弗罗斯河上的磨坊
当前位置:首页 > 外语 > 英语读物 > 弗罗斯河上的磨坊
出版社:外文出版社
出版日期:1996-01
ISBN:9787119018294
作者:[英] 乔治.爱略特
页数:46页
作者简介
弗罗斯河上的磨坊
TheM ill0ntheFl0ss
这是一个凄切感人的故事。故事的主人公是生活
在英国一个小村庄里的年轻女子玛吉・图利瓦。在家
庭和她深爱的恋人中间，她只能选择一个。她实在不知
如何是好，陷入了无穷无尽的痛苦深渊。
图书封面
发布书评
精彩短评 (总计31条)
-
I really attracted by Eliot's writing about the characters's real mixed feelings when Maggie was thinking how to choose between Stephen and the true life. -
“水”确实是一个说之不尽的意象，许多文人终结的选择，又如伍尔夫。 -
Mr.Chan gave me the book, but not this version. He wrote on the book: Dina, Thank you very much for your excellent work. Chan. He asked me to answer questions in each class and explain tests of english weekly as if i were the only student.
He left after a year's teaching. -
挖哈哈，直播耶~~ -
你大一的时候也太能写了！！！！撇开论述方法和有关feminism的观点不谈，close-reading的richness真是好厉害~~~ -
她的英文难啊，尤其是后期作品，社会背景深邃，不容易把握。 -
我该要多么感谢把这本书送给我的那个女孩子——我连她的名字都不知道！
一直以来我觉得简奥斯汀胜过夏洛特勃朗特，因为奥斯汀没有把阶级与平等或者女权之类的东西拿出来当牌打。当然我承认，看简爱的时候，我也常常泪流满面，感动于简与爱德华之间的爱情，然而，更让我倾心地无疑是伊丽莎白和达西之间一次次智慧的交锋。
可是等我终于看到爱略特的这本书的时候，我就不得不承认我之前的看法是多么的狭隘了。
我久久不能从这本书给我带来的震撼中回过神来，我需要仔细想一想，才能够说出我究竟看到了什么。
简单的说，是爱。
但绝不是爱情之爱，也绝不是亲情之爱，更不仅是友情之爱。
当然书的前半部分几乎都在描述麦琪对于她兄长以及父亲的热爱，亲情之爱。以及其他的人的吝啬，苛刻，愚蠢。
然而直到她父亲终于低下头决定忍气吞声的活着，但却让他的哥哥立誓复仇的时候，我开始对作者刮目相看。这甚至不像是一个女人的手笔。
麦琪出于对菲利普和露西的爱，放弃了与自己爱人在一起的机会。宁愿去面对人们的种种非议；麦琪的妈妈一生浑浑噩噩，在丈夫因破产精神失常的时候，还一直想着自己心爱的家具和餐具，然而在儿子汤姆要赶走那个一直不大被她钟爱的女儿麦琪的时候，她毫不犹豫地说：我和你走；葛姨妈在无数次的批评妹夫无能，外甥外甥女讨厌之后，当所有人都不相信外甥女的时候，她却毅然决然站出来，说：她有不对的地方，但是绝不是你们指责的那样，她可以随时到我家里来，我会照顾她保护她；菲利普在等待了那么多年之后，却发现自己的爱人爱上了别的人，他在尽最大努力去帮麦琪之后，决定成全麦琪，而当麦琪一个人回来的时候，他告诉麦琪，他永远爱她，永远等她，永远信任她；就连汤姆，在这个书里被刻画成无情的冷淡的汤姆，在赶出妹妹的时候，仍旧说：你没有钱了，就让妈妈来问我拿钱，只是不许你踏进我的家门。而最后麦琪不顾一切地在洪水中来救他的时候，他们终于和解。
几乎每一个书里 能够提出来的人，都不是完美的，就连作者深深热爱的麦琪也是一样的。可是，每个人都有着自己的原则，并且为了这个原则，他们放弃自己的爱情亲情或者友情，从而去实现另一种更伟大的爱。
就像麦琪说的：要是过去不足以约束我们，那么还有什么责任可言呢？我们就不需要任何法则，只凭着一时的爱憎就行了。
当世俗的各种感情被道德和责任淬炼过，就会凝结出人性中最光辉的一种爱，这成为书中人物唯一不能放弃的东西。永不去考虑对方是否值得爱，唯有如此，才能真的实现这种爱。也唯有如此，所有被爱的对象都成为了值得爱的对象，因为这种爱选择了他们，主导他们，最终成为值得爱的人。
-
我好悔恨这么晚才看到这本书 -
今天和祝庆英本对读了一下开头和结尾。总的感觉是两个本子的译者不知是谁参考了谁，很多地方挺像，但是感觉伍厚恺更好一些，这个印象还是挺鲜明的。艾略特这样真正好的作家，关注太少了（我幼儿时期只知道她是职工马南，还曾错误的把她归为穿破裤子的慈善家那样的作家呢！后来到武汉上大学时才认识到这是个多么伟大的作家。），很多人连米德尔马契压根就没听过（幸亏项先生翻的很好，苏福忠还曾谈过当时翻译的一些波折呢），很多人是看BBC才知道的，总说米德镇的春天啊，丹尼尔的半生缘啊，等等。这么不重视艾略特，真是很难相信。丹尼尔德隆达啊，等等的书还没人翻译吧（恕我孤陋寡闻了。记得我在汉口泰宁街看见过红皮的Adam Bede的中译本，现在知道的人就更少了，可能是因为这部书的BBC剧没火吧）？很多时候真希望艾略特也有个张谷若先生那样的人，是因为艾略特的书厚吗？可狄更斯的也不薄啊！这套书不错，如果装帧再好一些的话，反正我是看了这套书才知道李青崖先生还翻过莫泊桑的“一生”，太高兴了（李先生翻过后三部莫泊桑长篇吗，我想知道，我想知道！），就是不知道这个本子是否被后来改过，就像湖南文艺出李先生译的莫泊桑短篇似的。这个我体会太深了，上海出的27册的汝龙译的契诃夫比后来的同为汝龙翻的契诃夫文集的文字真是好太多了。很多翻译家晚年翻译的或改译的东西，比早期确实是差很多，例如汝龙的复活真的不好，文字完全没味道了，还有好多人随声附和，唉。还有就是张谷若先生，现在流通的苔丝是张先生改译的，我印象很深张先生早期翻译的苔丝读的真有感觉，完全和今本不同（当时和“还乡”一起出的，苔丝是深色皮，还乡是浅色皮，苔丝我是在汉口航空路旧书店买到的，真幸运呀，市面上老版的还乡还是挺多的），早期苔丝和还乡就是神品，后来翻的裘德就相对逊色了，个人感觉。题外的话，张先生不太适合翻城市一些的作品，比如大卫科波菲尔就是彻头彻尾的败笔，很多文章从所谓翻译角度（例如什么欧化句子啊，短句啊，准确性啊）比较张先生和董先生的科波菲尔，然后打击董先生，真是什么也不懂，这么多年了，懂得董先生的人那么少，真悲哀！ -
嗯。。。小学看的，吃饭上厕所的必备品。。。所以记得清楚 -
被提醒了，对，伍尔夫的归宿也是水。 -
我想我需要这本书，我现在就是站在斯蒂芬的角度。 -
最有触动的一句,是Maggie说的:"O God is there any happiness in love that could make me forget their pain?"
