George Eliot and Middelmarch

While in the process of constructing her infamous narrative Middlemarch, author George Eliot, wrote many letters seeking the opinions and advice given by her peers. Through reading these letter, one is able to gain insight into just how much work Eliot put in on perfecting her characters and writing volumes rather than one cohesive novel. In her letters to her editor John Blackwood, Eliot and Blackwood discuss the desired length of the novel, it's appearance, and her inspiration for the characters. The letter articulates Eliot's frustration at perfecting her novel as seen through the statement "The Spectator considers me the most melancholy of authors, it will perhaps be a welcome assurance to you that there is no unredeemed tragedy in the solution of the story" (Eliot 534). Eliot also writes to fellow female author Harriet Beecher Stowe in regards to the creation of her characters and how they seemingly differ vastly from Eliot's own personality along with her friends and acquaintances. Eliot writes "But do not for a moment imagine that Dorothea's marriage experience is drawn from my own. Impossible to conceive any creature less like Mr. Casaubon than my warm, enthusiastic husband, who cares much more for my doing than for his own, and is a miracle of freedom from all author's jealousy and all suspicion. I fear that the Casaubon-tints are not quite foreign to my own mental complexion. At any rate I am very sorry for him" (Eliot 535). Through reading Eliot's personal letters regarding her novel, one is able to gain a better understanding of the difficulties and creativity that comes with being an author, especially a female author during the Victorian Era. 

It was necessary for Eliot to break up her dauntingly long narrative up into volumes, as each volume would be a separate installment yet cohesive and complete work concerning two of the many characters. Through doing so and through creating many innovative and compelling characters, Eliot successfully creates an ingenious novel accurately focusing on the human condition and London during the time period; the 1870's. 

Mary Barton Part II

In April of 1849, W.R. Greg wrote a review of the Elizabeth Gaskell's novel Mary Barton for the Edinburgh Review. In the review Greg stated that Mary Barton is full of inaccuracies and exaggerations. Greg articulated "Notwithstanding the good sense and good feeling with which it abounds, it is calculated, we fear, in many places, to mislead the minds and confirm and exasperate the prejudices, of the general public on the one hand, and of the factory operatives on the other" (Greg 383). The review expresses that Elizabeth Gaskell in her writing is prejudiced and biased and Mary Barton is in a sense propaganda for the lower class. In Greg's opinion the working class was granted many opportunities to better themselves in life, especially young laborers and mechanics. Greg then went into a step by step process through which this was possible, concluding that in Mary Barton the lower class is pitied and made out as though they had no means in which to better themselves other than committing crime, or marrying up. On the other end of the spectrum, written on February 17th, 1849 and published in Prospective Review,  it is stated that through reading the novel "We rise from its pages with a deeper interest in all our fellow-beings; with a firmer trust in their great and glorious destiny; and with a strengthened desire to co-operate with its gifted authoress and with all of kindred spirit, in every effort to ennoble and bless them" (380). Despite several inconsistencies in the narrative, the review states that Mary Barton "represents the ideas and passions of a particular class, or rather of a certain portion of a particular class, during a crisis of strong local excitement, when the supposed interests of masters and men were brought into direct collision"(374).

It is arguable that Greg is correct in the sense that Gaskell's narrative consists of a wide variety of inconsistencies, however, stating that the main inconsistency is that the characters are unable to better themselves is a difficult argument to support. In a time period where the lower class was many times unable to attain any form of education, disease was prevalent, and those who worked in factories were many times severely injured or killed simply working one's way up the ladder of success seems not only unbelievable but ridiculous. The Prospective Review is a lot more logical and easy to support, the review states that despite the narrative containing several inconsistencies that overall the narrative was very well written and sheds light onto the human condition during this time period. The characters are very relatable in the novel, especially Mary who as a teenager and eventually young woman holds all the hopes and fantasies in the world, and despite facing horrible tragedies and unfortunate circumstances she endeavors on and eventually discovers herself but what it is that she truly desires, Jem.

Mary Barton (Review Analysis and Summary)

In February of 1849 "British Quarterly" published a review of the historic novel Mary Barton. In the review it was stated that "It is a long time since there has existed, in the working men of Manchester, such a state of feeling as would have manifested itself in the tragic manner depicted in the work before us. Time has been, however, when murders were committed by member of trades'-unions, in order to terrify the masters into compliance" (Recchio 369). It is therefore inferred, that through reading the novel one is able to better understand the tragic circumstances that existed during the time the novel was published. The novel also sheds light on what encouraged the lower and working class to commit such heinous crimes and acts of desperation. This is seen in the novel, with John Barton murdering the wealthy mill-owner son Harry Carson when the working class is consumed with utter hopelessness and despair and feel as though they have no other choice. A year prior to this review, Henry Fothergill Chorley, articulated that Elizabeth Gaskell "is excellent in the anatomy of feelings and motives, in the display of character, in the lifelike and simple use of dialogue: and the result is, a painful interest very rare in our experience" (Recchio 365). Chorley then supports his analysis of Gaskell through summarization stating "Mary, being admitted as a milliner's workwoman, becomes the object of pursuit to a rich manufacturer's son; and her head is turned for a passing moment by his flatteries, to the point of making her reject the love of a young engine-maker, Jem Wilson, who has courted her honestly and long. For this fit of coquetry she is doomed to suffer deeply" (Recchio 365). Through immersing oneself into Gaskell's famous Mary Barton one is presented a realistic and engaging character consumed in tragedy and transported back to a time where tragedy was abundant and hopelessness was prevalent. The novel paints a vivid description of the time period, a first hand account of impoverished Manchester London, and the tale of a fantastical girl who eventually discovers love and contentment.

"British Quarterly" argues that despite Mary Barton accurately describing how the lower class would riot and commit crimes to pressure their employers into compliance, that the novel itself is inaccurate in its descriptions of everyday life as a factory worker, stating "the writer of 'Mary Barton' seems still under the influence of very common misapprehensions entertained respecting the laboriousness of occupation in the factories" (Recchio 370). Despite the novel incorporating tragedy throughout, it is arguable that life in mills and factories was much more difficult and tragic then what is portrayed in the narrative. Another instance in which the narrative comes off as inaccurate is the ending in which Mary has married Jem and happily moved to Canada, and faced with the destruction of his mill and the death of his son Mr. Carson works to make life in the factories more humane. Albeit a cynical remark, the review enforces this through inadvertently stating that happy endings during this time was extremely rare especially with the prevalence of death and disease. Chorley, who is more interested in Gaskell as an author than the narrative as a whole reminds the audience that even if there are inaccuracies in the novel the work is aesthetically pleasing, empathetic, and leaves us with a sense of understanding and satisfaction.