Mill on the Floss: Part Six (June 18 - 24)

[Piyangie, Moderator]

Maggie comes to stay with Lucy; there she meets Stephen Guest. Philip re-enters Maggie’s life. Tom allows a friendship between Maggie and Philip. Philip draws a plan to clear some obstacles which stands between Maggie and him. Maggie is torn between Philip and Stephen.

Below are some questions that could be useful to guide our conversation.

1) Tom accuses Maggie of having “no judgement and self-command”. Do you agree?
2) Maggie is quite welcomed by the St. Ogg society? Does this quench her thirst for acceptance for which she struggled all her life?
3) What effect Stephen has on Maggie? Do you think he took advantage of Maggie’s weakness?
4) Is Maggie blamable for her actions?

[Shelley]

Piyangie wrote: "Is Maggie blamable for her actions? "

I think Maggie says it best herself, "I feel no excuses for myself--none."

I'm slowly coming to grips with the legend of the Boatman of St. Oggs mentioned in Book One, "Thou art blessed in that thou didst not question and wrangle with the heart's need, but wast smitten with pity, and didst straightway relieve the same." (Book I, Chapter XII) It seems that it is the only approach one can take with Maggie's story. The poor girl's heart is so full of contraindications.

I remember how when I first read this book 10 years ago I was in an interpersonal situation which, ahem, had some semblance to Maggie's, and I read it while breathless from sobbing and crying. This time it's a very different experience--more detached feelings of horror and pity.

It's funny how changes in one's own life can change one's response to a book. Something Proustian going on here I'm sure =)

[Cindy, Moderator]

I was on the edge of my seat during this whole section and could not read fast enough. I could see what was happening and desperately hoped that Maggie would be allowed to be happy for once.

Eliot's presentation of this situation is flawless. Such an insoluble problem. Neither Maggie nor Stephen seeks to be unfaithful; both struggle against their overwhelming attraction to the other. Once they're aware of how deeply they are in love with each other, there's no real possibility of a happy outcome. I can see Maggie's point--how horrifying to steal another girl's guy when that girl is one of the dearest people in the world to you. How can you ever be happy when you know it costs your dear one a broken heart? But Stephen is also right. Their affections have already been turned from their intended ones. Their overnight boat trip guarantees that this would be painfully evident to everyone. But even if Maggie could achieve her wish and turn back time, Stephen argues, it would still be unfair to continue their relationships with Lucy and Philip. Stephen argues that it is morally wrong to marry one person while in love with another even if that person is unaware. I thought he made a good point. I wouldn't want to marry someone who is just marrying me out of obligation and pity! He posits that both Lucy and Philip deserve more than that.

I felt like Stephen was a decent person, not a two-timing jerk. I felt that his struggle to do the right thing was just as real as Maggie's, but he has not quite the commitment to self-sacrifice that she has. She has a stronger will than I would have. Once I had committed the catastrophic social solecism of staying out with him all night, I would have married him and done my best to make amends after the fact. Like Stephen pointed out to her, the pain they would have spared everyone had already been dealt and could not be taken back. I think for most girls, Maggie would have already gone beyond forgiveness; whether they actually slept together would have been immaterial. It's the emotions that would matter to a female, not the physical follow-through. My personal feeling is that Maggie's sacrifice is pointless except to make sure that absolutely everyone suffers and no one achieves happiness.