弗羅斯河上的磨坊

用戶評論 (總計30條)

•   　　大一的時候?qū)懙恼撐模裉祀S手翻到就扔上來了。
  　　FEMININE is more often than not used as a negative adjective to describe the fragile feature of women. Even Shakespeare expressed such view through the mouth of Hamlet, ‘fragile, your name is woman.’ Yet is fragile, or sensitive, gentle and emotional, which are often regarded as criticism of the nature of a person, the nature of woman, or is it constructed by the values, norms and institutions of society which is dominated by men? For such a long time, we use tender, slender and gentle to praise a woman for her feminism and morality. They are either regarded as a sacred trophy (such as in Troy), or viewed as a sort of auxiliary to men.
  　　
  　　It is true that physically women are inferior to men on strength, size and energy. However, Hamlet imposed another factor ‘reason’ upon women, as he thought, that women were fragile, for they had no reason. Indeed, Gertrude’s marriage with Claudis was unreasonable, yet she had no initiative on this issue. Therefore, a question can be raised. Is the concept ‘women’ socially constructed or inborn?
  　　
  　　I am not trying to overthrow the traditional view thoroughly, but through analyzing George Eliot’s The Mill on the Floss, I expect to make some counter arguments against it.
  　　One of George Eliot’s masterpieces The Mill on the Floss was published in 1860 when the Victorian Britain was reigned by monarch Queen Victoria and difficulties escalated due to the vision of ‘ideal woman’ shared by the society. They were deprived of their right to vote, sue or own property, and they were evaluated almost solely by their purity and submissiveness. Their education was limited; their roles were bound to the households; they could not give free rein to their thoughts; their essential and only challenge in life was to ingratiate themselves with their husbands. It is almost precise to say that, before 1792’s publication of Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, women voluntarily remained the state of sub-citizen of the society, and few women dared to violate the rule (if there were any, they were sure to perish in their furious struggle). However, Wollstonecraft conspicuously, had not subverted the mainstream of the values of the general public. To most men, they prohibited women to be, or to have the notion to be, superior to him, or rather, their equal.
  　　Before the industrialization agriculture was the prevailing productive force, it is possible that women were not in advantage, since they made less contribution to the production. However, when machine replaced the manual work, and women could manipulate machines as well as, if not better than men. While men still wanted to continue their domination, the only way they could possibly realize the unjustifiable aim was to overstress the physical weakness of women, expanding it to unreasonability, incapability and doing badly at everything. The first step they took was to prohibit them from entering educational institution.
  　　
  　　Michel Foucault coined the concept ‘power-knowledge’. In his theory, power is based on knowledge and makes use of knowledge; on the other hand, power reproduces knowledge by shaping it in accordance with its anonymous intentions. Knowledge is the basis of power, and women were deprived of the source to gain knowledge. The education was prohibited mainly by the society creating a set of educational norm that did not fit women, and therefore, under the pressure and social prejudice, they were willing to remain ignorant and in the state of subordination.
  　　
  　　Maggie Tulliver, although did not think the educational system unfit, was influenced strongly by the social prejudice, as her family prejudiced against her gaining access to education. She is one victim of such education. Her behaviours in childhood forcefully denied the prevailing view that women were incapable of rational or abstract thought and was too susceptible to sensibility and too fragile to be able to think clearly. Quite to the contrary, the child Maggie had a distinctive line of thoughts, and her conversation with Luke accidentally revealed her inborn intelligence and rationalism.
  　　
  　　 ‘I think you never read any book but the Bible, did you, Luke?’
  　　 ‘Nay, Miss—an’ not much o’ that,’ said Luke, with great frankness, ‘I’m no reader, I aren’t.’
  　　 ‘But if I lent you one of my books, Luke? I’ve not got any very pretty books that would be easy for you to read; but there’s “Pug’s Tour of Europe”--- that would tell you all about the different sorts of people in the world, and if you didn’t understand the reading, the pictures would help you--- they show the looks and ways of the people and what they do. There are the Dutchmen, very fat, and smoking, you know--- and one sitting on a barrel.’
  　　
  　　Maggie’s speech was logically fluent, and showed her ability to reason. For example, if one did not understand the book, it was easier to get information from the picture; through the book one might derive knowledge and tour the world, etc. Maggie was given the education which taught, or rather, forced her to be gentle, benumbed and dependent. Education differed according to gender. For women, education moulded them into submissive and highly sensitivie creatures eternally depending on men, and their utmost task was to please men. Women were made to fall prey to ‘violent and constant passion’, and were consequently made to think irrationally. There are even some great thinkers of that age, such as Rousseau (he is believed to be a believer in the moral superiority of the patriarchal family on the antique Roman model) staked a claim that women were somewhat incapable to think independently, and they had to largely rely on men. We could also regard Maggie’s gradually falling prey to her sensitivity as the clue of this novel. As women had to be submissive, gentle and fragile, all the distinctive features that had the potential to violate this accepted social regulation even slightly bit would be viewed as reproachful. In the third chapter, Maggie was threatened by Mrs. Tulliver to make her hair curl, and later, when exasperated by all such restrictions, she cut her hair short, in an attempt to triumph over her mother and aunts, but only to be smocked by Tom as ‘the idiot we throw our nutshells to at school’. Lucy, on the other hand, was depicted as a model for Maggie, for she was gentle in behaviour and obedient to her superior, or in other words, accepted her situation willingly. She had curly hair, which was the butt for her mother and aunt to reproach Maggie. Even though Maggie herself, as a young child, might not be aware of this, yet no doubt, she had strong consciousness of feminism. She constantly regarded herself as an equal to Tom, so that when Mr. Riley and Mr. Tulliver were discussing about providing Tom education, she was eager as well to be educated, even though her request was scoffed and looked down upon by the adults. In her subconsciousness, she realised that reading was somewhat a privilege to the superior, and she was born fond of reading books and brainy. To her, reading was the utmost entertainment. She eagerly informed Luke of her knowledge while they were out on the Floss, offering her book ‘Pug’s Tour of Europe’ and ‘Animated Nature’. It was the feminism consciousness which lay in her subconsciousness which made her collapse every time she was despised by Tom or other adults, or when she felt being looked down upon. She craved for education, equality and friendship. Moreover, she gradually came to realise that she was, in fact, unequal to her less intelligent brother, because of incessant frustration from endless criticism. Her pride and sense of feminism was hurt every time she was reprimanded.
  　　
  　　For a long time, I agree with Marixst feminism’s point of view that private property, which gives rise to economic inequality, dependence, political oppresion and ultimately unhealthy social relations between men and women, is the root of women's oppression in the current social context. I do not believe that women are inborn more sensitive, fragile and incapable than men, just as the child Maggie reflected, she was endowed with brightness, but it was the society that shaped the women to be feminine, since without private property, they had to rely on men for financial income, and in order to attract a man of higher social rank, she had to be morbidly graceful and vulnerable so as to arouse men’s sexual desire. Tom’s superiority to Maggie arose to a higher stage when he started to help his father pay off the family’s debt. Since women were prohibited from working places, the gulf between the brother and sister deepened.
