Planning for our Next Major Read, part 2

[Everyman]

This thread was getting long, so I decided to start a new part of it.

[Everyman]

I've been thinking about the scheduling for Middlemarch. Up to now, our major discussion has been based on weekly segments usually of about 100-140 pages per week, with some supporting topics for specific areas.

Middlemarch is in eight parts, of about that length, so the temptation is to continue the same pattern, though for this book I think I would throw in a mid-book break for catching up and also to give a bit more opportunity to focus on the discussion opportunities, and an extra week at the end to finish the discussions in good form and pull things all together.

But the book is so packed with topics for discussion on so many levels, not so much plot as character development and interactions, philosophy, history, sociology, and other topics, that I'm not sure this pattern will allow the time for as rich a discussion to develop as this book merits. But at the same time, I don't want to unduly prolong the reading for those who read more quickly and want to get to the discussion of the full work.

So I'm in a bit of a quandary. I would welcome thoughts on whether our reading pace genearlly is too rapid (I'm sure it is for some), too leisurely (I'm sure it is for others), or about right (which I hope it is for the majority, but if I'm wrong I need to know that).

[Peregrine]

Here's one suggestion - Schedule each of the eight parts for a two week discussion *and put up all the threads at once. I think that will go some way to satisfying each of the outlying camps. It'll make it harder for moderators to lead discussion, (perhaps) but I don't think we're short of discussion initiators here. Maybe say the deal is that if you read ahead, excellent, and as far as discussion leaders, you're on your own until the week that section is scheduled? I'm still up for co-moderating; also, I haven't read this book before and want to take it at a leisurely pace. I'm looking forward to the discussion in whatever form it takes. My two cents.

[[deleted user]]

Peregrine's suggestion is an interesting one. This would allow those who prefer to look at a book as a whole to do so, while protecting others from spoilers. The responsibility would be on the person posting to make sure they don't post in a thread that is too early in the book for the comment they wish to make.

The potential downside would be a loss of the "conversational" aspect of the current model, which I find enjoyable too.

I have never read Middlemarch, so likely I will be one of the slower readers hoping to avoid spoilers. Although I have wanted to read it for a long time, I am not sure I am ready for another LONG novel of domestic manners. Perhaps by March I will be.

[[deleted user]]

I'm hoping that there's a thread for background information, as well. I took notes on a couple of biographies on George Elliot that I had read Middlemarch three years ago.

I know some people like to read books as stand alone works, but personally, I love knowing a bit about the author's life.

[Everyman]

Peregrine wrote: "Here's one suggestion - Schedule each of the eight parts for a two week discussion *and put up all the threads at once. I think that will go some way to satisfying each of the outlying camps. "

The moderators have discussed this option at some length. The reason we haven't adopted it, at least yet, is that we fear what will happen is that those who know the book well or have read more quickly will get a strong discussion going about the later sections before those reading according to the schedule will be there. If this happens, then when the schedule-oriented readers finally get to the end of the book, the discussion about the ending will have largely taken place, there will be a large number of posts to plow through, and those who have had their say may be less interested in coming back and engaging those who are just getting to those sections. This seems to have the danger of splitting the group into sub-groups and diminishing the quality of the discussions.

Does this seem a realistic possibility? If so, is it as undesirable as we think it would be?

[Thomas]

Zeke wrote: "Although I have wanted to read it for a long time, I am not sure I am ready for another LONG novel of domestic manners. Perhaps by March I will be.
.."

You're not the only one, Zeke. Maybe in the future we could avoid reading similar books consecutively. I've never read Middlemarch either (or any Elliot for that matter) and I'm not crazy about this time period in general, so I'm hoping that Middlemarch will surprise me.

[Everyman]

Adelle wrote: "I'm hoping that there's a thread for background information, as well. I took notes on a couple of biographies on George Elliot that I had read Middlemarch three years ago. "

Definitely.

I'm also thinking of including a couple of topical threads which would progress at the same rate as the regular reading. For example, Eliot has epigraphs at the beginning of each chapter which are sometimes obviously related to the chapter content and sometimes a bit more subtle. I'm thinking of a thread discussing the epigraphs which would progress along with the reading, so that, for example, the epigraphs in chapter 47 would be discussed starting the week that we start Book Five. I'm also contemplating a separate thread on the scientific aspects of the novel. But I'm still open to suggestions as we get into the reading.

