Victorians! discussion

For discussing Ch. 1-10 in Daniel Deronda, please be aware if you have not finished these chapters, spoilers may be posted here.

Well, how is everyone coping with dear Gwendolen? I have finished the novel, which I listened to in audio format and am now reading the chapters slowly in hard copy.

I loved this book. I'm loving it even more on the re-read. No spoilers, but it is well worth reading the first two chapters carefully. It is clear Eliot had the whole plot worked out in her mind when she started. The second time through you can see how remarkably and subtly she introduces the themes that will resonate throughout the book.

I'm not a fan of time-lines that jump around in general but I thought the movement from those first two chapters to the long flashback works brilliantly here.

I'm reading DD on kindle. I'm 30% through. Dear Gwen. Well, I know we're allowed to write spoilers, but I don't want to because I don't know where others are in their reading. You are on your second reading. I'm impressed. After reading your post I think I will go back and re-read the first two chapters.

I have to confess that even though I know she is a bit (ok perhaps more than a bit) spoiled, and she does have selfish and thoughtless tendencies, there is something about her that I find irresistible. In spite of some of her flaws, there are many of aspects of her of which I rather enjoy. I find her to be a fascinating character, and I do think that she has an independent spirit which is admirable. I love the way in which she does set out to defy the social conventions and has very much her own mind and free will. She does not just meekly accept the life which is handed to her and the life of which is expected for a woman to content herself with.

Silver, I agree with you about Gwen. If she weren't so spoiled, maybe she wouldn't have the nerve to be so demanding of life and to defy convention. What I also like is that she seems to love her mother very much. They seem quite close and Gwen seems always concerned that her mother should be happy and not worried about her (Gwen). Somehow, I find this surprising in a person described as so spoiled. One might expect her to be completely selfish, but this is not the case, at least with her mother.

Bea wrote:"I'm not a fan of time-lines that jump around in general but I thought the movement from those first two chapters to the long flashback works brilliantly here."

What am I missing? I don't see the flashback to which you refer.

Anne wrote: "Silver, I agree with you about Gwen. If she weren't so spoiled, maybe she wouldn't have the nerve to be so demanding of life and to defy convention. What I also like is that she seems to love her..."

Yes that is true though sometimes her spoiledness does cause her to carelessly and unthinkingly wound her mother or neglect in some ways. Her concern and love for her mother is quite genuine and I believe she does truly wish she could help her mother and spare her her suffering and unhappiness.

You're right. She does worry and wound her mother. But, Gwen is so much more incautious than her mother and so determined to have a life that she must risk wounding her mother at times. I can understand a woman, like Gwen, in those times who, in a sense, must wear the pants in the family. In fact, she would like to wear them, to be a man, or, at least to have the opportunities offered to men. Since she is not a man, she must find a man who will allow her the freedom to act like one, so to speak.

In the first two chapters we are in the European gambling resort. Gwendolyn leaves for home at Offendene at her mother's request at the end of Chapter 2. Chapter 3 starts with a paragraph on Offendene and the second paragraph tells of Gwen's family's arrival there the preceding year. The novel will now take us from the day of the family's arrival to the time Gwen abruptly leaves Offendene for the trip in which she visits the casino a year later in one long flashback. The story will not get to Gwen's return to Offendene until Chapter 21.

We are told in the first two Chapters that Gwen had not met Daniel Deronda before seeing him in the casino. Eliot ingeniously establishes some kind of connection between Gwen and Daniel early on.

I have to admit that I found the time shifts in this book to be a bit confussing at times to follow. I had initially thought that her time in Offendene was what happened after her being called back from the Casino, and they were living with her Uncle becasue of the finsiaical trouble. It was not until after she had left taking us back to the moment of her stay at the casiono did I realize that everything that happened prior at Offendene was thinking back leading up to the moement when they would suddenly have thier finicinal crisis.

It is confusing! Now I have to go back and get all of this straight. I also thought that her time at Offendene was just after getting back from the Casino. I'm just a few chapters after her leaving Offendene, but she hasn't returned to the Casino.

