Talk:Middlemarch

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): PCFleming05.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Plot summary

This is huge and quite messy, but it's got all the right elements and points to be made, so I'd really like to have a go at fixing it up a little. I will make small, on-going changes as I get time. Feedback is more than welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshimeon (talk • contribs) 02:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the plot summary and commenced a rewrite. The problem with the old plut summary is that it didn't show a good command of the intertwining narratives and focused too much on Dorothea, which would be a subject of consternation to the narrator of the novel: "One morning, some weeks after her arrival at Lowick, Dorothea--but why always Dorothea?". I've also started to divide the narrative into Book sections, like the novel itself. And finally, we need to redact a LOT. In my opinion, the plot summary should be short: no more than 250 words.Victorianist (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree about the plot summary. Have got a little more time now so will go have another re-read.Oshimeon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, newbie to serious Wikipedia editing here. Since I'm reading the book anyway I thought I'd add info about the plot as I read through it.--Scwalsh (talk) 03:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

1) Hi. I added some info to the plot summary. Feel free to use it as a template when re-writing.

2) Also, this article should include alot more about some of the theses or assertions made by Eliot in Middlemarch. For example,

   a. Good comes from the breadth of our emotion.

   b. Women are equal to men and should be given equal opportunity to act for themselves.

   c. Our morals interfere with aour lives and are hypocrisy.

   d. We are responsible for our own misery, our attained dreams never correspond to our anticipation. Social forces hinder our dreams.

   e. We are responsible for doing good to our fellow man.

3) Some important things are missing.

   a. Characters - Very important characters are missing. Mrs. Dollop for instance.

   b. Location - There should be treatment of the various locations. Tipton, the Grange, Freshitt, Lowick, Middlemarch, Riverston, Brassing.

   c. Setting - Items of general interest are missing. The Reform Bill, the railroad. These can be integrated to give more information about the England of that time. The Reform Bill is central to the novel.

Veritas (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC) aka Christendom

Rating

I changed the Novels WikiProject rating to start as this thing is barely more than a stub now. The plot summary is being rewritten, but there is almost no scholarship referenced here. Victorianist (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Future development of article

For the benefit of past and current editors I'd like to put forward a few suggestions as to how this article might develop. I started thinking about this when I noticed that the article had stalled recently, and I wondered whether a fresh approach might be beneficial. In the last few days a new editor has come in, which is encouraging, but it would be good if all further contributions were within an agreed strategy for the article, which I suggest might be along the following lines:

• The article should be about the book, rather than primarily a summary of its plot and a list of characters. Obviously a plot synopsis is needed, but it should not be the main focus of the article, nor of the length that is currently developing. By "about the book" I mean its genesis, its reception at the time of publication, its importance in the canon of Victorian literature, its literary legacy, and "that sort of thing", as Mr Brooke would say.

I tried to add this http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/collections/projects/eliot/middlemarch/pub.html#serialization about the interesting publiscation history of the book but I have to learn how footnotes work.....[this gave me a 1 footnote but not the correct source).....from this, one learns that the book was published between 1871 and 1873. MKohut (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would suggest stripping out the list of characters altogether, by creating a new article called "List of characters from Middlemarch", or some such title. I have found, on other articles I've worked on, that this works well. In the case of Middlemarch the list of characters is too long to be contained easily in the main article, and to say something meaningful about them will extend it further. Far better to transfer it and use the space to develop the analytical sections which I've suggested.
• With great respect to the work of other editors, I believe that summarising the plot on a consecutive book-by-book basis is too mechanistic, and also tends towards excessive length. It would be better, I think, to have a single section, around 750 words maximum if possible, which treats the various plotlines organically. As well as detailing the various stories this synopsis should also touch on some of the underlying themes of the book, such as idealism and materialism; reaction and reform; marriage, religion, etc., which might be developed in the analytical sections.

