would be entailed. Both Vernon and Crossjay are male relatives. :D