Tumgik
#dorothea brooke
spiritusloci · 8 months
Text
Tumblr media
Dorothea Brooke, Middlemarch (2023)
47 notes · View notes
guiltyonsundays · 2 months
Text
In defence of Will Ladislaw
Tumblr media
George Eliot's characterisation of Will Ladislaw is one of the few aspects of Middlemarch that is not universally praised, with no less a person than Henry James commenting in 1873 that he lacked “sharpness of outline and depth of color”, making him the novel’s “only eminent failure.” And while Will's character is certainly not as clearly defined as some of the other characters in the novel, I believe that this was absolutely intentional on Eliot's part. Middlemarch is full to the brim of characters who believe they know exactly what they want—not least among them, our two protagonists, Dorothea Brooke and Tertius Lydgate, whose ardent ambitions and inflexible attitudes lead them into catastrophic errors of judgement and unhappy marriages.
By contrast, Will's lack of strongly defined goals and his changeability are almost his defining character traits. He's aimless and pliable, prone to rapid mood swings and drastic career changes, with even his physical features seeming to "chang[e] their form; his jaw looked sometimes large and sometimes small; and the little ripple in his nose was a preparation for metamorphosis. When he turned his head quickly his hair seemed to shake out light."
Will’s inscrutability is closely tied to his ambiguous status within the rigid class structure and xenophobic society of Victorian England, with his Polish ancestry and “rebellious blood on both sides” making him a target for suspicion. He is repeatedly aligned (and aligns himself) with oppressed, marginalised, and outcast populations—Jewish people, artists, and the poor.
He serves as a narrative foil for characters like Lydgate and Edward Casaubon, who prioritise specialist expertise above all and are consequently incapable of broad knowledge synthesis. He critiques Casaubon's life's work as being "thrown away, as so much English scholarship is, for want of knowing what is being done by the rest of the world." By contrast, Will serves as Eliot's defence of the value of a liberal education. One of the first things that we learn about him is that he declines to choose a vocation, and instead seeks to travel widely, experiencing diverse cultures and ways of life. He has broad tastes and interests, trying his hand at poetry and painting before eventually pursuing a career in politics.
He also functions as a narrative foil for Dorothea. Will is initially apathetic to politics, whereas Dorothea initially professes herself to be disinterested in art and beauty. This is perfectly encapsulated in their exchange in Rome, when Dorothea declares, "I should like to make life beautiful—I mean everybody's life. And then all this immense expense of art, that seems somehow to lie outside life and make it no better for the world, pains one", to which Will replies, "You might say the same of landscape, of poetry, of all refinement [...] The best piety is to enjoy—when you can [...] I suspect that you have some false belief in the virtues of misery, and want to make your life a martyrdom.”
By the end of the novel, Dorothea unlearns some of her puritanical suspicion of sensual pleasure, whereas Will becomes more serious, compassionate, and politically engaged, dedicating his life to the accomplishment of humane political reforms. They are both flawed individuals, who ultimately become more well rounded through their relationship with each other. Admittedly, Dorothea's influence on Will is more significant than his on her—and once again, I believe that this was intentional on Eliot's part.
In my opinion, the negative response to Will Ladislaw at the time of Middlemarch's publication (and in the centuries since) was and is profoundly informed by gendered expectations of masculine dominance in romantic relationships. Will's marriage to Dorothea has often been described as disappointing, with many readers and critics viewing the ambitious Lydgate as the embodiment of the ideal husband that Dorothea outlines at the beginning of the novel—a talented man engaged in important work for the betterment of humanity, to whom she can devote herself.
However, one of the central themes of the novel is that people are often mistaken in their beliefs about what they want, and Dorothea's marriage to Edward Casaubon certainly demonstrates that she would not in fact be happy living her life in submission to a man who does not respect her opinions. I firmly believe that Lydgate's misogynistic attitudes and expectations would have made it impossible for him to be happy in a marriage of equals with a woman like Dorothea. He is explicitly drawn to Rosamond Vincy because she has "just the kind of intelligence one would desire in a woman—polished, refined, docile."