Let me stress that I am making suggestions here, not laying down the law. I am trying to see a way towards an article of a standard that the book deserves. If any currently-interested editors could add a bit of feedback on this page, it may be possible to see if there is a consensus for moving forward.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. See what I wrote above in plot summary. Veritas (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the approach you suggest, which would be well suited to the structure I have proposed. But meantime another editor has completed a plot summary, which runs to some 2,500 words. You can't have that length of summary, plus the historical background, plus a reasonable literary analysis, plus an informative list of characters, without the article having unacceptable length. My suggested policy remains as above, but there needs to be a consensus on approach, or there will be edit wars. Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The plot summary should definitely be shortened. I don't mind if the plot summary is divided into sections or not (both formats have been used for books of similar calibre). I'm more concerned with the emerging "Themes" section. This kind of section should consist almost exclusively of published analyses and scholarship, and should contain appropriate references. Without this, these kinds of sections will be rife with original research. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 21:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

To show willing, within a few days I will post my idea as to what the plot summary should be - around 750 words, treating the book's narratives organically rather than distinctly. This is not a bid to impose my will - I don't mind in the least if my summary is reverted, but at least it will demonstrate more clearly what I have in mind. Could I have some thoughts on the other idea - take the list of characters to another special page, and create the space for the "themes"? There is much published scholarship on which to draw. Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A 750-word plot summary sounds good. I look forward to seeing it. I still think that a list of characters within the main article is useful, but I think we should trim the list of characters to those mentioned in the plot summary and also those that are essential in understanding it, with a brief explanation of each character's importance. A separate "List of characters in Middlemarch" could also include more characters. Thoughts? – Liveste (talk • edits) 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

General thought: lists spoil articles and take up lots of room (unless they are within specialized "list" articles). Also, a partial list of "main" characters will lead to arguments as to who should be in it. A proper, comprehensive list of characters, with informative descriptions, is a good long article on its own, and well worth doing in its own right. I for one would love to do it. So I'd stick to my position on this. However, let's take one step at a time - I'll do my plot summary first and then we can talk about the list. To provide the context for my summary I may have to alter the lead a bit. A lot, in fact. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Revised lead

I have posted an extended lead - this is not the plot summary. I will format the references properly later. As an experiment I have temporarily replaced the infobox with a straightforward image (I have a personal dislike of infoboxes on non-person articles - the important information ought to be in the article) but this can of course be restored later if necessary. I am working now on the plot summary. Brianboulton (talk) 22:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Plot outline

I have now posted a plot outline, in place of the previous book-by-book plot summary. I could not do this within the 750-word target I set myself—it’s about 880—and I doubt I can reduce this by much.

The outline does not attempt to tell the whole of the story, or stories, and is not presented in the book’s narrative order. It introduces the main story lines and indicates where they go, but without much detail—the object of the outline is to give the sense of the book rather than a précis of its contents. I realise that this is a different approach from that of most of the wikipedia “book” articles, but I have looked at a lot of these. The standard article form of plot summary, list of characters, outlines of some literary themes and long lists of TV and film adaptations, seems to me a bit sterile and uninteresting, and as mentioned before I am interested in trying a different form.

My proposed structure is along the following lines (though not fixed yet, by any means):-

• Lead
• "Genesis" – background, how the book came to be written (pick up points from lead).
• Plot outline
• Publication – popular reaction – critical reception
• Identified themes – summaries of critical analysis (I see this section as central to the whole character of the article).
• Literary influence
• Cultural legacy (incl. brief references to, but not lists of, TV/film versions, and no trivia)

If this structure can be developed, then a meaningful list of characters will have to be developed as a sub-article. The suggestion that the article should include a list of just the "main" characters won’t work in this structure. I have named or alluded to 17 characters in the plot outline, all of whom have claims to be "major". There are others, e.g. the Cadwalladers, Mrs Vincey, the painter Naumann, etc. who might be thought important, too. A list properly describing just these characters would completely unbalance the article, while a simple link to a sub-article would solve all the problems of listing, and allow both articles room for growth.

At this stage I simply ask that people interested in the article take a look at my suggestions in the light of the new lead and plot outline, think about it, and post comments. If nobody agrees with me, then we can easily revert to the older form.

Nice lead, great plot summary. Since the new plot summary introduces the characters quite well, I have no further objection to relegating the "list of characters" to a separate article. The length of the plot summary and lead is fine, particularly once the article is more fully developed. Assuming no further objections are raised, I see no reason to revert to the older forms.

The article structure you suggest is similar to the style guideline at WikiProject Novels. For consistency amongst novel-related articles, we should probably adopt their headings. Many "sterile" articles are simply underdeveloped; articles that have fully developed sections are usually quite comprehensive.

Whether or not to use an infobox on this article is potentially divisive. Infoboxes are a standard feature on novel-related articles (with exceptions), and consensus is usually appropriate before removing them once they're established. Generally, I prefer to include them on novel-related articles: they present brief, essential information in one place, without making readers scan the article text. I also have a personal dislike of scanned pages as thumbnail images, let alone as the primary article image: an infobox can mitigate this to some degree. But I'll seek consensus before re-including it in this article.