唉... -
喔～奥斯丁是傲慢与偏见的作者～记起来了。
这两本都是初中时代的远久型作品了，残念！ -
没看过这本书，好奇LZ怎么看呼啸山庄~ -
Sometimes I feel learning is a kind of enjoyment allowing me to drift into that somewhere quite near to my truest self, while now and then I feel quite suffocated and isolated from the real world. When I read a novel, I may feel the same pain from which the heroin suffers. I cried and sighed but never know exactly what I was crying for. It’s true that I’m too sentimental and imaginative. I always tend to mix my own emotion with the feelings of the heroin, which makes it difficult for me to get a sensible judgment of the works. Recently, I’m reading The mill on the Floss by Gorge Eliot, a touching story about love between the sister and the brother. I found myself immensely fond of the heroin Maggie, which in turn aroused my great interest in the great author George Eliot.
It’s ridiculous that when I googled Eliot’s pictures, I found once Henry James described her as "magnificently, awe-inspiringly ugly". While when refer to her writings and thoughts, we common people may feel amazed that such a quiet and sedentary lady, who limited within her little countryside world could have so deep an insight into people’s personality and psychological struggles. Among all the special beauty of her writhing, Eliot’s narrative techniques impressed me strongly. As for this The mill on the Floss, it’s not the kind of novel which can attract my heart immediately. On the contrary, at first when I still hadn’t got used to Eliot’s writing style, I felt too bored to read such a long and earnest Victorian novel focusing on the narrow and tradition-bound countryside life, especially with a wordy writing style. But when I read on, I suddenly found myself deeply attracted by her writing skills, which often make me feel as if I myself was in that setting, but once in a while her narrative methods brought me out as a stander-by analyzing and sharing the characters’ interior moral problems and strains objectively.
The novel’s evocation of childhood in the English countryside, rich with delight and vividness, is my favorite part. Eliot depicted for us such a memory- recalling picture about the pure childhood. Blamed for her messy hair, the little Maggie, with pursed up lips and tear-brimmed eyes, crouched in her small attic, longing to share the delicious food downstairs, but unwilling to break through the embarrassment. She cried painfully not because of the criticism from other relatives but only for that her brother did not care about her. She loved him so much that she just wanted him to pay whole attention to all her happiness and sorrows. She sat in that corner waiting for Tom to caress and comfort her, but he was too obstinate to show his kindness. At last, Eliot used the word “hunger for love”, which I like so much, to compel her to steal downstairs and sat at the table while teased by all her relatives. The second impressive scene about the little Maggie is her running away from home because of the girlish jealousy of her cousin Lucy, to whom Tom showed too much care. Always teased by others that she looked like gipsy, little Maggie rambled alone for a long time and finally met some real gipsy. But when darkness arrived, loneliness prevailed, imagining she had been deserted by the whole world, she was frightened to cry. When I was reading this part, I felt like hugging the little naïve girl. I took out my own album and looked at my pictures of childhood. All the bygone days returned to my mind. At that time, I used to be so naïve and silly that whenever blamed by anyone, I would think nobody would love me any more. I struggled with this thought and repressed by the hunger for love. I still remember the scene when I rushed out of home on a rainy night with tears rolling down my cheeks, indulged in self-imagined pain. Still another time I tore up all my dairies just because I felt nobody understand and care about me. I chucked at my old little self when these pictures floating in my mind. Is that painful girl really me? Alas, my little girl, how silly and pitiful. “Ah, my child, you will have real troubles to fret about by and by”.
As childhood staggered to the end, Maggie experienced a sudden pang in her life. Her father was bankrupted and immediately fell ill. Since then, she and her brother Tom had to shoulder the responsibility for the whole family, which was thrown into an endless abyss. Here Eliot endowed in Maggie her own experience of taking care of her sick father. The terrible loneliness and dullness of life suffocated the soul of the growing Maggie. “she could make dream-worlds of her own but no dream-world would satisfy her now. she wanted some explanation of this hard real life…” This long and detailed depiction of psychological struggle stands as a all-time memorable passage of Eliot’s writing. As we know Eliot’s concept of art is to carry out the mission of educating and modifying human nature, so here she points out a way for Maggie to get out of this mental struggle, that is abandonment of egoism-the path of martyrdom and endurance, which is quite an important process for us to grow up after experiencing some sufferings in life.
As the plot goes on, the complicated conflicts between the sister and brother become more and more obvious. Maggie loves Tom, and is willing to give up all the other things in life for him, but their conflicts, between romance and reason, daring and caution, rebellion and acceptance are too inevitable and indelible. Among all these troubles, Philip, whose father became the enemy of Maggie’s family because of business affaires crushed in with his true love for her. Proud and narrow-minded as her father and brother were, they never allowed Maggie to get touch with this kind and pure-hearted boy. So, struggle continued, and giving-up continued in Maggie’s life just because of her love and sense of duty for the family. As for me, I like this Philip very much. His love for Maggie is in more sense connected with soul. For him, Maggie is the only day-star which can console and shine his sad spirit. Compared with his love, the latter-appeared Stephen, who as Lucy’s lover also fell in love with Maggie, seemed to be more passionate and powerful in his love. When depicting love between her characters, Eliot inherits a commonly accepted belief that love is first learned in the lovers’ eyes. So, we can find many long “gaze” reflecting all deep human passion between Maggie and Stephen. From this, I may think that Maggie’s feeling for Philip is in more sense sympathy or Philia than love or Eros. Maggie was totally attracted and induced by Stephen’s passionate, or we may say coarse love, while the struggle in her mind never stopped. Here Eliot sounds especially didactic when Maggie at last decided to renounce her love by saying “I must not, cannot, seek my own happiness by sacrificing others.” “I couldn’t live in peace if I put the shadow of a willful sin between myself and God.” There are lots of touching love letters and monologues which moved me deeply in this novel. Although pointed out by many critics that too many detailed monologues mar the structure of the whole novel, I still think them as typical merit of Eliot’s writing because they give more space to show the real mixed feelings of characters.
