Tess of the D'Urbervilles Critic Analysis Two

 The critics of today took a much different approach. The critics did not simply view the novel for its naturalistic style or the characters that reside within Tess of the D'Urbervilles but for a deeper meaning beyond the surface. The outcome that people can take out of Thomas Hardy's novel can easily vary from person to person for various reasons: experiences of the readers or how he portrayed his piece to the audience through a lack of information, switching in and out through time. The critics now connect his piece and attempt to visualize where he was coming from as he was creating Tess of the D'Urbervilles as opposed to the earlier critics of his time. Gillian Beer took an appealing turn by connecting Hardy's piece with Darwan's theory with feminism.

Beer brings up an interesting point of looking through the lens of those who lived within the Victorian time and their ideas about not only the opposite sex, but a noticeable pattern within the selection of a partner. During that time, people who desired status tended to choose someone with a higher standing than themselves; keeping that idea in mind, the appearance of the person did not seem that important to some while they climbed the wealth and respect mountain. “Civilized men are largely attracted by the mental charms of women, by their wealth, and especially by their social position” (446). The men often times did not marry a woman with a lower class, but the men who decided to marry for beauty would not have much of a chance to continue their generation's wealth or position. The women's choice on a mate, however, is not as flexible as the men's. “This reversal creates difficulties; Man is more powerful in body and mind than woman, and in the savage state, he keeps her in a far more abject state of bondage than does the male of any other animal: therefore it is not surprising that he should have gained the power of selection” (447). The societal ideal that people already had on women bound and limited them. For those who were poor, it would take sheer luck and physical attraction in order to be released from the clutches of poverty. Unfortunately for women, the higher class men would go for the more beneficial choice of the more wealthy women, regardless of looks. Tess is the representation of the D'Urberville marrying for beauty and making a point out of the absurdity in which Hardy felt necessary to address. Hardy emphasized that beauty in the relation to sexual selection had Tess represent that of a standard woman, bringing to light what he theorized to be the result in marrying for beauty and not class.

Along with the societal concept of genders, a part that truly stood out amongst the critics was his clarity of Hardy's perception of a woman's virginity. “The social emphasis on virginity, Hardy suggests, cannot be naturalized; she had been made to an accepted social law, but no law known into the environment in which she fancied herself such an anomaly” (449). Hardy expresses this ridiculous conception of a woman in society and tests that by giving people a character that fell under the weight of her own life and the unluckiness of that continuous theme until out of madness, she murders the very person who had raped her and caused so much grief. With this concept in mind, the ending was befitting for the novel. The idea of a woman that embodies temptation for man deserves punishment, in this case that punishment was death. That style of ending for a fallen woman was common in novels, thus why he created a pure character that had fallen in order to show that bad things happen to good people, but even so, society will not forgive the “crime” of a fallen woman.

Gillian Beer examined the book, but unlike the earlier critics, the later critics such as Beer had the opportunity to look from an outside and unbiased scope. Beer could take the book and reflect upon it along with having the ability to give a much different opinion on the book because of the cultural changes in society. Reading this critic made me rethink and reflect upon the actions that Hardy took to paint our picture of Tess. Of course he focused highly on her beautiful appearance, Hardy wanted to emphasize the society class structure and address a question that has been on the minds of many during the time of oppression and condemnation for the women who lost their perfect reputation. Hardy had observed and studied society and all of its imperfections, creating a cynical masterpiece of naturalism through the fate of an unfortunate girl.  

Tess of the D'Urbervilles Critic Analysis One

 Tess, though not well liked by those who have encountered the book Tess of the D'Urbervilles, was a complicated character who had befallen tragedy after tragedy. Before we even encounter Tess, her life was a struggle. She dealt with drunken parents while she was left to tend to the children. The life and situational calamity that followed after we meet Tess only go down hill from there. The critics of his time were not particularly fond of Hardy's works in general, but the critics were almost all negative aside from his own interview shown at the end. He set his sights on a naturalistic novel with Tess visualized as a pure women who befalls into the horrors that life can bring. However, the critics typically strayed from Hardy's desired view point, finding that in fact they did not see the novel as naturalistic and did not like Tess or much less think of her as a pure figure. Even with those issues that were brought up, most critics agreed that the novel was powerful.