All in all, the recent progress with this article has been great. I look forward to seeing further developments (and hopefully soon, helping out with them). Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 01:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this positive feedback, which encourages me to think that this approach is worth pursuing. Progress might be slow, because I cannot commit all my time to this project. My next tasks will be to write the "genesis" section, transfer the characters list to a new home, and start to build this up. Meanwhile I am sure that other editors will come forward with their own ideas, and I look forward to this.Brianboulton (talk) 11:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My only response to the proposed outline is that it doesn't conform to the Novel article template. Some of the sections you propose are accounted for by already-existing sections of the novel template, and the things you note as "uninteresting" are probably uninteresting to scholars of the novel. I don't love the novel article template, but it's what we have to work with at the moment, and most novel articles already use it. If you want to change the article template, it will require a complete overhaul of all of the novels using the template, and so people are reluctant to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victorianist (talk • contribs) 21:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to change the template in cases where it is suitable. My proposals for Middlemarch amount, in essence, to two variations from the template: the substitution of a plot outline for the usual narrative plot summary, and the transfer of the list of characters to a sub-article. The need for these arises from Middlemarch's multiple plot nature, and from the large number of characters about which something needs to be said. The template should be a general framework rather than something fixed and immutable. I don't see why my proposed changes require any overhaul of other novel articles.

I suggest that you wait and see how this article develops with the structure I have proposed. This might be a slow process, since I can give only limited time to the project, though I am hoping that other editors will join in. Or, if you wish, you can revert to the version of the article before I posted the plot outline. That would get rid of me, but I don't think it would help the article. Brianboulton (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not signing that last post. I meant to. I don't want to get rid of you at all. You're doing good work on this article. All I was suggesting was to take your sections and fit them into existing parts of the template. I've done something similar on Slaughterhouse-five. That article is still a mess, but you can see what I mean. I really don't like the Novel template for a number of reasons. The biggest one is that it's oriented toward allusiveness, which seems to me to have little to do with novel articles. We're not here to chase down allusions, and besides, allusions are subject to interpretation. Just so we're clear: I'm not advocating strict adherence to the template, but I do think it's important to maintain uniformity in the format of novel articles, and it's especially the case with this novel because it is such an important novel. In any case, as long as the content is good, I'll be happy. Keep up the good work. Victorianist (talk) 16:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Are the two of you referring to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/ArticleTemplate? If so, then I think that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines would be better suited for this article. For consistency amongst novel-related articles, I think we should try to follow it fairly closely, with the occasional, well-reasoned exception. Let me know if I've missed something, though. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 17:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Broadly, I am following Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines, and to show due deference I have altered the Genesis section to Background. I'll even change Plot outline back to Plot summary, if you like. The Background section still needs a bit of extra work, and I'm wondering if my intention to transfer the characters to a linked sub-article might, after all, be a little drastic, particularly if it left the main article saying little or nothing about characterisation. Then, as to themes....that's going to be the big challenge, but that's way off in the future. Brianboulton (talk) 13:40, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What made you reconsider the list of characters? I had just gotten used to the idea of having the list of characters removed, particularly since the new plot summary characterised them well. Do you now think that a character list can work within the new article structure? – Liveste (talk • edits) 11:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Just trying to be open-minded. If the article looks incomplete without more character information, then we'll need to reconsider. I hope to spend more time with the article soon and get some serious development going. Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Class section

An anonymous editor has added a section headed "Class". The section, while interesting, is without citations and as such reads like this editor's personal interpretation. Is it possible that the editor can add citations to the text? Otherwise, as opinion or original research it can't, unfortunately, remain in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I flagged it as original research. I want to look into this. I'm not aware of any scholarly discussions about class in this novel, though it does have different classes, obviously. In any case, if we want to discuss major themes in the novel, there are quite a few others that I can think of. Victorianist (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The plot section reads like a B minus English 1A paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.244.156 (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not positive, but isn't this section a bit unfair to Lydgate? In the sentence "Rosamond marries Dr. Lydgate believing..." it seems to imply that he was having money problems even before marriage. But it was really the marriage that caused those problems, right? And later, "His patients believe he is an arrogant snob..." Certainly there are some in Middlemarch who are confused by his practices and decide that they dislike him, but I think that's really an unfair generalization. Example: I remember the book stating that he had no problem sharing meals with his poorer patients. Someone with more confidence and energy can check this stuff. 59.40.78.226 (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this section isn't quite right. Lydgate is not actively 'trying to move down' in society. He has a confidence in his actions engendered by being born upper-class and therefore doesn't care for or understand Rosamond's middle-class attitudes - or about the (what he sees as) petty conventions of his middle-class neighbours and patients. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.146.34 (talk) 11:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Quibble with the plot summary