Thank you Bea and Silver for setting me straight on this. I wonder if I would have figured this out once she returns to the Casino....

If you go back and re-read the first two chapters after finishing the book, I guarantee they will be filled with wonderful thematic foreshadowing. And I thought it was useful to know that they are not in chronological sequence as I also had assumed the first time.

This book is full of character development. However, I must admit that I detested Gwendolen in the first few chapters. One of my notes calls her "despicable and selfish wretch!". This is when she is thinking about staying on a few days at the Casino after her mother has begged her to come straight home.

But at least in the Casino chapters, Daniel's glances and possible actions have made Gwendolen a bit uneasy. So she has at least the potential for some shame and humility.

In Chapter 3-10, I think she is even worse. She looks down on her other sisters and judges all her other acquaintances on her assessment of what they can do for her. Her stepfather having just died, her mother is on a fixed income. Yet she presses for a horse and gets it. She has complete confidence in herself and not a little conceit.

Don't get me wrong. She is drawn in such a way that I want to know what will happen next. She's a little like a higher-class Becky Sharp at this point in the book, I think.

Bea wrote: "If you go back and re-read the first two chapters after finishing the book, I guarantee they will be filled with wonderful thematic foreshadowing. And I thought it was useful to know that they ar..."

I have to admit I liked her from the first moment she appeared. The very fact that we were presented with the picture of this woman gambling at a time when such was considered to be somewhat of a scandalous or at least questionable activity for a woman to do, made me instantly intrigued by her and the spark of rebellion is something I can relate to.

Though I do not approve of all of her actions, and I did think it was wrong of her to insist upon the horse when her uncle could not afford one for his own daughter, yet there is something admirable to me in her great self-confidence and her determination.

There are part of her that remind me a bit of Lily Bart from The House of Mirth and well I have to confess that I also did rather like Becky Sharp.

These first chapters are under the heading "The Spoiled Child," and there's no doubt Gwendolyn fits the title perfectly. She's (nearly) insufferable!

Eliot makes a couple of observations about marriage that I highlighted, feeling they were worth noting:

"No, child, certainly not. Marriage is the only happy state for a woman, as I trust you will prove."
"I will not put up with it if it is not a happy state. I am determined to be happy--at least not to go on muddling away my life as other people do, being and doing nothing remarkable. I have made up my mind not to let other people interfere with me as they have done. ..."

and later

That she was to be married some time or other she would have felt obliged to admit; and that her marriage would not be of a middling kind, such as most girls were contented with, she felt quietly, unargumentatively sure. But her thoughts never dwelt on marriage as the fulfillment of her ambition; the dramas in which she imagined herself a heroine were not wrought up to that close. To be very much sued or hopelessly sighed for as a bride was indeed an indispensable and agreeable guarantee of womanly power; but to become a wife and wear all the domestic fetters of that condition, was on the whole a vexatious necessity.

It seems we see Gwendolyn imagining herself in many dramas by this time in the novel. I have barely gotten past this section, but she was certainly imagining herself being pursued by Grandcourt at the archery meet!

I finally got this from the library and didn't really think I'd read an 800+ page book, but I am loving this one. Now I'm trying to figure out how to meet my goal for the year (6 more books) while reading this.

I like Gwen's views on independence, and marriage but find her to be "snarky" to use a modern word. I'm thinking it may be some sort of defense mechanism but her pride in being able to ridicule others bothers me.

Not to change the subject, but there was something else of which I wanted to comment on which sort of stuck out at me in my reading. I wonder why it seems so frequently in Victorian novels these almost incestuous like relationships seem to be alluded to, or is it only to the modern eye that it seems so?

I found that Anna seemed to be a bit overly affectionate of her brother and it to me her little plan that the two of them should move to Canada together, where she would ultimately end up playing a wifely role for him was a bit disturbing. Paticularly after she declared that neither of them would marry anyone else, but that the two of them would live together forever while she cooked and cleaned and kept house for him.