As for the ending of the novel, I agree with many critics that it’s not as good as it should be. With the never ending conflicts in the heroin’s life, we can have a clear idea that there must be some tragedy in the end, but the sudden coming flood is still too unexpected and fierce because it wipes out all the meaning for Maggie’s long struggle immediately. Perhaps in my deep conscious, I still hope Maggie can break through the limits and her sense of duty, to get the value and love of her own life, but it finally turns out that her kinship love triumphs all her desires and dreams. Just think, if Maggie does not go to rescue her brother from the flood, she may have her love and enjoy her life, but the tragic ending comes from her own choice. Form here, we can draw a clear conclusion that Eliot’s tragedy is quite different from that of Thomas Hardy in the sense that Eliot’s hero can choose and decide whether to fight with life or not, while Hardy’s heroes are totally haunted by fate.
“The souls by nature pitched too high, by suffering plunged too low.” perhaps this is the best judgment for my favorite Maggie. For those who like vivid depiction of childhood life and the deep insight to personal psychological struggles in the process of growing up, this is a real all-time romantic classic.
-
soga... -
呼啸山庄是我很小的时候看的书，小学毕业看的，后来从来没有想过要回去再看一遍然后写书评…… -
麦琪驾着小船去救哥哥汤姆，被洪水吞噬，是这样悲伤的结局。
我们因为自己的痴心，责怪爱略特的忍心，也为麦琪不甘心。然而这样的结果却是不可避免的，换言之，是麦琪自己选择了死亡。
“死亡是一个启示，它说话。死的行为有它自己的语义学，一个人怎样死，死于哪种环境，并非无足轻重。”昆德拉在《生活在别处》中说。
麦琪之所以走上一条她再清楚不过的不归路，是因为她的人生已经到了无路可走的境地。选择菲利普，伤害哥哥汤姆；选择斯蒂文，伤害表姐露西；放弃，伤害自己。这样的绝望。
她太善良，太看重道德责任，所以把个人伦理抛向一边，死于水中，象征着无辜、清白、柔弱和无能为力。
她必须死于水中，因为水的深度与人的深度是紧密联系的。“对那些溺死在他们的自我中，他们的爱情中，他们的情感中，他们的疯狂中，他们的内省和混乱中的人来说，水就是他们致死的环境。”
一如奥菲利娅，死于哈姆雷特强烈的孤独意识和怀疑意识，如此美丽而又脆弱的女孩，怀抱着爱情之花，顺溪而下，沉落在水底。她的衣服四散展开，使她暂时像人鱼一样漂浮水上；她嘴里还断断续续唱着古老的谣曲，好像一点不感觉到她处境的险恶，又好像她本来就是生长在水中一般。可是不多一会儿，她的衣服给水浸得重起来了，这可怜的人歌儿还没有唱完，就已经沉到泥里去了。
还有《惊情四百年》，王妃伊丽莎白以为德古拉死于战场，悲恸中跳河自尽，“我的王子死了，没了他，我的生存毫无意义。”她的脸是一条悲伤的河。
《孔雀东南飞》中的那个倾城绝世的女子，看到一切既已无望，举身赴清池。
这一连串的死亡能指，会有一个所指吗？或者说，死亡背后能够有一个意义吗？
我愿作出自己的解读，赋予她们的死以生命（因为她们都是那么的无辜与柔弱，让人心碎）。水在许多文化传统里面都与洁净与新生有关。喝过孟婆汤，就告别前生的记忆了；涉过忘川，就踏上来世的征程了；基督教徒领受水的浸洗，就重获新生了。
所以她们自水中离去，应该也会涤除前世的不如意吧。特别是麦琪，她最终还是和自己深爱的哥哥和解了，从此会一直在一起，正如童年。
不知道这样替她们救赎是不是我的一厢情愿。因为有的绝望，至死都是绝望。
忽然想起王国维，站在昆明湖边上时，该是怎样的大忧伤啊。
-
看第一句，我先想起《美国的悲剧》~~
然后想起《麦琪的礼物》~
再看书名，想起《磨坊书简》~~
跑偏了~~我就是一跑偏的人儿，挖哈哈 -
大一的时候写的论文，今天随手翻到就扔上来了。
FEMININE is more often than not used as a negative adjective to describe the fragile feature of women. Even Shakespeare expressed such view through the mouth of Hamlet, ‘fragile, your name is woman.’ Yet is fragile, or sensitive, gentle and emotional, which are often regarded as criticism of the nature of a person, the nature of woman, or is it constructed by the values, norms and institutions of society which is dominated by men? For such a long time, we use tender, slender and gentle to praise a woman for her feminism and morality. They are either regarded as a sacred trophy (such as in Troy), or viewed as a sort of auxiliary to men.
It is true that physically women are inferior to men on strength, size and energy. However, Hamlet imposed another factor ‘reason’ upon women, as he thought, that women were fragile, for they had no reason. Indeed, Gertrude’s marriage with Claudis was unreasonable, yet she had no initiative on this issue. Therefore, a question can be raised. Is the concept ‘women’ socially constructed or inborn?
I am not trying to overthrow the traditional view thoroughly, but through analyzing George Eliot’s The Mill on the Floss, I expect to make some counter arguments against it.
One of George Eliot’s masterpieces The Mill on the Floss was published in 1860 when the Victorian Britain was reigned by monarch Queen Victoria and difficulties escalated due to the vision of ‘ideal woman’ shared by the society. They were deprived of their right to vote, sue or own property, and they were evaluated almost solely by their purity and submissiveness. Their education was limited; their roles were bound to the households; they could not give free rein to their thoughts; their essential and only challenge in life was to ingratiate themselves with their husbands. It is almost precise to say that, before 1792’s publication of Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, women voluntarily remained the state of sub-citizen of the society, and few women dared to violate the rule (if there were any, they were sure to perish in their furious struggle). However, Wollstonecraft conspicuously, had not subverted the mainstream of the values of the general public. To most men, they prohibited women to be, or to have the notion to be, superior to him, or rather, their equal.
Before the industrialization agriculture was the prevailing productive force, it is possible that women were not in advantage, since they made less contribution to the production. However, when machine replaced the manual work, and women could manipulate machines as well as, if not better than men. While men still wanted to continue their domination, the only way they could possibly realize the unjustifiable aim was to overstress the physical weakness of women, expanding it to unreasonability, incapability and doing badly at everything. The first step they took was to prohibit them from entering educational institution.
Michel Foucault coined the concept ‘power-knowledge’. In his theory, power is based on knowledge and makes use of knowledge; on the other hand, power reproduces knowledge by shaping it in accordance with its anonymous intentions. Knowledge is the basis of power, and women were deprived of the source to gain knowledge. The education was prohibited mainly by the society creating a set of educational norm that did not fit women, and therefore, under the pressure and social prejudice, they were willing to remain ignorant and in the state of subordination.