The Saturday Review outright declared that they did not believe Hardy's novel had even a touch of nature expressed in the novel. The Critic goes on to even insult the main character Tess by comparing her character to that of simplistic character in theatre. During the last part of the critic on Tess of the D'Urbervilles the critic did mention that though he had difficulties in reading the book, the justice that was served in the end was much more satisfying than if Tess had lived or passed away at Stonehenge.

The Spectator had some troubles with the book also, but unlike the Saturday Review, this critic was a little more understanding of what Hardy was attempting to get at. “Hardy has written one of the most powerful novels, perhaps the most powerful that he had ever wrote” (384). The novel expresses the fate that can make a good soul stray from the expected societal path. The critic does not necessarily agree that Tess is this wonderful and pure women to the highest degree, but he believes her persona to be “well enough.” Tess did act in a pure manner, but much like this critic, I can agree with his distress of Tess's outlandish behavior that burst through the seams of this character towards the end. It was almost as though Hardy cheated by drastically taking Tess out of her natural state of being. “Though pure in instinct, she was not pure in her instinct” (384). Even with this in mind, Hardy did make a masterpiece of tragedy, and the Spectator certainly saw that in Tess of the D'Urbervilles.

The last of the critiques during Thomas Hardy's time within the Norton edition was an interview of Hardy and his clarification and desire for readers to take from his novel. Though there were harsh statements about the book from the critics, it was refreshing to get an explanation and clarification of what the author had intended for his audience. His cynical method of writing is something that I truly enjoy. Instead of giving his audience a stereotypical happy ending, he displayed a tragic conclusion for the main protagonist. Not only did he do this, but he took pride in that. Most people would not appreciate such pride in that fact, but endings like that really express the naturalistic behavior of the novel. Some stories for people's lives do not always have happy endings. Hardy goes on and makes a great deal of sense as to why he also chose the outcome that he did beyond the simple fact of trying to create a naturalistic book. If the ending did not result in the death of Tess, he understood that anger and the heroine could never have lived happily. “Angel was far too fastidious and particular. He would have inevitably have thrown her fall in her face” (388). Keeping that in mind, I'm sure that other people would agree with his decision of the novel's ending.

This tragic novel may have flaws in the eyes of some people, but as The Spectator had clearly stated, this “powerful novel” has had impact on the readers since its existence. On top of that, the book is not of linear design. The interpretation can mold, shift and differ from person to person. One person may thoroughly enjoy the piece, but the next reader may despise it. Hardy truly has a way to achieve a slew of emotions from his readers, extending its life beyond that of just reading it, but allowing discussion and receiving a different take on the novel that may not have occurred to other readers.   

Alan Mintz's Critisism of Middlemarch

       Regardless of the era, the thought and emotion when encountering romance still holds prominent in society. Every one wants to feel passion and love, and one way to get that taste can be through books. Middlemarch does not just stop at one romance; it involves various forms of love and the fatality that could surface with love. Alan Mintz read and critiqued the romance and vocation of Middlemarch. Mintz looked at the desire men have for women whether it brings prosperity for a man's life or ruin. He sees that people never grow tired to what King James explained as a woman's “makdom and her fairnesse” (p.630). The push and pull that the genders of our species often have and how it has also tied into the novel of vocation for the future that Eliot reveals to her readers.

      When Alan Mintz is looking and critiquing the romantic aspect of the novel, he has much to look at. The story of Middlemarch is full of romance with more than just one pairing of characters. Instead, Mintz has to look at almost all of the characters to analyze the romantic perspective that each of them have for each romantic pair the reader encounters has a different outcome and vocation. The critic almost seemed enthusiastic about the novel when he referred the piece to the Troubadours. The Troubadours are French poets during the 11^th and 13^th centuries that themed and seemingly devoted their creations to love and the concept of it. Throughout the paper the troubadours is mentioned often when comparing George Eliot's book, “Although erotic love, that “passion sung by the Troubadours,” continues to play a role in the novel, it persists chiefly as a demonic presence, a “catastrophe” that wrecks the more valuable marriages of men to their vocations” (p.632). He is saying that the future for men's new means of realizing oneself is through his own works. The new era for man lies beyond their children and evolve into an “impassioned struggle to change the world” through aspirations and their jobs. The rich and overflowing emotion that Eliot expresses in Middlemarch is full of the rich feelings love can bring in “makdom and fairnesse.” More than romance has captured the heart of Mintz, but the shape of a character's deeds that effect the core of a person.

