Victorians! discussion
Archived Group Reads - 2017
>
Mill on the Floss: Part Seven (June 25 - 30)
date
newest »
newest »
Mod
1) I found Tom to be horribly harsh to Maggie throughout the novel-I felt right from the first section that his love was conditional on Maggie's good behaviour, on her obeying him, on so many things which Maggie couldn't do. I kept wanting Maggie to wake up to this and not feel so desperate for his love. I was so pleasantly surprised when Aunt Glegg turned out to be the one to take him to task for his behaviour towards Maggie, and his refusing even to give her the benefit of the doubt.2) No, it's not fair, but it was how the world saw things so often. I felt that in the end Maggie's sensitivity was her downfall-as Elliot says, if they had gone ahead and married it would have come right in the end, I expect even Lucy would have forgiven her, and Philip already knew in his heart that he had lost her.
3)I think their conduct is in keeping with their strong sense of family and of loyalty.
4) Was the flood perhaps representative of the external forces that had beaten down the family? I was saddened that Maggie ended up dying with Tom, the one person who seemed to have understood her and supported her the least of all her family and friends.
5) Did Lucy and Stephen get their happily ever after? Perhaps this was a comparison of how lightly men could get away with behaviour that would have left a woman cut off from society.
Mod
I agree with you on first two points, Frances. It was said that Tom rather wished her dead rather than returning unmarried. Then again, no lesser action should be expected from him. Being the self centered man that he was, he only thought the detrimental effect that this scandal would have on him.
I particularly liked the strength exercised by Mrs. Tulliver to stand by Maggie. And also Mrs. Glegg. Although severe, she proved that she had a kind, understanding heart underneath.
And it is a really interesting point you have said here that Maggie's sensitivity was her downfall. If Maggie had not been too keen in obtaining approval of others, especially Tom's for her actions, she would have made better decisions for herself. Then perhaps she would not have taken irrational steps or would not have been made vulnerable enough to be swayed by others.
Throughout the book Maggie's constant need to be loved and approved by Tom was stressed. So it is not much of a surprise that Elliot achieved this end eventually. And I felt Elliot chose the moment of peril to establish this bonding because that would be a moment that Tom was humbled enough to see his follies.
Mod
I wouldn't entirely agree on the self-centeredness- he cares about his reputation, yes, but his primary concern was with things being socially acceptable- just, right but only according to social mores- so whatever didn't fit into that mould he treated as wrong and thus was harsh. He didn't if it makes sense "think" with his heart at all.
Interesting. I actually had a pretty different reading of Tom.My sense really is that Maggie's running away with Stephen is a grievous mistake no matter which way you look at it. Stealing the almost fiance of your cousin (who treats you like a sister and a best friend) while being almost betrothed yourself to another would be considered rather egregious by the standards of most people. It is to GE's credit that she is able to portray Maggie so sympathetically despite that--but a consequentialist view would condemn Maggie just the same, despite all her inner struggles.
I note that St. Ogg's Boatman, introduced in Book One, "[does] not question and wrangle with the heart's need"--but I would argue that not questioning is not the same as condoning. Tom's response is harsh--but not unjust, if we took a strictly consequentialist view.
It is true that Tom has a narrow moral sense and absence of moral imagination that enables him to conceive of how others may perceive things differently--but within the confines of his moral sense he behaves very consistently and not without honour. While it is true that he cannot change his nature to accommodate Maggie's needs, nor can Maggie cannot change her nature to win Tom's approval. It is not a moral failing of either to stay true to their natures. The ultimate tragedy may be just that Tom and Maggie are not social equals due to the blatant patriarchy and sexism of the period--they can't just agree to disagree, because they cannot be equals before the law (and financially).
The final flood I see as a call-out to an earlier time in the history of humanity (the Biblical flood) and in Maggie and Tom's personal history. Before the great, indifferent force of nature, their personal differences seem trivial, and reconciliation is achieved--but the only way that reconciliation can be maintained is by a force much greater than the forces of the human heart.
Mod
My sense really is that Maggie's running away with Stephen is a grievous mistake no matter which way you look at it. Stealing the alm..."
An interesting comment, Shelley.
While I share the sentiment on Maggie's conduct of running away with Stephen, I would also like to add a little more on that point.
Yes, Maggie's conduct of running away is unpardonable. It was an ungrateful act on both Lucy and Philip. Maggie has always acted impulsively, seeing reason only after the deed is done. This was another perfect point which proved that. In her attraction for Stephen, she forgot her duty and abandoned reason and acted impulsively. When reason slowly got hold of her, she wanted to remedy her action by the only method she thought was right; by giving up on Stephen and returning home. Her own sensitive self would not have made her act otherwise. But what she failed to understand was that certain deeds, once done, cannot be reversed. By her action she hurt Lucy, Philip, herself and even Stephen, although I have not much sympathy for him.
Mod
I agree- starting with the hair cut at the beginning or running away, she has always acted impulsively. And on running away with Stephen, I do agree that was a huge mistake in every way.