I found that scene with Anna to a little creepy too, but maybe it's the era, I don't know. It seems I've only read about these marriages between cousins in Victorian literature as well...I'd like to do a little research but who has time with this long book haha. I'm really enjoying DD.

Bernadette wrote: "I found that scene with Anna to a little creepy too, but maybe it's the era, I don't know. It seems I've only read about these marriages between cousins in Victorian literature as well...I'd like t..."

It seems in many Victorian novels they also have these somewhat disturbing relationships between daughters and fathers in which the daughter does end up acting almost like a wife like figure to her father. This scene with Anna and Rex made me think of Little Dorrit in which Amy Dorrit (I think her name was) did not wish to marry anyone else so she could look after her father and take care of him.

I think "un-marriageable" daughters didn't have too many choices in Victorian times. Taking care of a relative was one option for them. I've seen this before in novels and movies of the times, tho I can't remember which ones. This reminds me of a novel (that was made into a movie) that is not of the Victorian period at all: The Lonely Passion of Judith Hearne by Brian Moore. The title character ends up caring for her ailing aunt.

Books like this make me thank God I was born when and where I was

Bea wrote: "If you go back...Don't get me wrong. She is drawn in such a way that I want to know what will happen next. She's a little like a higher-class Becky Sharp at this point in the book, I think.
"

Bea,

I love your comparison with Vanity Fair's Becky Sharp! I agree - she seems manipulative and uncaring, but at the same time, I admire her for her independence and spirit.

I'm also really enjoying this book! Looking forward to the discussion.

I love your comparison with Vanity Fair's Becky Sharp! I agree - she seems manipulative and uncaring, but at the same time, I admire her for her independence and spirit.

I'm also really enjoying this book! Looking forward to the discussion..."

But than considering the time period I think it was necessary for a woman to be mercenary if she wanted to avoid falling into that trap of domesticity and wanted to achieve more in her life than being regulated to becoming the wife of a man whom could cliam complete control over her, and having her life consist solely of having kids and keeping house.

In order to try and break from the bounds of social, class, and gender conventions, the rules themselves needed to be bent and a woman could not afford not to put her own goals, and desires ahead of everything else.

The need to be a bit ruthless, self-serving, manipulative is an act of self-preservation in a world in which everything is structured agasint you.

Silver wrote: "The need to be a bit ruthless, self-serving, manipulative is an act of self-preservation in a world in which everything is structured agasint you."

Sort of amazing there were happy marriages. (And yes, sarcasm intended.)

Silver wrote: "The need to be a bit ruthless, self-serving, manipulative is an act of self-preservation in a world in which everything is structured agasint you."

Very well said and I agree 100%.

Silver wrote: "The need to be a bit ruthless, self-serving, manipulative is an act of self-preservation in a world in which everything is structured agasint you..."

Excellent point, Silver! I think Eliot's portrayal of Gwen is more realistic of how women had to survive in the Victorian era. But, don't you think that many of the Victorian heroines are portrayed as being gentle and selfless? More like Amy Dorrit? Most heroines seem to only have 'good' qualities - kind, compassionate, putting themselves last, even the ones who are spunky or show great determination and perseverance. Gwen seems like an unusual heroine for Victorian literature - a bit more complex. She'll be a fun character to discuss.

I think Gwendolyn is going to be like Erica Kane of All My Children for me. The woman you love to hate. I wonder what made me think of her - haven't seen that program in at least 30 years!

Julie at All Ears wrote: Most heroines seem to only have 'good' qualities - kind, compassionate, putting themselves last, even the ones who are spunky or show great determination and perseverance. Gwen seems like an unusual heroine for Victorian literature - a bit more complex. She'll be a fun character to discuss...."

Yes, that is quite true. In most Victorian works, at least that I have read it seems that the heroines, even when they are portrayed as being strong willed, independent, and in many regards agasint the typical convention of the Victorian woman, are still portrayed with predominantly positive qualities and are seen as being gentle natured, kind, giving, and with a selfless nature (even if not altogether willing to sacrifice themselves.)

