I read Mill on the Floss and Middlemarch in quick succession over the last two months, being so struck with the former that I felt I would not rest till I had read the latter.

I agree with the perception of some reviewers about Middlemarch being a tale of the self-delusions of its main characters, delusions that gradually unravelled, often with tragic consequences.

I also found both books strongly depicting how the choices characters made - and the essence of what they were - determined how they turned out. (As opposed to the characters of that other Victorian author Thomas Hardy who were pawns in the hands of an implacable fate).

// Spoilers below, for those who haven't completed the book //
It's not difficult to understand why Lydgate married Rosamond. We are told early on that "as to women, he had once already been drawn headlong by impetuous folly.." (his infatuation with Madame Laure). The marriage with Rosamond and the struggle over medical reforms and with debt ultimately wore away the essence of Lydgate.

I did not understand however why Dorothea fell in love with and married Will Ladislaw. While he is superficially a foil to the dry Mr Casaubon, what attraction did he hold for a strongly idealistic young woman? Though he turned out all right professionally in the end, I always found him a vapid and insubstantial character.

It is very easy to go through (and undoubtedly Eliot wanted the reader to do so) the thought experiment of Lydgate and Dorothea coming together, since they had so much in common. Would such a union have worked?

It is seldom that I have cared so much for the characters of a novel. At the end of Middlemarch I found myself wishing for a Middlemarch II, one that might have described the transition of Lydgate from a Young Turk to a gentrified doctor for the wealthy. I wonder how the hospital turned out?

I just found the time to sit down and read through all the comments on this book and as always, it's very enlightening to read and participate in these discussions.

I must say that this being my first Eliot, I was very impressed by her way to write real and believable characters. Neither of the characters are all good or bad - even the 'villain', Mr Bulstrode, is written in a way so you sort of understand how he came to be in the situations he did and why he chose the way he did - and his way of rationalising it to himself are priceless!

Rosamund really annoyed me. I so wanted to shake her for not getting a grip and starting to help her husband deal with their problems. But each time I realised that she was brought up to be that way and to expect a certain way of lifestyle and in no way was she able to be flexible enough to live another way. Her and Lydgrave's marriage must have been so sad in the end.

I do agree with the above mentioned posts that Casaubon was necessary for Dorothea to evolve and grow into the woman she became - and that she was blinded by her ideas about him being a learned and wise man whom she could be taught by. However, I do think that Brooke should have tried harder to prevent the marriage - I don't think it would have worked but I think he failed his duties a bit here. Of course, the book wouldn't have been the same had he succeeded, and he being the adhd man he was, simply wasn't able to put his foot down and concentrate long enough to stop Dorothea.

I was always impressed by all the plot lines Eliot managed to weave together into this very rich tapestry of a novel. Religion, progress, relationships between man and woman, debt, class, love, marriage etc etc etc - she really fit it all in and in a way so it all got it's due attention and nothing was overlooked or only shallowly discussed.

This was one book that I probably wouldn't have read for a long time if it hadn't been chosen for a group read and since I thoroughly enjoyed it, I'm grateful that it did!

Mr. Brooke reminds me of that parent or teacher who thinks they are "cool" and "hep" and that they know how to relate to younger people, and try to talk in slang, or dress in current fads, and just end up making fools of themselves but they are clueless.

The way he is always saying "I use to be into that sort of thing" when he is talking to anyone.

Fred is amusing, and yes I quite like Marry.

I guess I see more of comparison between the Vincy's and the Garth's. The Garth's were short on money, but had integrity. I'm not sure that the Vincy's had either, but they acted like they had money. I liked Fred overall, but I can't say the same for Rosamund, or their parents. Rosamund thought she was quite deserving, while Mary Garth was deserving but didn't want anything except love from her family.

Silver- isn't Fred hilarious? One of my favorite female characters in literature is Mary Garth. Her refusal to marry a slacker is priceless!

I wonder what the significance is between the contrast of the Viney's and their family and situation of the Brookes. The way in which Eliot goes back and forth between the two it seems that some comparison is intended.

Is it just giving a wider look at the different lifestyles/social classes of the time? A contrast between the new developments of science with religious belief?