Re Tom, what I mean to say in a way was that he could never really understand why she did what she did- since he only judged by right and wrong, and not from the heart. May be a person we loved did wrong, we'd see the wrong they did but try to understand, have some sympathy, which Tom never did.
Lady Clementina wrote: "Re Tom, what I mean to say in a way was that he could never really understand why she did what she did- since he only judged by right and wrong, and not from the heart. May be a person we loved did wrong, we'd see the wrong they did but try to understand, have some sympathy, which Tom never did. "That's a really interesting statement. It led me to recall what a Catholic friend once said to me regarding the famous story of "He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her." What was most interesting to him was not that none of the people in the crowd were qualified to cast the stone, being all sinners themselves, but that Jesus of Nazareth, who is the one person without sin and therefore entitled to cast the stone, chooses not to castigate the woman. It's the epitome of Christ's love for men: forgiveness, even when one is not a fellow sinner.
And so I feel different judgements can be passed on the characters and their responses to Maggie.
--The general residents of St. Ogg's are guilty of rank hypocrisy (they're willing to forgive Maggie if she had actually snared Stephen and become Mrs. Guest but not otherwise) and plain maliciousness (when they start propagating rumors re: Mr. Kenn).
--Tom is guilty of hubris and lack of charity: his love for Maggie is not Christian, but it is love nonetheless. I love how matter-of-fact his exchange with Maggie is when she shows up in the boat ("Who is it? Have you brought a boat." "It is I, Tom--Maggie. Where is mother?" "She is not here: she went to Garum, the day before yesterday. I'll come down to the lower window.") They have loved each other from the dawn of time, and that is the natural default they slip back into, without even realizing it, when the artifice of society has been stripped away from them by the flood.
--Philip and Lucy come closest to Christ's love, or agape that was mentioned in an older thread: they are hurt the most by Maggie's action and the most ready to show her forgiveness and friendship. They're almost Tolstoyan in their goodness--and of course their gestures matter the least to Maggie, to whom the forgiveness of Tom is still the most important.
It makes sense that GE spends so much on the spiritual makeup of St. Ogg's in prior chapters and on Maggie's heavily bastardized reading of Imitations of Christ. This ending, for all its paying lip service to God and what-not, is pretty atheistic at its core. The characters don't derive much solace from their religion. The flood doesn't sweep away the evildoers of St. Ogg's; rather, it destroys the lives and livelihoods of some of its best people (I'm thinking Bob).
Going back even further to what Maggie and Stephen should have done-in a situation of two people, both in relationships with others (but not married or even formally engaged) who realize (and acknowledge to each other) that they love each other-what would have been the best course of action? Stay true to someone that you no longer love to avoid breaking their heart? Or break their heart now and hope that they will be able to find someone else? It was in a way an untenable situation, and unfortunately Maggie took absolutely the wrong course-allowing herself to drift off with Stephen initially, (so now the hearts have been broken) and then breaking Stephen's and her own heart by not going through with the marriage/elopement.I also like Lady's C's opinion of Tom-not understanding Maggie's impulsive heart-but still felt he was, over and over, needlessly hard on her. Perhaps their relationship mirrored that of their parents-the impulsive father always making errors in his anger, the straight and narrow mother who only sees the destruction he causes and doesn't understand his actions.
Mod
I agree- and it was I think because he simply couldn't understand her- he judged her by the only standards he understood, which simply weren't a mould into which she fit.
Mod
Mod
Re the residents of St Oggs, they are hypocrites, no doubt but their reaction was pretty much what one sees in general- blame the woman, no matter what. I felt rather sorry for the vicar (I've forgotten his name) who did try his very best but had to give in as well.
Lucy and Philip at the end seemed to me a little too good to be true- and like you said their love is indeed akin to Christ's love-willing to understand, to forgive.
Mrs Glegg's reaction was surprising yet, I felt like cheering her on- to me, it was perhaps more believable than Philip or Lucy. I realise they too must have gone through a struggle before they reached the place that Maggie saw but it feels less realistic perhaps because we weren't "shown" that .
Mod
I agree! I posted a really long response to this on the strand for Part 6--I didn't realize the discussion was over here! I agree that there is no easy solution to this problem. They both struggled and resisted their feelings; I felt that both of their struggles were real. Once they've fallen in love, there's no happy ending. As you pointed out, is it really doing either Philip or Lucy a favor by marrying them while in love with someone else? Don't they deserve honesty and relationships that are not based on obligation and pity?
I also liked your conclusions about how, if Maggie had just gone through with the marriage, Lucy and Philip would have been just as forgiving as they had been for the initial elopement. By balking, Maggie made sure that absolutely everyone was denied any happiness from the situation.
Mod
They may have eventually doe so but I'm not so sure- as they from what I could see appreciated that she struggled and didn't give in to "temptation"- I mean I think they probably thought better of her because she stopped after having started on the "wrong" path, and they (at least Philip) would have realised the importance of her decision to stay in the village and face up to what she'd done.
