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?
I agree completely that the points she is trying to make are getting across better because she has split the book up into different parts. The way that she ties the two stories together is one that helps the reader recognize that they are still reading the same story but it can reflect many more ideas when split apart. Putting the story together in the same flowing way without separate sections would make the story a little harder to understand because of the way everything would be blurred together.
ReplyDeleteI think that there are certain characters that are more recognizable than others. Mr. Brooke, Dorothea, and Celia being some of the easier ones to recognize. I think that these characters are easier to recognize because they are the characters that are first introduced. Once my head got filled to a certain point with character names, occupations, and relation to the story, the remaining characters seemed to get bunched into one group that I often forget and have to go back and remind myself who they are. I do not think this is a bad quality of Eliot's writing, I do however think that having different sections to this book helps to separate these characters out and give them each an important part to the novel.
ReplyDeleteI agree that through splitting her dauntingly large novel up into volumes, Eliot is able to focus on one or a few of the characters and view points at a time rather than a combination of all of them at once which could in turn become confusing. I also agree that through this she is able to present different viewpoints concerning the social structure of England in the Victorian Era. It is also a business savvy technique to gain a broader and more devout audience.
ReplyDeleteInteresting and thoughtful blog. Eliot was very concerned about the length of her novel and realized that it would put off readers. I admire her for sticking to her original vision and finishing the story, though, and clearly the publishers found ways to package the book for public consumption.
ReplyDelete