The plot summary describes Will and Dorothea's marriage as one of convenience more than love, in this sentence: "But Dorothea, released from life with Casaubon but still the prisoner of his will, now sees Ladislaw as the means of her escape to a new life". Is he really just a 'means to an escape'? I disagree- she marries him because she loves him and it will make her happy! But perhaps, I'm an old romantic... 195.195.71.195 (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Casaubon, Bulstrode and Ladislaw: A Thread in the Web

Marriages are one of the major threads in what the narrator often terms the "web" of Middlemarch. For marriages provide links, not just between those joined in matrimony, but also between characters at quite a remove from the married couple. A prime example is provided by the two marriages (both childless) of Mr Featherstone--"the first to Mr Garth's sister and the second to Mrs Vincy's" (231*). Mr Featherstone's marriages serve not only to set in motion several features of the interwoven plots, but also to connect the country landowners, the more modest Garth family and the town "manufacturers." Furthermore, the marriages which editor Rosemary Ashton describes as "parallel cases" of "disastrous marriages" (Introduction, xii)--Casaubon's marriage to Dorothea Brooke and Lydgate's marriage to Rosamond Vincy--function not only to advance the narrative, and to allow complex psychological insights, but also permit commentaries on social structure, and to a lesser extent, on political and economic events. Even more disastrous, however, than the two marriages referred to above are the parallel "runaway" marriages contracted by Casaubon's Aunt Julia and by Ladislaw's mother, Sarah Dunkirk. These unions result in disinheritance, fatal illness and a general state of misery. Nonetheless, these "runaway" marriages provide an apparently unlikely thread between Casaubon and Bulstrode, a thread which is essential to the narrative of Middlemarch.

The thread linking Casaubon and Bulstrode is first evoked by the queen of Middlemarch upper-class gossip, Mrs Cadwallader. She informs whoever will listen that Casaubon's mother's sister made a bad match (69). The real thread begins, however, when Dorothea sees a miniature during her pre-bridal visit to Lowick. Casaubon dismisses the lady of the miniature: "My aunt made an unfortunate marriage. I never saw her" (75). Elsewhere we learn that Casaubon's Aunt Julia ran away with "a Pole" (Mr Cadwallader, 69) or a "musical Polish patriot" (Mr Farebrother, 719). Mrs Cadwallader, who has to have her say, describes Aunt Julia's husband as "a rebellious Polish fiddler or dancing master..." (819). Will Ladislaw, grandson to that Aunt Julia, speaks more charitably, and probably more accurately, of a "mésalliance...a Polish refugee who gave lessons for his bread." As he admiringly puts it, "My grandfather was a patriot--a bright fellow" (365). Unfortunately, however, Polish patriotism commands little respect in Middlemarch. Sir James Chettam, that "excellent baronet" (16), sums up the general feeling when he disparagingly states that "There is some foreign blood in Ladislaw" (379).

Shortly after seeing the miniature, Causabon and Dorothea meet Will Ladislaw. Casaubon introduces him as "a second cousin: the grandson of the lady you have been noticing, my Aunt Julia" (79). Casaubon insists that Ladislaw is not his nephew, but his "cousin" (81). Ladislaw will confirm Casaubon's generosity--or, as that worthy clergyman might have put it, his duty--to a family living in abject squalor. For it is the family of Aunt Julia's son whom the reader finds overcome by misery. As Ladislaw himself recounts it, his father "was lying ill, and I was very hungry, and had only a little bit of bread" (365). He continues, "...my father had made himself known to Mr Casaubon and that was my last hungry day. My father died soon after, and my mother and I were well taken care of" (366). Casaubon has paid young Ladislaw's school fees at Rugby and would gladly have put him in a university (81). He confirms that he has given his "young relative" (79) "to understand that [he] would furnish in moderation what was necessary for providing him with a scholarly education and launching him respectably" (81).