Maggie Tulliver, although did not think the educational system unfit, was influenced strongly by the social prejudice, as her family prejudiced against her gaining access to education. She is one victim of such education. Her behaviours in childhood forcefully denied the prevailing view that women were incapable of rational or abstract thought and was too susceptible to sensibility and too fragile to be able to think clearly. Quite to the contrary, the child Maggie had a distinctive line of thoughts, and her conversation with Luke accidentally revealed her inborn intelligence and rationalism.
‘I think you never read any book but the Bible, did you, Luke?’
‘Nay, Miss—an’ not much o’ that,’ said Luke, with great frankness, ‘I’m no reader, I aren’t.’
‘But if I lent you one of my books, Luke? I’ve not got any very pretty books that would be easy for you to read; but there’s “Pug’s Tour of Europe”--- that would tell you all about the different sorts of people in the world, and if you didn’t understand the reading, the pictures would help you--- they show the looks and ways of the people and what they do. There are the Dutchmen, very fat, and smoking, you know--- and one sitting on a barrel.’
Maggie’s speech was logically fluent, and showed her ability to reason. For example, if one did not understand the book, it was easier to get information from the picture; through the book one might derive knowledge and tour the world, etc. Maggie was given the education which taught, or rather, forced her to be gentle, benumbed and dependent. Education differed according to gender. For women, education moulded them into submissive and highly sensitivie creatures eternally depending on men, and their utmost task was to please men. Women were made to fall prey to ‘violent and constant passion’, and were consequently made to think irrationally. There are even some great thinkers of that age, such as Rousseau (he is believed to be a believer in the moral superiority of the patriarchal family on the antique Roman model) staked a claim that women were somewhat incapable to think independently, and they had to largely rely on men. We could also regard Maggie’s gradually falling prey to her sensitivity as the clue of this novel. As women had to be submissive, gentle and fragile, all the distinctive features that had the potential to violate this accepted social regulation even slightly bit would be viewed as reproachful. In the third chapter, Maggie was threatened by Mrs. Tulliver to make her hair curl, and later, when exasperated by all such restrictions, she cut her hair short, in an attempt to triumph over her mother and aunts, but only to be smocked by Tom as ‘the idiot we throw our nutshells to at school’. Lucy, on the other hand, was depicted as a model for Maggie, for she was gentle in behaviour and obedient to her superior, or in other words, accepted her situation willingly. She had curly hair, which was the butt for her mother and aunt to reproach Maggie. Even though Maggie herself, as a young child, might not be aware of this, yet no doubt, she had strong consciousness of feminism. She constantly regarded herself as an equal to Tom, so that when Mr. Riley and Mr. Tulliver were discussing about providing Tom education, she was eager as well to be educated, even though her request was scoffed and looked down upon by the adults. In her subconsciousness, she realised that reading was somewhat a privilege to the superior, and she was born fond of reading books and brainy. To her, reading was the utmost entertainment. She eagerly informed Luke of her knowledge while they were out on the Floss, offering her book ‘Pug’s Tour of Europe’ and ‘Animated Nature’. It was the feminism consciousness which lay in her subconsciousness which made her collapse every time she was despised by Tom or other adults, or when she felt being looked down upon. She craved for education, equality and friendship. Moreover, she gradually came to realise that she was, in fact, unequal to her less intelligent brother, because of incessant frustration from endless criticism. Her pride and sense of feminism was hurt every time she was reprimanded.
For a long time, I agree with Marixst feminism’s point of view that private property, which gives rise to economic inequality, dependence, political oppresion and ultimately unhealthy social relations between men and women, is the root of women's oppression in the current social context. I do not believe that women are inborn more sensitive, fragile and incapable than men, just as the child Maggie reflected, she was endowed with brightness, but it was the society that shaped the women to be feminine, since without private property, they had to rely on men for financial income, and in order to attract a man of higher social rank, she had to be morbidly graceful and vulnerable so as to arouse men’s sexual desire. Tom’s superiority to Maggie arose to a higher stage when he started to help his father pay off the family’s debt. Since women were prohibited from working places, the gulf between the brother and sister deepened.
In The Mill on the Floss, Maggie’s feminist consciousness is divided into three stages. The first stage is strong, when Maggie was still a child, uninformed of the social prejudice and discrimination on women. She followed her nature and crazed for books and knowledge.
Maggie’s failed attempt to run away from home connoted that women in that period would never succeed in breaking the shackles of the socially accepted regulations. The metaphor which Eliot applied to is the gypsy queen, a symbol used in romantic poetry and painting, standing for an escape from the zero-sum game of Victorian social codes. Maggie craved for freedom, education and happiness, and desired to break the shackles of the Victorian codes bound on her, yet her incapability to escape from the reality incarnated the helplessness of all the women who, with dream of gaining freedom and independence, had to recede to the reality and accept their social roles. This chapter, entitled ‘Maggie Tries to Run Away from Her Shadow’, indicatively expressed the author’s attitude, that is, women’s world was overcast by shadow.
The first book came to an end with Maggie’s failure to escape from all such restrictions. The second book commenced with Tom receiving education along with Phillip Wakem from Mr. Stelling. Phillip Wakem here was a contrast to Tom,who was a character supporting absolute masculinism and showing disregard to women, including her sister’s intelligence. Phillip here was sort of androgynous. His handicapped back prevented him from being physically strong and dominant as Tom, nor could he concede to fragility, as his identity of being male reminded him that he was supposed to be powerful. He acted a positive role in Maggie’s life, but was often scoffed by Tom, the masculine principle personified.
Yet in the first half of the second book, Maggie’s desire for knowledge and her feminism consciousness had not extinguished yet. Her every visit to Tom revealed that she was capable of learning, and was fitter for education than Tom. During Maggie’s first visit to Mr. Stelling, while Tom was entangled in the mess of Euclid and Latin, Maggie, for the first time, offered patronising consolation on Tom. At this moment, Maggie had absolute superiority to Tom in her knowledge as she excelled in Latin and her intelligence to learn Latin enabled her to master Euclid if given a chance .Yet even thus, Tom still had not cast away his air of patriarchy.
‘I’ll help you now, Tom,’ said Maggie, with a little air of patronising consolation. ‘I’m come to stay ever so long, if Mrs. Stelling asks me. I’ve brought my box and my pinafores, haven’t I, father?’
‘You help me, you silly little thing!’ said Tom, in such high spirits at this announcement, that he quite enjoyed the idea of confounding Maggie by showing her a page of Euclid. ‘I should like to see you doing one of my lessons! Why, I learn Latin too! Girls never learn such things. They’re too silly.’
‘I know what Latin is very well,’ said Maggie, confidently, ‘Latin’s a language. There are Latin words in the Dictionary. There’s bonus, a gift.’