  　　
  　　In The Mill on the Floss, Maggie’s feminist consciousness is divided into three stages. The first stage is strong, when Maggie was still a child, uninformed of the social prejudice and discrimination on women. She followed her nature and crazed for books and knowledge.
  　　
  　　Maggie’s failed attempt to run away from home connoted that women in that period would never succeed in breaking the shackles of the socially accepted regulations. The metaphor which Eliot applied to is the gypsy queen, a symbol used in romantic poetry and painting, standing for an escape from the zero-sum game of Victorian social codes. Maggie craved for freedom, education and happiness, and desired to break the shackles of the Victorian codes bound on her, yet her incapability to escape from the reality incarnated the helplessness of all the women who, with dream of gaining freedom and independence, had to recede to the reality and accept their social roles. This chapter, entitled ‘Maggie Tries to Run Away from Her Shadow’, indicatively expressed the author’s attitude, that is, women’s world was overcast by shadow.
  　　
  　　The first book came to an end with Maggie’s failure to escape from all such restrictions. The second book commenced with Tom receiving education along with Phillip Wakem from Mr. Stelling. Phillip Wakem here was a contrast to Tom,who was a character supporting absolute masculinism and showing disregard to women, including her sister’s intelligence. Phillip here was sort of androgynous. His handicapped back prevented him from being physically strong and dominant as Tom, nor could he concede to fragility, as his identity of being male reminded him that he was supposed to be powerful. He acted a positive role in Maggie’s life, but was often scoffed by Tom, the masculine principle personified.
  　　
  　　Yet in the first half of the second book, Maggie’s desire for knowledge and her feminism consciousness had not extinguished yet. Her every visit to Tom revealed that she was capable of learning, and was fitter for education than Tom. During Maggie’s first visit to Mr. Stelling, while Tom was entangled in the mess of Euclid and Latin, Maggie, for the first time, offered patronising consolation on Tom. At this moment, Maggie had absolute superiority to Tom in her knowledge as she excelled in Latin and her intelligence to learn Latin enabled her to master Euclid if given a chance .Yet even thus, Tom still had not cast away his air of patriarchy.
  　　
  　　‘I’ll help you now, Tom,’ said Maggie, with a little air of patronising consolation. ‘I’m come to stay ever so long, if Mrs. Stelling asks me. I’ve brought my box and my pinafores, haven’t I, father?’
  　　‘You help me, you silly little thing!’ said Tom, in such high spirits at this announcement, that he quite enjoyed the idea of confounding Maggie by showing her a page of Euclid. ‘I should like to see you doing one of my lessons! Why, I learn Latin too! Girls never learn such things. They’re too silly.’
  　　‘I know what Latin is very well,’ said Maggie, confidently, ‘Latin’s a language. There are Latin words in the Dictionary. There’s bonus, a gift.’
  　　‘Now you’re just wrong there, Miss Maggie!’ said Tom, secretly astonished. ‘You think you’re very wise! But “bonus” means “good”, as it happens---bonus, bona, bonum.’
  　　
  　　The unabridged version of The Mill on the Floss had the three words ‘I’ll’, ‘you’ and ‘my’ marked in italics. When Maggie put her emphasis on ‘I’ll’, she obviously felt a sense of triumph and dominance, as she herself thought that it was a moment when she could hold dominance onto her brother. She had not grown out of her purity yet, and the sense of feminism consciousness was still upon her. Moreover, by reasoning the meaning of ‘bonus’, Maggie showed strong rationality. In the dialogue following what I have quoted, Maggie analysed the deeper meaning of ‘lawn’, and won a smocking-like praise from Mr. Tulliver, which aroused Tom’s disgust, as he always showed disgust on Maggie’s knowingness. As for Tom, through his ‘secretly astonished’ feeling, we could easily conclude that in his innermost he unwillingly admitted that Maggie’s intelligence had far exceeded him. Her intelligence was commented as ‘showing her cleverness to appreciating strangers’ Her trying to correct Tom’s Latin was regarded as ‘chatter’ or ‘a(chǎn)ny donkey can do that’.
  　　
  　　The story proceeded to Maggie’s first encounter with Phillip. This chapter revealed the inborn ability to reason in Maggie. Tom’s prejudice against Phillip was rooted in the hatred between Mr. Tulliver and the lawyer Wakem, and he followed the rule ‘like father, like son’, and defined Phillip as a rogue without observing him objectively. Quite to the contrary Maggie seemed to have more reason, as the dialogue between she and Tom formed sharp contrast in their reasonableness.
  　　
  　　 ‘I think Phillip Wakem seems a nice boy, Tom,’ she said, when they were out of the study together into the garden, to pass the interval before dinner. ‘He couldn’t choose his father, you know, and I’ve read of very few bad men who had good sons, as well as good parents who had had children. And if Phillip is good, I think we ought to be the more sorry for him because his father is not a good man. You like him, don’t you?’
  　　 ‘O, he’s a queer fellow,’ said Tom curtly, ‘a(chǎn)nd he’s as sulky as can be with me, because I told him his father was a rogue. And I’d a right to tell him so, for it was true--- and he began it, with calling me names. But you can stop here by yourself a bit, Magsie, will you?’
  　　
  　　Tom was lack of judgement, and it was somewhat a kind of defect of men, that they overstressed the notion of hatred between families. Julie committed suicide to follow Romeo to the heaven, because both of them had the ability to reason, and to judge a person according to his or her quality, character and personality, instead of blindly following the opinions of the elders. Yet here Tom was different. Blinded by the hatred and jealousy in the adult’s world, Tom mistook this action as being responsible and just. He thought himself as an adult, by hating the same person his father hated, yet what he did not know that by his blind imitation, he would cause more trouble than he anticipated.
  　　
  　　In her later close contact with Phillip when Tom had his foot hurt, she revealed a sense of sensitivity, since Phillip was a poor boy with deformity. She tried her best to avoid mentioning deformity, even though once she accidentally let ‘I should be so sorry for you’ slip out of her mouth.
  　　
  　　The first volume ended by Tom returning home for Mr. Tulliver’s mishap. On the whole, what the first volume revealed was Maggie’s advantage over Tom on both academics and social relations. Maggie was thirst for knowledge, equipped with sense and intelligence, possessed with a strong sense of rebellion and also with a touch of sentimentality, which enabled her to communicate more smoothly. Maggie bore blame; she had been blamed all her life, and nothing had come of it but evil tempers. Yet in the volume following, the advantage was gradually nipped by all kinds of prejudice and restriction.
  　　
  　　The second volume commenced with the bankruptcy and illness of Mr. Tulliver and the uprising hatred between the Tullivers and the lawyer Wakem. The beginning chapter was replete with the blame on Maggie. Here came the second stage of Maggie’s feminist consciousness, which gradually became weaker and she somewhat conceded by Tom’s brutal oppression and Mr. Tulliver’s indifference.
  　　
  　　This is a typical demonstration of what Simone de Beauvoir mainly argued in her book The Second Sex, that men had made women the "Other" in society by putting a false aura of "mystery" around them, and that men used this as an excuse not to understand women or their problems and not to help them. One is not born a woman, but becomes one. We may also find corresponding idea in Wollstonecraft’s assertation that ‘women are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mother, that a little knowledge of human weakness, just termed cunning, softnessof temper, outward obedience, and a scrupulous attention to a puerile kind of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of man’. Women’s mind was shaped from the infancy, and they were not born with the notion ‘dependence’ or ‘need to be protected’. That is how the two words ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ were coined. Although they refer to the same object, yet they stress different aspects. Sex is biological, while gender is social.