[[deleted user]]

@Everyman: Your counter to my comment is a very valid concern. I certainly defer to your and Laurele's broader experience with book groups and can accommodate whatever you decide.

@Thomas: At one point I was going to approach E-man with my concern, but decided it would just make life difficult. I understand the reason for choosing Middlemarch when we did, and will hope, like you, to be pleasantly surprised.

[Everyman]

Zeke wrote: "Although I have wanted to read it for a long time, I am not sure I am ready for another LONG novel of domestic manners. Perhaps by March I will be. "

I think you will find Middlemarch to be MUCH more than a novel of domestic manners. As one critic wrote about teaching the novel:

"Next to the problem of the great length of Middlemarch, the most pressing problem is its greatness in virtually every other respect. It is deep im philosophical, moral, and psychological insight; broad in its range of characters and historical scope; multiple in its plots; dense in its style; thematically and formally superabundant." Eliot was very interested in the scientific movements of her time and included science as a significant component of the novel. When I took a short course in Middlemarch as a Senior class at our local community college the professor focused heavily on the philosophical elements of the novel and how Eliot was including the major philosophical schools and developments of her time.

BTW, an amusing early article she wrote is "Silly Novels by Lady Novelists." I can assure you that Middlemarch is NOT a Silly Novel, even though written by a lady (a main reason she wrote under a male pseudonym is so as NOT to be tarred by that brush).

[Everyman]

Everyman wrote: "Zeke wrote: "Although I have wanted to read it for a long time, I am not sure I am ready for another LONG novel of domestic manners."

Let me supplement my previous comment by adding another critical passage. This one is recommending background reading for Middlemarch, and in suggesting A Reader's Guide to the Nineteenth-Century Novel comments that the book has "information specifically pertinent to Middlemarch on the Church of England, Evangelicalism, class structure, the law, government and reform, marriage, the professions, and so on." With all these issues (and many others) implicated in the book, its richness in many areas is clear.

There is a reason that Virginia Woolf considered it one of the few novels written for grown-ups. I think you will find it well worth your time and effort.

[Andrea]

This will be my third reading of "Middlemarch." It is worth the trouble. However, I wouldn't have considered AK a "novel of manners" so I'm not sure I'm a good judge of what others will like.

[[deleted user]]

I hope I didn't come across sounding contentious. A great novel like Middlemarch certainly doesn't need to be defended to the likes of me! I was glad to learn of its concentration on the philosophical camps of the 19th century, as this has been something I have been trying to sort out for my American studies. All of those guys--from Emerson to James--were in dialogue with English and German and Scottish philosophers; much of it has stymied me though.

I used to read a lot of Robert Coles' work. He was constantly citing Middlemarch.

My only point was that I would probably have been more psyched for something shorter and, perhaps, from a different century than the 19th.

Any thoughts on favorite editions?

[Everyman]

Zeke wrote: "I hope I didn't come across sounding contentious."

Not at all. I'm sorry my answer sounded as though I thought you were.

My only point was that I would probably have been more psyched for something shorter and, perhaps, from a different century than the 19th.

I would support our reading something from a very different era and genre myself. Maybe the next poll will bring us something very different for a change. Plato, anyone? Or perhaps Virgil, or Kant, or Homer, or Montaigne or . . .

[Peregrine]

Gilgamesh!

[Everyman]

Zeke wrote: "Any thoughts on favorite editions? "

I'm just using the Penguin, though it's not anything special. It's what I have. (I also have it in the Great Books series, and an old Everyman edition, but neither of those has any notes at all.)

The Clarendon edition is perhaps the definitive edition, but it's out of print, hard to find, and expensive -- Alibris doesn't list any copies, and Amazon lists one for $100.53. (Don't you love that 53 cents?)

The Riverside edition used to be, and still may be, regarded as the preferred university teacher's text; it's perhaps the definitively edited text, and it's the one my prof used. Though it's also out of print, copies are readily available at under $10.

Of the new editions available, the Oxford World's Classic I understand uses the definitive Clarendon text, and has a critical introduction by Carroll, who edited the Clarendon edition. This may become the preferred edition for many readers.