The character of Gwen does break the rules a bit in being more realistic and less romanticized by acknowledging some of the flaws of her personality and showing that balance in her between tendencies of goodness, as seen with her unexpected tenderness and love for her mother, while at the same time showing the more disfavorable aspects of her, in the ways in which she does ridicule others and set herself above those around her.

Julie at All Ears wrote: "But, don't you think that many of the Victorian heroines are portrayed as being gentle and selfless? More like Amy Dorrit? ..."

Don't forget that Amy Dorrit was portrayed by Dickens, whereas Gwen is being written by Eliot. Now, what would I say if comparing her with one of Glaskell's heroines -- well, I could make some arguments on both sides of the fence, I think. But I do think male writers did tend to portray women the way they wanted or perceived them from their perspectives as in male "best interests" -- some attributes to be held in esteem, others to be disparaged.

Lily wrote: Don't forget that Amy Dorrit was portrayed by Dickens, whereas Gwen is being written by Eliot..."
Good point, Lily! It appears from Eliot's Wikipedia biography that she was unconventional and quite an independent thinker. She lived with a married man for over twenty years as well as being publicly alienated from the church. Quite a woman of her times!

Interesting though whether male or female authors, they all perceived it as an issue of sorts. Whether it was seen as something good is the question I think many authors tackled. The issue of strong women runs through so many of the Victorian writers. Look at Mrs Hurtle in The Way We Live Now and Marian Halcombe in The Woman in White to name a few. Sometimes it is easy to sort through and tell the author's feelings for the character while at other times it is somewhat hidden.

(might be a great topic to discuss the strong female characters in the Victorian age writings.)

Marialyce wrote: "(might be a great topic to discuss the strong female characters in the Victorian age writings.) ..."

Certainly there must be a few books and dissertations on the topic. Any suggestions from anyone here? (Incidentally, among my favorites are the ladies in Cranford!)

Gwen certainly knows how to use her feminine wiles to get what she wants. Being blessed with beauty and that "look at me" characteristic, she strikes me as one who would go to any lengths to get what she wants. She is no shrinking violet for sure. I do assume that since money is short in her family, the possession of it is in the cards for Gwen. She will I think marry for money ( as I know many women did and some still do). Gwen's narcissistic tendencies will get her into dangerous situations I think. She is definitely a woman, women love to hate because she seems to have it all. ( at least in the men department as they all seem to want to fall at her feet and she knows that!)

I see Eliot as setting Gwen up to take a big fall. She seems destined to be admired, sort after, beguiling on the outside, but with that personality that draws in men, she ultimately can repulse women and in that she will miss the friendship and companionship of those who might help and warn her about upcoming dangers and pitfalls.

I see Gwen as not wanting to marry at all. She views marriage as boring. In my opinion, she hasn't thought this through.

I don't see her using her feminine wiles for any purpose. She assumes people will love her and do everything to curry her favor, which she may choose to bestow - or maybe not to choose to bestow.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I see Gwen as not wanting to marry at all. She views marriage as boring. In my opinion, she hasn't thought this through.

I don't see her using her feminine wiles for any purpose. She assumes peopl..."

Yes, I think we can add another adjective to describe Gwen - naive.

Silver wrote: I have to admit that I found the time shifts in this book to be a bit confussing at times to follow. I had initially thought that her time in Offendene was what happened after her being called back from the Casino, and they were living with her Uncle becasue of the finsiaical trouble

I thought that I didn't understand because I'm not mothertongue and I'm listening and not reading the book!!!
I do agree with all of you that find Gwen a positive character; I'm sure she'll develop into something really interesting; I'm waiting for Daniel to come out a bit better!!! Making easy enough parallel, I find Gwen more like Dorothea Brooke than Rosamond Vincy, talking about spoilt femal characters...

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I see Gwen as not wanting to marry at all. She views marriage as boring. In my opinion, she hasn't thought this through.

I don't see her using her feminine wiles for any purpose. She assumes peopl..."