  　　
  　　Tom’s failure to get a position from Mr. Deane reflected his poor capacity and performance. When he returned from Mr. Deane, he was met with Maggie’s amiable joke that if someone had taught her book-keeping she could teach Tom. Yet with the sense of masculinity preoccupied, this joke was not to be accepted. He retorted harsh words by blaming her ‘a(chǎn)lways sitting yourself up above me and everyone else’ and ‘I can judege much better than you can’. Tom is the typical man in the Victorian society when the country had just been industrialized. Before machine replaced manual labour, man had absolute advantages physically.
  　　The agriculture and farm work were completed mostly by men. However, when manual labour no longer remained the main source for production, such absolute domination was erased and gradually vanished. Men, in desire for remaining absolute domination over women, degraded women to the greatest extent, by emphasizing their physical weakness, from which extended to their inability to reason and to think, and that it was impossible for them to acquire all kinds of knowledge. That is why Mr. Stelling commented that girls ‘can pick up a little of everything’, but ‘they’ve a great deal of superficial cleverness, but they couldn’t go far into everything. They are quick and shallow’. In this way, what Maggie had been taken pride in (quickness) was a sort of defect, and ‘it would be better to be slow like Tom’. However, if Tom were a girl, then he would also be blamed for his clumsiness. In conclusion, in that era, all the qualities, including defects which are possessed in boys were all something worth praising.
  　　
  　　Under constant surveillance of the elders and the restriction of the traditional concepts of women, the grown-up Maggie shifted to an ordinary woman, concealing her intelligence and conceding to the social suppression. She gave way to the constant surveillance. Perpetual surveillance is internalized by individuals to produce the kind of self-awareness that defines the modern subject. In the period when Maggie was able to talk, she was incessantly told that her brother Tom would go to school, while she had to keep gentle, keep her hair curly and do the chores which are supposed to be girls’ job. In her childhood, she was thirst for the world of knowledge while Tom was annoyed and impatient with the world of Latin and Euclid. She possessed with the sense to understand the world, to share the mishaps and sorrows with her male family members, yet she was forced to shut out from all those. Having sensed all those, she could appeal to no one but tears, wishing that she had been taught ‘real learning and wisdom, such as great men knew’.
  　　
  　　In the beginning of Book Fifth, Maggie and Phillip Wakem met again, after a sequence of conflicts between families and alterations on both of the two youngsters. By then Maggie confessed that she had given up ‘thinking about what is easy and pleasant’ and ‘being discontented because I couldn’t have my own will’, which startled Phillip a bit, for in his eyes, nothing would ever change one’s nature, and he never doubted she would be the same. Yet in this chapter, Maggie’s shift from her innocence to twisted maturity was revealed by her refusal of Phillip’s book. Her reason given was thus, ‘it would make me in love with this world again, as I used to be—it would make me long to see and know many things--- it would make me long for a full life.’ Poetry and art and knowledge are sacred indeed, but of course, not for women of those times. For those women as Maggie, the thirst for knowledge must be extinguished, instead of quenched. Just as Wollstonecraft had stated, ‘strengthen the female mind by enlarging it, and there will be an end to blind obedience; but, as blind obedience is ever sought for by power, tyrants and sensualists are in the right whenthey endeavour to keep women in the dark, because the former only want slaves, and the latter a plaything’. For men, women acted as two roles, slaves and plaything, and for the latter, the plaything must be available in sexual functions. Maggie was the sort of woman that was forced to be kept in the dark, groping her way, at first trying to figure out what had happened in the family and between her father and Mr. Wakem; Maggie’s life was destined to be a series of blind obedience. She obeyed her father blindly by rejecting book, knowledge and joy of the world. She had struggled, of course, yet she conceded. She in the following blindedly followed the tyrannical Tom’s order that she must stay away from Phillip, and in this way her sole encouragement was driven away. Yet, according to what Phillip had told Maggie, such resignation, or rather, stupefaction, would not bring joy and peace, which were what Maggie had been seeking for by shutting herself away from the world. She had been tired of the endless struggle with her brother and father, and had chosen a life seemingly joyful and peaceful. Her nature would never acquiesce that. What she was doing was stupefaction, to be more plainly, self-cheating. Such cheating would bring more pain to her. Yet within such a sequence of blind obedience, her sense had not yet perished. Later her refutation to Tom on Phillip Wakem demonstrated that.
  　　
  　　Here Phillip acts a sort of androgynous role. For one thing, he was a man, having chance to get systematic education together with Tom, seeing the world, gaining knowledge and knowing the world. Compared with Maggie, if they were both male, then Phillip was in an inferior state, because of his disability. Maggie started to grow fond of Phillip, because, to some extent, she saw some reflection, and also some of her expectation on herself, on him. Phillip had a feminine sympathetic, while he was talking with Maggie in the Red Deeps. He was sentimental enough to cognize the world, to share others’ feelings, and especially, to see more openly on women’s education and development. It was rare, for a man, to advise a woman to read more, to know and enjoy the world, and to appreciate life. Phiilip, though having disability and not being so masculine as Tom, was being educated. Maggie was longing for such education, and thus she looked up to Phillip, regarding him both as her soul mate and an approachable idol.
  　　
  　　Their secret meeting went on for a year, during which under Phillip’s constant encouragement, Maggie picked up reading again, enjoying a few happy moments. It was obvious, that only books would cheer Maggie up, and fulfill Maggie’s world. Yet in the book, their relationship ended by Phillip confessing to Maggie his love, Maggie accepting it indirectly. All these were discovered by Tom, eventually, and he insisted on Maggie leading him to where Phillip Wakem was. In this scene Maggie might be the first time brave enough to stand up to Tom that he had been ‘reproaching people all his life’, always sure that he himself was right, and this is directly reflected in Tom’s refutation that Maggie was showing her affection to father by merely disobeying and deceiving him. Maggie had realized that all her struggle was in vain. After all, her fate was controlled by anybody but herself.
  　　
  　　Yet in here Maggie’s sense still remained. As a woman who could be permitted to do nothing, she roared vehemently but helplessly to Tom, ‘So I will submit to what I acknowledge and feel to be right. I will submit even to what is unreasonable from my father, but I will not submit to it from you. You boast of your virtues as if they purchased you a right to be cruel and unmanly as you’ve been today.’ All the reading and her thirst for knowledge did not quit her entirely, but built up a strong sense of right and wrong in her mind. That may be what knowledge can offer women, and that is possibly why for a long time women were banned from schools, for educated women would bring their blind obedience to an end. Was we not heart striken, when we found a gifted and lovable Maggie Tulliver repressing her anger and creativity to develop a neurotic and self-destructive personality?
  　　
  　　Now we come to the last volume of the novel, and in the last volume, Maggie’s feminist consciousness had come to the last stage. The consciousness was eliminated from appearance. Even though there were conflicts every now and then, she conceded to her fate and started to obey. That is how come when Elaine Showalter compared Jane Eyre with The Mill on the Floss, she commented, ‘Bronte’s Jane Eyre is the heroine of fulfillment; Eliot’s Maggie Tulliver is the heroine of reununciation’ .