Furthermore, the problems of originality and community are embedded in the rhetorical complexity of the book through the vocational aspect. “To work means to assert ones individuality,

      Shape ones own deeds and to effect an original relationship to the world” (p.632). Mintz continues this thought by explaining that if the world is nothing more than a community that we all inhabit, it's the sense of security that unhinges by our own vocational assertion. If a person is in a bind, the person produces a threat in the shape of temptation to the other aspirants. Not only are the characters touched by these contradictions, but the narrator is as well. Mintz makes a valid point when applying it to the book by looking at all the choices that are made by the characters like Fred, Casaubon and almost all of them. These characters put themselves in a bind and are in a position to make a decision about vocation or consequences of their choices.

       Alan Mintz looked beyond the simple romantic aspect of the characters and looked at their choices that shaped them whether they were positive or negative. It was clear that he enjoyed the depth of Middlemarch in their relationship and strive for a bigger purpose which people can relate to today. A group of people could read the book and feel differently from each other about the characters which serves as a reflector of the people who we are inside. As readers, we look at the literary worked even as far back as the Victorian age, indulge in its feeling and passion that sprung to life from authors long past and still feel a sense of connection to the characters that we encounter. 

Critical Views of George Eliot's Middlemarch During Her Time

 The critics of her time may have had some issues with the novel Middlemarch, but all of them found some form of enjoyment. They declared the characters in-depth and though there was some plot issues that some explained during their analysis, the story was still to their liking. Joseph Jacobs explains the novel to be a criticism of life. Joseph's critical review was very heavy on his opinion of the book from a psychological stand point, I enjoyed Leslie Stephen's point of view by giving us this image of the three circles within Middlemarch. In each of the circles is the three different stories that were intertwined together in Middlemarch: Casaubon and Dorothea, Rosamons Vincy and Lygate, and Mary Garth and Fred Vincy. The story was one that at least the critics of the author's time had to admit to some level that they had enjoyed the novel, but the fact that so many of the critics gathered all forms of different outcomes tying into their personal opinion was fun to read. Not only did George Eliot create something that had such colorful characters reflecting the lives of many during her era, but in doing so created discussion between critics that exposed a flare of personality with the critics. By doing so, this book was not only created as a reflection of the era through her eyes, but by seeing the view of the critics in the Norton Critical Edition of Middlemarch, we are opened to the personality and in-depth characters of our critics themselves.

Joseph Jacobs views the book in a more logical standpoint, taking close note to the psychological aspect of the specific piece. As he sets off with his opinion, it almost seems as though the thoughts of George Eliot's work was far from a desirable choice for him to criticize. Jacobs began by describing the piece as a curtained painting with the curtain as the art instead of the canvas below. As far as the scientific standpoint of the novel, she did not succeed through the eyes of this critic: “The Selective principal with regard to the latter cannot be of an intellectual, conscious kind at all: it must clearly be of an emotional nature akin to the moral faculty” (p.581). Instead of looking at the novel as a whole and how it pertains to the people of that era, the critic specifies itself on the sole concept of an intellectual standpoint. I believe Eliot was attempting to get the intellectual concept across, but I believe that the emotional aspect was also important for her to incorporate in order to not only educate, but to also draw in the readers. Not to say that I completely disagree with what Jacobs was saying; she did focus on the emotional aspect of the era more than the intellectual aspect, but the critic was a bit harsh with his opinion. The book is not a “complete failure” intellectually. She still puts in some important events of their time and character conversations that could be considered to be intellectual. Though Joseph Jacobs shined light on what people could view as problems, his critique in particular stood out due to its narrowed viewpoint of only looking at her novel in a purely logical standpoint instead of taking the whole concept that Eliot attempted to get across. Instead of Jacobs' nitpicking at only one aspect, he should take it all in, diving deeper into the waters of Middlemarch.