Another link enters the thread when Raffles, the "florid stranger" (609), tells Ladislaw that he had seen the young man's father at Boulogne and that the father was very ill. Ladislaw confirms that it was this illness that led to his death (610). At first, this might seem like one of the coincidences that abound in the Victorian novel, but it is more likely that Raffles' sighting of the older Ladislaw occured at the time of the sinister search which launches a large part of the plot in the later chapters of Middlemarch.

However, when Raffles accosts Will Ladislaw, after the auction of the goods of Edwin Larcher, Esq., the real thrust of the villain's semi-drunken innuendo is aimed at Ladislaw's mother, Sarah Dunkirk (609-10). (While at Stone Court, Raffles had remembered that the name of Sarah Dunkirk's husband was Ladislaw!) Raffles, trying to goad Ladislaw, asks him if Sarah Dunkirk was the name of his mother; Ladislaw replies in the affirmative (609). We are already aware that she had died some four years beforehand (366). Admittedly, her "runaway" was prior to her marriage but the consequences were similar. Bulstrode, in his remorseful, and largely self-pitying inner monologue (614 et seq.), recalls that Sarah Dunkirk ran away from her family (617) when she learnt that her father's wealth had come from semi-criminal activities: "the respectable thieving line--the high style of receiving house," as Raffles describes it (611). Bulstrode's fortune has also derived from the "receiving house," first when he works there and becomes a partner; but even more so when he marries the widowed Mrs Dunkirk. Things turn out well for Bulstrode. Not only has Mrs Dunkirk's daughter run away, but her son has died. When she too conveniently dies, the fortune goes to Bulstrode. He had been given some chance of redemption when, at Mrs Dunkirk's request, he sought out--and found--the "runaway" heiress, presumably living in the misery described by her son, Will Ladislaw. However, in inverse parallel to the behavior of Casaubon, Bulstrode denies that he has found Mrs Dunkirk's daughter, Sarah. Consequenly, when he arrives to settle in Middlemarch, he is a very wealthy man. But unfortunately for him, his misdeeds, "blabbed" by the alcohol-poisoned Raffles to Mr Bambridge (716-7), will finally lead to Bulstrode's public disgrace, drawing opprobrium both on himself and on the innocent Lydgate--ironically, one of the victims of the "disastrous marriages." Bulstrode even confesses the truth of his misdeeds to Ladislaw (623). He offers Ladislaw an annuity from the ill-gotten fortune, but Ladislaw refuses due to the money's dishonorable source (623-4).

Mr Farebrother sums it up neatly when he says that "our Ladislaw has a queer genealogy" (719). For Sarah Dunkirk, or Sarah Ladislaw, is, as Raffles sees it, Bulstrode's "step-daughter" (530). By the same logic, Ladislaw (Casaubon's "cousin") is Bulstrode's "step-grandson." Thus, the application of one of those Victorian eye-glasses to the "web" of Middlemarch reveals the apparently unlikely thread connecting Mr Casaubon and Mr Bulstrode. The thread comes full circle with the marriage of Will Ladislaw to Dorothea Casaubon. Again, it is seen as a "disastrous marriage" by Middlemarch society; and again, a marriage will lead to disinheritance.PeadarMaguidhir (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

• Parenthetical page references are to Middlemarch, George Eliot, Edited with an Introduction and Notes by Rosemary Ashton. Penguin Classics, 1994.PeadarMaguidhir (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Martin Amis

He seems to rate Middlemarch as the greatest novel in the English lanuage. Worth mentioning (alongside Woolf and V. S. Pritchett, as a contemporary writer) in the Literary significance and reception section? Upon his recommendation, I'm reading it. Third paragraph here: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article6996980.ece?token=null&offset=36&page=4 printable version: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article6996980.ece?print=yes&randnum=1151003209500 86.176.124.211 (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the links. I agree it's worth mentioning. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 12:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to the lead. [1] SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 18:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Splendid.. Sometimes I get vexed by this place, but right there, your action: that's what Wikipedia is all about. Thanks 86.177.3.74 (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Actually I was thinking the same about you. :) SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 06:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Questionable section

I thought this section was pretty questionable. A few small criticisms are included although many more could be added.

Class

The characters in the book belong to distinct social classes based on birth and money. The genteel class (that is to say, the class of people whose inherited wealth makes them financially independent and who need not work for a living) is represented by Sir James Chettam, Mr. Casaubon, and the Brooke family (Dorothea, Celia, and their uncle). The merchant and professional class is represented by the Vincy family (particularly Fred and Rosamond), and the labouring class is represented by the Garth family. Old Mr. Featherstone has amassed considerable wealth and substantial landholdings, but illustrates a stubborn class divide by the fact that he has never entered the genteel "county" circle of the Brooke family (who watch his funeral from a window, noticing that it is more elaborate than is customary among their own, higher caste).

