Summary:
The critical essay that I looked at was Irving Howe's "Tess of the d'Urbervilles--At the center of Hardy's Achievement" (406-422). This piece of criticism closely examines many aspects of not only the novel, but also Hardy's overall authorship of many pieces of literature. Howe strongly centers on Tess' character and carefully looks at her through nearly each event of the book. Her essay begins with the opening pages of the novel and walks us through the book in its entirety (essentially she adds her commentary in a summary of the book), while commenting on certain aspects of Tess' character and what Hardy may (or may not) have been doing with her. She believes that Hardy's love for women, for the female gender, is where Tess comes from. Howe states, " Though [he] is quite capable of releasing animus toward his women characters and casting them as figures of destruction, he [Hardy] could not imagine a universe without an active, even an intruding, feminine principle" (406). Howe studies the feminism in the Tess character much farther in this essay. She focuses a lot on the idea about how women play a role in chastity, Christianity, the conventions of society of that time, romantics, fate, purity and how Hardy is responding to all of these things through Tess. Howe draws an overall impression or conclusion for Tess, saying, "Through a dialectic of negation, Tess reaches purity of spirit even as she fails to satisfy the standards of the world" (408). The conclusion that is drawn by Howe is that Tess' character, while very complex, is used in a manner by Hardy to do and achieve many things. It is very clear that Irving Howe is a Tess lover. She finds her fascinating and sees that Hardy's use of her was multidimensional.
Response:
I loved what Howe had to say about Tess. It was nice to read a piece of criticism that really analyzed Tess in depth and made very strong arguments for not just her as a character of a fictional novel, but also for Hardy as a writer. I am still kind of shocked by the intensity of emotions that Tess' character brings out in readers; it seems like most either really love her or absolutely despise her. I liked Tess and could see where some could dislike her, but hating her seems extreme. Also, even as someone who enjoyed the character, it is hard to see how some absolutely loved and idolized her....I guess I am just the "middle of the roader" when it comes to Tess. I think that Irving did a great job of carefully stating her thoughts and then completely supporting and backing them up. She was very precise and she took several angles of seeing what Hardy's was maybe up-to in certain areas of the book. Also, I think my favorite part of her essay was the very end; what she said wrapped everything up and made it make a whole lot of sense. She says: "Only one 'character' is almost as important as Tess, and that is Hardy himself", she clarifies this by saying, "He hovers and watches over Tess, like a stricken father" (422). Finally she brings this all to light by concluding, "If we see Hardy's relationship to Tess in this way, we can be a good deal more patient with the passages of intermittent philosophizing that dot the book... they [the passages] are evidence of Hardy's concern, tokens of bafflement before the agony of the world" (422). This is a wise thought because I think if we think of Hardy as he was writing Tess we can almost see what he was trying/attempting to do in most of the book.
Friday, November 15, 2013
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Contemporary Critical Reception of Tess
Summary:
The contemporary critical receptions that were written about Tess of the U'dbervilles all had different ideas, notions and interpretations about Hardy's novel, although its seems as if many of them shared one opinion: that Tess was one of Hardy's better novels. For instance, The Illistrated Sunday News of January 9, 1892 states, "Mr. Hardy's new novel is in many respects the finest work which he has yet produced" (382) and The Spectator of January 23, 1982 reflects nearly the same thought when they say, "Mr. Hardy has written one of his most powerful novels, perhaps the most powerful which he ever wrote (384). Other like statements can be found or inferred in the majority of these receptions, but it was the Interview with Thomas Hardy (388-389) where we can see a distinct switch in attitude. As mentioned, several (at all, but most) of these pieces praise Hardy for his work or maybe more specifically with a certain character, however seeing Tess through the lens of the author places quite a different context aside from the other receptions. In this interview, Hardy is very precise, confident and to the point; he speaks very eloquently and with a sense of truth and certainty. He is asked direct questions about why he wrote something in the fashion that he did or about larger concerns about the novel like the controversial character of Tess and the idea behind her being "pure". This interview also questions Hardy on character development, asking, "Are many of your characters from life, Mr. Hardy?" Interestingly enough he simply responds, " Oh, yes, almost all of them" (389). Hardy seems to speak very honestly of his writing of Tess and through that honesty comes an implication that Hardy was rather proud of this writing of Tess of the U'dbervilles.
