You need to sign in or sign up before continuing.
Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by tlaloq
Felix Holt: The Radical by George Eliot
4.0
I was LOVE LOVE LOVing Felix Holt, the Radical, till the end.
In Felix, Eliot is as observant as and funny as Trollope, as sharp and satirical as Austen, but also reveals a serious vein generally absent from Trollope and Austen.
Trollope and Austen express great sympathy for what is oft summed up as “the lot of women,” but Eliot, through one character in particular, rages against patriarchy, though of course, she does not use the term. And she does so in a skillful way that flows naturally from the narrative, as opposed to the didacticism of, say, Kingsolver.
Eliot does a great job of examining church politics—like Trollope in Barchester Towers—but looks at the issue of state-sponsored religion (Trollope deals with The Oxford Movement). She doesn’t look into Parliament or the development of policy, but she does a great job of capturing the rough and tumble of parliamentary campaigns.
Eliot sets a terrific course for the narrative. My issue with it is that she gives up on it. She sets up a great pair of dramatic turns but abandons them with a kind of fast-forward so that although we know the results of the resolutions to the problems, we have no clue as to how they were resolved.
I still think it is worth reading for the expressions of feminism and other progressive views.
In Felix, Eliot is as observant as and funny as Trollope, as sharp and satirical as Austen, but also reveals a serious vein generally absent from Trollope and Austen.
Trollope and Austen express great sympathy for what is oft summed up as “the lot of women,” but Eliot, through one character in particular, rages against patriarchy, though of course, she does not use the term. And she does so in a skillful way that flows naturally from the narrative, as opposed to the didacticism of, say, Kingsolver.
Eliot does a great job of examining church politics—like Trollope in Barchester Towers—but looks at the issue of state-sponsored religion (Trollope deals with The Oxford Movement). She doesn’t look into Parliament or the development of policy, but she does a great job of capturing the rough and tumble of parliamentary campaigns.
Eliot sets a terrific course for the narrative. My issue with it is that she gives up on it. She sets up a great pair of dramatic turns but abandons them with a kind of fast-forward so that although we know the results of the resolutions to the problems, we have no clue as to how they were resolved.
I still think it is worth reading for the expressions of feminism and other progressive views.