The book takes place in the town of Middlemarch, but at the center of the town is the people within it. In George Eliot's world that she had created, there was no specific center of any particular character. Instead was a trifecta of the couples that the book had set itself around, making Eliot's kingdom such an engaging read. Leslie Stephens also had a similar idea of the story starring the three pairings of Middlemarch: Dorothea and Casaubon, Rosamond Vincy and Lygate, and Fred Vincy and Mary Garth. The characters play as gears to the story, continuing a flow through the novel. Stephens expressed the idea in a portrait of three circles that were the most familiar to George Eliot in her youth. Leslie Stephens described Middlemarch as, “the various actions get mixed together as they would naturally do in a country town” (p.582). She sees her novel as a reflection of society which I believe to be a goal of Eliot. Stephens goes on to express her like for the novel, but understanding of how moments in the story can be protested by the readers such as Dorothea's choice to marry Casaubon. Still, Stephens thoroughly enjoyed the book, finding the story accurate to life in their generation.

The two points of view that I have mentioned gaze into the novel, taking out different aspects and expressing what they see within the piece. This book has the capability to spark the mind of its reader and create a set of emotions in unique ways. The critics, Joseph Jacobs and Leslie

Stephens, had very different opinions on the book. Not only that, but how the two of them took in the book and looked at it were on almost completely different sides of the critic spectrum. Jacobs looked more at the certain aspect of the novel that held strongly with him as he read Middlemarch and really focused on that particular subject that he felt George Eliot lacked in. Stephens however, looked at the piece and the goal of Eliot finding good in her piece as a whole, but expressed some challenges that could come her way in the written piece. Both opinions were valuable; they may be different, but each opinion expresses not only the novel, but a glimpse of the past. When reading the critics of George Eliot's time, people see what was important in a novel to incorporate according to the critics and we see their persons as they reflect not only on the book, but themselves.

George Eliot's Engrossing Background to Middlemarch

   George Eliot is certainly not afraid to hide the personality that bursts through her being into her novels. Middlemarch is the seventh novel written by George Eliot and is still considered a masterpiece of English fiction. This was Eliot's most comprehensive and sweeping novel to date and was intended as a study of provincial British life. Though Eliot's novel was to focus on the life and integrate the opinions of others, she still put in personal opinion in terms of marriage, belief of humanity and other factors that can show in the novel. This was not just a simple novel but a piece of history brought to life through her gifted story telling in Middlemarch.

   Initially, there was going to be two separate books. One book was going to center on the doctor Lygate as the main character, and the other would focus on Dorthea. In the end, she decided to take a different route by combining the characters' stories into one. The characters in Eliot's novel can be related to or empathized with; with each person in the novel, the characters may be liked or disliked. The human behavior the characters express represents and mirrors us as people to some degree. As we judge Eliot's characters in Middlemarch, we are also judging ourselves. Having that perspective of the novel and by looking at these complex characters, each if not all of them hold some aspect that lies within ourselves whether that aspect of our personality is desirable to one's self or not.

   The characters and stories told within the novel are meant to show how people are affected by historical change while it happens and how progress happens in people's lives. Her intention with the novel was to analyze recent political, social and economic threads through the character's life experience and personality. Middlemarch was written in such a subtle way, incorporating both topical history, such as the death of George IV, and the reform bill that will be passed later that year and still bestowing a feeling of an engrossing novel. The novel is very much concerned with women's roles and how they should be changed. Although she had no children and lived with her lover, George Lewes, without being married, believed that women should be married and had obligations to their husbands and children. This tension in Eliot's personal views forms struggles that Rosamond, Dorothea, and Celia face, determining the outcome of their unions according to their character. Middlemarch is a very carefully woven work of social commentary with living and breathing characters who are as real as the historical time period they inhabit. 

Mary Barton and Boucicault

The exquisite comparison of Mary Barton written by Elizabeth Gaskell and its stage counterpart Boucicault was truly interesting and new to my knowledge of Victorian literature. While reading through the reviews of Altick, I found tasteful differences between the play and novel, making both works hold something unique to bring forth to those who indulge in such a dark and fascinating era. Through Altick's review, my opinion on the novel so far agreed closely on the lines in which he spoke of. In the basic summary of the play and novel, the comparisons between the two followed closely, but the play lacked in the meaningful focus Gaskell painted so well. The characters were quite important to her, but the message of social protest held a top priority for her. "Her dominant concern was to convey her message of social protest" (493).