There is also a Norton Critical Edition with, as is usual with Norton, a bunch of supplementary materials, but I find that Norton uses a somewhat smaller text size than many editions which I find very tiring. Amazon doesn't sell it, but Alibris has new editions for $10.49 from one seller, and many used copies .for under $4.00.

There are other editions, but I don't know anything about them.

This may be more information that you want. Based on what I know now, if I were buying a copy I would probably just go with the Oxford World's Classic. It's cheap, it's a reliable text, and it has at least some supplementary materials. But I think any of the standard editions would be fine, if you have or have access to some other edition.

[Andrea]

I actually usually really like the Norton Critical editions, but I haven't looked at Middlemarch. I've got an old Signet classic that I will use unless I get ambitious and get the Norton from the library.

[Everyman]

Andrea wrote: "I actually usually really like the Norton Critical editions, but I haven't looked at Middlemarch. I've got an old Signet classic that I will use unless I get ambitious and get the Norton from the ..."

I used to like them when my eyesight was good. But old age no longer creeps up, it gallops up, and with it the increasing challenge of small and compact type faces. Facing 700 pages of Norton sized text is just too daunting. Now if they would only come out with large print editions . . .

[Everyman]

I have been continuing to re-read Middlemarch, on this reading, unlike previous readings, with an eye to points to discuss, and I keep finding point after point after point any one of which would merit an extended discussion.

Whew! This should be a blast.

My current thinking is to allot ten days for each of the first two books, and either a week or ten days to the remaining books as we decide is best once we get into the book.

The reason for the somewhat longer than usual first two sessions is to allow time for posting about background information and to make sure that we are really solidly grounded in the essential points Eliot is dealing with.

I read an essay by one teacher who, to deal with the immense scope of the book, assigns her students into small teams which are to choose and concentrate on just one or two paragraphs and make a presentation on just those paragraphs. There is so much meat in the book she finds, that this can't begin to exhaust the meat, but at least gives the chance to come close to doing preliminary justice to a few parts of the work. I fully understand this approach; I keep coming across paragraphs that I feel I could study and analyze at length even if barely scratching the surface of them.

Anyhow, that's my initial thinking on timing of the read. As always, I'm open for comments!

[[deleted user]]

Sounds like a good approach. I know absoulutely nothing about Eliot except that she wrote this highly regarded novel and one called, I believe, Daniel Deronda.

I'm getting more and more excited about the undertaking even as I grow more and more perplexed trying to recognize Anna Kerenina's elusive "greatness." Should be an interesting couple of weeks, followed by another good read.

[Everyman]

Zeke wrote: "Sounds like a good approach. I know absoulutely nothing about Eliot except that she wrote this highly regarded novel and one called, I believe, Daniel Deronda."

Also Adam Bede, The Mill on the Floss, and several other novels.

She's a fascinating person who I think you will enjoy getting to know. I'm tempted to say more to entice you, but I will wait until the discussion starts. Suffice it to say that I am confident you will have no problem at all recognizing the greatness in Middlemarch.

[Renata]

I'm just wondering, as I could not find the information in another place, is there a plan for books to be read by the group in 2010?

[Julia]

I'm a little bit confused about the time frame - probably the info is somewhere, but i'm too stupid to find it - when (more or less) are we going to start reading Middlemarch? Thanks!!!!

[Everyman]

Renata wrote: "I'm just wondering, as I could not find the information in another place, is there a plan for books to be read by the group in 2010?"

Our general plan is books voted by the group interspersed with short items selected by the moderators. The interim items are a sort of palate cleanser, as well as offering a chance to start the reading on the next major book so as to be ready to discuss on day one.

The group votes on major reads usually about four to six weeks before the end of the current selection. This time is a bit different because in the last vote (which you can see by going to the polls section and checking out the poll) was so close between Anna Karenina and Middlemarch that we decided to do them both. The next vote will come not long after we start Middlemarch.

Julia asked: 2719191 I'm a little bit confused about the time frame - probably the info is somewhere, but i'm too stupid to find it - when (more or less) are we going to start reading Middlemarch? Thanks!!!!

Anna Karenina runs through March 3rd (though all our threads stay open permanently in case people want to continue the discussions or find points of interest later in other books that relate to a prior read). Then we will start an interim two week read that will be announced then (it's discussed in the General Information / Our Next Interim Read thread).

