The Mill on the Floss
discussion
Team Philip or Team Stephen?
date
newest »
newest »
I found it difficult to get along with Philip. His frequent bouts of self pity put me off, I think. Also, as attached as Maggie was to him, it still seemed to be a relationship dynamic that revolved around her 'taking care' of Philip, rather than being a meeting of equals. I didn't start to respect Philip until after the market, when he has that mini-epiphany where he realises how much pressure he had heaped on Maggie to reciprocate his emotions.
Victoria wrote: "I found it difficult to get along with Philip. His frequent bouts of self pity put me off, I think. Also, as attached as Maggie was to him, it still seemed to be a relationship dynamic that revolve..."I liked bot Stephen and Philip and found myself getting irritated with Maggie because she felt so beholden to Philip. She and Philip were a good intellectual match but she pitied him and a relationship based on pity s doomed from the start. I think she felt it her duty to look after him. She seemed to have fallen in love with Stephen but didn't have the courage of her convictions despite her rebellious nature. I felt like shaking her!
I preferred Philip. They were a good match. I couldn't see any use for Stephen he lacked depth.
TEAM MAGGIE.Neither Stephen nor Phillip were spot on - Phillip by his physical failings, Stephen by his macho, screwing Lucy over failings. I think that was the point though - that there was no real option.
The best option was always Tom. There's a hell of a lot of criticism that argues that Maggie and Tom's incestuous love for one another is why Maggie fails romantically and end up in a dying embrace - the flood cleansing the land of their incestuous flaw...
I'm a bit surprised at other people's take on the relationships. I always saw the relationship between Maggie and Philip as him taking care of her. When they were meeting in secret and she was in her 'self-denial' stage, Philip gently led her away from that philosophy by encouraging her to take pleasure in things again.I don't see Philip as being weak. I loved the scene where he tells his father that he plans to marry Maggie. So manly! I nearly swooned! A great counterpoint between Philip's way of taking care of things and Stephen's way.
He does seem to have more than his fair share of resignation, though. I mean, having such an obvious physical deformity in an age when such things were commonly seen as a sign of judgement or a sign of moral failings would have left a mark.
He forgave Maggie without qualification or rancor, (something that her brother absolutely refused to do).
I don't think GE planned this, but it is almost like she was showing everyone that she could write straight romance by giving us great descriptions and scenes, but she was uncomfortable in the limitations of the genre and refused to give us a satisfying ending. She gave us a great romance between Maggie and Philip (who certainly didn't fit the mold of the leading man). Then it was interrupted by a traditional leading man, which also ended uphappily.
I don't think that Maggie and Tom's relationship was, at heart, sexual. Maggie loved people intensely, and wanted her brother's approval all her life. I don't think it's that unusual to long for a close family member's approval (especially if they are stingy about giving it).
If anyone is interested, starting on the first of January, the Reader's Review Club: Literature from 1800-1910 is having a book discussion about The Mill on the Floss.
Surely Stephen is rather a pathetic cad? I was disappointed at how Maggie's sparkiness faded as the book progressed. How could she imagine her cousin would be happy with someone who loved another with such intensity? The right thing for Stephen to do was to tell Lucy his feelings had changed. How cruel just to take off with Maggie and let Lucy learn of this in the way she had to? Why didn't Maggie ever throw this at Stephen?
It's been a long time since I read this, but my recollection is that Maggie found herself more a prisoner of her times, unable to act one way or the other. I read that George Eliot mirrored her own feelings about women in this time period with Maggie's fate. Basically, stuck, trapped between doing what was desired and desiring to do what others expected you to do.
The best option was always Tom. There's a hell of a lot of criticism that argues that Maggie and Tom's incestuous love for one another is why Maggie fails romantically and end up in a dying embrace - the flood cleansing the land of their incestuous flaw... When I read this for a Women In Literature class (25 years ago) my instructor firmly believed that Eliot killed Maggie off out of pity for her.
In post-class reading of Literary Women, I found that author Ellen Moers cites Maggie's death as a convenient ending "designed to smooth over, both practically and morally, her ugly revenge on blondes in the person of "dear little Lucy".
I really don't know what to think of Maggie's death. There sure seems to be a lot of theories as to why it had to happen.
I just finished listening to a reading of Mill from Librivox-- a GREAT resource for MP3's of books out of copyright! The longer the book went on, the less I liked Stephen. He was exceptionally selfish, really thinking only of himself and his own emotions. It didn't seem to occur to him that a letter exonerating Maggie was NOT going to convince the gossips of St. Ogg's that she actually was the innocent in the situation. Being on a boat overnight with an unrelated man was, indeed, a very serious situation for the woman in that era. It never would have happened if Stephen hadn't manipulated the circumstances. By the end (well, almost the end), I was cheering for Philip. I honestly believe that Maggie would have become much more attached to him in a romantic way if she'd had the opportunity to do so. That's why...