By contrast, George Eliot made a deliberate choice to pair Dorothea with a man who is not ashamed to be influenced by her, and indeed looks up to her as his moral superior. Through Dorothea's influence, Will discovers his life's work. In turn, by marrying Will, Dorothea is able to pursue her true passion. As a result of their influence on each other, these come to mean the same thing—reform. Thus, George Eliot grants Dorothea Brooke a subversively feminist, politically progressive, and profoundly cathartic ending: a life of companionate marriage, sensual pleasure, and meaningful work, in which Dorothea can devote herself (within the limited means available to her as a woman in the 19th century) to the achievement of just and compassionate reforms that "make life beautiful" for everybody—herself included.
11 notes · View notes
howifeltabouthim · 1 year
Quote
Will did not know what to say, since it would not be useful for him to embrace her slippers, and tell her that he would die for her.
George Eliot, from Middlemarch
40 notes · View notes
suspensionbridges · 5 months
Text
Will Ladislaw and Dorothea Casaubon née Brooke invented sexual tension.
7 notes · View notes
tinysaru-blog-blog · 1 year
Text
Dorothea Brooke and Will Ladislaw.
I remember reading the book for the first time and being enamored by them.
20 notes · View notes
fantasticmrlc · 1 year
Text
I’m on the last few chapters of Middlemarch and I love how the thing we’re meant to dislike about Dorothea in the beginning (her too-ardent willingness to see the good in people like Mr Casaubon) is the exact thing that makes us root for her towards the end. She sees good in people whom society denigrates -- Ladislaw and Lydgate. And she draws a connection between her own struggles and Rosamund’s. 
We also see her insight and agency grow a lot, especially in this passage from Chapter 80:
‘What should I do — how should I act now, this very day, if I could clutch my own pain, and compel it to silence, and think of those three?’
It had taken long for her to come to that question, and there was light piercing into the room. She opened her curtains, and looked out towards the bit of road that lay in view, with fields beyond outside the entrance-gates. On the road there was a man with a bundle on his back and a woman carrying her baby; in the field she could see figures moving--perhaps the shepherd with his dog. Far off in the bending sky was the pearly light; and she felt the largeness of the world and the manifold wakings of men to labor and endurance. She was a part of that involuntary, palpitating life, and could neither look out on it from her luxurious shelter as a mere spectator, nor hide her eyes in selfish complaining.
15 notes · View notes
eva248 · 2 years
Text
Lecturas de mayo. Primera semana
Lecturas de mayo. Primera semana
Sed de champan / Montero Glez. Editorial. Editorial Temas de Hoy, 2021 Sed de champán es la historia del Charolito, gitano robacoches, bribón astuto y bellaco sin horas de descanso. Una historia del vertiginoso descenso a las tinieblas de los impulsos, de las pasiones, de la violencia. Narrada con un ritmo desasosegante por un testigo de los hechos, el entramado será un tejido de encuentros y…
Tumblr media
View On WordPress
1 note · View note
comradekatara · 7 months
Note
How conscious do you think Katara of Sokka's pile of neurosis surrounding her safety, their father, or the tribe in general?
Basically, how well do you think Katara understands her brother?
[thinks about my own incredibly weird, callous, prodigious, neurotic brother] does anyone truly understand their brother?
just kidding. sort of. i mean, this is a really difficult question to answer, because as i've already stated, sokka doesn't actually understand himself. and katara doesn't really understand other people very well in general. she has a deep, presiding love for humanity that accords her warmth and nobility, but she also has a pretty rigid way of conceptualizing any sort of moral quandary (she is in the eighth grade) and often misinterprets people's motivations and subconscious desires. (very dorothea brooke core)
for example, in "the painted lady," when katara says, "oh, sokka, you really do have a heart!" she's only partially joking, right? like she genuinely doesn't understand how he can be so "cold" and callous." she doesn't understand his point of view at all, she thinks he just doesn't care. and sokka could probably do a better job of explaining his point of view, granted, but i also understand why he's given up trying to reason with her, because she does not listen to him unless they are in grave danger (at which point she forgets that he is her stupid annoying brother and places all her faith in him lol).
