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! :)