  　　
  　　The last volume began with Maggie introduced to her cousin Lucy’s boyfriend Stephen Guest. Maggie fell into deep thinking when Lucy offered her the Sketch Book. The lapse of time had altered everything. Rush of memories surged into Maggie’s mind as her eyes fell upon the sunshine on the rich clumps of spring flowers, such as Tom’s brotherly friendliness; she was also hit by what she was now, distasteful days, intense and varied life she once yearned for, her future even worse than her past and all those years’ contented renunciation. Maggie’s first encounter with Stephen Guest alarmed Lucy a little, for beforehand she had never been awared of Maggie’s renunciation all those years. The old Maggie must appear to be too ‘odd and clever’ to please. Yet it also revealed the fact that Maggie had not been used to the society, where people spoke from the lips merely, and therefore she was infuriated by compliments, which appeared absurd to the experienced ladies and also made Maggie feel ashamed of herself. Having given up the life she yearned, nor could she get used to lives of ordinary ladies, which is also a cause for her tragedy in the end.
  　　
  　　Phillip Wakem’s name was mentioned again by Lucy, as he was a good friend of hers. Maggie, encouraged by Lucy and out of her own initiative, went for permission from Tom, since she had promised him not to see him without telling him. As Phillip met her, she told her that she wished she could make a world outside love as men did, since she derived no happiness from it. When she was a child, she also wished to create a new world as men did, but that was to live independently and knowledgeably, and now she returned to her old thought in a new form. Wishing to create a world outside love was only an escape from pain, from reality and from submissiveness. Viewing Maggie’s life on a whole, to a great extent, she had been living for Tom’s love. She would sacrifice anything of her own personality in order not to be rejectd by Tom. When Lucy asked her not to go away and be apart from Phillip, she refused the forthcoming happiness by saying that Tom asserted she could only marry Phillip on the condition of giving him up. In this way, she appeared to be self-doubting and unassertive all the time, because we know that in fact Tom had never brought Maggie genuine happiness and use.
  　　
  　　I say that Maggie has developed a neurotic and self-destructive personality, because she is perversely drawn to destroy all her opportunities for renewal, such as refusing Dr. Kenn’s offer to be a permanent parishioner in another town, her endless plea for Tom’s forgiveness, simply waiting for others to validate her existence, etc. Her personality, now, could best be described by quoting ‘the souls by nature pitched too high, by suffering plunged too low’ .
  　　
  　　Although many critics regard Maggie's entanglement with Stephen Guest as a discordance, discrepancy, and a significant failure in Eliot’s work, yet it was an indispensable part in the ending. Maggie moved to live with Lucy and Lucy’s betrothed Stephen fel for Maggie, which seemed natural by reason. After a struggling night with Stephen, Maggie refused him and got away. Yet she was thrown into an abyss of anguish when she eventually managed to return from the grasp of Stephen Guest, while what confronted her was Tom’s icy response and the disgrace she had brought to St. Ogg’s. Having been cruelly driven away by the furious Tom, Maggie plunged into a surge of agony. She agonized, not for her notoriety in the village, but again, for she had disgraced Tom. Her emotional attachment with Tom was reinforced, instead of diminished, by Tom’s endless criticism and oppression.
  　　
  　　The ending was dramatic, and for a long time, it had been commented on by critics. Personally I was hit upon by Tom’s utterance ‘Magsie’ and ‘it’s coming, Maggie’. All their grudes, misunderstanding and conflicts for so many years were drowned in the flood along with their human bodies. I deem Tom’s sudden emotion as the denouncement of his conscience. Yet such denouncement was incompatible with the social background. The drowning of the brother and sister was not designed by the author; it was developed naturally. That is to say, only Tom’s former attitude would survive the society. When Tom and Maggie reunited, Tom accepted Maggie, yet Maggie was not to a woman to be accepted. Her intelligence, her disobedience and her struggle were all against the social trend. Dying together unable to fit the secular world, may them find peace and joy in the paradise.
  　　
  　　There could be another explanation of Maggie’s drowning. In the medieval times, women were thrown into water to test whether they were witches. Those that drowned were regarded as innocent. Eliot applied to such a tale to illustrate that Maggie was innocent; intelligent women were innocent; in fact all women were innocent yet fell into the trap of the society. She paid homage to those victims. Those women who were with feminist consciousness were incompatible to the society, and their characteristics were annihilated by the oppression wrapped them.
  　　
  　　This work created in 1860 was full of feminist consciousness, whether explicitly or implicitly. Throughout the novel, Maggie’s feminist consciousness existed, in the former part explicit, trying to break the shackles of the Victorian Age; in the latter part, such consciousness was hidden until it became subconsciousness. After the work was published, a lot of feminists hated Geroge Eliot. For one thing, Eliot was a success produced in the Victorian Age, but in almost all her works (The Mill on the Floss was arguably the most autobiographic novel), she wrote about how women like she herself failed in their struggle. In this way she denied such struggle, meanwhile she succeeded and benefited through it.
  　　 Dated back to 1792 when Mary Wollstonecraft first called upon women’s rationality, her radical thoughts were too ahead of the development of human consciousness and the society, so that her theories failed to break the shackles that cuffed the women to their households. Mary’s own scandals offset her achievements. It was almost the end of the 19th century when her theories rose to the surface and caught the eyes of the radical feminists. Between the shadowy period, numerous intelligent women became victims, either choosing renunciation or being persecuted by fate. Apart from Maggie, Sue Bridehead ( the heroine in Thomas Hardy’s Jude the Obscure) was a typical example too.
  　　
  　　The Victorian Age was complicated. Because of the struggle of all kinds of people, many outstanding literary works were created. War promoted the development of technology; struggle reinforced the production of novels. I would like to end this dissertation by a poem by Emily Dickenson, ‘they shut me up in prose’.