Class climbing and class sinking also feature in the book. Mr. Vincy, who has become reasonably wealthy but who is living beyond his means and who is teaching his children Fred and Rosamond to do the same, is hoping that his children will make it into the upper class.

I'm not sure this is stated clearly in the book.

He believes Fred will inherit a substantial amount of money from old Mr. Featherstone, so he does not push Fred to work hard at university or pass his exams. He raises Rosamond to spend foolishly because he hopes that, with her beauty and charm, she will be able to marry up. Neither of the Vincy children succeed.

It is not clear that their definition of "success" constitutes entering the upper classes.

Fred alienates Mr. Featherstone and does not inherit the fortune he hoped for and it is not until he embraces work and fulfils his destiny as a member of the mercantile class that he earns Mary Garth's respect. Rosamond marries Dr. Lydgate believing that she's marrying into an upper class family when in reality Lydgate is short of money and sinking into debt. Rosamond in fact insists on maintaining an upper-class lifestyle even when her husband tries to cut back expenses and to sell off unnecessary belongings in order to avoid bankruptcy.

Lydgate, unlike his wife, is not trying to move up in class but to move down. He was born into a wealthy family, but alienated his relatives by deciding to become a doctor. As a professional, he voluntarily stepped into a lower class. Yet he is still accustomed to the material luxuries he enjoyed in his youth, so he spends more than he should to buy a practice and to set up his household. He persists in idealistic, upper-class activities such as working without pay for the hospital and alienating patients by not dispensing medicine and by charging for consultations in a manner inconsistent with the traditional practice of medicine in Middlemarch. His patients believe he is an arrogant snob and they want nothing to do with him. So, by belonging convincingly to neither class, Lydgate effectively shuts himself out from both.

Another class-crossing character is Ladislaw.

I don't see Ladislaw as "class-crossing" but someone whose place in the class hierarchy is indeterminate. There is a difference.

He lives a fairly Bohemian life at first, but comes to Middlemarch and seeks employment as a clerk. Since he works for a living, he puts himself on a far lower social rung than his relative Mr. Casaubon. Dorothea's marriage to Ladislaw is shocking not because he is a relative or because it is in defiance of Casaubon's will, but because the class and financial differences between Ladislaw and Dorothea are so great.

The section was interesting but I think much of it represents original research. I do think that we could mention the wealth situations and class situations of these people, as they would be obvious to people reading the novel at the time it was written, and were basically for the time pretty clearly stated. But when the characters are analyzed based on class aspirations, that crosses into original research. Like Fred "fulfills his destiny as a member of the mercantile class" is a bit too interpretive, even though I would for the most part agree with it. QuizzicalBee (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Dickinson on Eliot

I thought this quote would close out the section nicely.

In another letter (to Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1879) Dickinson inquires of him, "And perhaps you have spoken with George Eliot. Will you 'tell me about it'"? Linscott p. 310.Ol'Campy (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Date of publication

The info box image shows that volume 1 of Middlemarch was published in 1871, yet the date of publication (after it was serialized) is given as 1874. I checked the Encyclopaedia Britannica and it states that the novel was published in "eight parts in 1871–72 and also published in four volumes in 1872". Isn't 1872 therefore the date of first publication as a book, whereas 1874 is the date of the first one volume edition? Both the current lede and info box are confusing. I can fix, if there's no objection. Rwood128 (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No objection here. For starters I wasn't certain about how "first published" is defined on WP (is it from first serialisation in which case 1871, or from first publication as a completed volume?). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be any consistency. Wikipedia, for example gives 1899 for Heart of Darkness, when it was serialized, but Britannica, and others, give 1902. For Middlemarch, however, 1871-2 is given in the lede, in Britannica and in the Oxford Companion to English Literature, etc. (though the infobox for the article, as noted above, gives 1874). I suggest sticking with 1871-2 and deleting series from the infobox, which I believe refers to series not serialization, i.e. C. S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower series. I presume that it was originally planned to publish volume 1 of the four volume first edition late 1871 but it was actually published early 1872. I'll try and check this. 1874 is just the date of the first one volume edition. Rwood128 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I read the article more carefully (Composition and publication) and it seems that the image with the infobox is of the first volume/installment of an eight volume edition, confusingly described as a serialization in the article. This first volume appeared December 1871. Rwood128 (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Historical novel

It seems a little odd (confusing), to me, to describe Middlemarch as an historial novel, even though it is, maybe, technically correct and there is a citation. I'd prefer just "novel", and to leave this topic for discussion in the article. Is it commonly called an historical novel? But anyhow there's no need for both "Novel, [and] historical novel".