Middlemarch discussion will start on March 17th. (Middlemarch starts in the Middle of March -- how apt!) It's not clear yet how long it will run; the first two books will be scheduled for about ten days each, and during that time we'll discuss whether to read the remaining six books on our usual weekly schedule, or on a longer schedule, ten days or even two weeks per book. After Middlemarch will come another Interim read, then the next book voted on by the group.

Polls for group reads are always announced by a general notice to all members of the group, and discussed in the General Information topic area, so just keep your eyes open and you'll be able to vote on the next read.

Hope this is all clear, but if not feel free to ask. I operate by the rule that the only stupid question is the one you had and didn't ask. So please ask!

[Everyman]

Charlotte wrote: "My only point was that I would probably have been more psyched for something shorter and, perhaps, from a different century than the 19th.

I would like to add my support to this sentiment. Something from a different era, preferably earlier, would be good. "

I would also support that, but in the end, the group decides. But lobbying is very appropriate once the group of potential readings is posted, so be ready to push for a preferred option.

[Julia]

Thanks a lot!

[Renata]

Thanks Everyman for your explanation.

[Everyman]

I'm getting the threads ready for our Middlemarch reading. In addition to the usual threads for each book, I agree with the suggestion somebody made earlier that there be separate places to discuss the author and the historic context of the book, since it's very much related to the history of its times. I'm thinking of having one thread for author and background, unless people think these should be separated out.

Then I'm wondering whether there should be some threads for important aspects of the novel that continue throughout the book, or whether these can be dealt with in the individual book threads. For example, I don't think it's a spoiler to say that the genealogy (inter-relatedness) of some of the characters is important, and it is disclosed gradually over the course of the book. It might get lost if it is just dealt with in the book threads.

I don't want to set up a confusing number of threads, but I also want us to have places to work through some of the aspects that are integral to the whole book. Some possibilities are a discussion of the narrator/narratee issue; Eliot, even more than many Victorian authors (and unlike most modern authors) takes a very direct narrator role in the book, at times talking directly to the reader.

I will be glad of suggestions. My current thinking not to set up too many threads at the start, but to add ones as we find they would be useful. But I'm glad to take ideas from anybody to make this the best possible discussion experience for everybody!

[Grace Tjan]

I think Middlemarch is one of those great Victorian novels that cannot be fully appreciated without some understanding of its historical/ social context. For example, I didn't really understand what Mr. Brooke is doing in his political endeavors until I did a bit of reading about the Reform Act. We also need to know a bit about the developments in the medical field to understand Lydgate's efforts, the vogue for unifying theories for Casaubon's scholarly work, etc. Perhaps a separate thread is needed for all this information.

I know that some people just want to read the fiction without bothering much about the extra information, but I also think that some parts of Middlemarch are hard to appreciate without knowing any of it.

I feel that I've barely scratched the surface of the novel on my initial reading and would love to learn more about it.

[Shannon SA]

This will be my very first group read, I'm really excited about taking part. I've never read Middlemarch before. I've printed some stuff about George Eliot, which I'm planning to read over the weekend, will also google some background on the Reform Act. Seems to me a thread where we could check/ask questions on genealogy, historical, social background, narrator role, Mr Brooke, Casaubon (as mentioned by Sandybanks) etc would be most helpful.

[[deleted user]]

I have a request. I am already finding myself confused about who some of the characters are when they reappear after several chapters away.

I found plenty of sites online that give rather lengthy descriptions of them. But I can't find any that just give a quick reference guide that can be printed out: kind of like the ones in the front of Russian novels that group characters by family or briefly describe them by their relationship to each other.

Does anyone know of such a list? Or might one of the people who know the novel well be able to prepare one without too much trouble?

[Selina]

Zeke,

On googling the internet, I come across this Middlemarch relationship map, the thumbnail is available at http://www.librarything.com/topic/362...

I usually go to SparkNotes to print a list of characters. This study site doesn't visually list the characters by family though. Also, there could be spoiler information in the character listing.
http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/middlem...

[Everyman]

Selina wrote: "Zeke,

On googling the internet, I come across this Middlemarch relationship map, the thumbnail is available at http://www.librarything.com/topic/362...

I usually go to SparkNotes to ..."