so we, as an attentive audience, know that sokka cares about the wellbeing of impoverished villages destroyed by the fire nation, because we remember the first couple episodes wherein he was prepared to die defending his impoverished village that was destroyed by the fire nation, and we also remember his promise to prioritize katara's safety over the war at large, so we are not surprised when he says, "you need me and i'll never turn my back on you" (the sokka thesis statement). but katara doesn't really understand how much she means to sokka, or how sokka thinks, or how sokka sees himself, or how sokka sees their father, or anything beyond what sokka is willing to show her regarding his psyche, which is ultimately very little.
and it's not katara's fault, to be clear. katara is not a bad sister for not attempting to plumb the depths of sokka's twisted mind. even if she wanted to (which, who would tbh. don't look at me) sokka does not let her. being vulnerable with her (truly vulnerable, not just "i can't make things fly around woe is me") would go against sokka's core programming. protecting katara doesn't just mean protecting her physically (dying for her, attacking anyone who hurts her even if it's aang and he really didn't mean to, etc.) but also emotionally – protecting her innocence, her naïveté, her idealism.
like he'll say shit like "optimism and wonder are cringe and you're a loser for having love in your heart," but it's still so flippant, it's clear that he doesn't consider "provoking/annoying her" and "protecting her" to be mutually exclusive (frankly, anyone who doesn't succumb to the urge to provoke their siblings is simply not human and cannot be trusted) and has no problem criticizing her when he thinks that she's wrong for whatever reason, but he also avoids being vulnerable with her and uses flippancy and deflection to mask his more honest feelings most of the time.
notice how he basically completely shuts down in "the southern raiders," how even though he is standing there the entire time katara and aang are arguing, he says exactly one sentence and lets aang say literally everything else. notice how in the pilot he calls her a freak for waterbending instead of communicating either jealousy that she can do something he can't or fear that her ability will get her killed (again, it's probably a combination of both, but does he even understand that? probably not. because he refuses to introspect). which is why "you need me and i'll never turn my back on you" or even his admission in "sokka's master" that he feels insecure about being a nonbender shocks her so much.
katara and sokka's codependency is mutual, and they love each other a lot. while sokka isn't katara's first priority and entire identity the way katara is for sokka, when sokka is spirited away in "the winter solstice," katara basically shuts down, clings to his boomerang with a blanket around her shoulders and refuses to move from the spot he was taken until he gets back, and when sokka is gone for the day in "sokka's master," she spends the whole day waiting for him to return. and like, both of these take place in the span of no longer than a single day. but as much as they love and need each other, they also do not really understand each other, or themselves.
i would say that sokka understands katara better than katara understands sokka, but sokka also just understands people better than katara does, so that's not really surprising. for example, he knows that she would not benefit from killing yon rha before katara realizes it (and unlike aang, he is not a pacifist). but he does have some blindspots, like how he doesn't understand why she wouldn't want to see hakoda in ba sing se (he interprets it as a purely selfless act, which it just isn't), but again, that's more of a daddy issues blindspot than a sister issues blindspot. they also just have very different worldviews. katara primarily cares about individuals whereas sokka primarily sees systems (with the necessary caveat that he still prioritizes his family), katara sees the best in people whereas sokka sees the worst in people, katara misses the forest for the trees whereas sokka misses the trees for the forest yada yada.
but what's important to understand fundamentally is that katara and sokka have both been dehumanized by the fn imperialist project (true of every atla character, btw) and so their lack of self-knowledge stems from the formative trauma of cultural genocide. those gaps in understanding originate from the roles they have been forced to inhabit, and since sokka's entire identity revolves around what he can and must sacrifice for katara, it's understandable that katara would be unable to acknowledge or even recognize that.