Re the earlier point about "series" above, I foolishly went from editing the Middlemarch infobox to Dickens' novels, and got myself into a real tangle on the same matter, with a less agreeable editor.

Good to see the improvements being made here, What else is planned? I was thinking of doing something before the end of the month (my deadline), but don't want to duplicate other editors' efforts. Suggestions are welcomed. Rwood128 (talk) 11:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I shamelessly put it in the infobox in order to remember to integrate it with the main body in a short while; it's worth mentioning the historical novel debate briefly (since it technically is one), so I will eventually include it. As for other planned improvements: trimming the plot (further...); trimming and refocusing the "Characters" section; charting the full critical reception of the novel over time; adding an "Analysis" (or "Themes") section to discuss the scholarly criticism; finishing "Composition". I'm working on the article as part of the WP:Core Contest, which concludes on April 14, and so am aiming to get much of this complete by then. Appreciate your help as well. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:04, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for filling me in so thoroughly. I had an idea that you might be thinking of discussing the historical novel question. I'm aware of the Core Project and it was an excellent idea to include Middlemarch. Your plans sound great and it is probably better that I wait until you have finished, and then do a thorough proof-read and make any additions that might help improve the article. In the meantime I'll browse a little. Look forward to reading your additions. Rwood128 (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Re historical novel, MasterOfHisOwnDomain, The "Introduction" to the Penguin Classics edition has a useful comment: "George Eliot places her novel forty years back from the time of writing. She adopts the role of imaginative historian, even scientific investigator" (p.1). And Henry James: "The author's purpose was to be a generous rural historian" (James' 1873 review, first page).

I have been distracted, but I am now actively researching. As I've said, I'll wait for your editing, but was wondering if you are working on the Saint Theresa parallel? Which has led me to another possible topic "feminism".Rwood128 (talk) 11:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a priority at the moment, but if I come across something pertinent to the Saint Theresa parallel I will include it. Those comments on the historical novel aspect of the text are useful, appreciate those. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Glad the quotations are of use. I didn't make myself sufficiently clear, but I was thinking of working on Saint Theresa if you didn't have plans. But I now realise that it's part of the broader "Woman Question". Other than Eliot's own "Prelude", Henry James mentions Theresa, and there are useful references in MiddleMarch in the Twenty-First Century, ed Karen Chase, which I accessed as an e-book from a university library. Rwood128 (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh in that case no worries, feel free to work on it yourself; my plans for it are not at all advanced. It seems like you have the necessary sources ready, but just ask if you would like me to seek out any more. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 23:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Perhaps I will add something, and we can go from there with whatever you have, do a merge or whatever. I didn't want to get under your feet and cause confusion or duplication. Rwood128 (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

On the "Woman Question" Kathleen Blake's "Middlemarch and the Woman Question" is excellent (even if from 1976), and it touches on the historical dimension in relation to the 1832 and 1867 Reform Bills. I found it on JStor. Rwood128 (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Good to see your further work on the novel. I'm just starting to write something on the "Woman Question", including the allusions to Saint Theresa, Antigone, etc.MasterOfHisOwnDomain, would you,like me to add this to the article, or wait until you have finished your additions? This of course depends on how fast I am anyhow.

On other matter, you removed a reference to Coventry in the lede. Was this because you like bare-boned ledes, accidental, or that you are going to add something on the setting? Re setting, I have been thinking about the rest of the title "A Study of Provincial Life", as I have a source that focusses on that aspect of the novel. Rwood128 (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

A bit of both: the lede shouldn't contain material not reproduced elsewhere in the main body of the article and also it's slightly too extraneous for the lede. Happy to see it returned and expanded upon elsewhere. On your last point I think that the Themes section would be a good place to discuss that aspect. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

References and notes

Citations 16, 17, 53, 56, 57 are notes but I don't know how to reformat them.

