Blog #3 - Middlemarch

Summary: I read the first 15 pages or so, encompassing a great number of letters and other small publications. Throughout each of them, one theme was very consistent, and this was Eliot’s unwavering optimism and genuine care for other humans. Many of her letters express a great joy simply at being contacted, while others contain a great deal of sympathy for the recipients or their mutual acquaintances. I think this surplus of caring is also present in Eliot’s writing, such as in the characters of Lydgate and Dorothea, and it’s ultimately not at all hard to imagine the novelist as the penman here. That is, there is no divorcing of feelings or presentation from one text to the other.

Analysis: Eliot herself says, in “The Natural History of German Life,” that “the greatest benefit we owe to the artist, whether painter, poet, or novelist, is the extension of our sympathies.” She goes on to say how others, such as clergymen or farmers, may observe what life is truly like, but fail to properly convey this in actions or in words. It is the artists, Eliot claims, who are responsible for sparking some emotional reaction with an audience. Therefore, her “job” as a novelist is a fitting one, since she desperately wants to tell the stories of the people. Not just any people; not just the lower-class or middle class, but everyone. Recounting a story told by her aunt, Eliot explains how “Adam Bede” came to be, and the night of prayer, followed by an execution, that inspired it. It was the “great feeling” with which her aunt told the story that affected Eliot so deeply and caused the story to stick in her mind.

Clearly, Eliot is an author interested in both the good and bad of humanity, and especially where the two come together.

Preceding the explanation of “Adam Bede” is an excerpt from Amos Barton, who is apparently a rather unscrupulous reverend. While the details of his flaws aren’t touched upon, Eliot appears to be addressing a critic, inviting her to peruse different literature instead. She says, to summarize, that she isn’t interested in portraying an inaccurate depiction of the man, especially since “so very large a majority of [the critic’s] fellow-countrymen that are of this insignificant stamp.” In other words, she’s writing about the common man - who is generally far from ideal.

Ultimately, in both her novels and in her everyday communication, Eliot has a devotion to portraying humanity as it actually exists. She takes care to not demonize high society and, while she sympathizes with them, refrains from glorifying the lower-class. She’s acutely aware of the faults in both strata, and takes care to portray them accurately. Still, good and bad, Eliot maintains a deep and unrelenting admiration for people in general, and taking great care to express her appreciation for those who are close to her. It’s the sensitivity that, in my opinion, sets her writing aside from her contemporaries, whose words often get bogged down by unnecessary sentiment and superfluous description (a lot like what I’m doing now).