false 744298 0679405674 9780679405672 21 4 http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1223636360m/744298.jpg http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/744298.Middlemarch 173 George Eliot 19791 2254 Tantripp is awesome. Why has there not been more Tantripp? 0 2009-08-08T12:37:21-07:00 1134052 839 2009-08-08T12:37:21-07:00 On the home stretch! 0 2009-08-06T18:55:36-07:00 1127529 790 2009-08-06T18:55:36-07:00 Hoping Dorothea won't be lost to madness. 0 2009-07-23T12:35:01-07:00 1061895 514 2009-07-23T12:35:01-07:00 Glad to be back with Dorothea. Give me deluded sanctimonious romantics over hifalutin physicians any day. 0 2009-06-24T09:56:22-07:00 930486 222 2009-06-24T09:56:22-07:00 Actually really enjoying it, despite nothing of consequence happening. Crazy 19th century British diction! 1 2009-06-16T10:15:58-07:00 894583 2009-06-16T11:34:14-07:00 94 2009-06-16T10:15:58-07:00 "Has any one ever pinched into its pilulous smallness the cobwebs of pre-matrimonial acquaintanceship?" Buh? 0 2009-06-13T12:41:04-07:00 882255 18 2009-06-13T12:41:04-07:00 4 0 true Sun Aug 09 00:00:00 -0700 2009 Fri Jun 05 12:00:20 -0700 2009 Sun Aug 09 16:54:37 -0700 2009 Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, and Patrick O'Brian. That is, fluffy aristocrats fussing over marriages, hard-bitten street urchins struggling to eat, and red-faced mariners blowing each other up (and describing the occasional species novum). Who knew there was more? George Eliot, apparently, and also my sister, who got me this fine edition for my birthday. I admit, it took me a long time to realize I was reading about a vertical slice through British society with a focus on the arising middle class, but once I did, the book became a lot more interesting. Ok, I was pretty into all the wonderful (if occasionally nerdy and pedantic) character dramas, but the social analysis was a definite plus.

Despite that focus on the middle class, aristocratic Dorothea was easily the most compelling character, which seems weird because, despite being the protagonist, she was ostensibly the most boring. I mean, she's essentially angelic. Her only flaw was that she was so good that she overlooked the flaws in others. What's the drama in that? Maybe it was because she was the most Austenesque character? Or because hers was the first world we visited in the novel, so that was the story line that seemed the most like home? I'd prefer to think that her honesty and enthusiasm were just so infectious that I enjoyed her company, that she lit up pages like some people light up rooms. There was this endearing scene toward the end when, having recovered herself after some recent drama, she commits herself to spending her day in a useful fashion, which includes reading books on political economy and committing to memory the geography of Asia Minor. Ladislaw was unworthy of that awesomeness. As was Rosamond, which made their eventual encounter somewhat amazing. Pure selflessness genuinely commiserating with pure selfishness. Even then, it was impressive that though Dorothea's goodness couldn't actually overcome Rosamond's egocentric view of the world, it could at least direct that view toward better ends (winning some respect for Lydgate, freeing Dorothea and Ladislaw from their misunderstanding). Maybe that's why Dorothea appealed to me: she's kind of superheroic.

The language is awesome, and, in fact, I often felt more awe than comprehension. I'm still puzzling over sentences like "Has any one ever pinched into its pilulous smallness the cobwebs of pre-matrimonial acquaintanceship?"

Minor update: just read the introduction and some other reviews. Wow, there was a lot I missed. This is why I try to write down my meagre thoughts before reading professional criticism, because otherwise I just wouldn't bother. Most significant realization (to me) was the theme of finding secular vocation. That completely passed me by, and in retrospect (as Ak pointed out), it's probably one of the strongest ties between the novel and the present (um, and to me, personally).]]>