What is Yea Forums's opinion on George Elliot? I've read Mill on the Floss and Middlemarch...

George Eliot was cute as hell ngl

Haven't read her, but English novelists are usually bad, and waste too much time dealing with irrelevant questions.

England never produced a Melville - not after the 18th century that is. Nor a Faulkner.

Conrad comes close to Melville, but he was not an Englishman.

The English novel was great in the times of Swift, Sterne and Defoe. Then it became too girly, too concerned with its own trivialities, as England looked more and more towards itself and its own pride instead of looking towards the world, which it had now conquered and therefore didn't offer much reason for fascination. Of course there are exceptions, but few. The best 19th century novels are French and Russian; in the 20th century, French and Latin American.

I couldn't make it past the first page. I can't stand overly descriptive prose like that. If a novel starts off with some long-winded description of something (especially of a landscape or some shit) I drop it immediately.

Yes, and they have traded that 'solved' dilemma for one which can only be resolved in apocalypse.

>In her days women had only one dilemma, to marry beloved man or to mary a rich man.

Which is why the only good 19th century books are either about men (Meville) or about women who violate that low-intelligence predicament (Madame Bovary, Dom Casmurro, Primo Basílio), sometimes offering a mixture of both (Le Rouge e le Noir).

Not all suffering makes good literature. I can't stand those English novelists and their women always talking about marriage. At the same time they were sprouting their idiotic pages, Bocage in Portugal was describing shitting prostitutes and long schlongs in magnificent neoclassical verse.

Take this sonnet:

ARREITADA DONZELA

Arreitada donzela em fofo leito,
Deixando erguer a virginal camisa,
Sobre as roliças coxas se divisa
Entre sombras sutis pachacho estreito:

De louro pêlo um círculo imperfeito
Os papudos beicinhos lhe matiza;
E a branca crica, nacarada e lisa,
Em pingos verte alvo licor desfeito:

A voraz porra as guelras encrespando
Arruma a focinheira, e entre gemidos
A moça treme, os olhos requebrados:

Como é inda boçal, perde os sentidos;
Porém vai com tal ânsia trabalhando,
Que os homens é que vêm a ser fodidos.

Knowing that this was the stuff women were doing back then, just like they do it now, how can I take Jane Austen seriously? As Antônio Lobo Antunes once said: ''I wonder if someone who never fucked could ever write a good book''.

>some continental euro was writing about people shitting
wow what a surprise. what is it with you people and piss and shit?

It's called honesty. English writers were not true to life, because they grew up in a Protestant culture, whose main characteristic is that of pretending not to sin while sinning more than everyone else.

ADIVINHAÇÃO

É pau, é rei dos paus, não marmeleiro,
Bem que duas gamboas lhe lobrigo;
Dá leite, sem ser árvore de figo,
Da glande o fruto tem, sem ser sobreiro:

Verga, e não quebra, como zambujeiro;
Oco, qual sabugueiro tem o umbigo;
Branco às vezes, qual vime, está consigo;
Outras vezes mais rijo que um pinheiro:

À roda da raiz produz carqueja;
Todo o resto do tronco é calvo e nu;
Nem cedro, nem pau-santo mais negreja!

Para carvalho ser falta-lhe um U;
Adivinhem agora que pau seja,
E quem adivinhar meta-o no cu.

>We write about the sin of pooping because we are honest
lol

Pooping is not a sin.

yes it is
you probably don't even know about the proper way to get rid of fecal matter
lol

Yeah, but protestants think it's dirty. They dream of a world where people don't shit, did you know that?

It's not just pooping, of course.

It's anything sexual, anything having to do with the body. You can see Jane Austen was afraid of her own body, her own human nature, of her own material existence, of the very earth she put her foot on.

Can you visualize Jane Austen killing a rat with a wooden spoon? She'd run away, scared to death - from the rat as well as from the spoon.

>Can you visualize Jane Austen killing a rat with a wooden spoon?
Nobody in their right mind would kill a rat with a wooden spoon — it doesn’t weigh enough and isn’t the right tool for the job — which only demonstrates your own unfamiliarity with nature, rural life, etc. Austen grew up in the countryside in a family of modest means, where her father farmed on the side to supplement his income. There’s no reason to suppose her effete, as you yourself seem to be.
>Jane Austen was afraid of her own body, her own human nature, of her own material existence, of the very earth she put her foot on.
Pretentious nonsense.

This is a common (but silly) accusation against Protestants, as they rid themselves of the pagan obsession with the naked body brought on by the Renaissance.

>it doesn’t weigh enough and isn’t the right tool for the job

Can be done.

>Pretentious nonsense.

Anglo damage control.

Middlemarch is far and away one of the best novels written in English. Its mastery of the language, its deep-felt humanity, and its moral clarity are unparalleled.

Attached: yehudi menuhin.jpg (500x266, 39K)

nice spacing

>Can be done
Cope
>Anglo damage control
LOL, nope. While you appear intelligent, it’s equally apparent that you’re a pompous wannabe poseur.

Attached: 02358C9D-B5AE-4B7C-ABE7-25BFA7E47E74.jpg (300x300, 22K)

>plebs thinking marriage is not a suitable subject for great art
It is a truth, universally acknowledged, that a pleb in possession of an opinion of Austen must be in want of exposure

>she is one of the best Victorian novelists, beside Dickens
Have you read Trollope? He’s quite good too. (BTW, the name is spelled ‘Eliot.’)
>George Eliot was cute as hell
In her youth, maybe, but by middle age not so much (picture related). Henry James described her as “magnificently ugly, deliciously hideous,” but went on to add that “in this vast ugliness resides a most powerful beauty which, in a very few minutes, steals forth and charms the mind, so that you end, as I ended, in falling in love with her.”. She certainly had no problem attracting men.
>The best 20th century novels are French and Latin American
You’re entitled to your opinion, although unfortunately in this case it’s neither good nor informed.
Nice one.

Attached: 3FDBD382-7E02-4B3D-A68B-AED995B82D2B.jpg (1100x618, 67K)

Should have been

>The best 20th century novels are French and Latin American
You’re entitled to your opinion, although unfortunately in this case it’s neither good nor informed.

Middlemarch ? It’s no Madame Bovary.

>in this vast ugliness resides a most powerful beauty which, in a very few minutes, steals forth and charms the mind, so that you end, as I ended, in falling in love with her.
I like this kind of women. Relatively unattractive but with some inner magic that is immensely more interesting. They are hard to come by, though.

I have Middlemarch in my stack
How good is it? Is it worth moving to the front of my list? I’m basically just reading western canon right now so the other options are all classics

>How good is it? Is it worth moving to the front of my list?
Many consider it the finest British novel of the 19th century. But whether to move it to the top of your list is a different story; I found it a rather difficult slog to get through (and
I’m a huge fan of 19th century English and American literature), so really it’s a matter of personal taste.

>inner magic
You mean her not being a complete dumbass ?

Attached: virile catholic comedy.png (758x516, 1.02M)

wtf is that a tranny