Staying in the village and facing up to what she had done, that took courage. I think Maggie took too much of the blame. Stephen almost seemed like he kidnapped her. Of course, nobody blamed him for what he had done.
Mod
That (no one blaming Stephen) is the typical reaction, isn't it? The woman/girl will always be blamed, no matter what. But I think it was that decision that earned Maggie respect from both Lucy and Philip- if she had gone ahead, I'm not sure they'd have reacted in the same way.
Mod
This is what is so fascinating to me about this dilemma. Is Maggie and Philip's desire to marry the "wrong" path? I agree, slipping off to get married without a word of warning or explanation to Lucy and Philip is completely the wrong way to go about it, but . . . never marrying? I think the right thing to do would have been for them to break off their respective relationships and come clean about their feelings for each other. After a period of time in which they keep their relationship fairly discreet so as not to flaunt it in their rejected ones' faces, they should be able to marry.
What does anyone gain by Maggie and Stephen denying their feelings? Once Maggie and Stephen are gone overnight together, it is clear: Maggie does NOT love Philip, and Stephen does NOT love Lucy. If I were Lucy, I wouldn't want to marry Stephen if I knew he was in love with someone else, and the same for Philip.
So, ladies, what do you think? Would it have been alright for Maggie and Stephen to marry if they had just gone about it in a more above-board fashion? Or, out of respect for Philip and Lucy, should they have resigned themselves to never being together?
Mod
There isn't really a right path either, is there- I mean in the sense that whatever decision they made would have brought on unhappiness to one or the other of them. But yes, I agree it wouldn't have made sense for her to marry Philip or Stephen Lucy because that would have made them unhappy in the long-term, with little chance of remedying it. Punishing herself as she chose to do made all unhappy again.
Mod
That's what I mean! The pain comes from having lost the love of the person you love, and that happened before Maggie and Stephen set foot on that boat. And it's not as though Maggie enticed Stephen into falling for her, or Stephen was looking for a side-chick. Neither of them had any intention of falling in love and tried to avoid it. It's fate, and once it's happened, the pain is inevitable. To me, Maggie's response was as if she was trying to pretend it hadn't happened, after everyone already knew it had.
Mod
..."
I think it was more about what would be considered "wrong" socially that was relevant here as well to her personally. Socially Maggie never seemed to do "right" throughout so perhaps in her mind. And therwise as well, that was doing right- not making herself happy by causing unhappiness or hurt to others.
Mod
It is obvious that both Maggie and Stephen had strong feelings towards each other which both of them struggled to overcome, and I should say, in vain. I agree with the comments made here by Cindy and Lady Clementina that it was of no use to have gone through that trouble since they loved each other. It would have been unfair to all, for obviously Stepehen did not love Lucy, nor Maggie Philip. So the more plausible action would have been for them to go ahead and marry. But Maggie's nature is such that she would not do anything to hurt others by an action of hers though it might be the very act to secure her own happiness. Her self sacrifice was noble; only a strong woman could do what she did.
Cindy wrote: "So, ladies, what do you think? Would it have been alright for Maggie and Stephen to marry if they had just gone about it in a more above-board fashion? Or, out of respect for Philip and Lucy, should they have resigned themselves to never being together? ."The challenge is deciding on what are the right reasons for marrying. Today, in western society at least, we assume we marry for love. In the 19th century people ostensibly also married for love, but there were clearly other reasons at play in picking the right partner, as we see in so much Victorian lit-social status, maintaining property, to support penniless young women with no job prospects, not shaming your family with a lower-class fiancé(e), finding an appropriate spouse to support existing children, and so on. So what were the reasons behind Stephen and Lucy or Maggie and Philip's possible unions, and was absence of love enough of a barrier to those reasons?
I agree with Cindy that, in the absence of love for their current intended mates, Stephen and Maggie would have been right to call off their relationships, wait a while and then marry each other if marrying for love was what everyone was hoping for. However the Victorians may not have agreed, and Lucy and Philip might have been quite content to marry Stephen and Maggie respectively, even if they knew they weren't the best-beloved going into the marriage.
In this part Maggie returns home only to be disowned by Tom. She takes lodging at Bob Jakin’s. Maggie is shunned by the society. Philip and Lucy forgive her. Maggie and Tom are finally united never to be parted again.
1) Was Tom’s conduct of disowning Maggie was too harsh a punishment?
2) Maggie would have welcomed as Mrs. Stephen Guest but not as Miss Tulliver. Even after the letter of explanation sent by Stephen does not absolve Maggie. Is it fair?
3) Mrs. Tulliver and Mrs. Glegg were the worse judges of Maggie most of her life. But they stand by her at this time of crisis. How do you perceive their change of conduct?
4) Why did Eliot created such and ending?
5) Eliot concludes the book with a brief conclusion made by the narrator. What do you think the reason for such an epilogue?