It is interesting the way in which Fred is Dorothea’s complete opposite.

I thought that Dorothea perceives Ladislaw as a flake when she first meets him, although there are hints of physical attraction. She clearly doesn't see him as husband material.

The main reason I'm posting is that I'm curious as to how many people are reading these books. I count comments by 10 unique goodreads members. Are there any lurkers out there? If so, I think most of us would like to hear that you're reading with us even if you don't want to contribute to the general discussion. So give us a quick comment on this thread if you're out there.

Kristi, I agree. If Dorothea met Ladislaw first she wouldn't have the need for him. They connected right around the time she started having trouble with Casaubon

Right, there would have been no Ladislaw without Casaubon. And there would have been no opportunity for Will and Dorothea to prove their love by ignoring the terms of Casaubon's will either (if I'm remembering the ending correctly). And if Dorothea had not married, it would have been difficult for her sister to, in Middlemarch times.

I actually didn't like Ladislaw until the he started working for Mr Brooke. He kind of struck me as a bit of an emo kid, heh.

I don't think she would have married Ladislaw if she had met him first. I don't have anything to back that up with, but I feel like she needed the experience with Casaubon in order to realize her love for Ladislaw.

If she had not rushed into marraige she may have had the chance to meet Ladislaw before she was married, and could have possibly made a match with him, as he too was a scholar but much closer to her age so they could have formed a greater attraction both in thier physical and intellectual relationship.

Love is blind! I agree with Silver's comment about Dorothea being in love with the 'idea' of Mr. Casaubon. I don't think a lengthened engagement would have changed that for Dorothea. I didn't like Dorothea much in the first book, maybe because she was so in love with a man like Casaubon.

Silver wrote: "Would Dorothea have in the end truly benefited if Mr. Brooke did lay his foot down and encouraged her to at least postpone the wedding?
"

Maybe, but I think it probably would have made her more stubborn about the idea. She already over romanticized marriage if she was forbidden or even asked to postpone I don't think she would have changed her mind.

Address the idea of disillusionment which came up a few posts ago, my thoughts on it are not that Casabon himself had deceived or deluded Dorothea in anyway, as he was simply who he was, and it did not change or become a different person.

But that Dorothea deluded herself with her "idea" of Casabon, she really didn't see him as they physical human being that he was, and did not truly see him for herself, she was attracted to a certain ideal of what she thought he would represent.

She wanted to be "martyr" to be Milton's daughters so to speak, but when she had the reality of that dream of hers she realized that it was not quite what she had thought it would be.

But the fault of this I do not think lies in Casabon himself, but rather in Dorothea's youth and ambitions. She made a rash decision to marry him because of what he represented to her.

It makes one wonder if indeed Mr. Brooke had faulted as her guardian, while he was criticized by others for allowing the marriage to go ahead, and not at least making Dorothea wait until she was older, they protested only because of their own personal interests. While Mr. Brooke looked noble in his views of not interfering in the marriage choices of others.

Would Dorothea have in the end truly benefited if Mr. Brooke did lay his foot down and encouraged her to at least postpone the wedding?

I agree with Emma about the reality of the debt situations. Some things never change.

The railroad issue mentioned upthread is interesting. The characters are so absorbing that it's easy not to pay much attention to the political subplot.

But speaking of female guidance (re Amanda's post), it's interesting how much weight Dorothea herself has throughout the book. I mean, she is such a rock. She counsels Lydgate, Rosamund, everyone, even Mr. Brooke. Dorothea is the one who directs him to make the repairs needed and comes up with the plan for new cottages. I came across this:

"because you mean to enter Parliament as a member who cares for the improvement of the people, and one of the first things to be made better is the state of the land nd the labourers. Think of Kit Downe's uncle, who lovies with his wife and seven children in a house with one sitting room and one bedroom hardly larger than this table!"

Throughout the novel Dorothea metes out wisdom and compassion and brilliance to characters whose personal limitations eat away at their attempted accomplishments.