Response:
Many of these critical receptions were very interesting because I felt that they all offered different ideas and all brought something new to the table that maybe I had not considered before, but reading Hardy's own thoughts about his novel was like the cherry on top. I was amazed with his responses. They helped me to better understand his writing/thinking style and also see why he made some of the choices he did. His response to the ending of the book was really fascinating. When asked why Tess was given such a sad ending, he answers, "I hate the optimistic grin which ends a story happily, merely to suit conventional ideas. It raises a far greater horror in me than the honest sadness that comes after tragedy", he shortly thereafter adds, "They [Angel and Tess] would never have lived happily" (388). Even though the ending personally had me a little disgruntled, I can very easily see why it was done the way it was just from this response of Hardy. He had a reason for doing it. That has been the underlying question(s) to the three novels that we have read and discussed. What was the author doing? What purpose did they have? What portrayal were they trying to achieve? It becomes clear in hearing from the authors perspective, such as Hardy, that they do have a reason or agenda behind every detail of these novels written in this time; which to me is very interesting. It makes me feel almost guilty for responding so animatedly to some of the events in the book in the way that I did because that author had a meaning/purpose behind it. Especially for Tess, the ending was (the events of the last 10-15 pages) where I struggled the most. The way Hardy concluded it was nothing that I had expected--although on that thought, I was not sure what I was expecting either. However, this may have been Thomas Hardy's intent and if that was his purpose, his aim, his goal, his agenda, than he succeeded! Maybe this jarring end is why Tess is recognized in these receptions as being one of Hardy's "better novels".
The contemporary critical receptions that were written about Tess of the U'dbervilles all had different ideas, notions and interpretations about Hardy's novel, although its seems as if many of them shared one opinion: that Tess was one of Hardy's better novels. For instance, The Illistrated Sunday News of January 9, 1892 states, "Mr. Hardy's new novel is in many respects the finest work which he has yet produced" (382) and The Spectator of January 23, 1982 reflects nearly the same thought when they say, "Mr. Hardy has written one of his most powerful novels, perhaps the most powerful which he ever wrote (384). Other like statements can be found or inferred in the majority of these receptions, but it was the Interview with Thomas Hardy (388-389) where we can see a distinct switch in attitude. As mentioned, several (at all, but most) of these pieces praise Hardy for his work or maybe more specifically with a certain character, however seeing Tess through the lens of the author places quite a different context aside from the other receptions. In this interview, Hardy is very precise, confident and to the point; he speaks very eloquently and with a sense of truth and certainty. He is asked direct questions about why he wrote something in the fashion that he did or about larger concerns about the novel like the controversial character of Tess and the idea behind her being "pure". This interview also questions Hardy on character development, asking, "Are many of your characters from life, Mr. Hardy?" Interestingly enough he simply responds, " Oh, yes, almost all of them" (389). Hardy seems to speak very honestly of his writing of Tess and through that honesty comes an implication that Hardy was rather proud of this writing of Tess of the U'dbervilles.
Response:
Many of these critical receptions were very interesting because I felt that they all offered different ideas and all brought something new to the table that maybe I had not considered before, but reading Hardy's own thoughts about his novel was like the cherry on top. I was amazed with his responses. They helped me to better understand his writing/thinking style and also see why he made some of the choices he did. His response to the ending of the book was really fascinating. When asked why Tess was given such a sad ending, he answers, "I hate the optimistic grin which ends a story happily, merely to suit conventional ideas. It raises a far greater horror in me than the honest sadness that comes after tragedy", he shortly thereafter adds, "They [Angel and Tess] would never have lived happily" (388). Even though the ending personally had me a little disgruntled, I can very easily see why it was done the way it was just from this response of Hardy. He had a reason for doing it. That has been the underlying question(s) to the three novels that we have read and discussed. What was the author doing? What purpose did they have? What portrayal were they trying to achieve? It becomes clear in hearing from the authors perspective, such as Hardy, that they do have a reason or agenda behind every detail of these novels written in this time; which to me is very interesting. It makes me feel almost guilty for responding so animatedly to some of the events in the book in the way that I did because that author had a meaning/purpose behind it. Especially for Tess, the ending was (the events of the last 10-15 pages) where I struggled the most. The way Hardy concluded it was nothing that I had expected--although on that thought, I was not sure what I was expecting either. However, this may have been Thomas Hardy's intent and if that was his purpose, his aim, his goal, his agenda, than he succeeded! Maybe this jarring end is why Tess is recognized in these receptions as being one of Hardy's "better novels".