  　　
  　　As when a little Girl
  　　They put me in the Closet --
  　　Because they liked me "still" --
  　　
  　　Still! Could themself have peeped --
  　　And seen my Brain -- go round --
  　　They might as wise have lodged a Bird
  　　For Treason -- in the Pound --
  　　
  　　Himself has but to will
  　　And easy as a Star
  　　Abolish his Captivity --
  　　And laugh -- No more have I --
  　　
  　　References:
  　　[1]Deborah L. Madsen Feminist Theory and Literary Practice (Foreign Language Teaching and Rsearch Press, Pluto Press, 2006)
  　　[2]Elaine Showalter A Literature of Their Own: From British Women Novelists from Bronte to Lessing (Foreign Languge Teaching and Research Press , Princeton University Press, 2004)
  　　[3]Elizabeth Ermarth Maggie’s Long Suicide ( Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 14, No. 4, Nineteenth Century (Autumn, 1974), pp. 587-601)
  　　[4] Geroge Eliot The Mill on the Floss (The Commercial Press, Beijing, 1995)
  　　[5] George Eliot: Her Life and Books (London, 1947)
  　　[6]Maragaret Walters Feminism: A Very Short Introduction (Foreign Language Teaching and Researching Press, 2008)
  　　[7]Mary Wollstonecraft A Vindication of Rights of Woman (Dover Publications, Inc, 1996.7)
  　　[8] Raman Selden, Peter Widdowson, Peter Brooker, A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory (Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2004. 5)
  　　[9] Thomas Pinney Essays of George Eliot (New York, 1963)
  　　[10] The George Eliot Letters, ed. G. S. Haight (New Haven, 1955)
  　　[11]Virginia Woolf George Eliot (First published in The Times Literary Supplement, 20 November 1919)
  　　
  　　
•   　　 這本書是幾年前讀的了，今天看《茶母》的評論時有人提到了一部電影的劇情，哥哥妹妹的說了一大堆，仔細一想這不是《弗洛斯河上的磨坊》么？評論講的是兄妹之間的不倫之戀，《茶母》里彩玉與首領之間的兄妹之戀已經(jīng)是不爭的事實，可是憑什么，憑什么把Tom與Maggi之間的愛也看做不倫之戀呢！這明明就是很溫馨的兄妹親情嘛！
  　　
  　　 記得我當時很喜歡這本書，剛翻開前幾頁就被深深地吸引了，真有種相逢恨晚的感覺?。『窈竦囊槐緯?，兩三天就把它啃完了，雖然有很多地方只是囫圇吞棗，不求甚解。。。
  　　
  　　 很喜歡前面幾章——童年歡樂的日子。無憂無慮，相親相愛。雖然也有爭吵，也有不和，哭著鼻子說“我再也不和你玩了”，可是過不了多久就會忘記“誓言”，又一起屁顛屁顛地奔跑在田野里，河邊上。。。雖然也有苦惱、不快，可是剛剛抹過眼淚，在接過哥哥端來的甜點時，又會開心地笑起來。。。陽光下，Tom與Maggi手拉著手，快樂地奔向張開懷抱的爸爸；樹蔭里，Maggi拉著Tom的手說“等我們長大了，我來給你管理家務。。?！?；閣樓上，Tom耐心地哄Maggi下樓吃飯。。?？吹竭@里，心里充滿欣喜，因為看著看著我想起了自己的童年，真的是很像的呢。當時就很感嘆，作者對小孩的心理刻畫真的很細膩準確吶，自己曾經(jīng)的那些想法，煩惱，竟是在這本異國小說中被一位百多年前的女作家給白紙黑字地寫出來了，不是很奇怪么？心里頓時對艾略特有了無限好感，就好像兩個人分享了什么秘密似的，又信任又激動。
  　　
  　　 很喜歡Tom。雖然很多人說他冷酷無情，我卻覺得他所做的一切都是可以理解的。如果處在他的位置，仔細想想，我也會像他那樣做。作為家中的長子，唯一的男子漢，父親落敗了，他就必須站出來抗下所有的債務，卑微地寄人籬下踏踏實實勤勤懇懇地努力工作，即使什么都不會也放下身段努力地去學。他不僅要維持家人的生計，還要維護家族的榮譽。所以即使靠姨父的關(guān)系進的公司，可是他還是賣力地工作，終于最后他還清了父親的欠款買回了祖?zhèn)鞯哪シ?，可以在眾人面前驕傲地抬頭。也正因為如此，他不可能接受Maggi與Phillip在一起。仇人的兒子，侮辱了父親，奪走磨坊的人的兒子，他怎么可能接受他成為妹妹的愛人？！他對Phillip當然是沒有什么恨的，可是，他的驕傲怎么可能允許他對這個人笑臉相迎——這簡直是對自己自尊心的踐踏！
  　　
  　　 我永遠都不會忘記那個結(jié)局。兄妹倆都匆匆地死了，在我還沒反應過來時，他們已經(jīng)永遠地沉入河底，消失在人世間，盡管世上還有那么多愛著他們的親人、朋友，還有這么多不舍的讀者暗自垂淚、唏噓不已。唯一的一絲安慰是，最后兄妹倆和解了，在生命的最后一刻緊緊地抱在一起，似乎對方的身軀可以抵擋千軍萬馬，只要兄妹兩人在一起便什么都不怕了。我想，水底里，他們的面容一定是安詳?shù)模?/li>
•   　　我該要多么感謝把這本書送給我的那個女孩子——我連她的名字都不知道！
  　　
  　　
  　　
  　　一直以來我覺得簡奧斯汀勝過夏洛特勃朗特，因為奧斯汀沒有把階級與平等或者女權(quán)之類的東西拿出來當牌打。當然我承認，看簡愛的時候，我也常常淚流滿面，感動于簡與愛德華之間的愛情，然而，更讓我傾心地無疑是伊麗莎白和達西之間一次次智慧的交鋒。
  　　
  　　
  　　
  　　可是等我終于看到愛略特的這本書的時候，我就不得不承認我之前的看法是多么的狹隘了。
  　　
  　　我久久不能從這本書給我?guī)淼恼鸷持谢剡^神來，我需要仔細想一想，才能夠說出我究竟看到了什么。
  　　
  　　
  　　
  　　簡單的說，是愛。
  　　
  　　
  　　
  　　但絕不是愛情之愛，也絕不是親情之愛，更不僅是友情之愛。
  　　
  　　
  　　
  　　當然書的前半部分幾乎都在描述麥琪對于她兄長以及父親的熱愛，親情之愛。以及其他的人的吝嗇，苛刻，愚蠢。
  　　
  　　
  　　
  　　然而直到她父親終于低下頭決定忍氣吞聲的活著，但卻讓他的哥哥立誓復仇的時候，我開始對作者刮目相看。這甚至不像是一個女人的手筆。
  　　
  　　
  　　
  　　麥琪出于對菲利普和露西的愛，放棄了與自己愛人在一起的機會。寧愿去面對人們的種種非議；麥琪的媽媽一生渾渾噩噩，在丈夫因破產(chǎn)精神失常的時候，還一直想著自己心愛的家具和餐具，然而在兒子湯姆要趕走那個一直不大被她鐘愛的女兒麥琪的時候，她毫不猶豫地說：我和你走；葛姨媽在無數(shù)次的批評妹夫無能，外甥外甥女討厭之后，當所有人都不相信外甥女的時候，她卻毅然決然站出來，說：她有不對的地方，但是絕不是你們指責的那樣，她可以隨時到我家里來，我會照顧她保護她；菲利普在等待了那么多年之后，卻發(fā)現(xiàn)自己的愛人愛上了別的人，他在盡最大努力去幫麥琪之后，決定成全麥琪，而當麥琪一個人回來的時候，他告訴麥琪，他永遠愛她，永遠等她，永遠信任她；就連湯姆，在這個書里被刻畫成無情的冷淡的湯姆，在趕出妹妹的時候，仍舊說：你沒有錢了，就讓媽媽來問我拿錢，只是不許你踏進我的家門。而最后麥琪不顧一切地在洪水中來救他的時候，他們終于和解。
  　　
  　　
  　　
  　　幾乎每一個書里 能夠提出來的人，都不是完美的，就連作者深深熱愛的麥琪也是一樣的?？墒?，每個人都有著自己的原則，并且為了這個原則，他們放棄自己的愛情親情或者友情，從而去實現(xiàn)另一種更偉大的愛。
  　　
  　　就像麥琪說的：要是過去不足以約束我們，那么還有什么責任可言呢？我們就不需要任何法則，只憑著一時的愛憎就行了。
  　　
  　　
  　　
  　　當世俗的各種感情被道德和責任淬煉過，就會凝結(jié)出人性中最光輝的一種愛，這成為書中人物唯一不能放棄的東西。永不去考慮對方是否值得愛，唯有如此，才能真的實現(xiàn)這種愛。也唯有如此，所有被愛的對象都成為了值得愛的對象，因為這種愛選擇了他們，主導他們，最終成為值得愛的人。
  　　
•   　　最有觸動的一句,是Maggie說的:"O God is there any happiness in love that could make me forget their pain?"
