Victorians! discussion

George Eliot was the writer of Middlemarch, the best book ever written according to some guy* who hasn't read all that many books but really enjoys superlatives, and a bunch of other influential Victorian novels.

* me

If you're currently reading one of Eliot's books, or just want to talk about them, hopefully you can stop in here and compare notes with other readers.

Note that plot details of Eliot's novels may be discussed in this thread. Hopefully they'll be marked as spoilers, but one never knows.

Alex, Not quite sure what you want people to do with this thread or any of the others you have added. Did you want people to add their favorite books by this author or their remembrance of when they read particular books of this author, etc.? Perhaps you could add a bit to your messages about these two authors explaining what you would like the readers to do. Thanks!
Marialyce

Oh, sorry Marialyce. Um...I saw that some people mentioned that they are reading, or are about to read, or have recently read books by these authors; my hope was that this could be a centralized discussion location for current and future readers. As important Victorian authors, they come up fairly often; when they do, there are a few conversations that tend to happen every time - for instance, "How long does it take before Middlemarch really heats up?" Does that make sense? I hope I haven't overstepped my bounds.

Alex wrote: "Oh, sorry Marialyce. Um...I saw that some people mentioned that they are reading, or are about to read, or have recently read books by these authors; my hope was that this could be a centralized di..."

Oh no, Alex. I think that is a super idea and as I am about to start The Woman in White, I know I will be posting.

Couldn't agree more, Anna.

Interesting point by your friend, and I mostly agree. I've done more than my share of Samuel Richardson-bashing; Tom Jones would have been great if it were about 700 pages shorter; and Tristram Shandy...well, it's not really fair to include that in a discussion about plot, since Sterne never had any intention of giving it one.

The exception for me is Daniel Defoe, who predated the three guys I mentioned above by decades and who totally had this figured out. Robinson Crusoe and Moll Flanders may not be as exceptionally woven as Middlemarch, but they know what they're doing.

And yeah, it was me who was blown away by how carefully Eliot has set up every single strand of Middlemarch.

Interesting points since I usually prefer a character-driven novel to a plot-driven novel. I enjoyed Middlemarch, but as much for the characterizations as plot, which I felt was "light." Not that there wasn't a plot, but that it wasn't the point.

I'll chime in and give a bit of a thumbs-down to Silas Marner (which I was warned about before I started it). If that's the "best-proportioned" of her books, I don't know I want to bother with the other ones. Why would you take what is presumably the central pivot of the plot (Eppie's effect on the weaver) and limit its development to half of a single chapter? She's two, she's three, she's eighteen. Not the most effective twist ever developed. And don't get me started on denoument. Not so much an ending as a back cover...

Anna wrote: "Do you think Dorothea marries Causabon because she has a father complex, or because she's too blinded by religion/duty/morality to see what a terrible decision it is? "

Er...yes?

I hadn't thought about the daddy complex, but that actually makes a lot of sense. Good point.

I had been operating under the assumption that she wanted to Do Something Important and was just too young to realize that this wasn't the way to go about it.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Elizabeth (Alaska) | 99 comments Interesting points since I usually prefer a character-driven novel to a plot-driven novel...Not that there wasn't a plot, but that it wasn't the point."

Ha...no, you're 100% right. I got caught up in the plot mainly because I was so surprised it had one - as opposed to, say, Vanity Fair - but it's not the primary focus of the book. I completely agree that it's a character-driven novel.

I spent the entire first half of the book trying to decide whether I liked any of the characters or not. Eliot has a way of showing you a picture of someone - often an unflattering one - and then suddenly showing you another layer under that, that makes perfect sense now that she mentions it, and then another one under that - so I'd often go through huge vacillations in my opinions of people before finally realizing that Eliot had no intention of giving me good or bad characters at all; she was just slowly revealing real people.

Alex, I assume you're in with us on Daniel Deronda? I am slowly getting (re)acquainted with Vic Lit, thanks to all of you. I'm looking forward to it!

I have not read any of her other works. So I'll suspend further judgment until I do.

I suppose it was more character than plot driven, although when well done, I quite enjoy that as well (I am a huge Dickens fan, and nobody does character like he did), but given that, again, the major twist hinged (to some extent, at least) upon the character of the weaver and the changes that took place in it, to simply say "he was this way,...and - wait - now's he a new man!" (presto-changeo) doesn't really strike me even as good character development.

It's been more than 40 years since I read Silas Marner, but I don't remember the change as having been "presto chango". I don't intend to re-read much of anything, believing that a re-read steals from the unread, but Silas Marner is short enough I make one day make an exception.

Anna wrote:
This is a point that has come up in ..."

Don't mind it at all when it's not the point upon which a whole character's arc depends. Consider Austen. If she had told us that Eliza Bennett went to bed one night hating Mr. Darcy and woke up the next morning loving him madly, how satisfied would we be? Or if Benedick and Beatrice went straight from squabbling in their opening scene to getting married in the next? If character development is the key to a whole story, then the journey is far more significant than the destination...

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Alex, I assume you're in with us on Daniel Deronda?"

I'd love to, but I've somehow committed myself to reading both The Count of Monte Cristo and The Victorians in October, so I'm not sure I'm gonna be able to make it happen.

Alex wrote: "Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Alex, I assume you're in with us on Daniel Deronda?"

I'd love to, but I've somehow committed myself to reading both The Count of Monte Cristo and ..."