Monday, October 21, 2013
Recent Criticisms of Middlemarch
Summary:
I looked at two pieces if criticism about Middlemarch--Women, Energy, and Middlemarch written by Lee R. Edwards and Middlemarch as a Religious Novel, or Life Without God written by T.R. Wright.
Edwards' (1972) writing was very interesting because she looks very deeply into the way that Eliot writes the character of Dorothea. She calls Middlemarch, "a novel about imaginative energy". Meaning that Eliot wrote about "a mental power to envision a self and a society as yet unformed in the given world" (623). Edwards begins her criticism by talking about how the novel has this energy that is concerned with society and how she believes that Eliot wrote this novel as a reflection, or an ideal rather, of her own life and time in society that could not yet be achieved (in other words she would like to see society in the context that she writes of in the book). Edwards tells about how the book "became a book of her life" (624) because she could see herself in Dorothea. She later changes that idea and explains that she can no longer see it as a book of her life because it causes her to be "angered, puzzled, and finally depressed (630). She feels this way because of what Eliot chose NOT to do, rather than what she did do--thus, driving her to this opinion.
Wright's criticism on the other hand was less criticizing and more explanatory of his own portrayal of Eliot's writing. He theorizes that it was indeed a religious text, but without the religious language or context. He observes that Middlemarch, "never for a moment suggests that God might exist", but that it is a religious novel in the sense that, "it is concerned with religious need, the desire to find unity, meaning and purpose in life, in a world in which God (641-642). He continues his criticism by supporting, analyzing and giving credible reasons why and how Eliot wrote this novel as a religious piece of literature. He also predicts (believes) that the Christian undertones and beliefs of the book strongly reflect how Eliot may have felt in her own religious light (because she, herself, had lost her faith in God). So Wright, like Edwards, thinks that Eliot was showcasing or displaying her own ideals of how she hoped real life could be through her writings of Middlemarch.
Analysis:
I found both of these criticisms very intriguing, however I have to say that I found Wright's take on this novel much more insightful. He really supported his thoughts and found ample amounts of textual evidence to help persuade his thoughts about believing Middlemarch to be a religious text. He gave a sales pitch, supported it, and now I can completely see how he views Eliot's writing in this fashion. Edwards thoughts were interesting as well, but she seemed a bit wishy-washy about her overall thoughts on the book. She begins by saying she likes it and how it reflects her own life and then changes her mind by the end. I do agree with her portrayal of the characters. She talks about how each character is different, but that Eliot writes them each in a way that makes you have to HAVE some kind of emotional reaction towards. For instance, Edwards writes about how Rosamond is the character that, " is a heroine worthy of her hate" (624), which was probably the feeling of most of Eliot's readers--but she intended it this way. I didn't disagree to any psychotic level from either of these critics, in fact, I thoroughly enjoyed reading their thoughts and agreed with the majority of their opinions (especially Wright's, like I said, because that is a really interesting take on this novel that I had not considered before)!
I looked at two pieces if criticism about Middlemarch--Women, Energy, and Middlemarch written by Lee R. Edwards and Middlemarch as a Religious Novel, or Life Without God written by T.R. Wright.
Edwards' (1972) writing was very interesting because she looks very deeply into the way that Eliot writes the character of Dorothea. She calls Middlemarch, "a novel about imaginative energy". Meaning that Eliot wrote about "a mental power to envision a self and a society as yet unformed in the given world" (623). Edwards begins her criticism by talking about how the novel has this energy that is concerned with society and how she believes that Eliot wrote this novel as a reflection, or an ideal rather, of her own life and time in society that could not yet be achieved (in other words she would like to see society in the context that she writes of in the book). Edwards tells about how the book "became a book of her life" (624) because she could see herself in Dorothea. She later changes that idea and explains that she can no longer see it as a book of her life because it causes her to be "angered, puzzled, and finally depressed (630). She feels this way because of what Eliot chose NOT to do, rather than what she did do--thus, driving her to this opinion.