  　　唉...
•   　　最有觸動的一句,是Maggie說的:"O God O God is there any happiness in love that could make me forget their pain?"
  　　唉...
•   　　今天和祝慶英本對讀了一下開頭和結(jié)尾?？偟母杏X是兩個本子的譯者不知是誰參考了誰，很多地方挺像，但是感覺伍厚愷更好一些，這個印象還是挺鮮明的。艾略特這樣真正好的作家，關(guān)注太少了（我幼兒時期只知道她是職工馬南，還曾錯誤的把她歸為穿破褲子的慈善家那樣的作家呢！后來到武漢上大學時才認識到這是個多么偉大的作家。），很多人連米德爾馬契壓根就沒聽過（幸虧項先生翻的很好，蘇福忠還曾談過當時翻譯的一些波折呢），很多人是看BBC才知道的，總說米德鎮(zhèn)的春天啊，丹尼爾的半生緣啊，等等。這么不重視艾略特，真是很難相信。丹尼爾德隆達啊，等等的書還沒人翻譯吧（恕我孤陋寡聞了。記得我在漢口泰寧街看見過紅皮的Adam Bede的中譯本，現(xiàn)在知道的人就更少了，可能是因為這部書的BBC劇沒火吧）？很多時候真希望艾略特也有個張谷若先生那樣的人，是因為艾略特的書厚嗎？可狄更斯的也不薄啊！這套書不錯，如果裝幀再好一些的話，反正我是看了這套書才知道李青崖先生還翻過莫泊桑的“一生”，太高興了（李先生翻過后三部莫泊桑長篇嗎，我想知道，我想知道?。?，就是不知道這個本子是否被后來改過，就像湖南文藝出李先生譯的莫泊桑短篇似的。這個我體會太深了，上海出的27冊的汝龍譯的契訶夫比后來的同為汝龍翻的契訶夫文集的文字真是好太多了。很多翻譯家晚年翻譯的或改譯的東西，比早期確實是差很多，例如汝龍的復活真的不好，文字完全沒味道了，還有好多人隨聲附和，唉。還有就是張谷若先生，現(xiàn)在流通的苔絲是張先生改譯的，我印象很深張先生早期翻譯的苔絲讀的真有感覺，完全和今本不同（當時和“還鄉(xiāng)”一起出的，苔絲是深色皮，還鄉(xiāng)是淺色皮，苔絲我是在漢口航空路舊書店買到的，真幸運呀，市面上老版的還鄉(xiāng)還是挺多的），早期苔絲和還鄉(xiāng)就是神品，后來翻的裘德就相對遜色了，個人感覺。題外的話，張先生不太適合翻城市一些的作品，比如大衛(wèi)科波菲爾就是徹頭徹尾的敗筆，很多文章從所謂翻譯角度（例如什么歐化句子啊，短句啊，準確性?。┍容^張先生和董先生的科波菲爾，然后打擊董先生，真是什么也不懂，這么多年了，懂得董先生的人那么少，真悲哀！
•   　　工作了就是不行，一本長篇也能看上將近半年，估計換在大學，導師早就變成“叫獸”了～
  　　
  　　目前終于看完，所以簡短盤點一下此書的長短，供后來讀者參閱：
  　　
  　　1、GeorgeEliot在大學的時候，只是略微帶過，其實這是一個大遺憾。為什么？因為她的文筆實在很適合需要修煉自己英文寫作的人學習，簡潔、利落，而且文句很有力量感。這是我翻開書沒看幾頁就得到的印象。她的文筆沒有VirginiaWoolf來的委婉清美，實際上這也不是她的目的，她的文風實際上非常適合寫如今的現(xiàn)當代小說——所以這最后反而也成了我覺得這本小說“還行”的原因：就是她寫了一部頗具現(xiàn)實主義的、很符合學院老師規(guī)范的小說。所以，比起現(xiàn)當代小說比較擅長的搞氛圍、搞情節(jié)轉(zhuǎn)折，The Mill on the Floss似乎弱了那么一口氣。
  　　譬如，我看到半當中的時候，就差點看不下去了，因為情節(jié)糾結(jié)在一個毫無糾結(jié)必要的點上，遲遲不前進。
  　　
  　　2、Eliot把太多的精力放在開篇描述主人公們年幼時的講述上，事實上你看完這本小說，你就會覺得其實結(jié)尾Eliot鋪墊的并不理想，所以就會有頭大尾弱的感覺?；叵肫饋?，她這部小說的情節(jié)設置實際上還是滿有看頭的，但是她沒有給出個合理的輕重緩急來，這一點上比不上JaneAustin的那本《簡愛》；
  　　
  　　3、Tom Tulliver這個角色我一直覺得被設置的非常不自然，仿佛他就是用來適時的出場發(fā)幾次小神經(jīng)的。。。 。。?？傊@個角色寫得不好，從生動性上來看，連小說后半出現(xiàn)的Stephen Guest都比不上——而事實上，Tom這個哥哥在Maggie看來是非常重要的，所以我覺得總體寫得不好；
  　　
  　　4、Maggie長大后，突然就從原來的丑小鴨變成美人了。。。。。。這個比較無語～再怎么有氣質(zhì)、與眾不同，也要有個鋪墊吧？
  　　
  　　5、結(jié)尾的洪水明顯鋪墊不夠，顯得結(jié)尾十足戲劇感——我這個觀點呼應上述的觀點2；
  　　
  　　6、個人覺得小說最出彩的地方是——最后一部里面PhilipWakem寫給MaggieTulliver的信。。。 。。。這封信我初讀覺得寫得十分真摯！然后就回過頭來朗誦了一遍，結(jié)果讀到中間就流淚了～Sign～所謂真誠的感情，自和所謂的肉麻不同。
  　　
  　　
  　　個人覺得，此書可以一讀，不過偷懶的人，如果僅僅是學習一下Eliot的文筆，可以隨手看幾個章節(jié)；如果一定要知道這個故事到底是怎么回事，OK，那一定是要從頭啃到尾的了，不過老早的作者比起當今的編劇們，那功力確實是要弱一點的。
•   　　 麥琪駕著小船去救哥哥湯姆，被洪水吞噬，是這樣悲傷的結(jié)局。
  　　 我們因為自己的癡心，責怪愛略特的忍心，也為麥琪不甘心。然而這樣的結(jié)果卻是不可避免的，換言之，是麥琪自己選擇了死亡。
  　　 “死亡是一個啟示，它說話。死的行為有它自己的語義學，一個人怎樣死，死于哪種環(huán)境，并非無足輕重?！崩サ吕凇渡钤趧e處》中說。
  　　 麥琪之所以走上一條她再清楚不過的不歸路，是因為她的人生已經(jīng)到了無路可走的境地。選擇菲利普，傷害哥哥湯姆；選擇斯蒂文，傷害表姐露西；放棄，傷害自己。這樣的絕望。
  　　 她太善良，太看重道德責任，所以把個人倫理拋向一邊，死于水中，象征著無辜、清白、柔弱和無能為力。
  　　 她必須死于水中，因為水的深度與人的深度是緊密聯(lián)系的。“對那些溺死在他們的自我中，他們的愛情中，他們的情感中，他們的瘋狂中，他們的內(nèi)省和混亂中的人來說，水就是他們致死的環(huán)境?！?br /> 　　 一如奧菲利婭，死于哈姆雷特強烈的孤獨意識和懷疑意識，如此美麗而又脆弱的女孩，懷抱著愛情之花，順溪而下，沉落在水底。她的衣服四散展開，使她暫時像人魚一樣漂浮水上；她嘴里還斷斷續(xù)續(xù)唱著古老的謠曲，好像一點不感覺到她處境的險惡，又好像她本來就是生長在水中一般?？墒遣欢嘁粫海囊路o水浸得重起來了，這可憐的人歌兒還沒有唱完，就已經(jīng)沉到泥里去了。
  　　 還有《驚情四百年》，王妃伊麗莎白以為德古拉死于戰(zhàn)場，悲慟中跳河自盡，“我的王子死了，沒了他，我的生存毫無意義?！彼哪樖且粭l悲傷的河。
  　　 《孔雀東南飛》中的那個傾城絕世的女子，看到一切既已無望，舉身赴清池。
  　　 這一連串的死亡能指，會有一個所指嗎？或者說，死亡背后能夠有一個意義嗎？
  　　 我愿作出自己的解讀，賦予她們的死以生命（因為她們都是那么的無辜與柔弱，讓人心碎）。水在許多文化傳統(tǒng)里面都與潔凈與新生有關(guān)。喝過孟婆湯，就告別前生的記憶了；涉過忘川，就踏上來世的征程了；基督教徒領受水的浸洗，就重獲新生了。
  　　 所以她們自水中離去，應該也會滌除前世的不如意吧。特別是麥琪，她最終還是和自己深愛的哥哥和解了，從此會一直在一起，正如童年。
  　　 不知道這樣替她們救贖是不是我的一廂情愿。因為有的絕望，至死都是絕望。
  　　 忽然想起王國維，站在昆明湖邊上時，該是怎樣的大憂傷啊。
  　　
•   　　溫暖的兄妹情。
  　　
  　　《弗洛河上的磨坊》喬治 艾略特
  　　
  　　
  　　
  　　如果你有沒兄弟姐妹，想感受一下兄妹情，那麼就讀一下《弗洛河上的磨坊》。
  　　
  　　愛你的妹妹就尊重她做的一切決定吧。不管那決定是對是錯。《倚天屠龍記》里的金毛獅王在金花婆婆出嫁時，就給了她唯一的祝福，那是為何在后來金花一直敬重他的原因。每個哥哥都應該是金毛師王。
  　　
  　　 書中的哥哥湯姆卻不同，他從小就愛自己的妹妹麥琪，但心胸狹小從不原諒妹妹的任何錯誤。開始他反對麥琪和仇人的兒子菲利普交往。后來因為斯蒂芬的愛慕，麥琪和自己的表妹的情人斯蒂芬出去劃船。麥琪為了自己的心中的神圣的呼喚，拒絕了斯蒂芬的求婚。但湯姆卻不聽她的解釋和自己妹妹一刀兩斷。
  　　
  　　大水來臨，麥琪奮不顧身去救湯姆，最后一同死于大水。我們是同父母的兄弟姐妹，愛應超越一切不同想法和隔閡。
  　　
  　　書中對塔里弗太太的姐妹們的描寫出神入化，特別是湯姆家敗落時的他們的反映，很有戲劇效果。對湯姆的姑姑貧窮的摩斯太太的描寫也不錯。
  　　
  　　湯姆的爸爸塔里弗對自己的妹妹摩斯太太的愛也是作者要贊揚的。
  　　
  　　