SPOILER
SPOILER
EVEN MORE SPOILER SPACE
YAY, LOOK AT ALL THE SPOILER SPACE
I felt that the device at the end that poleaxed Maggie's hopes by killing her off in a flood was very heavy-handed. I think that Maggie could have made it through, even in the context of bourgeois 19th century England. George Eliot certainly didn't end up this way. She had a long-term relationship with George Henry Lewes, and she braved the social criticism that occurred as a result. She later married a man twenty years younger than herself. She not only survived, but *lived*. She made unconventional relationships work. Ultimately, it was infuriating to see Eliot fail to give Maggie the same chance.
How about Team Flood? I really can't, for the life of me, ever decide who should have been chosen and why, for they both loved her very honestly. Maggie had good reason to be torn apart, and I think no other ending would have been justified, other than for her to die somehow. The 'Conclusion' or last parts had me crying, and, yes, Philip might have even worshiped her, a stage of love that Stephen hadn't yet reached, but there was more sympathy from Maggie's side than love for Philip. She loved Stephen better, or was attracted to her better? Because there had been no practical dialogue of some worth between them so they could know each other better, as Maggie and Philip had gotten to know each other over those long walks.So, it's all very crazy and confusing, and I think even Eliot had to get away from all the mayhem she had created, and drowned poor Maggie, but I think there could have been no other proper ending. She could not have chosen Stephen for the love of scruple, and neither Philip, for maybe the same reason.
So, good going, flood!
Catherine wrote: "I just finished listening to a reading of Mill from Librivox-- a GREAT resource for MP3's of books out of copyright! The longer the book went on, the less I liked Stephen. He was exceptionally self..."I can't agree more. I kept wondering what would have happened if Philip had taken Maggie boating rather than Stephen. Philip and Maggie might have had some time to get to know each other again. After the depth of their friendship in the Red Deeps, I felt that they were never allowed the chance to get re-acquainted after their separation. I felt that as soon as they were allowed that opportunity, they're friendship would have deepened into love.
Plus, that wouldn't have allowed Stephen to take advantage of the circumstances the way he did. For all that people talk about Philip "pushing himself" onto Maggie, I felt that it was Stephen who was really doing the pushing. He didn't even respect her enough to leave her alone after she'd told him to in so many words - several times. His attachment to Maggie seemed extremely selfish - and not based on friendship or mutual interests (like her relationship with Philip), and with no concern for what was ultimately best for Maggie.
Even after the "scandal," I so wanted to see Maggie and Philip work it out. Certainly, there would have been prejudices and difficulties to overcome. But to me the situation certainly didn't seem hopeless enough for death to be the better option.
Team Philip all the way. Stephen is a selfish and conceited nincompoop who thinks with his penis. What's this "love" for Maggie he raves about? Nothing but sexual chemistry. When that wears off after a few years, what would she be to him then? He'd just make off with the next attractive woman. Also, he is very immoral. He abducts Maggie - all that talk about an elopement is sheer euphemism - ,tricks her, pressurises her and completely disregards her views and wishes. He thinks he can force her hand by making this supposed elopement a fait accompli. I find him thoroughly detestable and Lucy would be well advised to draw her own conclusions from this incident.Philip on the other hand would make an excellent husband. Solid friendship and long-term affection is a much better basis for marriage than some silly hormones, and of course this relationship would be so infinitely advantageous for Maggie with regard to her intellectual and personal growth. I could see them travelling the contiennt together, Philip becoming a respected artist and encouraging Maggie in finding a similarly fulfilling career. Of course he is not perfect, but his imperfection - a tendency to be depressed, a certaion effemminate whininess - is exactly the kind that Maggie would be able to accommodate easily. They could have been very happy together, for the rest of their lives and not just for a passionate episode.
Stephen. I don;t think Pity is a great substitute for love.
Virtuella wrote: "Team Philip all the way. Stephen is a selfish and conceited nincompoop who thinks with his penis. What's this "love" for Maggie he raves about? Nothing but sexual chemistry. When that wears off aft..."My thoughts exactly. I hoped that Philip would come back and that she would have enough sense to marry him. Maybe it would not have been a passion-filled marriage, but it would have been one of mutual support, steady caring and constant affection, just the sort of thing Maggie needed after all the turbulence and being pushed around.
In my ideal ending, I wished Maggie had taken a situation somewhere faraway and maybe met a new man. But since she so much insisted on staying in St.Oggs, I definitely would have chosen Philip for her.