Wright's criticism on the other hand was less criticizing and more explanatory of his own portrayal of Eliot's writing. He theorizes that it was indeed a religious text, but without the religious language or context. He observes that Middlemarch, "never for a moment suggests that God might exist", but that it is a religious novel in the sense that, "it is concerned with religious need, the desire to find unity, meaning and purpose in life, in a world in which God (641-642). He continues his criticism by supporting, analyzing and giving credible reasons why and how Eliot wrote this novel as a religious piece of literature. He also predicts (believes) that the Christian undertones and beliefs of the book strongly reflect how Eliot may have felt in her own religious light (because she, herself, had lost her faith in God). So Wright, like Edwards, thinks that Eliot was showcasing or displaying her own ideals of how she hoped real life could be through her writings of Middlemarch.
Analysis:
I found both of these criticisms very intriguing, however I have to say that I found Wright's take on this novel much more insightful. He really supported his thoughts and found ample amounts of textual evidence to help persuade his thoughts about believing Middlemarch to be a religious text. He gave a sales pitch, supported it, and now I can completely see how he views Eliot's writing in this fashion. Edwards thoughts were interesting as well, but she seemed a bit wishy-washy about her overall thoughts on the book. She begins by saying she likes it and how it reflects her own life and then changes her mind by the end. I do agree with her portrayal of the characters. She talks about how each character is different, but that Eliot writes them each in a way that makes you have to HAVE some kind of emotional reaction towards. For instance, Edwards writes about how Rosamond is the character that, " is a heroine worthy of her hate" (624), which was probably the feeling of most of Eliot's readers--but she intended it this way. I didn't disagree to any psychotic level from either of these critics, in fact, I thoroughly enjoyed reading their thoughts and agreed with the majority of their opinions (especially Wright's, like I said, because that is a really interesting take on this novel that I had not considered before)!
Sunday, October 20, 2013
Summary and Analysis on the Reviews of Middlemarch
Summary:
In reading the contemporary reviews about Middlemarch by George Eliot it was pretty agreed upon on by most of the reviewers that this novel was a hard "fit". In other words, most all of them in some way or another were all a bit baffled about what genre, category, type or kind of literature that Middlemarch would fall under. This was something that they clearly had never seen or experienced before. This commonality among the reviews were interesting because that issue (or nonissue, to some) was what led to their remaining opinions overall. For instance, this wildcard of a novel written by Eliot, either frustrated some reviewers or elated them with extreme fascination. In the Saturday Review for example the opening words shed some hostile light about Eliot's writing, by saying, "If we are to call Middlemarch a novel at all.."(573). It is clear that this reviewer was irritated with the stylist preferences of Eliot's writing. While summarizing the reviews in their entirety with specific details may be a large undertaking, I think it may be well concluded that most of the reviews were in awe of George Eliot's writing of Middlemarch. Some went into great depth to try and unload the psychology of what Eliot was subjecting us to, while others were struck with a fascination that they could not truly pinpoint where the heck this book and its contents came from (personally I got this notion from Sidney Colvin's review, hers was quite interesting to me).