LOL, I know how that goes. I'm going to squeeze it in, in spite of working my way through a portion of The Forsyte Saga, A Modern Comedy, End of the Chapter in another group, as well as Frankenstein, and getting ready for our own Dickens reads.

We are crazy people.

Anna wrote: "I think I just committed myself to The Time Machine on top of our planned The Victorians read and now I really want to read Silas Marner and Uncle Silas on some sort of Si..."

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Interesting points since I usually prefer a character-driven novel to a plot-driven novel. I enjoyed Middlemarch, but as much for the characterizations as plot, which I felt was "light." Not that t..."

No, you're right, the plot isn't the point. I think the sub-title is the key: The full title of the work is Middlmarch, A Study of Provincial Life. For my money, that's really what she's doing: studying the live of a provincial town in the 1830s, showing how the changes in society outside the town are affecting the lives of those within the town, exploring the various classes and how they interact, how people rise and fall in the society, the various concepts of marriage and how people get drawn into marriages, both good and bad, and on and on. The plot is there, and it's well drawn, but it's a servant to the overall goal, not the point of the book.

Anna wrote: "@Alex- She [Dorothea] definitely wants to Do Something Important! And I'm not necessarily trying to psychoanalyze her. It was just a thought because she has a line to the effect that a husband should be a com..."

We have, I think, to keep in mind that she was brought up by a quite intellectually vacuous uncle, kindly but scatterbrained, who didn't respect her as a woman or appreciate her intellect. She must have been starved for somebody, anybody, to take her seriously intellectually, and when she finally found him she built a whole castle of intellectual life in the air. Of course, he wanted something totally different, but I've been chastised in the past for explaining why I think he had some justification for his views, so I won't get into that here.

I just wanted to add -- especially because of the discussion of spoilers I just saw in the other group thread -- there is nothing wrong with starting an author thread -- great idea and we appreciate it. However, if within this, you do plan to discuss plots and spoiler about specific books, please do add that to the thread title -- add "Spoilers Possible" -- something like that.

For example, another reader may come into the thread thinking it is a more general discussion of a new author they are interested in, but see spoilers of novels right away.

We just want to distinguish that is possible as much as we can up front. Same with your Collins thread you just started. So, Alex, please take a look and make the appropriate changes. Thank you for taking the initiative to broaden the discussions.

No problem at all. As long as the thread indicates what we will find within it is all a good thing (and I am echoing somewhat what Marialyce said above too, thanks Marialyce). I love the conversations here on Vics, please don't let me interrupt. Thanks all of you great members.

Added a little warning to the intros for both these threads.

Thanks very much.

I've read this pastmonth Silas Marner - which I found "strange" in respect to all others novels by Eliot, for its happy ending and I'm about to start Daniel Deronda for the grup here. But I still think that Middlemarch is her best work, and one of the best novel ever written...

I just discovered George Eliot this year and have been steadily working my way through her books. I've read Middlemarch, The Mill on the Floss, Silas Marner, Adam Bede, and Daniel Deronda. I'm reading Romola right now. Eliot's simply amazing, one of my favorite writers. I can't believe she's not more well-known.

I would recommend Silas Marner. It's a very quiet book and the transformation of Marner, while profound, was done according to Eliot's adherence to realism. It's like A Christmas Carol without the supernatural aspect or Les Miserables without all the side plots.

Mickey wrote: "I just discovered George Eliot this year and have been steadily working my way through her books. ...I would recommend Silas Marner. It's a very quiet book and the transformation of Marner, while profound, was done according to Eliot's adherence to realism...."

I agree with that. I do agree with those who found it a somewhat strange book -- Marner is unlike most other characters found in Victorian fiction -- but the book is beautifully written and emotionally powerful.

I can understand the problems that some readers are having with the sudden and complete transformation of Silas Marner, but I think that has more to do with our modern ideas of transformation than with the skill of George Eliot as a writer. Similar sudden transformations take place in other 19th century literature (Scrooge's in A Christmas Carol, Jean Val Jean's in Les Miserables, Raskolnikov's in Crime and Punishment(where, yes, two out of the three examples went to bed one night and woke up transformed).)

I think the closest examples of transformation for the 19th century person were religious conversions, which were usually sudden and complete. Our concept of transformation comes from rehab or therapy, which focuses on the process. This shift changed what we view as a realistic portryal of a transformation.



On another note, what is everyone's favorite George Eliot book? I loved The Mill on the Floss. I enjoyed the epic themes set in a small town. It was also the book where I was the most frustrated with Eliot's devotion to realism, especially concerning the relationship with Maggie and Philip.

Anna wrote: "I've only read Middlemarch and Mill on the Floss, but I liked Middlemarch better. It was just pointed out to me that I tend to like novels where all the characters are insufferable idiots though, s..."

LOL!

Anna wrote: I'm so curious about Silas Marner. It's been getting such mixed reviews around her. Was it just the ending LauraT or were there other things about it you found 'strange'? and I've only read Middlemarch and Mill on the Floss, but I liked Middlemarch better. It was just pointed out to me that I tend to like novels where all the characters are insufferable idiots though, so that might explain this choice."

I do agree!!!! Middlemarch remains the best up to now. About Silas Marner I think that mostly is the ending wich startled me...

Mickey wrote: "It was also the book where I was the most frustrated with Eliot's devotion to realism, especially concerning the relationship with Maggie and Philip.""

I always felt sorry that Maggie didn't give Philip more of a chance!