I found the politics with Mr. Bulstrode, Tyke, Freebrother, and Lydgate to be a bit confussing, though I think I understand the gist of it. I found the sections about Lydgate, and the Hospital Board to start to get a bit dry and somewhat dull after a while. Though Eliot has done a wonderful job in throughly capturing the soceity of her era, it seems like it would be a bit unusual at that time for a woman to be writing about any form of politics.

That is a possibility, but with all of her fantasies about the daughter's of Milton it seems that she does have an inclination to view men as being superior in knowledge and wisdom. Though that could perhaps be because of her lack of having met intellectually advanced women. Because of her strong religious feelings, though she may view man as being the "higher" being, as in the case of Paradise Lost, Adam was the intellectual who was supposed to guide Eve, and Adam was the one who received direct knowledge of the angels and Eve than learned through Adam.

I wonder if Dorothea had been provided with wise female guidance earlier in life, she wouldn't have married Casuabon out of need for intellectual guidance and stimulation. Perhaps, for example, if she had a Jane-Eyre ish governess to guide her early education, teach her Latin and all those things she wanted to know? I doubt Mr Brooke would have argued. So maybe it wasn't that she needed a man to pull her along, just..a person more educated then herself?

I really like the way in which Eliot deals with the problem of education for women during the Victorian Era within the book, and her satirical view upon societies approach to the issue of women being educated.

There are Mr .Brooke's outlandish, and just so over the top, they cannot help but to be amusing commentary upon the issue, though his thoughts did reflect the thinking of the day, the way in which he worries that Dorothea is going to overtax herself with too much reading and learning.

And Dorothea is quite an advanced woman for the age, in her intellectual ambitions, but she also reflects her doubt and insecurity. One of the reasons she attaches herself to Casuaban is because she feels she needs a man someone she sees as being wiser than herself to validate her opinions for her, and help guide her thinking.

Rosemound is seen as being educated in the way in which is proper for a woman, but even so her intellectual purists are not taking seriously, her mother believes she is going to waste what education she has, and instructs that she should become more "serious."

In some ways I do see similarities between Rosemound and Dorothea, though Rosemound does not have the same ambitions, she constantly talks about herself as appearing stupid, and she too seeks and educated man though perhaps not for the same reasons that Dorothea does, Rosemound did have the determination not to be with someone from Middlemarch, but craved something different for herself.

I saw a program recently about Mary Ann Evans, (George Eliot) and was amazed at the things that she had done. The program by the BBC was called George Eliot A Scandalous Life, and was one of a series about authors.

Kristi wrote: "I just read the section on the coming of the railroad.  Pretty interesting that the people were so against it because of what it would do to the land.  If they could see what we've done since then!  "

Remember that Middlemarch was written as a historical novel, so Eliot knew how important the railroad became to the British economy.  One of Eliot's themes is the resistance to progress that is part of human nature, whether due to fear or vested interests.

I just read the section on the coming of the railroad. Pretty interesting that the people were so against it because of what it would do to the land. If they could see what we've done since then!

Silver wrote: "I really enjoy the way in which Eliot deals with the struggle of religion against the backdrop of a growing age of Enlightenment and scientific discovery. A time when people did begin to have their..."

Actually, one of the things that confused my about the book was the Catholic v Protestant question, and the political reform bill. I don't know much about that area of history and had to do a little digging to figure out the significance.

Eliza wrote: An endnote in my edition of the book says that unless otherwise noted Eliot herself wrote all of the chapter starters.....

I wondered about that when I noticed that many of the chapter starters were not cridited to anyone, while others were, I had considered if she herself had in fact written them.

I really enjoy the way in which Eliot deals with the struggle of religion against the backdrop of a growing age of Enlightenment and scientific discovery. A time when people did begin to have their beliefs challenged and questioned and put into doubt.

There are strong religious overtones within the book, and in the prelude it opens up to an introduction of Sister Theresa, offering a comparison between her and Dorothea, and the debate of the Catholic Problems, and questions relating to the reformation are peppered throughout the book, but that is placed on top of the backdrop of scientific advancement.

Eliot seems to be showing the shifting of society and changing times, by the introduction of Lydgate. The fact that he is not from Middlemarch is significant to his character and the story. He had studied abroad in Paris, and he is brining what were at that time revolutionary ideas of medicine into Middlemarch and with it brining change.