I agree that Gwen does not desire to marry, but it seems to me as if she has some awareness that it is not something which can be easily avoided, and so if she must marry she will take care in whom she chooses to wed and not rush into it.

I do not think that she simply is out to set her sights on someone with money, though she does desire to have that kind of luxurious lifestyle for herself, but she also wishes to find someone of whom she believes she could manipulate and control so she may still keep some of her independence and freedom.

Silver wrote: "I have to confess that even though I know she is a bit (ok perhaps more than a bit) spoiled, and she does have selfish and thoughtless tendencies, there is something about her that I find irresisti..."

I'm enjoying this aspect of her as well.

Julie at All Ears wrote: "Silver wrote: "The need to be a bit ruthless, self-serving, manipulative is an act of self-preservation in a world in which everything is structured agasint you..."

Excellent point, Silver! I thi..."

This is a first reading of the book for me, and I'm not sure when Eliot wrote this - basically where she was in her own life at the time of writing. I do think it would be well to remember that Eliot herself was unconventional in her actions and belief systems for the time.

Deborah wrote: "...I'm not sure when Eliot wrote this - basically where she was in her own life at the time of writing...."

From Wiki: "She is the author of seven novels, including Adam Bede (1859), The Mill on the Floss (1860), Silas Marner (1861), Middlemarch (1871–72), and Daniel Deronda (1876)..." Marian, as she was also known, lived from 1819 to 1880, so this is certainly a novel from her maturity. (She would have been in her mid-fifties when she wrote it, if she wrote immediately prior to publication. Eliot lived to only 61 years of age, dying of complications from an underlying kidney ailment and a throat infection shortly after returning to England from her honeymoon with John Cross.)

Oh, what a sad ending for Eliot.

Anne wrote: "Oh, what a sad ending for Eliot."

Well, certainly, but also, maybe. From Wiki (I had forgotten this, but have read similarly before): "John Cross was a rather unstable character, and apparently jumped or fell from their hotel balcony into the Grand Canal in Venice during their honeymoon. Cross survived and they returned to England. The couple moved to a new house in Chelsea...."

Lily wrote: "Anne wrote: "Oh, what a sad ending for Eliot."

Well, certainly, but also, maybe. From Wiki (I had forgotten this, but have read similarly before): "John Cross was a rather unstable character, and ..."

Suggesting that she might have been unhappy with Cross... Well, her biography suggests that she had a happy relationship with George Lewes for 26 years before she met Cross. In fact, her relationship with Lewes mirrors that of Mrs. Glasher and Grandcourt in several ways.

I'll chime in to say that I initially missed the flashback indicators as well, and actually only caught it because I peeked here at the discussion!

I do think Gwen is naive, and while this is my first read I tend to agree that there’s a fall coming up for her – or at least that her pride and, well, spoiledness, is going to get her into some trouble and a few unhappy predicaments. And, like others, I both like and dislike her, and asking for that horse, in the circumstances, bugged me as well, which I suppose was the point. Besides that, though, she's positively vibrant, and seems very charismatic. What really bugs me is how she doesn't care that her actions affect other people. Then again, she doesn't particularly seem to want other peoples' actions or decisions to affect her, either, so I suppose she's being fair there...

As for the first ten chapters, I’m finding I like Eliot. I find the descriptions of Gwen and how she’s shown through the eyes of the other characters a neat way of revealing character and place in the household. Once I understood the chronology, I liked the brief flash-forward. I do plan on going back and re-reading the first two chapters again to see the setup more closely now that I know more about what’s going on.

I've just finished the first 10 chapters and am enjoying the novel very much. Gwendolen is a great character but I have to admit that I don't personally like her very much. I think the comparison with Becky Sharp is a good one - they are both so self-centred and manipulative. In Middlemarch, Eliot has also created a strong female character in Dorothea Brooke but what a contrast to Gwen - Dorothea is so involved in good works. Dorothea's selflessness leads her into making a great mistake - it will be interesting to see where Gwen's character leads her.