‘Now you’re just wrong there, Miss Maggie!’ said Tom, secretly astonished. ‘You think you’re very wise! But “bonus” means “good”, as it happens---bonus, bona, bonum.’
The unabridged version of The Mill on the Floss had the three words ‘I’ll’, ‘you’ and ‘my’ marked in italics. When Maggie put her emphasis on ‘I’ll’, she obviously felt a sense of triumph and dominance, as she herself thought that it was a moment when she could hold dominance onto her brother. She had not grown out of her purity yet, and the sense of feminism consciousness was still upon her. Moreover, by reasoning the meaning of ‘bonus’, Maggie showed strong rationality. In the dialogue following what I have quoted, Maggie analysed the deeper meaning of ‘lawn’, and won a smocking-like praise from Mr. Tulliver, which aroused Tom’s disgust, as he always showed disgust on Maggie’s knowingness. As for Tom, through his ‘secretly astonished’ feeling, we could easily conclude that in his innermost he unwillingly admitted that Maggie’s intelligence had far exceeded him. Her intelligence was commented as ‘showing her cleverness to appreciating strangers’ Her trying to correct Tom’s Latin was regarded as ‘chatter’ or ‘any donkey can do that’.
The story proceeded to Maggie’s first encounter with Phillip. This chapter revealed the inborn ability to reason in Maggie. Tom’s prejudice against Phillip was rooted in the hatred between Mr. Tulliver and the lawyer Wakem, and he followed the rule ‘like father, like son’, and defined Phillip as a rogue without observing him objectively. Quite to the contrary Maggie seemed to have more reason, as the dialogue between she and Tom formed sharp contrast in their reasonableness.
‘I think Phillip Wakem seems a nice boy, Tom,’ she said, when they were out of the study together into the garden, to pass the interval before dinner. ‘He couldn’t choose his father, you know, and I’ve read of very few bad men who had good sons, as well as good parents who had had children. And if Phillip is good, I think we ought to be the more sorry for him because his father is not a good man. You like him, don’t you?’
‘O, he’s a queer fellow,’ said Tom curtly, ‘and he’s as sulky as can be with me, because I told him his father was a rogue. And I’d a right to tell him so, for it was true--- and he began it, with calling me names. But you can stop here by yourself a bit, Magsie, will you?’
Tom was lack of judgement, and it was somewhat a kind of defect of men, that they overstressed the notion of hatred between families. Julie committed suicide to follow Romeo to the heaven, because both of them had the ability to reason, and to judge a person according to his or her quality, character and personality, instead of blindly following the opinions of the elders. Yet here Tom was different. Blinded by the hatred and jealousy in the adult’s world, Tom mistook this action as being responsible and just. He thought himself as an adult, by hating the same person his father hated, yet what he did not know that by his blind imitation, he would cause more trouble than he anticipated.
In her later close contact with Phillip when Tom had his foot hurt, she revealed a sense of sensitivity, since Phillip was a poor boy with deformity. She tried her best to avoid mentioning deformity, even though once she accidentally let ‘I should be so sorry for you’ slip out of her mouth.
The first volume ended by Tom returning home for Mr. Tulliver’s mishap. On the whole, what the first volume revealed was Maggie’s advantage over Tom on both academics and social relations. Maggie was thirst for knowledge, equipped with sense and intelligence, possessed with a strong sense of rebellion and also with a touch of sentimentality, which enabled her to communicate more smoothly. Maggie bore blame; she had been blamed all her life, and nothing had come of it but evil tempers. Yet in the volume following, the advantage was gradually nipped by all kinds of prejudice and restriction.
The second volume commenced with the bankruptcy and illness of Mr. Tulliver and the uprising hatred between the Tullivers and the lawyer Wakem. The beginning chapter was replete with the blame on Maggie. Here came the second stage of Maggie’s feminist consciousness, which gradually became weaker and she somewhat conceded by Tom’s brutal oppression and Mr. Tulliver’s indifference.
This is a typical demonstration of what Simone de Beauvoir mainly argued in her book The Second Sex, that men had made women the "Other" in society by putting a false aura of "mystery" around them, and that men used this as an excuse not to understand women or their problems and not to help them. One is not born a woman, but becomes one. We may also find corresponding idea in Wollstonecraft’s assertation that ‘women are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mother, that a little knowledge of human weakness, just termed cunning, softnessof temper, outward obedience, and a scrupulous attention to a puerile kind of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of man’. Women’s mind was shaped from the infancy, and they were not born with the notion ‘dependence’ or ‘need to be protected’. That is how the two words ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ were coined. Although they refer to the same object, yet they stress different aspects. Sex is biological, while gender is social.
Tom’s failure to get a position from Mr. Deane reflected his poor capacity and performance. When he returned from Mr. Deane, he was met with Maggie’s amiable joke that if someone had taught her book-keeping she could teach Tom. Yet with the sense of masculinity preoccupied, this joke was not to be accepted. He retorted harsh words by blaming her ‘always sitting yourself up above me and everyone else’ and ‘I can judege much better than you can’. Tom is the typical man in the Victorian society when the country had just been industrialized. Before machine replaced manual labour, man had absolute advantages physically.
The agriculture and farm work were completed mostly by men. However, when manual labour no longer remained the main source for production, such absolute domination was erased and gradually vanished. Men, in desire for remaining absolute domination over women, degraded women to the greatest extent, by emphasizing their physical weakness, from which extended to their inability to reason and to think, and that it was impossible for them to acquire all kinds of knowledge. That is why Mr. Stelling commented that girls ‘can pick up a little of everything’, but ‘they’ve a great deal of superficial cleverness, but they couldn’t go far into everything. They are quick and shallow’. In this way, what Maggie had been taken pride in (quickness) was a sort of defect, and ‘it would be better to be slow like Tom’. However, if Tom were a girl, then he would also be blamed for his clumsiness. In conclusion, in that era, all the qualities, including defects which are possessed in boys were all something worth praising.
Under constant surveillance of the elders and the restriction of the traditional concepts of women, the grown-up Maggie shifted to an ordinary woman, concealing her intelligence and conceding to the social suppression. She gave way to the constant surveillance. Perpetual surveillance is internalized by individuals to produce the kind of self-awareness that defines the modern subject. In the period when Maggie was able to talk, she was incessantly told that her brother Tom would go to school, while she had to keep gentle, keep her hair curly and do the chores which are supposed to be girls’ job. In her childhood, she was thirst for the world of knowledge while Tom was annoyed and impatient with the world of Latin and Euclid. She possessed with the sense to understand the world, to share the mishaps and sorrows with her male family members, yet she was forced to shut out from all those. Having sensed all those, she could appeal to no one but tears, wishing that she had been taught ‘real learning and wisdom, such as great men knew’.
