Skip to main content

Discuss George Eliot as a modern novelist.



Q 6: 
Discuss George Eliot as a modern novelist.
 Answer: 
George Eliot has a distinction of being regarded as the first modern novelist in the real sense of the word. She introduced a conception of novel which is still a continuing effect on the current pattern of novel writing. The main reason of her fame is that she is first modern novelist in English. The first period of the English novel begins with Fielding and ends with Trollope. The second period is of 
Henry James and
Meredith.
Third period started with
George Eliot and is hardly over today. Though, she was not are evolutionary genius like Emily Bronte, yet her mode of writing and her personal temperament were cautious and scholarly. Her books do have a shadow of his predecessors as she learnt a lot from them. Although, her mode of writing was very much like Victorian yet there are some important differences as well. Though, she does not break the old tradition which she inherited, yet she altered its fundamental characteristics. She used the old formulas but used them for a new purpose. Her creative impulse gave her a new inspiration. Even
George Eliot has used some of the literary ingredients as used by earlier Victorian novelists but she gives them totally different value. For instance, the theme of 
“Middlemarch” involves a description of the social life as elaborate as that of 
Trollope, but this description is not her chief interest in writing the story. The farm life in “Adam Bede” is there to provide an occasion for telling the story. The significant feature that makes
George Eliot 
a modern novelist is the separate scene and characters. The things which have primary importance for the Victorian novelists have secondary importance for Eliot.
George Eliot’s novels do not consist of a number of characters with haphazard plot imposed on them in order to keep them together. The plot did not arise from the characters, except in the case of “Vanity Fair”.
George Eliot 
started the idea of characters and situations. She did not intend to follow the standardized formula. Hence, she developed something which was quite different from the accepted Victorian notion of a plot. There was no marriage, no happy ending and no characters according to the Victorian conception of hero and heroine.
“The Mill on the Floss” 
ends badly and has no hero at all. In
“Middlemarch” 
there is no central figure of any kind and main interest is divided between four separate groups of characters and none of them approaches the
conventional heroic type. Moreover, as the action of the story arises logically from the characters, those strokes of fortunate, coincidences, sudden inheritance, long last wills which the main material are in ordinary Victorian plot, are totally absent. The great novels of earlier period had mainly been written for the entertainment of middle classes. Their subject matter was limited. But for
George Eliot the novel was medium for the discussion of serious problems. Eliot is a distant landmark in the history of the English novel. She does not regard novel as entertainment. In her hands novel becomes a fit vehicle for the highest art as well as profound criticism of life. She regards individuals more important than society. The society must come forward to add to the happiness of the individual. It must not bring hurdles in the path of individual aspirations. In short, we see that from every point of view
George Eliot can be regarded as the first real modern novelist in English literature. Her plots, her social technique, her psychological insights and her own special flavour of liberated personality makes her true representative of modern version of novel

SUBSCRIBE MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL PLEASE SUPPORT
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtFhM11xavb7BecaFHfkwMw
COPY LINK NEW URL PASTE AND SUBSCRIBE MY YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

VLADIMIR AND ESTRAGON ARE REPRESENTATION OF MAN IN GENERAL. ACCEPT OR REJECT THE STATEMENT.

Q:      TO WHAT EXTANT VLADIMIR AND ESTRAGON ARE METAPHORS OF HUMANITY IN "WAITING FOR GODOT"? Q:       VLADIMIR     AND      ESTRAGON    ARE REPRESENTATION OF MAN IN GENERAL. ACCEPT OR REJECT THE STATEMENT. Q:      MAJOR CHARACTERS IN "WAITING FOR GODOT" ARE HUMAN BEINGS IN SEARCH FOR MEANINGS IN THE MEANINGLESS, HOSTILE UNIVERSE. Ans: Authors bring into play different modus operandi in their writings. Samuel Beckett makes use of allusions and references to characters to help the reader understand what the characters stand for. In his drama Waiting for Godot, Beckett's two main characters, Estragon and Vladimir, are symbolised as man. Separate they are two different sides of man, but together they represent man as a whole. In Waiting for Godot, Beckett uses Estragon and Vladimir to symbolize man's physical and mental state. Estragon represents the physical side of man, while Vladimir represents the intellectual side of man. In each way

Walt Whitman Writing Style

  Walt Whitman style Walt Whitman crafted one of the most distinctive styles in world poetry – a style that is instantly recognizable.  Among the particular trait s of that style are the following: a strong emphasis on the individual self, especially the self of Whitman in particular a strong tendency to use free verse in his poetry an epic tendency that tries to encompass almost every possible subject matter an emphasis on the real details of the everyday world but also on transcendent, spiritual themes an emphasis on life as it was actually lived in America , and yet a concern with all humanity; a focus on reality blended with an enthusiastic mysticism an emphasis on democracy and love of other persons an emphasis on speakers (in his poems) speaking honestly and directly, in fairly simple language accessible to most readers an emphasis on freedom of all sorts – physical freedom, social freedom, freedom of the imagination, and fre

Waiting for Godot: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Grave

Waiting for Godot: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Grave By David Kranes  Have you heard the one about the two tramps who were killing time? Or was it filling time? Is Samuel Beckett the stage poet of gloom? Or is he a baggy-pant burlesque comedian? (Bert Lahr acted in Godot; Buster Keaton in his Film.) Does the spirit involuntarily lift in the gaunt Irishman’s grove of denuded trees. . .or fall? Does the flesh fall and the voice arise? “We give birth astride the grave,” Beckett utters at one point. Some critics arm them- selves with the word birth; others with the word grave. Perhaps more of them ought to have chosen the word astride. Samuel Beckett, who always loved the shape and play of language, was fond of the epi- gram from St. Augustine: “Do not despair: one of the thieves was saved. Do not presume: one of the thieves was damned.” During this past year, in response to Beckett’s 1989 death, remembrances by writers such as Mel Gussow of the New York Times stress his quie