•   　　Sometimes I feel learning is a kind of enjoyment allowing me to drift into that somewhere quite near to my truest self, while now and then I feel quite suffocated and isolated from the real world. When I read a novel, I may feel the same pain from which the heroin suffers. I cried and sighed but never know exactly what I was crying for. It’s true that I’m too sentimental and imaginative. I always tend to mix my own emotion with the feelings of the heroin, which makes it difficult for me to get a sensible judgment of the works. Recently, I’m reading The mill on the Floss by Gorge Eliot, a touching story about love between the sister and the brother. I found myself immensely fond of the heroin Maggie, which in turn aroused my great interest in the great author George Eliot.
  　　
  　　It’s ridiculous that when I googled Eliot’s pictures, I found once Henry James described her as "magnificently, awe-inspiringly ugly". While when refer to her writings and thoughts, we common people may feel amazed that such a quiet and sedentary lady, who limited within her little countryside world could have so deep an insight into people’s personality and psychological struggles. Among all the special beauty of her writhing, Eliot’s narrative techniques impressed me strongly. As for this The mill on the Floss, it’s not the kind of novel which can attract my heart immediately. On the contrary, at first when I still hadn’t got used to Eliot’s writing style, I felt too bored to read such a long and earnest Victorian novel focusing on the narrow and tradition-bound countryside life, especially with a wordy writing style. But when I read on, I suddenly found myself deeply attracted by her writing skills, which often make me feel as if I myself was in that setting, but once in a while her narrative methods brought me out as a stander-by analyzing and sharing the characters’ interior moral problems and strains objectively.
  　　
  　　The novel’s evocation of childhood in the English countryside, rich with delight and vividness, is my favorite part. Eliot depicted for us such a memory- recalling picture about the pure childhood. Blamed for her messy hair, the little Maggie, with pursed up lips and tear-brimmed eyes, crouched in her small attic, longing to share the delicious food downstairs, but unwilling to break through the embarrassment. She cried painfully not because of the criticism from other relatives but only for that her brother did not care about her. She loved him so much that she just wanted him to pay whole attention to all her happiness and sorrows. She sat in that corner waiting for Tom to caress and comfort her, but he was too obstinate to show his kindness. At last, Eliot used the word “hunger for love”, which I like so much, to compel her to steal downstairs and sat at the table while teased by all her relatives. The second impressive scene about the little Maggie is her running away from home because of the girlish jealousy of her cousin Lucy, to whom Tom showed too much care. Always teased by others that she looked like gipsy, little Maggie rambled alone for a long time and finally met some real gipsy. But when darkness arrived, loneliness prevailed, imagining she had been deserted by the whole world, she was frightened to cry. When I was reading this part, I felt like hugging the little na?ve girl. I took out my own album and looked at my pictures of childhood. All the bygone days returned to my mind. At that time, I used to be so na?ve and silly that whenever blamed by anyone, I would think nobody would love me any more. I struggled with this thought and repressed by the hunger for love. I still remember the scene when I rushed out of home on a rainy night with tears rolling down my cheeks, indulged in self-imagined pain. Still another time I tore up all my dairies just because I felt nobody understand and care about me. I chucked at my old little self when these pictures floating in my mind. Is that painful girl really me? Alas, my little girl, how silly and pitiful. “Ah, my child, you will have real troubles to fret about by and by”.