In the beginning of Book Fifth, Maggie and Phillip Wakem met again, after a sequence of conflicts between families and alterations on both of the two youngsters. By then Maggie confessed that she had given up ‘thinking about what is easy and pleasant’ and ‘being discontented because I couldn’t have my own will’, which startled Phillip a bit, for in his eyes, nothing would ever change one’s nature, and he never doubted she would be the same. Yet in this chapter, Maggie’s shift from her innocence to twisted maturity was revealed by her refusal of Phillip’s book. Her reason given was thus, ‘it would make me in love with this world again, as I used to be—it would make me long to see and know many things--- it would make me long for a full life.’ Poetry and art and knowledge are sacred indeed, but of course, not for women of those times. For those women as Maggie, the thirst for knowledge must be extinguished, instead of quenched. Just as Wollstonecraft had stated, ‘strengthen the female mind by enlarging it, and there will be an end to blind obedience; but, as blind obedience is ever sought for by power, tyrants and sensualists are in the right whenthey endeavour to keep women in the dark, because the former only want slaves, and the latter a plaything’. For men, women acted as two roles, slaves and plaything, and for the latter, the plaything must be available in sexual functions. Maggie was the sort of woman that was forced to be kept in the dark, groping her way, at first trying to figure out what had happened in the family and between her father and Mr. Wakem; Maggie’s life was destined to be a series of blind obedience. She obeyed her father blindly by rejecting book, knowledge and joy of the world. She had struggled, of course, yet she conceded. She in the following blindedly followed the tyrannical Tom’s order that she must stay away from Phillip, and in this way her sole encouragement was driven away. Yet, according to what Phillip had told Maggie, such resignation, or rather, stupefaction, would not bring joy and peace, which were what Maggie had been seeking for by shutting herself away from the world. She had been tired of the endless struggle with her brother and father, and had chosen a life seemingly joyful and peaceful. Her nature would never acquiesce that. What she was doing was stupefaction, to be more plainly, self-cheating. Such cheating would bring more pain to her. Yet within such a sequence of blind obedience, her sense had not yet perished. Later her refutation to Tom on Phillip Wakem demonstrated that.
Here Phillip acts a sort of androgynous role. For one thing, he was a man, having chance to get systematic education together with Tom, seeing the world, gaining knowledge and knowing the world. Compared with Maggie, if they were both male, then Phillip was in an inferior state, because of his disability. Maggie started to grow fond of Phillip, because, to some extent, she saw some reflection, and also some of her expectation on herself, on him. Phillip had a feminine sympathetic, while he was talking with Maggie in the Red Deeps. He was sentimental enough to cognize the world, to share others’ feelings, and especially, to see more openly on women’s education and development. It was rare, for a man, to advise a woman to read more, to know and enjoy the world, and to appreciate life. Phiilip, though having disability and not being so masculine as Tom, was being educated. Maggie was longing for such education, and thus she looked up to Phillip, regarding him both as her soul mate and an approachable idol.
Their secret meeting went on for a year, during which under Phillip’s constant encouragement, Maggie picked up reading again, enjoying a few happy moments. It was obvious, that only books would cheer Maggie up, and fulfill Maggie’s world. Yet in the book, their relationship ended by Phillip confessing to Maggie his love, Maggie accepting it indirectly. All these were discovered by Tom, eventually, and he insisted on Maggie leading him to where Phillip Wakem was. In this scene Maggie might be the first time brave enough to stand up to Tom that he had been ‘reproaching people all his life’, always sure that he himself was right, and this is directly reflected in Tom’s refutation that Maggie was showing her affection to father by merely disobeying and deceiving him. Maggie had realized that all her struggle was in vain. After all, her fate was controlled by anybody but herself.
Yet in here Maggie’s sense still remained. As a woman who could be permitted to do nothing, she roared vehemently but helplessly to Tom, ‘So I will submit to what I acknowledge and feel to be right. I will submit even to what is unreasonable from my father, but I will not submit to it from you. You boast of your virtues as if they purchased you a right to be cruel and unmanly as you’ve been today.’ All the reading and her thirst for knowledge did not quit her entirely, but built up a strong sense of right and wrong in her mind. That may be what knowledge can offer women, and that is possibly why for a long time women were banned from schools, for educated women would bring their blind obedience to an end. Was we not heart striken, when we found a gifted and lovable Maggie Tulliver repressing her anger and creativity to develop a neurotic and self-destructive personality?
Now we come to the last volume of the novel, and in the last volume, Maggie’s feminist consciousness had come to the last stage. The consciousness was eliminated from appearance. Even though there were conflicts every now and then, she conceded to her fate and started to obey. That is how come when Elaine Showalter compared Jane Eyre with The Mill on the Floss, she commented, ‘Bronte’s Jane Eyre is the heroine of fulfillment; Eliot’s Maggie Tulliver is the heroine of reununciation’ .
The last volume began with Maggie introduced to her cousin Lucy’s boyfriend Stephen Guest. Maggie fell into deep thinking when Lucy offered her the Sketch Book. The lapse of time had altered everything. Rush of memories surged into Maggie’s mind as her eyes fell upon the sunshine on the rich clumps of spring flowers, such as Tom’s brotherly friendliness; she was also hit by what she was now, distasteful days, intense and varied life she once yearned for, her future even worse than her past and all those years’ contented renunciation. Maggie’s first encounter with Stephen Guest alarmed Lucy a little, for beforehand she had never been awared of Maggie’s renunciation all those years. The old Maggie must appear to be too ‘odd and clever’ to please. Yet it also revealed the fact that Maggie had not been used to the society, where people spoke from the lips merely, and therefore she was infuriated by compliments, which appeared absurd to the experienced ladies and also made Maggie feel ashamed of herself. Having given up the life she yearned, nor could she get used to lives of ordinary ladies, which is also a cause for her tragedy in the end.
Phillip Wakem’s name was mentioned again by Lucy, as he was a good friend of hers. Maggie, encouraged by Lucy and out of her own initiative, went for permission from Tom, since she had promised him not to see him without telling him. As Phillip met her, she told her that she wished she could make a world outside love as men did, since she derived no happiness from it. When she was a child, she also wished to create a new world as men did, but that was to live independently and knowledgeably, and now she returned to her old thought in a new form. Wishing to create a world outside love was only an escape from pain, from reality and from submissiveness. Viewing Maggie’s life on a whole, to a great extent, she had been living for Tom’s love. She would sacrifice anything of her own personality in order not to be rejectd by Tom. When Lucy asked her not to go away and be apart from Phillip, she refused the forthcoming happiness by saying that Tom asserted she could only marry Phillip on the condition of giving him up. In this way, she appeared to be self-doubting and unassertive all the time, because we know that in fact Tom had never brought Maggie genuine happiness and use.