Analysis:
I think that I am still a little dumbfounded just as some of these reviewers are--and even all these years later when almost any writing can be laid out on the table of possibilities. I have read the book from start to finish, watched the entire mini series made about it from 1994 (from the BBC) and read every Spark-note that is available for this book and yet I am still overthinking and underappreciating the fantastic way that Eliot wrote....the woman was brilliant! I use the term "underappreciate" because I think that people (I being a guilty party also) get so enthralled in the story/stories of this novel that we, as the audience, aren't seeing the whole picture-- the actual literature of the book. We get way too caught up in the lives of Dorothea, Dr. Lydgate, Celia, Mr. Bulstrode, Mary and all the others, that we forget it is just a story, a book, a novel. This may be a weird observation, but I often had to take a step back from asking too many questions, waiting to see what was going to happen next and responding (emotionally most times) that I thought A LOT, "If I am this overwhelmed with what is happening in the book, think about how George Eliot must have felt as she was writing it". Again, I think the woman was a genius! Myself, along with the reviewers, critics and any other audience members of the decades are still asking questions, having emotional responses and anticipating lots of scenarios even long after we've closed the back cover. I feel that must of these reviews expressed the same anxiety, shall we say, about Eliot's writing. I may or may not have totally gone off the beaten path with these thoughts, but I feel like her writing just keeps me exited and keeps my mind active. There are so many questions as well as thoughts that just breed a continuation of the same. I will admit, I was about halfway through this book and wondered why the heck we were reading it, (I really wasn't liking it, but honestly trying to) but now I know, and it is for COUNTLESS reasons! :)
In reading the contemporary reviews about Middlemarch by George Eliot it was pretty agreed upon on by most of the reviewers that this novel was a hard "fit". In other words, most all of them in some way or another were all a bit baffled about what genre, category, type or kind of literature that Middlemarch would fall under. This was something that they clearly had never seen or experienced before. This commonality among the reviews were interesting because that issue (or nonissue, to some) was what led to their remaining opinions overall. For instance, this wildcard of a novel written by Eliot, either frustrated some reviewers or elated them with extreme fascination. In the Saturday Review for example the opening words shed some hostile light about Eliot's writing, by saying, "If we are to call Middlemarch a novel at all.."(573). It is clear that this reviewer was irritated with the stylist preferences of Eliot's writing. While summarizing the reviews in their entirety with specific details may be a large undertaking, I think it may be well concluded that most of the reviews were in awe of George Eliot's writing of Middlemarch. Some went into great depth to try and unload the psychology of what Eliot was subjecting us to, while others were struck with a fascination that they could not truly pinpoint where the heck this book and its contents came from (personally I got this notion from Sidney Colvin's review, hers was quite interesting to me).
Analysis:
I think that I am still a little dumbfounded just as some of these reviewers are--and even all these years later when almost any writing can be laid out on the table of possibilities. I have read the book from start to finish, watched the entire mini series made about it from 1994 (from the BBC) and read every Spark-note that is available for this book and yet I am still overthinking and underappreciating the fantastic way that Eliot wrote....the woman was brilliant! I use the term "underappreciate" because I think that people (I being a guilty party also) get so enthralled in the story/stories of this novel that we, as the audience, aren't seeing the whole picture-- the actual literature of the book. We get way too caught up in the lives of Dorothea, Dr. Lydgate, Celia, Mr. Bulstrode, Mary and all the others, that we forget it is just a story, a book, a novel. This may be a weird observation, but I often had to take a step back from asking too many questions, waiting to see what was going to happen next and responding (emotionally most times) that I thought A LOT, "If I am this overwhelmed with what is happening in the book, think about how George Eliot must have felt as she was writing it". Again, I think the woman was a genius! Myself, along with the reviewers, critics and any other audience members of the decades are still asking questions, having emotional responses and anticipating lots of scenarios even long after we've closed the back cover. I feel that must of these reviews expressed the same anxiety, shall we say, about Eliot's writing. I may or may not have totally gone off the beaten path with these thoughts, but I feel like her writing just keeps me exited and keeps my mind active. There are so many questions as well as thoughts that just breed a continuation of the same. I will admit, I was about halfway through this book and wondered why the heck we were reading it, (I really wasn't liking it, but honestly trying to) but now I know, and it is for COUNTLESS reasons! :)
Monday, September 30, 2013
Backgrounds Behind George Eliot and Middlemarch
Summary:
In order to kind of gather a grasp of Eliot's thoughts, ideas, beliefs and notions behind herself and her writing, I looked very closely to the letters or journal entries that she had written herself. While I read about nine of these letters or journals, the one that stood at most strongly to me was a letter that Eliot wrote to Charles Bray on July 5th of 1859. The footnotes described that Bray and his wife Caroline Hennell were very close friends of Eliot's and even before I read this bit of information I got the idea that George Eliot was addressing this letter to a personal friend. The tone of it stuck me as more friendly, honest and more down-to-earth. Eliot writes to Bray about her belief in writing in a way that depicts a form of art, while at the same time expresses the truths and feelings that readers need to feel from a personal respect from what they as the audience read. In other words, it is important that readers find, see and seek real life experiences through an author's writing. Several of the letters written by Eliot [to others] embark on the same topics. She, as an author, wants to do so much more than just simply deliver an art form (and she strongly believes that art is a communicative ideal to deliver thoughts and/or messages to an audience); she wants her writing to reveal true to life situations that her audiences can feel. Eliot's overall consensus can be pieced together when reading these entries. Ideally she wants her readers to recognize that the lives of ALL individual people will always experience struggles, pain, obstacles and hardships, but that they can all be overcome. Her all-encompassing message seems to be that life needs to be dealt with in a positive and hopeful light no matter what the situation may be.