While Dorothea, a young woman who could potentially offer change, and a new way of thinking, and bring new ideas into the world, and does have her own ideals and ambitions is choosing to align herself with Casuaban, a figure set in his ways, and reflecting the old establishment of the church.

Silver wrote: "I am curious on your thoughts about the poems, and quotes which follow the start of each new chapter. Do you think they do offer an additional insight of understanding of the story? Or that they ar..."

An endnote in my edition of the book says that unless otherwise noted Eliot herself wrote all of the chapter starters. I got lost on some of them but when I thought about it they all had some sort of significance to the story.

I like the portrayal of painful self-delusion in this novel. That's part of what sticks with me from it, even though it's been a little while since I read it and I no longer have a copy of it. I think it was one of the first ones I chose from the list. Eliot is fantastic.

And I remember really wanting Dorothea and Will Ladislaw to be able to get together.

And the reality of the debt issues in the book...Fred's and Rosamund and Lydgate's.

Thanks for your comments, Gini!

Silver wrote: "I am curious on your thoughts about the poems, and quotes which follow the start of each new chapter. Do you think they do offer an additional insight of understanding of the story? Or that they ar..."

My understanding is that readers used to be a lot more learned than we are now. They had studied Latin, etc. They were "classically educated." Eliot's contemporaries would have gotten these allusions and references, and including them was a common practice then, not that I know why. But whenever a writer includes things like this, there's always a reason. I too gloss this stuff though because I simply don't have the education to get it most of the time. We would have to dig a little deeper to get it. Sometimes I go back and read it again after reading the section it precedes to see if it has gained in significance.

Great comments Mark. I like your take on Mr. Brooke having an attention deficite disorder. I thought he was charming, not dumb, just flighty, and not vapid, but clueless because he seemed to get genuinely exciting by ideas though a failure when it came to putting them into action.

Ahh yeah my book provides end notes with translations of the non-English quotes. I have noticed where some of them seemed to relate to some asepct of the chapter they are attrached to but not in what appeared to be in any real curcial way for the understanding of the story.

With my version of Middlemarch, the quotes in languages other than English are not translated, so I skip over those. I read the others pretty quickly, without giving much thought to them. They must correspond to the chapter they proceed, otherwise what would be the point? I know I shoudl pay more attention to these, but I usually just want to get on with the story. I should look on Classic Reader to get a translation of the non-English quotes.

I am curious on your thoughts about the poems, and quotes which follow the start of each new chapter. Do you think they do offer an additional insight of understanding of the story? Or that they are on the whole unnecessary, or even distracting?

I myself usually find books which implement quotes to be interesting, but I rarely find that they truly enhance or give me in deeper understanding of the story. Though I can usually see their relevance to the story, it seems the story would not really loose anything if they were not included.

Is the use of quotes really effective?

Oh yes, that is true, it is hard for me to keep the exzact time tables straight.

Silver wrote: "I have generally enjoy Victorian Lit. and Eliot's work seems so much more indepth then some of the more popular and well known ... While I enjoy Austen and the Bronte's for example, Eliot just seems like a much more intellectual writer. "

Keep in mind that Elliot is not a contemporary of Austen. Austen wrote in the Regency era, and Elliot in the Victorian. The Regency era was much more romantic and strictured. In many ways, Elliot's writing is a comment and response to the romantic ideals of an era past; hence the sharper cynicism. While Austen often takes an arch, tongue-in-cheek view of the extreme of her era's mores, with an extra 70 years of history Elliot stabs at them with the sharpened nub of her pen.

Mark wrote: "I was on business travel with some light duties watching over a 24 hour / day experiment and managed to finish this novel in six days.  What an intense experience! Here's a few thoughts; if I touc..."

I had the same wonderings about Dorothea and her husband..not a lot of heat there, whereas you can tell that Rosamond and Lydgate have no issues in that department. I've just finished the miniseries and I thought it was great. Mr Brooke is perfect, Mary Garth is perfect, everyone is really well cast. It follows the book pretty exactly, I thought.