and then again, even beyond the inherent tragedy of their situation, no fourteen year old little sister really understands the neuroses and contradictions and lamentations of her older brother. even if he wore his heart on his sleeve she wouldn't understand him, because katara does encounter plenty of people who are far more obvious about their intentions and she doesn't really understand them either. but she means well. and that's what matters <3
315 notes · View notes
thebearer · 8 months
Note
You know when kids are playing pretend on their hand-phone babbling things they've heard adults say... that but teddy n willow in the toy kitchen babbling half-nonsense professional kitchen things they picked up from their dad?? Carmy's at the door watching unobtrusively until one of them says a swear lol
omg.
he would be watching them play, maybe secretly trying to record so he can send it to the group chat for the bear, and they're just bumbling around. willow has started to toddle but can't do much besides hold on to the little plastic kitchen and smack at the pots and play food.
teddy is very much so in charge lol, a little on the bossier side (she gets it from carmen, but he says she gets it from you) telling willow. "this person ordered this. no willow it's not that, this."
and carmen thinks it's adorable how she'll yell "corner!" and turn with the plate to her stuffed animals at tables.
until she gives willow an order and goes "no, willow, not that, fuck."
"hey!" and the video ends bc carmen has to go into dad mode.
richie thinks it is genuinely the funniest thing he's ever ever seen in his life. brings it up any chance he gets. cackles at it.
396 notes · View notes
grendelsmilf · 1 month
Text
i love a character who truly believes in goodness from the very depths of her soul and it is her guiding motivation as she moves through the world to the point that she neglects some of the more uncomfortable implications of her quest. i love a character who strives so hard to be a noble hero that it actually impedes her progress. i love a character who longs to achieve an effusive, purifying good in her world, and doesn’t always get it right, messes up in ways both big and small. and yet, who is, nonetheless, ultimately proven right in her desire to do good, because there is nothing more important than living to help each other. i will never not find that exceedingly poignant and moving and beautiful.
81 notes · View notes
saionjeans · 2 months
Text
utena is such a beautiful character if I think about her for too long I begin to tear up what’s up with that anyway
7 notes · View notes
thelonelybrilliance · 5 months
Text
just finished my 57th read of the year and am a third of the way through Middlemarch, which is fantastic and also features one of the most annoying heroines of all time
3 notes · View notes
howifeltabouthim · 1 year
Quote
Dorothea's heart was full of something that she wanted to say, and yet the words were too difficult.
George Eliot, from Middlemarch
2 notes · View notes
thebirdandhersong · 2 years
Text
Songbird has been invited to a Garden Party this week, in which all attending are to dress as a literary character and bring a passage from their favourite book!!! :O!!!!!
38 notes · View notes
transmutationisms · 1 year
Text
ok see i think part of the reason people are sometimes bad at interpreting allegory is because they’re approaching it from the perspective of someone who was taught to read literary fiction, where you are actually supposed to engage with the characters’ psychological states rather than treating them as stand-ins for moral quandaries or shared human experiences. so it’s actually kind of a cool historical phenomenon, where our reading experience has been so drastically re-formed since the 17th or 18th century that when we look at orpheus and eurydice or whatever, we automatically try to interpret the characters the way we would interpret, like, the brothers karamazov. and i don’t think the psychological novel demands a reader engagement that’s inherently inferior OR superior to the allegory or the classical tragedy. it’s a matter of learning how to engage with a text on its own terms, looking at what the author or the teller is trying to convey and how they’re using their narrative form to those ends. it’s a skill that can be learned and cultivated, and it doesn’t mean people lack reading comprehension or critical thought.
18 notes · View notes
dorothea-wieck · 2 years
Photo
Tumblr media Tumblr media
 Dorothea Wieck, Adrienne Ames, Clive Brook (1933).
O homem? Onde? Mulheres como nós não precisamos uns homens. [Eu não posso pensar diferente.]
12 notes · View notes