Analysis:
I love how we (as a class) have been looking at other literature that has been published on what we are looking at or read something about the author (or in this case other writings from the author herself) and it makes me look to the literary piece in an entirely new way! Uncovering the intentions behind George Eliot's writing makes this book seem SO much more interesting. Eliot writes in a letter to Mme. Eugene Bodichon dated February 15th of 1862 that, "I [George Eliot] think the highest and best thing is rather to suffer with real suffering than to be happy in the imagination of an unreal good" (527). This idea alone sheds a whole new light on the conflicts that we are seeing happen in Middlemarch (thus far) because she writes with the goal of having her audience see, think, feel and experience truths of life. She further explains her hopes and goals in the letter to Charles Bray by saying, "the only effect that I ardently long to produce by my writings, is that those who read them should be better able to imagine and to feel the pains and joys of those who differ from themselves in everything but the broad fact of being struggling erring human creatures" (526). Again she is confirming that she writes with the intentions of revealing the truths about all human lives. These letters imply that she sees all humans as one in the same. In other words, we all can feel and experience life, but with life comes strife, grief, pain, struggles, conflict and much more at any given point in time, but more so than living true emotions, I believe that Eliot is inquiring that we should deal with them in the most positive outlook we can. Many of these reoccurring ideas that Eliot presents in her letter or journals I think really struck me as I read them this evening because they also strongly reflect the passage that we looked at today in class from page 40. That passage deals with hiding truths, feelings and emotions as a natural reaction of being a human being, but that maybe we should not "hide our own hurts". An epiphany overcame me about what this passage really meant after reading Eliot's own hopes for her writings. I feel that she was trying to directly tell her audiences what her intentions were as an author; almost as if she was providing a hint to her readers.
In reading the background entries it is very helpful to see that Middlemarch is not just a story; within it lies many messages from the mind of George Eliot. As a reader, I think that I can now better absorb the ideas, the notions and recognize the art in which Eliot shared with her audiences.
In order to kind of gather a grasp of Eliot's thoughts, ideas, beliefs and notions behind herself and her writing, I looked very closely to the letters or journal entries that she had written herself. While I read about nine of these letters or journals, the one that stood at most strongly to me was a letter that Eliot wrote to Charles Bray on July 5th of 1859. The footnotes described that Bray and his wife Caroline Hennell were very close friends of Eliot's and even before I read this bit of information I got the idea that George Eliot was addressing this letter to a personal friend. The tone of it stuck me as more friendly, honest and more down-to-earth. Eliot writes to Bray about her belief in writing in a way that depicts a form of art, while at the same time expresses the truths and feelings that readers need to feel from a personal respect from what they as the audience read. In other words, it is important that readers find, see and seek real life experiences through an author's writing. Several of the letters written by Eliot [to others] embark on the same topics. She, as an author, wants to do so much more than just simply deliver an art form (and she strongly believes that art is a communicative ideal to deliver thoughts and/or messages to an audience); she wants her writing to reveal true to life situations that her audiences can feel. Eliot's overall consensus can be pieced together when reading these entries. Ideally she wants her readers to recognize that the lives of ALL individual people will always experience struggles, pain, obstacles and hardships, but that they can all be overcome. Her all-encompassing message seems to be that life needs to be dealt with in a positive and hopeful light no matter what the situation may be.