I say that Maggie has developed a neurotic and self-destructive personality, because she is perversely drawn to destroy all her opportunities for renewal, such as refusing Dr. Kenn’s offer to be a permanent parishioner in another town, her endless plea for Tom’s forgiveness, simply waiting for others to validate her existence, etc. Her personality, now, could best be described by quoting ‘the souls by nature pitched too high, by suffering plunged too low’ .
Although many critics regard Maggie's entanglement with Stephen Guest as a discordance, discrepancy, and a significant failure in Eliot’s work, yet it was an indispensable part in the ending. Maggie moved to live with Lucy and Lucy’s betrothed Stephen fel for Maggie, which seemed natural by reason. After a struggling night with Stephen, Maggie refused him and got away. Yet she was thrown into an abyss of anguish when she eventually managed to return from the grasp of Stephen Guest, while what confronted her was Tom’s icy response and the disgrace she had brought to St. Ogg’s. Having been cruelly driven away by the furious Tom, Maggie plunged into a surge of agony. She agonized, not for her notoriety in the village, but again, for she had disgraced Tom. Her emotional attachment with Tom was reinforced, instead of diminished, by Tom’s endless criticism and oppression.
The ending was dramatic, and for a long time, it had been commented on by critics. Personally I was hit upon by Tom’s utterance ‘Magsie’ and ‘it’s coming, Maggie’. All their grudes, misunderstanding and conflicts for so many years were drowned in the flood along with their human bodies. I deem Tom’s sudden emotion as the denouncement of his conscience. Yet such denouncement was incompatible with the social background. The drowning of the brother and sister was not designed by the author; it was developed naturally. That is to say, only Tom’s former attitude would survive the society. When Tom and Maggie reunited, Tom accepted Maggie, yet Maggie was not to a woman to be accepted. Her intelligence, her disobedience and her struggle were all against the social trend. Dying together unable to fit the secular world, may them find peace and joy in the paradise.
There could be another explanation of Maggie’s drowning. In the medieval times, women were thrown into water to test whether they were witches. Those that drowned were regarded as innocent. Eliot applied to such a tale to illustrate that Maggie was innocent; intelligent women were innocent; in fact all women were innocent yet fell into the trap of the society. She paid homage to those victims. Those women who were with feminist consciousness were incompatible to the society, and their characteristics were annihilated by the oppression wrapped them.
This work created in 1860 was full of feminist consciousness, whether explicitly or implicitly. Throughout the novel, Maggie’s feminist consciousness existed, in the former part explicit, trying to break the shackles of the Victorian Age; in the latter part, such consciousness was hidden until it became subconsciousness. After the work was published, a lot of feminists hated Geroge Eliot. For one thing, Eliot was a success produced in the Victorian Age, but in almost all her works (The Mill on the Floss was arguably the most autobiographic novel), she wrote about how women like she herself failed in their struggle. In this way she denied such struggle, meanwhile she succeeded and benefited through it.
Dated back to 1792 when Mary Wollstonecraft first called upon women’s rationality, her radical thoughts were too ahead of the development of human consciousness and the society, so that her theories failed to break the shackles that cuffed the women to their households. Mary’s own scandals offset her achievements. It was almost the end of the 19th century when her theories rose to the surface and caught the eyes of the radical feminists. Between the shadowy period, numerous intelligent women became victims, either choosing renunciation or being persecuted by fate. Apart from Maggie, Sue Bridehead ( the heroine in Thomas Hardy’s Jude the Obscure) was a typical example too.
The Victorian Age was complicated. Because of the struggle of all kinds of people, many outstanding literary works were created. War promoted the development of technology; struggle reinforced the production of novels. I would like to end this dissertation by a poem by Emily Dickenson, ‘they shut me up in prose’.
