From a sociological point of view...

     I'm a sociology major and I'm currently taking a class on social stratification. (Stratification is the ranking of members of society in a hierarchy based on status which results in unequal access to the resources of society) At present, we are talking about class differences, occupational prestige, social status, and social mobility. Reading about the Vincy family history in Chapter 11, beginning on page 89, got me thinking about this. Up until the Age of Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution in Europe, social positions were relatively fixed and determined at birth. Children of peasants themselves became peasants and so on. The same occurred for the aristocracy. Eliot's novel takes place during the 1830s where society was going through rapid social, economic, and political changes. A new middle class emerged and many men began to find themselves capable of working up the social ladder.
     For example, Walter Vincy, father to Rosamond and Fred, is a third generational manufacturing businessman. His grandfather was most likely a self-made man and passed down his business and social class and status to subsequent generations.
     Lucy Vincy, who came from a pretty humble background as an innkeeper's daughter, was able to marry up the social ladder by becoming the wife of Walter Vincy. This intermarriage between classes was not particularly looked upon fondly, but it was more acceptable than it would have been a hundred years ago. (This kind of marriage probably wouldn't have even happened a hundred years ago)
    Rosamond Vincy is an aspiring social ladder climber. She's embarrassed by her mother's lower class background and frequently calls her mother out on her use of lower class slang. Rosamond, who has been raised an upper-middle class lady, wants to advance even further up the ladder to the upper class.
     I think Eliot does a really good job of capturing this social phenomenon. The Vincy family is a good example that gives us a glimpse into the dynamics of social class.

Social Manipulation

I come from a family that borrows incessantly from my grandparents. Fred is highly manipulative and highly charming: this is the recipe of my entire family, truly, myself (somewhat proudly) included. Fred reminds me very much of my own Uncle Bobby who once promised my Papa once that he would quite smoking cigarettes if my Papa gave him 100 dollars. The deed was done. Still, though, my uncle kept smoking and my Papa never had any idea until one day at a family cookout my uncle smelled of smoke, and so did the front porch. All hell broke lose. Moral of the story, and the most fascinating part, is that my uncle still had not paid my Papa back. He is also not expected to, just an occasional chide about it here and there.

Of course, this story is on a familial level, not so societal or friendly like Fred's. The similarity, though, is eerie. Why has Elliot created this familial atmosphere where financial debt is pardoned with a scold and a case of typhoid fever? It's all very personal, their relationships. I think the contrast says something about social class within this novel. I am failing to see how women are involved in this, though, so if anyone could offer up any ideas, I would appreciate it.

Duh!

Dorothea cries her eyes out when she is on her honeymoon in Rome. The narrator claims that Dorothea is experiencing what all other newly married people (who have only known each other for two weeks) experience-regret! I think the narrator is playing devil's advocate here. Was Dorothea really that naive to think that Casaubon was going to be different after they married? He spent more time with his books that he did with her, that should have been an indicator on how the relationship was going to be after the marriage. I guess everyone has preconceived ideas about their soon-to-be husbands or wives. I wonder if the narrator is setting us up for something. Don't you just want to shout - DUH! What were you thinking girl!? What was Dorothea crying about, was it her regret or something else? Will really cheers her up. Does she still think that Casaubon is going to adore her like Will does?

I really like Will Ladislaw ;)

Rainbows and butterflies.

Sometimes when I read, I try to find life lessons in the text. This book reaffirms my ideas and notions about marriage and relationships. I suppose I am not quite old-fashioned enough to agree with the relationships in the novels we have read. I am rather bothered by how quickly people are willing to marry each other in these books. When Dorothea accepts Casaubon's proposal, it seems very abrupt and impulsive to me. I suppose that's just how it was back then. I guess it was the norm to marry quickly like that... but from my personal past experience with relationships, I have found that rushing things very rarely (or never) works out. Is that the lesson we're supposed to gather from this book? Is something going to go wrong and we will all know not to rush things? Or by some magical miracle is there going to be a happy ending with rainbows, butterflies, and perfect relationships? I suppose we shall see... but I am definitely doubting the rainbows and butterflies. (They would be nice though. Just saying.)

Why Marriage? Why not the Nunnery?

After thinking about Dorothea's mission statement of wanting to make the world a better place, I actually felt bad for her lack of option. Today, a woman can do many things: college ,a military branch, peace corp, hell,a nunnery. The lack of options for Dorothea and Cecilia is depressing to a woman of the 21st century. The desire for education and self improvement is admirable but enslavement? Not for me.
You know...after thinking about it a nunnery would probably be the better choice. Dorothea would have many hours of uninterubed time to "pray" and think about the world and how to accomplish missonary work. To do good for the world and the unfortunate people of Middlemarch. Joining a nunnery is not disgraceful and was very common for families that had many daughters and could not get them married off to honorable suitors. I feel that, that was the outcome for Mary Bennet in Pride and Prejustice.
Thoughts?

Dorothea: The Hypcrite or The Saint?!?

When I first started reading this book, I thought I could relate to Dorothea the most, because she wants to improve the world and is able to get a long with just about everyone, but after today's discussion I'm definitely rethinking everything and her role as a character. I feel that she will be the "twist" in the story as well as create a whole bunch of drama that we will hopefully find later in the book. In class I can recall Maria saying how frustrated Dorothea made her as well as how hypocritical she was, and now looking at....Dorothea is one tough hypocrite. She doesn't have a problem pointing out the flaws in others but when it comes to herself it's like she puts up a wall so that she can't be judge, which I think is something that will surprise us all. Hopefully I can speak for myself and others, when I say that there isn't a perfect person in the world, that's just total baloney!! We all have our flaws, and certain decisions that we've made that help define us in some way. Dorothea has a role that makes us question, and will either turn us against her or my even feel sympathy for.

Philosophical Blindness

I knew I would be predisposed to love Middlemarch when I peeked at the introduction and read, in regards to Elliot-as-author:

 “Although her fiction is rarely abstract, it is her profound belief, on the contrary, that the value of an idea must be determined by its consequences to living, breathing human beings-- her novels are always philosophical... Ideas for her were the foundation and the essence of all things” (x, Introduction).

I love philosophical novels. The Unbearable Lightness of Being, Crime and Punishment-- big books about God and Sex and Purpose which try to contrast elegant, semantic order to the irrational upheaval of human relationships to make both appear more beautiful. (It also won’t surprise anyone that I strongly identify with Dorothea-- we have similar issues). 
The first sixty pages has a wealth of subtly philosophical images, which stand out to me in eerie prose and parallelism to reveal and deepen some of Elliot’s characters and themes.
First, did anyone think it was funny how much sight came up in this reading? For instance On page 16-17, Mr. Casaubon talks about why he is looking for a reader in the evenings, as an aging scholar:
“I have been using up my eyesight on old characters lately...My mind is something like the ghost of an ancient, wandering about the world and trying mentally to construct it as it used to be...” 
 Dorothea (along with being an excellent reader, is impressed with this and, continuing along the metaphor, internally muses, “...what a work to be in any way present at, to assist in, though only as a lamp-holder!” (17).
The dichotomy of blindness/sight as a metaphor for prophetic wisdom against human hubris has been around since Oedipus Rex, and part of what is so exciting about Middlemarch is that George Elliot knows that and is using it. The question remains for Dorothea, is Casaubon blind in the wise manner of Tiresias, or in the manner of the foolish, fallen king?