Analysis:
I love how we (as a class) have been looking at other literature that has been published on what we are looking at or read something about the author (or in this case other writings from the author herself) and it makes me look to the literary piece in an entirely new way! Uncovering the intentions behind George Eliot's writing makes this book seem SO much more interesting. Eliot writes in a letter to Mme. Eugene Bodichon dated February 15th of 1862 that, "I [George Eliot] think the highest and best thing is rather to suffer with real suffering than to be happy in the imagination of an unreal good" (527). This idea alone sheds a whole new light on the conflicts that we are seeing happen in Middlemarch (thus far) because she writes with the goal of having her audience see, think, feel and experience truths of life. She further explains her hopes and goals in the letter to Charles Bray by saying, "the only effect that I ardently long to produce by my writings, is that those who read them should be better able to imagine and to feel the pains and joys of those who differ from themselves in everything but the broad fact of being struggling erring human creatures" (526). Again she is confirming that she writes with the intentions of revealing the truths about all human lives. These letters imply that she sees all humans as one in the same. In other words, we all can feel and experience life, but with life comes strife, grief, pain, struggles, conflict and much more at any given point in time, but more so than living true emotions, I believe that Eliot is inquiring that we should deal with them in the most positive outlook we can. Many of these reoccurring ideas that Eliot presents in her letter or journals I think really struck me as I read them this evening because they also strongly reflect the passage that we looked at today in class from page 40. That passage deals with hiding truths, feelings and emotions as a natural reaction of being a human being, but that maybe we should not "hide our own hurts". An epiphany overcame me about what this passage really meant after reading Eliot's own hopes for her writings. I feel that she was trying to directly tell her audiences what her intentions were as an author; almost as if she was providing a hint to her readers.
In reading the background entries it is very helpful to see that Middlemarch is not just a story; within it lies many messages from the mind of George Eliot. As a reader, I think that I can now better absorb the ideas, the notions and recognize the art in which Eliot shared with her audiences.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Criticism of Mary Barton
Summary:
Rosemarie
Bodenheimer’s criticism entitled, “Private Grief and Public Acts in Mary Barton” was the piece that I really
focused on. Bodenheimer writes from a very interesting angle that deeply
explores the use and implications of emotions that were associated with
Gaskell’s novel that deal with the characters individually as well as the
emotions that Gaskell brought to the societal classes from the era.
Specifically, she really looks at the “grief”, sadness, tragedy, pain, deaths
and sorrow that Gaskell includes in the book. As the critic, Bodenheimer does
not solely take one stance or another, but rather she looks at what worked well
in the novel and what was not as successful; in short, Bodenheimer is very
precise and articulate in examining Gaskell’s work from several different
angles, focusing mostly on the emotions that the writing provoked for the
audience. She writes, “I want to argue for an essential consistency in the
novel’s internal conflicts, and for the ways that its troubling issues cut
across both plots (referring here to the plot of the novel as a story and then
the plot of the politics and economics issues), and even shape the fluctuations
of the narrative voice” (511). The criticism goes into fascinating detail about
how Gaskell utilizes the voices (implying that there are many) of the narrator
in order to serve a number of purposes in the book. In other words, Bodenheimer
explores how the narrator in Mary Barton works in conjunction with the
characters as a means to deliver both story and political notions. Thus,
proving that there are, without a doubt, both story and political intentions;
she even references at some point that Mary
Barton can be viewed as a “split-novel”.
Analysis:
I have to
confess that I may have slightly cheated in the readings of the criticisms. I
looked at several that I really did not care for before reading Bodenheimers’.