Silver wrote: "I have to admit that I found the time shifts in this book to be a bit confussing at times to follow. "

I also. I am reading on Kindle, where it's hard to go back and check things, so it was awhile before I figured out that we had gone from the first two chapters into a long flashback.

Bea wrote: "This book is full of character development. However, I must admit that I detested Gwendolen in the first few chapters. One of my notes calls her "despicable and selfish wretch!". "

I can't say I detested her, but I did think she was a product of too much wealth and too little parental guidance. I think the "spoiled" that Eliot uses for her, though, is a bit strong for me. She does have decided ideas, but they aren't all selfish or self-serving; she is more thoughtful than most spoiled people.

Consider, for example, this passage from Chapter 4:
To be very much sued or hopelessly sighed for as a bride was indeed an indispensable and agreeable guarantee of womanly power; but to become a wife and wear all the domestic fetters of that condition, was on the whole a vexatious necessity. Her observation of matrimony had inclined her to think it rather a dreary state in which a woman could not do what she liked, had more children than were desirable, was consequently dull, and became irrevocably immersed in humdrum. Of course marriage was social promotion; she could not look forward to a single life; but promotions have sometimes to be taken with bitter herbs—a peerage will not quite do instead of leadership to the man who meant to lead; and this delicate-limbed sylph of twenty meant to lead. For such passions dwell in feminine breasts also. In Gwendolen's, however, they dwelt among strictly feminine furniture, and had no disturbing reference to the advancement of learning or the balance of the constitution; her knowledge being such as with no sort of standing-room or length of lever could have been expected to move the world.

That strikes me as a something beyond spoiled.

Julie at All Ears wrote: "Bea,

I love your comparison with Vanity Fair's Becky Sharp! I agree - she seems manipulative and uncaring, but at the same time, I admire her for her independence and spirit. "

Hmmm. I see her quite differently from Becky Sharp. I don't think, for example, that Gwen would ever throw the sort of fit that Becky did in flinging down the dictionary. And she certainly isn't pursuing wealth with the passion that Becky pursued first Jos and then Rawdon. I agree that they are both somewhat more feisty than Victorian young women were supposed to be, but Gwen seems much more laid back than Becky. Perhaps this is because she was raised with wealth and so never had to fight for survival the way Becky did. But I do see quite a difference between their approaches to life and to men.

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I see Gwen as not wanting to marry at all. She views marriage as boring. In my opinion, she hasn't thought this through."

If what you mean is that she wished there was some way to fulfill her desires outside of marriage, I see your point. If what you mean is that she had an aversion to marriage, I think the passage from Chapter 4 that I quoted above, and the text around it, clarify that she expected (intended?) to get married because that was a necessary course to achieve the life of influence which she desired. (Interesting, Eliot's own life shows that this was not necessary; she had great influence even though not married. But Gwen doesn't seem to contemplate that sort of life; I think she is conventional enough to accept that marriage is necessary for the course of life she wants to follow.)

I thought Becky Sharpe was a comparison to Gwen at first too, but she seemed more like she calculated her manipulation and it was more dishonst and deceitful. I don't think Gwen has either of those motives. Becky would step on toes to advance at all cost. I don't see Gwen as being ruthless.

I've always thought of Gwen as being a variation of Austen's Emma character. (Maybe because I've never read Vanity Fair?) Both girls were what would be called "Queen bees" where I was growing up. I blame it largely on the people around them who were too indulgent (and, at the same time, negligent) with them. In their circle, they had only a few people who saw them for what they truly were and bothered to try to call them out on it. I think any child given that much control over her environment would most likely end up with the same exaggerated sense of self-importance and blindness towards others.


Although I think both girls were of the same type, I think how the authors presented them was different. Austen would show her characters' faults and you could still feel distant enough from them to judge and dismiss them. While with Eliot, we were allowed so far into her characters' inner motivations and habits of thought (not to mention the blatant pleading she does on their behalf not to dismiss them so readily), that it was hard to not feel a kinship with them and think back to your own selfishness and blindness.