  　　
  　　 As childhood staggered to the end, Maggie experienced a sudden pang in her life. Her father was bankrupted and immediately fell ill. Since then, she and her brother Tom had to shoulder the responsibility for the whole family, which was thrown into an endless abyss. Here Eliot endowed in Maggie her own experience of taking care of her sick father. The terrible loneliness and dullness of life suffocated the soul of the growing Maggie. “she could make dream-worlds of her own but no dream-world would satisfy her now. she wanted some explanation of this hard real life…” This long and detailed depiction of psychological struggle stands as a all-time memorable passage of Eliot’s writing. As we know Eliot’s concept of art is to carry out the mission of educating and modifying human nature, so here she points out a way for Maggie to get out of this mental struggle, that is abandonment of egoism-the path of martyrdom and endurance, which is quite an important process for us to grow up after experiencing some sufferings in life.
  　　
  　　As the plot goes on, the complicated conflicts between the sister and brother become more and more obvious. Maggie loves Tom, and is willing to give up all the other things in life for him, but their conflicts, between romance and reason, daring and caution, rebellion and acceptance are too inevitable and indelible. Among all these troubles, Philip, whose father became the enemy of Maggie’s family because of business affaires crushed in with his true love for her. Proud and narrow-minded as her father and brother were, they never allowed Maggie to get touch with this kind and pure-hearted boy. So, struggle continued, and giving-up continued in Maggie’s life just because of her love and sense of duty for the family. As for me, I like this Philip very much. His love for Maggie is in more sense connected with soul. For him, Maggie is the only day-star which can console and shine his sad spirit. Compared with his love, the latter-appeared Stephen, who as Lucy’s lover also fell in love with Maggie, seemed to be more passionate and powerful in his love. When depicting love between her characters, Eliot inherits a commonly accepted belief that love is first learned in the lovers’ eyes. So, we can find many long “gaze” reflecting all deep human passion between Maggie and Stephen. From this, I may think that Maggie’s feeling for Philip is in more sense sympathy or Philia than love or Eros. Maggie was totally attracted and induced by Stephen’s passionate, or we may say coarse love, while the struggle in her mind never stopped. Here Eliot sounds especially didactic when Maggie at last decided to renounce her love by saying “I must not, cannot, seek my own happiness by sacrificing others.” “I couldn’t live in peace if I put the shadow of a willful sin between myself and God.” There are lots of touching love letters and monologues which moved me deeply in this novel. Although pointed out by many critics that too many detailed monologues mar the structure of the whole novel, I still think them as typical merit of Eliot’s writing because they give more space to show the real mixed feelings of characters.
  　　
  　　As for the ending of the novel, I agree with many critics that it’s not as good as it should be. With the never ending conflicts in the heroin’s life, we can have a clear idea that there must be some tragedy in the end, but the sudden coming flood is still too unexpected and fierce because it wipes out all the meaning for Maggie’s long struggle immediately. Perhaps in my deep conscious, I still hope Maggie can break through the limits and her sense of duty, to get the value and love of her own life, but it finally turns out that her kinship love triumphs all her desires and dreams. Just think, if Maggie does not go to rescue her brother from the flood, she may have her love and enjoy her life, but the tragic ending comes from her own choice. Form here, we can draw a clear conclusion that Eliot’s tragedy is quite different from that of Thomas Hardy in the sense that Eliot’s hero can choose and decide whether to fight with life or not, while Hardy’s heroes are totally haunted by fate.
  　　
  　　“The souls by nature pitched too high, by suffering plunged too low.” perhaps this is the best judgment for my favorite Maggie. For those who like vivid depiction of childhood life and the deep insight to personal psychological struggles in the process of growing up, this is a real all-time romantic classic.
  　　
•   你大一的時候也太能寫了?。。?！撇開論述方法和有關(guān)feminism的觀點不談，close-reading的richness真是好厲害~~~
•   我在寫畢業(yè)論文就是《弗》這篇小說，借鑒一下你的思想，thank you very much..
•   我好悔恨這么晚才看到這本書
•   我想我需要這本書，我現(xiàn)在就是站在斯蒂芬的角度。
•   不是喬治·艾略特的書嗎？
•   沒看過這本書，好奇LZ怎么看呼嘯山莊~
•   呼嘯山莊是我很小的時候看的書，小學畢業(yè)看的，后來從來沒有想過要回去再看一遍然后寫書評……
•   soga...
•   她的英文難啊，尤其是后期作品，社會背景深邃，不容易把握。
•   JaneAustin的那本《簡愛》；
  　　
  簡愛不是夏綠蒂勃朗特寫的嗎。。。
•   ls！多謝指正！剛?cè)グ俣攘艘幌?，果然是夏綠蒂勃朗特～那麼，jane austin是哪里來的印象呢。。。暈～
•   喔～奧斯丁是傲慢與偏見的作者～記起來了。
  這兩本都是初中時代的遠久型作品了，殘念！
•   嗯。。。小學看的，吃飯上廁所的必備品。。。所以記得清楚
•   挖哈哈，直播耶~~
•   看第一句，我先想起《美國的悲劇》~~
  然后想起《麥琪的禮物》~
  再看書名，想起《磨坊書簡》~~
  跑偏了~~我就是一跑偏的人兒，挖哈哈
•   我也是亂跑，看到一本n久年前讀過的書，就浮想聯(lián)翩了。。。反正閑著，就亂寫了。
•   “水”確實是一個說之不盡的意象，許多文人終結(jié)的選擇，又如伍爾夫。
•   被提醒了，對，伍爾夫的歸宿也是水。
•   hahah, the first paragraph is truly very --- sentimental~
•   I really attracted by Eliot's writing about the characters's real mixed feelings when Maggie was thinking how to choose between Stephen and the true life.

相關(guān)圖書

• 幼兒卡通識字卡.植物
• 熊少臣創(chuàng)意攝影
• 創(chuàng)新吉祥菜100例
• 走不出的雨季
• 現(xiàn)代名中醫(yī)男科絕技
• 漢字的故事
• 元明清詩鑒賞辭典(清近代)
• 人間喜劇 第十卷
• 廢水生化處理
• 當代兒童少年朗誦詩.兒童卷
• 火山
• 紅寶盒
• 制漿工藝學
• 作文技法99
• 社會統(tǒng)計
• 藝術(shù)管理與劇院管理
• 尼爾斯騎鵝旅行記
• 大眾文化的神話
• 《古文觀止 續(xù)古文觀止鑒賞辭典》
• 水輪機
• 現(xiàn)代企業(yè)用人方略
• 織物結(jié)構(gòu)與設計
• 一生能有多少愛
• 中學生心理健康教育
• 鋼結(jié)構(gòu)技術(shù)規(guī)范.規(guī)程概論.鋼結(jié)構(gòu)技術(shù)培訓教材之二