George Eliot - Middlemarch

Written by Victorian author George Eliot (pen name of Mary Ann Evans) and set in rural England in the 1830s, Middlemarch is a long, winding story, following three storylines centered in the fictional town of Middlemarch: the first storyline follows Dorothea Brooke, a sort of new Saint Theresa, a young woman with so much of generous love and ardent impulse that her first object in life is to do great things for the benefit of others. The second storyline follows Tertius Lydgate, a proud, ambitious, though warm-hearted young doctor aiming for scientific and medical reform, and who comes to Middlemarch to commence his medical practice. The third storyline alternately follows good-for-nothing Fred Vincy and quick-witted Mary Garth, a pair of old childhood friends. Other "side" storylines are also important, but the book devotes most of its narrative to the three above. There is the pretty, materialistic, and selfishly obstinate Rosamond Vincy (Fred's sister); the sensible, staccato-voiced Celia Brooke (Dorothea's sister); the good-humored sportsman Sir James Chettam; the impulsive, dilettantish Will Ladislaw; the placid 'churchman' Nicholas Bulstrode; and the sharp-tongued Mrs. Cadwallader. Eliot's characters are the most real-life characters that I have ever read. Dickens had always been hailed as a master of character portrayal, but I will say that he actually falls short of Eliot in that respect. Dickens's characters, though not unrealistic, share stereotypical tinges — by which I mean that when you see a Dickens character, you immediately identify him or her with a certain sort of people, hence receiving the impression that he or she was a representative of a branch of folly or wisdom. I am not saying that Dickens's characters are in any way badly portrayed, but they are two-sided when compared to Eliot's extremely lifelike and nuanced characters. Every Dickens character has a distinct personality, but for Eliot's character (especially the important ones), you would know so much about him or her and in such meticulous detail that they are no longer "personality" but "person". You feel as if you have known the character all your life — his background, his motivations, his desires, his weaknesses, his peculiarities, his everything.

I know some people shrink from reading Middlemarch because it is long, its language is a bit old-fashioned, and because others criticize the book as "telling rather than showing". Of course, the book is long, the sentences are occasionally complicated, but there is a sense of beautiful intricacy in the arrangement of Eliot's words, and the more you read, the more you are drawn to and enchanted by it. And as to the "telling rather than showing"—I am sure it is one sort of genius if you can say everything you want to say by "showing" only, but that doesn't mean that "telling" is necessarily inferior. George Eliot is a genius when it comes to her deep insight into human psychology, and she uses it to her advantage when she "tells" the reader much about a character, be it personality, habits, relationships, or background. From other pens, "telling" might have ruined careers; but from Eliot's pen, there flows a masterpiece. But of course, not all the book is "telling" (a story like that would be unreadable); Eliot is also a master at dialogue. The conversations between her characters provide three-dimensional insights into the people concerned, which is sufficient proof that she is adept at both "showing" and "telling", and having such talent, she should have her right to choose when to use which tool.