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)! 

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! :)