I love literary biography and I thought this book would be enjoyable. But it wasn't especially. The author said that she wasn't trying to provide representative marriages of the Victorian era. That's really an understatement. She picked out some of the poorest relationships she could find. I'm more familiar with American authors, but surely there are good marriages in literary England that could have been included. I was interested in one marriage that she devoted one page to, but could not see fit to write a chapter on. That was Charles Kingsley's. The Victorian era is a time period. She does not specify, nor is it defined generally, that it pertains only to England. There are a number of very good American marriages she could have featured, including Nathaniel Hawthorne's, William Dean Howells's, who was born the year Victoria began her reign, or Mark Twain's. These were all satisfying marriages.
For the most part, the author is more sympathetic with the women in the marriages she featured. She deliberately chose marriages that make the men look bad. That's called feminism. That's what we see in television's sitcoms today.
The author disparages the institution of marriage. One statement that testifies to this: â. . . assuming there are not children involved, we ought to be free to change partners until we find one who suits us.â In another way she does this by repeatedly referring to the relationship between George Eliot and George Henry Lewes as a marriage, and that he was her husband. Eliot herself does this, but a biographer need not follow that example if it's an exaggeration. An illicit relationship is not the same as a marriage, no matter how long the couple has been together. Commitment is not required in the former. She even says, âThe union of Marian Evans and George Henry Lewes has been legitimized by time and its progeny.â Their union was never legitimized in God's eyes or in the eyes of conservative Christians. Even in the subtitle of the book, she refers to all five relationships as marriages. In the chapter on Dickens, she asks how many clever people ever findâ ideal intellectual companionship with their mates.â How would she know if she only studies the bad marriages?
In the case of Dickens, the author states that âChristianity had already become. . . little more than an organized form of sentiment, a species of practical benevolence.â She ignores the fact that he wrote âThe Life of Our Lordâ for his children during this time he was living with his wife. This book defines his Christian thought. Even at the time âParallel Livesâ was written, books on the influence of Christianity on Dickens's writing had begun to appear. Rose ignores these as well. Christians divorce and have bad marriages, in his day as well as in ours. But God forgives, when we ask him, and the influence of Dickens's fundamental Christian outlook on his writing cannot be denied.
This book was written to promote the agenda of the author, which seems to be to de-emphasize the institution of marriage and its importance in our society, and in bringing up children. A more general examination of various marriages would have been a greater, more satisfying undertaking.
Nonetheless, there were things in the book that I was glad to have pointed out to me. Back to Dickens, it makes sense that his unhappiness in marriage had roots in his unhappiness in childhood and his resentment of his parents. He was especially resentful of his mother, who even when his father agreed to it, prevented him from going to school because she wanted him to stay in the factory to make money for the family. I also found it significant that his children as well apparently did not especially like their mother. With Carlyle, it was insightful to know that his life and thinking were changed when he realized, after her death, that his wife had been unhappy in their marriage.
For the most part, the author is more sympathetic with the women in the marriages she featured. She deliberately chose marriages that make the men look bad. That's called feminism. That's what we see in television's sitcoms today.
The author disparages the institution of marriage. One statement that testifies to this: â. . . assuming there are not children involved, we ought to be free to change partners until we find one who suits us.â In another way she does this by repeatedly referring to the relationship between George Eliot and George Henry Lewes as a marriage, and that he was her husband. Eliot herself does this, but a biographer need not follow that example if it's an exaggeration. An illicit relationship is not the same as a marriage, no matter how long the couple has been together. Commitment is not required in the former. She even says, âThe union of Marian Evans and George Henry Lewes has been legitimized by time and its progeny.â Their union was never legitimized in God's eyes or in the eyes of conservative Christians. Even in the subtitle of the book, she refers to all five relationships as marriages. In the chapter on Dickens, she asks how many clever people ever findâ ideal intellectual companionship with their mates.â How would she know if she only studies the bad marriages?
In the case of Dickens, the author states that âChristianity had already become. . . little more than an organized form of sentiment, a species of practical benevolence.â She ignores the fact that he wrote âThe Life of Our Lordâ for his children during this time he was living with his wife. This book defines his Christian thought. Even at the time âParallel Livesâ was written, books on the influence of Christianity on Dickens's writing had begun to appear. Rose ignores these as well. Christians divorce and have bad marriages, in his day as well as in ours. But God forgives, when we ask him, and the influence of Dickens's fundamental Christian outlook on his writing cannot be denied.
This book was written to promote the agenda of the author, which seems to be to de-emphasize the institution of marriage and its importance in our society, and in bringing up children. A more general examination of various marriages would have been a greater, more satisfying undertaking.
Nonetheless, there were things in the book that I was glad to have pointed out to me. Back to Dickens, it makes sense that his unhappiness in marriage had roots in his unhappiness in childhood and his resentment of his parents. He was especially resentful of his mother, who even when his father agreed to it, prevented him from going to school because she wanted him to stay in the factory to make money for the family. I also found it significant that his children as well apparently did not especially like their mother. With Carlyle, it was insightful to know that his life and thinking were changed when he realized, after her death, that his wife had been unhappy in their marriage.
Back to all reviews by this member
Back to all reviews of this book
Back to Book Reviews
Back to Book Details
Back to all reviews of this book
Back to Book Reviews
Back to Book Details