I do wonder whether George Eliott did not perhaps intend for the reader to think up alternative endings - almost a little like a postmodern novel. Two reasons for this: One is that she suggests a good many possible alternatives herself in the final few chapters. The other is that the actual ending is so out of synch with the rest of the book. It is cliched and melodramatic and full of saccharine sentiment and the whole notion of them dying hand in hand like the loving happy siblings they were as children is completely falso - even as children, Maggie couldn't do anything right for Tom. The ending is in fact the kind of ending one would expect in one of those "silly novels by silly ladies" which G.E. so despised. I couldn't help feeling that it was meant ironically. If not, I'd be forced to think that G.E. lost her grip towards the end of the book.PS: Commentator Goddess, do you seriously call it "love" to treat someone the way Stephen treated Maggie? Good grief, with lovers like that, who needs enemies?
Glad I found this thread! Honestly, I never thought that either Philip or Stephen was right for Maggie: I wish she had been able to bring herself to leave, where she could have been introduced to a less confining way of life. The end reminds me of Virginia Woolf's THE VOYAGE OUT: it seems that women writers of the late-19th/early 20th century felt that the plight of women who were not "Angels In the House" could only be resolved with death.
Honestly, whilst Stephen was wild and romantic I think the tragic ending and general pain suffered by everyone could have been avoided if Maggie had just chosen Philip. Philip was the sensible option and even though she didn't love him romantically, you cannot deny that she led him on. I also found Stephen worryingly controlling and manipulative, did anyone else?
Emily wrote: "I also found Stephen worryingly controlling and manipulative, did anyone else? "Stephen is exactly the kind of man a woman should avoid like the plague. He is only interested in the gratification of his own desires, he shows no respect or consideration for either Maggie or Lucy. He is a potential abuser and it is worrying that women saw/still see such a personality as romantic. Maggie could have more than avoided pain, she could have had a good life with Philip. He would have always treated her as an equal and she would have had the chance of intellectual and personal growth. What's a few hormone-induced dizzy feelings compared to that? After a year or so, she would have shaken her head at her own silly infatuation with Stephen.
Virtuella wrote: "Emily wrote: "I also found Stephen worryingly controlling and manipulative, did anyone else? "
Stephen is exactly the kind of man a woman should avoid like the plague. He is only interested in the..."
Wholeheartedly agree! Oooh, what a beautiful novel, one of my favorites! <3
Stephen is exactly the kind of man a woman should avoid like the plague. He is only interested in the..."
Wholeheartedly agree! Oooh, what a beautiful novel, one of my favorites! <3
Team Philip, all the way. I've just started reading the novel, but (due to my possessing a passing familiarity with the story by way of an ardent marathon of the 1978 BBC miniseries production of it) from what I can see, Stephen is nothing more than a lusty, melodramatic cad, inconstant in his affections and completely and utterly dismissive of the fact that said affections change with almost flippant alacrity, regardless of any promises he might've made regarding them (yes, I'm talking about Lucy; it seems a mortal sin to mistreat such a kind and gentle soul so greatly, but Stephen doesn't seem to give a shit). What Maggie feels for Stephen is not love. Rather, it's an infatuation born of her own love of being loved, and the thrill inherent in being pursued by such a sexually charismatic and powerful figure, which...in the eyes of Maggie's society, at least, Philip is anything but. That being said, Philip, with his sensitive soul and profound love for the artistic and intellectual, is NOTHING but Maggie's mental equal. To marry Philip would be to grant herself express permission to broaden her mind, while also guaranteeing a life of solid affection, safety, respect, and mutual interest upon which she could depend.
Philip loves Maggie, and never makes even the slightest attempt to hide that fact. It's incredibly unfortunate that she could never muster up that same level of (romantic) affection for him, but what's sadder is that Philip would be content with that. As long as he simply was given the opportunity to spend time with Maggie, to share his life and soul with what may be the only kindred spirit he'll ever have the opportunity to find, he'll be happy, and he'll willingly expend his time and energies in trying to make HER happy in return (by feeding her intellectual curiosity and her desire to love and be loved), which is more than Stephen would ever do. I love Maggie as a character, and admire her feisty and independent spirit as I rarely do regarding fictional females (in contemporary literature, at least....), but the way she treats Philip and leads him on is abominable when compared with the tender care, love, support, respect, and friendship he grants to her.
I also wished that Maggie would end up with Philip. As it was almost as if he deserved to have a normal relationship. But having said that I think she felt safe with him and hadn't really experienced real passionate love until Stephen came along and she was frightened of the feelings that he inspired in her.Philip would have adored her like a piece of fine china, but Stephen would have made her feel alive, experiencing things she had never experienced before, nor would do with Philip.
Philip was the best. He is deep and truly loved her for what she is and understood her completely. Mr. Guest is merely attracted to her beauty and indifference she shows him.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
I have nothing against Stephen, but by the time he showed up, I already considered Maggie 'taken'.