Comparing the novel and play side by side, Altick explained that Esther did not appear in the play and that the mill owner and his son were combined into one (Radley). Aside from my dolefulness from the absence of one character, I could understand that it couldn't be exactly like the novel due to time constraints of the play and the different writing style of the play writer whom focused more on character development than the social protest. The differences from the play makes the story unique from the novel. Though the general plot was the same, the play introduced different twists. Without Esther, the the full retribution is not expressed through her character. When combining the Carsons into one being however was fairly interesting, giving our villain both issues with being a seducer and a labor-oppressing mill owner.

Not only Esther and the Carsons, but other characters were also cut from the play, most of them being a character who caused more trouble or died early on enough for them to not be deemed important, even though their deaths express the tragedy that impressively tore the ground right from under the poor and hungry. With these various characters cut from the book, the aspect of poverty is not fully appreciated.  

Contemporary Review on Mary Barton: Industrialization and Hope

For the contemporary reviews on Mary Barton, I narrowed my focus to Fredrich Engles who decided to focus on the issue with Results of Industrialization and examinar (1848) John Forster. Engles found true inner conflict with the novel as it brought forth the concept of murder through both spectrums: one of a person knowingly striking the blow and that of society inadvertently killing those sinking in hunger and despair.  Forster found "unusual beauty and merit"(376). He described the compelling qualities that drew fascination upon his analysis. Forster also had taken note of the feminine qualities that it displayed. This sad portrayal of Manchester life has no real solution to this crises of poverty, but holds a candle of hope in the face known as sympathy. The reviews are impressionable and though they write with bias and enjoyment to the novel, I find their criticism to be just and thoughtful. Both points made  about the novel call out the uniqueness that is Mary Barton and the societal and inner conflicts that arise during the book.
Engels narrowed his views on the industrial aspect of the book. Through his experience and awareness of the uncleanliness industrialization builds around him, his review expressing his utter disgust for the treatment and lifestyle of the poor. Unlike the review of Forster, Engels takes a dark turn from hope and enlightenment to the fear and hope that consume the many lives of the poor. "There is no end to the sufferings which are heaped on the heads of the poor"(414).
The entire review follows more along the lines of a rant about cruelty that has befallen the poor through industrialization than a review simply about Mary Barton. This may be the case, but I believe that to be a goal of Gaskell. Heightening the senses of the world around them and bringing forth the conflict so openly raging inside him, so I suppose job well done. Engels' words sprout from Mary Barton, Gaskell blatantly explaining the issues with this predicament through a coy and innovated manner. His tangent  begins with a review, but never quite recollects itself onto the main topic. Still, his temperament with the relationship between the workers and the mill owners obviously struck a chord, but I am sure that he was not the only one. If anything, he personified the discontent with both Elizabeth Gaskell and the many readers upon this subject.
Forster looks to the story almost as an enlightenment to those who are in the dark about the hardships and callousness that poverty has bestowed its presence to many of that time. Some may even believe Mary Barton to be a political novel, but I agree more with Forster writing against such a notion of this novel. The moral of the story blossomed between the contrast of the characters, branching to possible conclusions that poverty could bear,
"The little girlish varieties which cost the heroin so dear: and, in the contrasted characters of Jane, Wilson, and Alice, the irritable exactions of temper which are bred by poverty as well as the humble religious patience which may alleviate and redeem it; are beautifully sketched" (368).
Gaskell didn't just write a novel on politics, sympathetic characters, and soul crushing truth of poverty; she expressed that through the thorny thicket of hard times, there are ways to build and find a way out through religious patience. Forster's contemporary review indulged my mind to think beyond the characters and look at the honest truth of Gaskell's "right and keen perception of the motives that actuate ordinary life."
The contemporary reviewers both comprehended what I thought to be the message Gaskell hoped to get across. The method in which they portrayed their emotions are different in writing style and focus. The two reviewers did however come to one conclusion: the current system is in need of work to some degree. Engels and Forster in a way complemented each other with Engels starting his distaste for the system followed by Forster's decree of hope and patience for those in such a terrible situation.