George Eliot's Decision to Split up Middlemarch

The letters between George Eliot and John Blackwood interested me a ton. They talk a lot about the skeleton of the novel. In other words, they talk about the decision to separate the novel into different books. John Blackwood mentions how he forgot Mr. Brooke while reading the "second volume" but states how as soon as he came back into the picture he instantly knew his voice. George Eliot also talks about how enthused everyone was and all the positive feedback she got. At one point she mentions getting a bouquet of flowers with a sweet letter. I feel as though there is a lot that can be said about the novel from these letters.

These letters made me really reflect on the outline of George Eliot's novel. Instead of one very flowing novel we get it broken up into different parts really focusing on different characters. I keep thinking about how this affects the view of the novel or the understanding of it. Personally I think it is better that the novel is in different sections. It helps Eliot pinpoint important social standards of the time that she seemed to want to focus on. If the novel was not broken into different sections then I most definitely would be completely lost with all the characters. While the characters can still be confusing at times, I truly believe that the different sections help my understanding more. In class today my classmate and I were just talking about how all the different characters can start to blur together. However, when we hear Mr. Brooke we instantly get happy because he is a character we recognize and are familiar with. John Blackwood felt the same way, "I had quite forgotten Mr. Brooke, but I knew his voice the moment he came into the room at the meeting for the election of Chaplain" (533). In other words, it seems that Mr. Brooke is a character that is universally understood and recognizable. Is this because he is introduced very early into the novel? How would this novel change if it wasn't split up into sections? Would Eliot's point get across and receive the positive feedback that she got is she decided to do it differently?

John or Mary Barton, That is the Question.

Rosemarie Bodenheimer sets up her critique by first suggesting that Mary Barton "has been assumed that the [...] novel is the portrait of John Barton, and that the story of Mary relies directly on romantic patterns and is designed to entertain the reading public" (511). In other words, Bodenheimer is implying that Mary Barton is more so about John Barton over his daughter. While I see where she gets this idea, I would have to disagree with her. The novel seems to be more about the Barton family, and how their lives are played out once the mother dies, and factories drastically change. Mary’s life is shaped based upon what happens within her family and how they are affected by the industrial revolution. I do see how Mary is shaped largely by her father, for example she does not go work in a factory because of her father’s influences. Mary’s romantic life is influenced by her father as well. After her mother’s death and the factory changes their lives start to drastically change. The family becomes poorer and find themselves struggling more. It is after these events that we see Mary flirting with the Carson boy. While she does not really love him she wants to get out of the situation that her family has found themselves in. The novel as a whole would not work without the family influencing one another. Therefore, I think it is not realistic to suggest that the novel is about one character or the other.