As when a little Girl
They put me in the Closet --
Because they liked me "still" --
Still! Could themself have peeped --
And seen my Brain -- go round --
They might as wise have lodged a Bird
For Treason -- in the Pound --
Himself has but to will
And easy as a Star
Abolish his Captivity --
And laugh -- No more have I --
References:
[1]Deborah L. Madsen Feminist Theory and Literary Practice (Foreign Language Teaching and Rsearch Press, Pluto Press, 2006)
[2]Elaine Showalter A Literature of Their Own: From British Women Novelists from Bronte to Lessing (Foreign Languge Teaching and Research Press , Princeton University Press, 2004)
[3]Elizabeth Ermarth Maggie’s Long Suicide ( Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 14, No. 4, Nineteenth Century (Autumn, 1974), pp. 587-601)
[4] Geroge Eliot The Mill on the Floss (The Commercial Press, Beijing, 1995)
[5] George Eliot: Her Life and Books (London, 1947)
[6]Maragaret Walters Feminism: A Very Short Introduction (Foreign Language Teaching and Researching Press, 2008)
[7]Mary Wollstonecraft A Vindication of Rights of Woman (Dover Publications, Inc, 1996.7)
[8] Raman Selden, Peter Widdowson, Peter Brooker, A Reader’s Guide to Contemporary Literary Theory (Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press, 2004. 5)
[9] Thomas Pinney Essays of George Eliot (New York, 1963)
[10] The George Eliot Letters, ed. G. S. Haight (New Haven, 1955)
[11]Virginia Woolf George Eliot (First published in The Times Literary Supplement, 20 November 1919)
-
ls！多谢指正！刚去百度了一下，果然是夏绿蒂勃朗特～那麽，jane austin是哪里来的印象呢。。。晕～ -
我在写毕业论文就是《弗》这篇小说，借鉴一下你的思想，thank you very much.. -
工作了就是不行，一本长篇也能看上将近半年，估计换在大学，导师早就变成“叫兽”了～
目前终于看完，所以简短盘点一下此书的长短，供后来读者参阅：
1、GeorgeEliot在大学的时候，只是略微带过，其实这是一个大遗憾。为什么？因为她的文笔实在很适合需要修炼自己英文写作的人学习，简洁、利落，而且文句很有力量感。这是我翻开书没看几页就得到的印象。她的文笔没有VirginiaWoolf来的委婉清美，实际上这也不是她的目的，她的文风实际上非常适合写如今的现当代小说——所以这最后反而也成了我觉得这本小说“还行”的原因：就是她写了一部颇具现实主义的、很符合学院老师规范的小说。所以，比起现当代小说比较擅长的搞氛围、搞情节转折，The Mill on the Floss似乎弱了那么一口气。
譬如，我看到半当中的时候，就差点看不下去了，因为情节纠结在一个毫无纠结必要的点上，迟迟不前进。
2、Eliot把太多的精力放在开篇描述主人公们年幼时的讲述上，事实上你看完这本小说，你就会觉得其实结尾Eliot铺垫的并不理想，所以就会有头大尾弱的感觉。回想起来，她这部小说的情节设置实际上还是满有看头的，但是她没有给出个合理的轻重缓急来，这一点上比不上JaneAustin的那本《简爱》；
3、Tom Tulliver这个角色我一直觉得被设置的非常不自然，仿佛他就是用来适时的出场发几次小神经的。。。 。。。总之，这个角色写得不好，从生动性上来看，连小说后半出现的Stephen Guest都比不上——而事实上，Tom这个哥哥在Maggie看来是非常重要的，所以我觉得总体写得不好；
4、Maggie长大后，突然就从原来的丑小鸭变成美人了。。。。。。这个比较无语～再怎么有气质、与众不同，也要有个铺垫吧？
5、结尾的洪水明显铺垫不够，显得结尾十足戏剧感——我这个观点呼应上述的观点2；
6、个人觉得小说最出彩的地方是——最后一部里面PhilipWakem写给MaggieTulliver的信。。。 。。。这封信我初读觉得写得十分真挚！然后就回过头来朗诵了一遍，结果读到中间就流泪了～Sign～所谓真诚的感情，自和所谓的肉麻不同。
个人觉得，此书可以一读，不过偷懒的人，如果仅仅是学习一下Eliot的文笔，可以随手看几个章节；如果一定要知道这个故事到底是怎么回事，OK，那一定是要从头啃到尾的了，不过老早的作者比起当今的编剧们，那功力确实是要弱一点的。 -
这本书是几年前读的了，今天看《茶母》的评论时有人提到了一部电影的剧情，哥哥妹妹的说了一大堆，仔细一想这不是《弗洛斯河上的磨坊》么？评论讲的是兄妹之间的不伦之恋，《茶母》里彩玉与首领之间的兄妹之恋已经是不争的事实，可是凭什么，凭什么把Tom与Maggi之间的爱也看做不伦之恋呢！这明明就是很温馨的兄妹亲情嘛！
记得我当时很喜欢这本书，刚翻开前几页就被深深地吸引了，真有种相逢恨晚的感觉啊！厚厚的一本书，两三天就把它啃完了，虽然有很多地方只是囫囵吞枣，不求甚解。。。
很喜欢前面几章——童年欢乐的日子。无忧无虑，相亲相爱。虽然也有争吵，也有不和，哭着鼻子说“我再也不和你玩了”，可是过不了多久就会忘记“誓言”，又一起屁颠屁颠地奔跑在田野里，河边上。。。虽然也有苦恼、不快，可是刚刚抹过眼泪，在接过哥哥端来的甜点时，又会开心地笑起来。。。阳光下，Tom与Maggi手拉着手，快乐地奔向张开怀抱的爸爸；树荫里，Maggi拉着Tom的手说“等我们长大了，我来给你管理家务。。。”；阁楼上，Tom耐心地哄Maggi下楼吃饭。。。看到这里，心里充满欣喜，因为看着看着我想起了自己的童年，真的是很像的呢。当时就很感叹，作者对小孩的心理刻画真的很细腻准确呐，自己曾经的那些想法，烦恼，竟是在这本异国小说中被一位百多年前的女作家给白纸黑字地写出来了，不是很奇怪么？心里顿时对艾略特有了无限好感，就好像两个人分享了什么秘密似的，又信任又激动。
很喜欢Tom。虽然很多人说他冷酷无情，我却觉得他所做的一切都是可以理解的。如果处在他的位置，仔细想想，我也会像他那样做。作为家中的长子，唯一的男子汉，父亲落败了，他就必须站出来抗下所有的债务，卑微地寄人篱下踏踏实实勤勤恳恳地努力工作，即使什么都不会也放下身段努力地去学。他不仅要维持家人的生计，还要维护家族的荣誉。所以即使靠姨父的关系进的公司，可是他还是卖力地工作，终于最后他还清了父亲的欠款买回了祖传的磨坊，可以在众人面前骄傲地抬头。也正因为如此，他不可能接受Maggi与Phillip在一起。仇人的儿子，侮辱了父亲，夺走磨坊的人的儿子，他怎么可能接受他成为妹妹的爱人？！他对Phillip当然是没有什么恨的，可是，他的骄傲怎么可能允许他对这个人笑脸相迎——这简直是对自己自尊心的践踏！
我永远都不会忘记那个结局。兄妹俩都匆匆地死了，在我还没反应过来时，他们已经永远地沉入河底，消失在人世间，尽管世上还有那么多爱着他们的亲人、朋友，还有这么多不舍的读者暗自垂泪、唏嘘不已。唯一的一丝安慰是，最后兄妹俩和解了，在生命的最后一刻紧紧地抱在一起，似乎对方的身躯可以抵挡千军万马，只要兄妹两人在一起便什么都不怕了。我想，水底里，他们的面容一定是安详的！ -
不是乔治·艾略特的书吗？ -
hahah, the first paragraph is truly very --- sentimental~ -
最有触动的一句,是Maggie说的:"O God O God is there any happiness in love that could make me forget their pain?"
唉... -
温暖的兄妹情。
《弗洛河上的磨坊》乔治 艾略特
如果你有没兄弟姐妹，想感受一下兄妹情，那麽就读一下《弗洛河上的磨坊》。
爱你的妹妹就尊重她做的一切决定吧。不管那决定是对是错。《倚天屠龙记》里的金毛狮王在金花婆婆出嫁时，就给了她唯一的祝福，那是为何在后来金花一直敬重他的原因。每个哥哥都应该是金毛师王。
书中的哥哥汤姆却不同，他从小就爱自己的妹妹麦琪，但心胸狭小从不原谅妹妹的任何错误。开始他反对麦琪和仇人的儿子菲利普交往。后来因为斯蒂芬的爱慕，麦琪和自己的表妹的情人斯蒂芬出去划船。麦琪为了自己的心中的神圣的呼唤，拒绝了斯蒂芬的求婚。但汤姆却不听她的解释和自己妹妹一刀两断。
大水来临，麦琪奋不顾身去救汤姆，最后一同死于大水。我们是同父母的兄弟姐妹，爱应超越一切不同想法和隔阂。
书中对塔里弗太太的姐妹们的描写出神入化，特别是汤姆家败落时的他们的反映，很有戏剧效果。对汤姆的姑姑贫穷的摩斯太太的描写也不错。
汤姆的爸爸塔里弗对自己的妹妹摩斯太太的爱也是作者要赞扬的。
-
我也是乱跑，看到一本n久年前读过的书，就浮想联翩了。。。反正闲着，就乱写了。 -
JaneAustin的那本《简爱》；
简爱不是夏绿蒂勃朗特写的吗。。。