I was on business travel with some light duties watching over a 24 hour / day experiment and managed to finish this novel in six days.  What an intense experience! Here's a few thoughts; if I touched on everything I had an opinion on this post would be so long no one would read it.

I'm most fascinated by the way one can read a novel like this in two ways.  One the one hand, we can be intrigued by how it gives us a window into a different time, with entirely different rules about relationships between classes and the sexes.  However, what I found most interesting is how little human society and psychology changes over time.  Think of Lydgate's attempts to instigate sensible medical reforms.  While some of the resistance may be due to Lydgate's arrogance, most of the opposition is from those with a financial interest in perpetuating the current system.  Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

There's been quite a bit of discussion about Mr. Brooke and Casaubon.  Mr. Brooke is evidence that attention deficit disorder is not peculiar to our time or our society. I found that Casaubon reveals himself to be a pretty wearisome and pathetic character by the end of his stay in the novel. Dorothea at first believes that he is doing great work, but that as a woman she simply isn't educated enough to comprehend it. As she digs deeper, she begins to realize that there simply is no there there, and that is the reason for Casaubon's resistance to letting anyone in on what he's doing. Am I the only one who saw a bit of the Ramsay's (from To the Lighthouse) in the Causabon's? I'd like to hear what Silver thinks about Casaubon once she or he gets to the end. I have to confess that I was also wondering about what sort of sexuality was in this relationship, but I couldn't even get an oblique hint from Eliot's descriptions (On the other hand I got the distinct impression that it wasn't all bad between Lydgate and Rosamond). I"m sure Eliot would have been interested in writing about sexuality if she had been writing in a less restricitive era.

Although this work clearly deserves its reputation as a GREAT NOVEL, there were times that I thought Eliot was pandering to audience expectations about what a novel should include. (This is usually my complaint about movies). While the blackmail plot gave the author a chance to ruminate on one of my favorite themes of the novel (the insincerity of our professed motives, even those we profess to ourselves), the villain seemed just a little too one-dimensional after having so many fully realized characters. Also the Garth family is so romanticized and perfect that I am skeptical of the author's own belief in them.

I'm about to watch the 1994 BBC mini-series. Anyone seen it?

I think the character of Fred is a good example of that. He has some definite flaws, and some asepcts of him are disagreeable, but I find his affection for Mary to be quite endearing really. It shows a real human side to him, he clearly cares for the girl becasue of who she is, and not just becasue she would make a nice trophy, or increase his wealth.

Amanda wrote: "I actually don't get the big deal about Casaubon..he didn't hide anything from anyone before he married Dorothea, so her disillusionment was kind of out of left field for me...like, of course he's ..."

I don't think Eliot meant for us to dislike Casaubon. One of the things I liked best about this book was that the characters were so real. You like them but they have genuine human failings. They're not sugary sweet perfect.

Reading this book has made be quite currious and interested in Eliot. I have generally enjoy Victorian Lit. and Eliot's work seems so much more indepth then some of the more popular and well known books and authors, and things I have read before. While I enjoy Austen and the Bronte's for example, Eliot just seems like a much more intellectual writer.

I actually don't get the big deal about Casaubon..he didn't hide anything from anyone before he married Dorothea, so her disillusionment was kind of out of left field for me...like, of course he's that way. He was that way from day one! I kind of liked him and didn't see what the fuss was about. And Mr. Brooke was awesome.

Thus far, I haven't yet finnished the book but to this point, I find there is something likeable in Casaubon. I too just love the prose within the book, there is something about it I cannot quite put my name on which is so very engaging.

Also I get a kick out of Mr. Brooke. He is just such a total bafoon, sometimes you feel embrassed for him whenever he is in public. I think Eliot's making parody of the ideas of the time, particuarly concerning women are shown through Mr. Brooke, in the fact that he is made so over the top, and a complete dolt. Yet at the same time, he seems to have his heard in the right place and means well, he is just so misguided.

I submit this from the George Eliot entry on Wikipedia:

She used a male pen name, she said, to ensure that her works were taken seriously. Female authors were published under their own names, but Eliot wanted to ensure that she was not seen as merely a writer of romances. An additional factor may have been a desire to shield her private life from public scrutiny and to prevent scandals attending her relationship with the married George Henry Lewes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Elio...