I'm also confused by the "Reference"/Bibliography section. What system is being followed here? I don't recognize it. Rwood128 (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Also shouldn't the heading "Further reading" be deleted and the reviews be treated as a subheading of the "Bibliography"? Rwood128 (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Please make it so with regard to the Further reading section, User:Rwood128. There is something absurd about having a Further reading section at all about a novel this famous. There is of course any amount of further reading, and it's not hard to find. Having a little selection of it here is just.. grating. Bishonen | talk 15:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC).

Not sure what you would call it as a referencing system, but it follows that used by (among others) the FA The Coral Island, wherein multi-page sources are listed separately under bibliography and n.p. sources are listed under citations. The Further Reading reviews can be put under the bibliography (that was a place-holder at the start of the revisions); this doesn't however say anything about the merit of having this section (which is about presenting a small selection of reading that offers additional and in-depth coverage of the topic). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Rwood128: I have changed the last section to "Notes and References" (so it indicates that the section has both) and changed "Bibliography/Select Bibliography" to "Sources" (the former might indicate the entire output concerning Middlemarch, which is the wrong impression; but the latter might suggest we're not referencing some sources we've made use of [i.e. we have 'selected' some]). Hope this is acceptable. Naming conventions around this are fairly arbitrary and highly variable, but this seems a decent compromise. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It's an improvement. It feels very much this afternoon (here) like a race to the finish. Great working with you. Rwood128 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

November 2015: priority changes?

I'm teaching a course this semester called "Victorian Modernity," and students will be making some changes to Wikipedia for part of an assignment. Each student has researched and presented on a historical or cultural context for Middlemarch, so this might be a page they can improve. What are the priorities, from those who have been working here?

At a glance, it looks like the characters section could perhaps use a subheading, "minor characters" (some listed are quite incidental, and several other minor characters aren't listed). And the "themes" section might be fleshed out with several topics -- scientific inquiry, medicine, reform and progress, etc. A section on the narrator might be useful, too.

In any case, suggestions are welcome: students will make their own choices, ultimately, but I can and will provide some guidance. PCFleming05 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The suggestions sound good. In addition the article doesn't consider Eliot's place in relation to other 19th century writers and especially those who influenced her and whom she may have influenced. The names of Thomas Hardy, Elizabeth Gaskell and the Brontë sisters come to mind –also later Drabble and Lessing? It is good to see this attention being paid to Middlemarch. Rwood128 (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Virginia Woolf on Middlemarch

It could be added to this article that Virginia Woolf described Middlemarch as one of the few novels for grown-up people. Vorbee (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Vorbee, but that comment is already in the article. Rwood128 (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - I have seen where it is now, in the section on Later Responses under Critical Responses (Section 6.2). Vorbee (talk) 06:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

External links

The recent addition to external links, and subsequent revision to it, seems perfectly reasonable, so can someone give a better explanation, than has been supplied so far. Though perhaps the link could be moved to the bibliography? Rwood128 (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

[2] I have now discovered that some edits (including mine?) have been reported as vandalism]. This is bizarre. Rwood128 (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Pen name

Surely Evans's real name should be used in 2020 and not the Victorian pseudonym. Rwood128 (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

The question in Wikipedia is not what name should be used, but what name is being used. Bmcln1 (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

That's a reasonable response but while George Eliot comes to mind first, out of habit, her real name is also known to many. It is unclear why Evans is the only major nineteenth century woman novelist who is still known by a man's name. Rwood128 (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Change is apparently in the air, as I've just discovered that Middlemarch has now been published under Mary Ann Evans's own name for the fist time by a project called "Reclaim her name", undertaken by the Women's Prize for Fiction in celebration of the award's 25th anniversary. Rwood128 (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I imagine the attempts to change the names past authors chose for themselves go beyond one novel. There's probably discussion among feminists as to whether it's worth doing. If so, the Women's Prize for Fiction page is a more relevant place to discuss it than here. Wikipedia editors as such can have no view on the matter. Unless there's a general change of view in the lit. crit. community, the variant author name will appear on this page if the new edition is worth adding to the bibliography. Bmcln1 (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Bmcln1, I fully understand your point of view, but this is an anachronism in 2020, and technology deals with any identification problems. Mary Ann Evans did not choose to be anonymous and the only reason her birth name isn't used is presumably habit and because publishers fear they would loose financially if they changed the "brand name". Furthermore, this is, to my mind, a matter of literary scholarship rather than feminism: Currer Bell is known by her real name. But lets not waste any more time debating this as that will not lead anywhere. Rwood128 (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)