This writing really caught my attention and it made me think of this novel in
so many different ways that I had not thought of prior to it. I felt that she
was really brilliant in how she looked at Gaskell’s writing and it pertained,
as well as supported, much of what we discussed in today class. She too, looked
at it from the contexts of what Gaskell’s intentions may have (or may not have)
been. It is clear that she also questioned the same thing that all of us did
today when we created our discussion questions in our blog groups. However, she
gave so many great examples as well as instances in the book that showed how
Gaskell presented different instances of emotions. Bodenheimer brought up a
good point in saying, “When we hear, in the little Canadian epilogue, that
Margaret Legh has regained her sight, the news comes with a sense of violated
tone, for it is the only piece of simple ‘good tidings’ in the book” (510). My
first thought of this statement was, “wow that is a pretty profound and
confident point to make”, but in all honesty (depending on how you look at all
instances in the book) she is making a pretty credible observation. Throughout
the rest of the criticism Bodenheimer digs deep in looking at many details that
I had merely passed over in the book as a reader, but she tells us why they
were important. I think that it is very interesting to see this novel as solely
expressing grief, (as she puts it (and such like emotions). That is an emotion
that is consistently remains throughout the book, but I had not truly looked at
it that way. I think that Bodenheimer uses the presence of this particular
emotion to support the fact that it can be seen within the character’s lives as
individuals (the story) as well as in the different social classes, no matter
what rank of class they belonged to (the idea of it being a political/social novel),
either way it was an emotion that was experienced by ALL in Gaskell's novel of Mary Barton, which could be a way of seeing Gaskell proving her point about the issues that lie between the upper and lower classes.
Monday, September 9, 2013
Victorian Literature Blog #1: Contemporary Reviews of Mary Barton
Contemporary Reviews of Mary Barton Written By Elizabeth Gaskell
First of all, I have to say that I really loved this book! I was not sure what to expect because of the time period in which it was written (simply because I have not read much from this era) but it really amazed me how even after all of these years, time and a century later, it truly held my interest as a reader and was very engaging throughout all of it. In reading the reviews from the back of our Norton Critical Edition of Mary Barton it was not surprising to me that several of the reviews held a high praise of Elizabeth’s first ever novel for various different reasons because those are the ones I also agreed with!
Summary:
I looked at the first twenty pages that are provided in the “Contemporary Reviews” section of the book (through the Edinburgh Review from April 1849 written by W. R. Greg) and it was very pleasing to see that most of the reviews spoke very highly of this novel and of Gaskell’s writing in general. However, of the few that I read, I really liked the review written by John Forster in 1848 from the Examiner (367-368). In this review, he very simply, yet directly explains the reasons he liked the novel Mary Barton. Forster seemed to not only see the political/economical tendencies, but also recognized and praised the beauty, art and message that Gaskell included. In other words, he acknowledged the merit beyond the idea of this text being a “political novel”. He even states, “We should convey a wrong impression if the reader supposed the book to be a political novel. It is not that” (Forster 368). The review continues expressing how this text is written with passion, simplicity, honesty, from experience and with hope (in regards to the time and economy in which it was written). As Forster’s writing comes to a close, it is clear that this is only a small section of this review that Norton chose to include, although I would be very interested to see what else was said when specific instances were examined in more detail.
Analysis:
Of the reviews that I read, this specific one really stood out to me because I felt that John Forster was recognizing the book in its entirety. He was looking at it from ALL angles. While this is often looked at as being a social or political novel, it is still a novel. It is still a work of art. Forster brought this to reader’s attention; reminding us that it was not solely written with the intent of bringing awareness to the era in which it came to be. However, the British Quarterly from the Unsigned Review (from 1849) was a review of Mary Barton that did strongly criticize Gaskell on several issues, but on such things as the political end of it. That was a review that I most definitely did NOT agree with. I felt that they were extremely too critical (and in-turn, negative). Forster acknowledged and saw the good in all that areas that the British Quarterly saw as bad. They said in this review that, “[It does not] represent anything to which an actual counterpart may not be found” and that it only, “gives a one-sided picture” (370-371). Upon reading this, I thought to myself, “well duh! It is a novel. It’s telling a story”. It’s not an incorrectly written history book, nor do think Gaskell intended it to be a history based factual book. On the other hand, Forster supports Gaskell’s writing by saying, “The aim is [rather] to lessen the interval that separates them (rich and the poor), and show with what advantage to both each might know more of the other” (368). In other words, Forster saw the bigger picture; he supported and saw the positives in the writings in Mary Barton as well as took it for what it really was, a story. There were reviews out there that found controversy in Gaskell’s writing, which is to be expected, but from a reader’s standpoint I stand strong in agreeing with those reviews that found the good and praised Gaskell for the work she shared with us! J
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)