Silver has a good point. Dorothea is full of ideas and intellectual fervor but doesn't have much of an outlet. She esteems Casaubon but loves her idea of him rather than what he really is. She doesn't know what she wants because she is too young. She has a lot of passion for ideas but wants to put them into action, which is why she is terrified when Casaubon forces her to accept "the promise" before he dies; she thinks he's going to bind her to continue his work for all eternity and she'll be stuck in that sepulcher/study all her life cross referencing notes. I don't know that she really loved Casaubon either. If there is a commentary here it's not just about the limitations on women but on the problem of hasty matches based on little other than aquaintance and money followed by such a grim finality within the marriage. Lydgate's marriage to Rosamund is part of that same thread.

I think I love the language in this book best. The descriptions of Casaubon make me laugh, but I'm too lazy to go get some examples. He's a pathetic but somehow sympathetic character. I loved listening in on the conversations all the characters had behind his back though. In fact, that is a great characteristics of this style of writing. You feel like you are an invisible person with a front seat to all the gossip and inner thoughts of all these fascinating people.

I do think that she truly wanted to help Causaban, but I also think she sought higher learner for her own personal benefit but would not openly admit to such, I think she just had a double motive. She wanted to be of use to her husband, but she also wanted to learn for her own personal pleasure. But she would not openly admit that the learning was just as much for herself as it was to be of use to her husband.

In spite of all of her religious devotion and piety, she truly is not a subservient and docile woman, as would be thought of as being virtuous in a woman at that time. She does have personal ambition, and seeks the learning of men rather than that which was considered proper for woman. She is rebellious against the standard quo but she is so under the veil of her religious fervor, she does not see herself as openly rebuking the standard in spite of her ungovernability.

She sees herself as the model of religious virtue and at the same time, in her own way seeks to be upon equal footing with men, which would have been contradictory to the religious beliefs of that period of time. Yet her devotion and belief are genuine her actions do contradict the accepted belief of the time

She never would accept being a truly submissive wife, yet in her own way that is what she seeks, but in aligning herself with someone like Causaban, in her idea of submiting to him, she will acutally be seeking to elevate herself.

Amanda wrote: "I don't think Dorothea's desires to help her husband were pretense at all. I got the impression that she wanted to further her education in order to be helpful to her husband and, through that, par..."

I agree. Dorothea certainly has ambitions but I honestly believe that her intentions were good when she married her husband. The thing I liked most about Middlemarch was Dorothea. I think she shows quite a bit of growth throughout the book.

I don't think Dorothea's desires to help her husband were pretense at all. I got the impression that she wanted to further her education in order to be helpful to her husband and, through that, participate in his "great work". She does seem young, and confused, and naive, but I never got the feeling that she was being hypocritical or false.

I believe that George Eliot was a pseudonym, as it was not uncommon for women to write under the names of men to help increase their chances at being published.

I quite enjoy the humor that she puts into her works, it is a bit more of a biting satire than the irony of an Austin.

There is something amusing behind the severity of Dorothea's piousness, and in her personality, and contradictions. In spite of her sort of martyr seeking devoutness and her envy of Milton's daughters and wish to bare the suffering of her husband, she does not truly show much in the way of genuine humility. She is quite demanding and determined to have her way of things.

It is also interesting the context in which she places her further education, she makes claims she needs a mans superior wisdom to guide her, so that she may know if her opinions are indeed valid, and yet, behind that, she does seek there personal advancement of her own education and does seek to be equally intellectual with men, even through she might veil this desire in her pretense of wanting to be an assistant to her husband in his work and not a burden to him.

I was quite blown away when I discovered she was making architectural plans for the building of cottages.

I didn't realize that this was written by a woman until just now, and I'm a little over halfway through! I do remember being confused after seeing the dedication at the beginning, to Eliot's husband.

I was worried as I read the prelude that I would hate this book, but it's really grown on me. I am seeing similarities with Vanity Fair, which I read a of couple months ago. Between Vanity Fair and Middlemarch, I will have accomplished a lot in 2009!