CAUTION: If you haven't finished the book yet, you may want to hold off on printing a relationship map or character list. Eliot is very careful in the way in which she slowly reveals relationships during the course of the novel, and discovering these relationships before they are revealed in the text may spoil some of the surprise for people.

[Laurel]

Here is a character list for Middlemarch that is free of spoilers. Just stick to this page, not the links.

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/E388...

[Everyman]

Laurele wrote: "Here is a character list for Middlemarch that is free of spoilers. Just stick to this page, not the links.

http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~bump/E388..."

Thanks, Laurel. That's perfect. Helps keep track of who's who without any spoilers.

[[deleted user]]

Thanks Selina and Laurele.

I realize that going to the effort of creating a diagram myself, while reading, would probably be the best way to get this all straight. But I am too lazy!

[Laura]

Some historical background on the Reform Act:

Reform Act - Wikipedia

[MadgeUK]

Thanks Laura. The Reform Act is very important to understanding of Mr Brooke and his 'politicking'. The bill extending the male franchise was opposed by Sir James but supported by Mr Brooke, although he didn't seem to fully understand it. Coventry, which is where Middlemarch is set, was increased to two districts and so increased its representation in Parliament to two MPs instead of one. It was a very complex Bill, passed by only one vote, and in Chapter 39 Elliot makes it clear that few understood the full implications of the reforms. Brooke calls Ladislaw 'a kind of Shelley you know' and this is a reference to Shelley's 1819 treatise 'The Philosophical View of Reform'.

Brooke was also in favour of Catholic emancipation and supported the abolition of slavery. We can assume, I suppose, from these liberal/Whig views that this is where Dorothea got her own liberal views from. Casaubon, in contrast, has very conservative views and herein lies the crux of her problems.

It is sometimes said that 'Middlemarch' was Eliot's pseudonymn for the middle classes who were on the rise in England at that time. The characters have all the symptoms of the middle class in that for the first time in history English people have the time and money to worry about what to do with their lives, where to extend their charity and what causes to support.

BTW Brooke has an interesting verbal 'tic' which I wonder if people have noticed? He uses the phrase 'you know' a great deal. This is a phrase, contracted to 'y'know', still used by the English upper class (such as Prince Charles) and dates back to the Prince Regent's use of it. Eliot is perhaps using it to denote Brooke's standing as a gentleman and to link him to the earlier Regency period.

[Laura]

I am loving this reading since we have to research quite a lot on the historical background in order to better understand not only the plot but the characters of this book.

[[deleted user]]

MadgeUK: Brooke was also in favour of Catholic emancipation and supported the abolition of slavery. We can assume, I suppose, from these liberal/Whig views that this is where Dorothea got her own liberal views from. Casaubon, in contrast, has very conservative views and herein lies the crux of her problems.

Madge, I am really enjoying learning from your knowledge and perspectives as an English woman. However, in this case, I don't know if the text supports your point. If I recall correctly, the girls have only lived with their uncle for about a year. (Does the text ever make clear what happened to their parents?) I have a feeling that Dorothea was probably already well into her attitudes by then.

[Everyman]

Zeke wrote: " MadgeUK: Brooke was also in favour of Catholic emancipation and supported the abolition of slavery. We can assume, I suppose, from these liberal/Whig views that this is where Dorothea got her own liberal views from. Casaubon, in contrast, has very conservative views and herein lies the crux of her problems.

Madge, I am really enjoying learning from your knowledge and perspectives as an English woman. However, in this case, I don't know if the text supports your point. If I recall correctly, the girls have only lived with their uncle for about a year. (Does the text ever make clear what happened to their parents?) I have a feeling that Dorothea was probably already well into her attitudes by then.
"

Well, yes and no. They have only lived at Tipton Grange for about a year, true. But they lost their parents when they were about twelve, so they had plenty of time to be influenced by Mr. Brooke, and by the education which he arranged for them.

No, we don't know what happened to the parents -- they just lost them. Careless of them -- perhaps they were forgotten in the left luggage department at Paddington Station?

[MadgeUK]

Sorry Zeke, I have only just seen this post and thankyou for your kind words. I think Everyman has given the answer for me. I suppose we could equally say that Dorothea was influenced by the religious and political attitudes of the time and by her reading but Mr Brooke is very forceful in his opinions and I assumed some of them had 'rubbed off' in the years she has known him, like those of many a favourite uncle.