AS Byatt’s must-read essay on George Eliot’s Middlemarch
Excerpt:
When I was younger it was fashionable to criticise Eliot for writing from a god’s eye view, as though she were omniscient. Her authorial commenting voice appeared old-fashioned. It was felt she should have chosen a limited viewpoint, or written from inside her characters only. I came to see that this is nonsense. If a novelist tells you something she knows or thinks, and you believe her, that is not because either of you think she is God, but because she is doing her work – as a novelist.
Who doesn’t remember when it was all the rage to criticize Eliot for omniscience? 24/7 on MTV it was, ‘Spandau Ballet’, ‘Eliot’s all-NOing’, and that guy with the overalls and one nostril who wanted Eileen to do something with him.
Thank god we’ve all moved on.
Eliot was way out of favor when I was in college. So I actually do remember what she’s talking about. It took Possession to get me to read it. Or at least get me to WANT to read it.
I’ve had too much coffee and was trying to amuse myself. No disrespect meant to A.S.
Speaking of A.S. Byatt, did you ever post anything about the movie of Possession? I never saw it because I couldn’t bear to see the book actualized outside of my imagination.
I did see Angels and Insects and don’t remember liking it too much…great acting, but a thoroughly unpleasant experience. In a good way, if you know what I mean.
Oh I know you were amusing yourself!! I just had to say that I did know what Byatt was talking about.
I did see the movie.
I know it is not a favorable thing to say, but I loved it – 2 moments in particular (that aren’t even in the book!!) There’s a whole scene where Maud and Roland lie in bed (platonically) as they are on that road trip to Yorkshire … and they talk about poetry, and romance … and it’s my favorite scene in the movie. It’s not even in the book – but it really gives that whole Byatt feel of … “intellectuals falling in love” – which is such a huge part of the book.
Ack!!! I thought it was a good adaptation – of course missing a ton of the nuance and detail – cutting out huge characters, etc – and to be honest, I was pissed that they cast the luscious gorgeous Jennifer Ehle as Christabel. They were going for a French Lieutenant’s woman thing – and having read the book, I was like: no no no no no NO NO. Christabel is NOT beautiful. She is a small mousy sharp ungenerous woman. That’s the whole point!!!! Ehle was okay, whatever – it wasn’t her fault she was miscast.
And I don’t like Gwyneth, particularly – but I thought she was perfect in the film. She’s not how I picture Maud – but she did a fine job, I thought – and was actually heart-breakingly frigid and stiff – which is just right for that character.
Weird!!! I love that book so much I was really afraid to see it – but the fact that Neal Labute directed it made me feel a little bit more safe … that he would “get” it.
it might drive you insane.
Oh, and they turn Roland into an American … which doesn’t QUITE work … it’s not perfect. But for whatever reason, I love it. Gwyneth has a moment after she finishes reading the pile of letters she finds, and she has tears on her face, and she looks up into the ceiling, and gasps, “My … GOD …” about the discovery … It’s a great moment!
Longest blog comment over!!
One more thing: I ALMOST couldn’t past the casting of Jennifer Ehle. Byatt is very specific about what Christabel looks like … and having her be this lovely feminine curvy goddess makes it seem like Randolph Ash might just be sexually interested in her because his wife doesn’t sleep with him… but that is so so wrong!! It needs to be meeting of the MINDS, man … with those two. Jennifer Ehle, and her beauty, mucks that up. (Not that beautiful people can’t be deep – or that unattractive people are unworthy of such a love … it just would have made the point so much better if Christabel had been less gorgeous.)
I mean, I see Christabel as almost … an Amanda Plummer type … or … trying to think of someone else. samantha Morton is beautiful but she can LOOK ugly if she wants to … she might have been good.
How did you see Christabel, bren? Who would you cast??
That’s a tough one. She has to be so ENGLISH. And I don’t want some Nicole Kidman with a clown nose on or Cate Blanchett with lots of gray makeup and her hair pulled back way tight.
Christina Ricci??? I know she’s beautiful but she’s off somehow. If Scarlett Johannsen had stayed all plain like she was in Ghost World, maybe her.
Lili Taylor would be right but I want someone to cast Lili Taylor as a gorgeous bombshell, which she actually is.
I love that you see that in Lili, too!! I’ve always found her to be beautiful.
Yeah, we don’t want no actress “playing ugly” – it just needs to be someone who can seem sharp, and kind of scary and intimidating – but when she lets go and opens up … fuggedaboutit. Lives are ruined.
etc.
I also hated the casting of Blanche (Christabel’s girlfriend). Another babe – who wore little round glasses to show, I guess, that she was a lesbian. (grrrrrr) Blanche is supposed to be raw and freckled and red-headed – NOT good-looking.
Anyway – obviously I had a lot of problems with the casting! Sheesh!!! But I also don’t think that that actress playing Blanche was a good actress.
I was going to suggest Helen Hunt for Christabel but thought your head might explode.
KIDDING!!!
She would have plenty of Victorian knick knacks to play with while her soul was supposed to be dissolving in pain.
‘I will churn this butter to a frothy tsunami whilst repairing a lace doily, rearranging a small collection of salt and pepper shaker figurines, and faux-absentmindedly picking at the fringe on the throw rug I’ve arranged on my…wait, who am I? Where’s Paul Reiser???’
And I take back Scarlett and Christina. Same prob as Ehle. Sara Jessica Parker all uglied out? I DON’T KNOW.
Jodie Foster?
“faux-absentmindedly”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA yes!!!!