På dette site bruger vi cookies til at levere vores ydelser, forbedre performance, til analyseformål, og (hvis brugeren ikke er logget ind) til reklamer. Ved at bruge LibraryThing anerkender du at have læst og forstået vores vilkår og betingelser inklusive vores politik for håndtering af brugeroplysninger. Din brug af dette site og dets ydelser er underlagt disse vilkår og betingelser.
In her study of the married couple as the smallest political unit, Phyllis Rose uses the marriages of five Victorian writers who wrote about their own lives with unusual candor: Charles Dickens, John Ruskin, Thomas Carlyle, John Stuart Mill, and George Eliot--née Marian Evans.
Rose, a literary scholar, examines the marriages of five famous Victorian authors: Thomas Carlyle, John Stuart Mill, George Eliot, Charles Dickens, and John Ruskin. (As a side note, I find it interested that two of these men are never read today, while three still draw readers. Why?) All of these marriages were miserable in their own quirky ways. Rose explains that she was going to write a chapter of Charles and Emma Darwin, but their marriage was so happy and loving it would have been too boring to write about.
One of Rose’s main points is that human relationships and desires are far too idiosyncratic to all fit the monolithic model of marriage. Why, she asks, are we so willing to create our own life narrative and self-identity in every area of our life but marriage? This is especially true for the Victorians. Yet some of the people Rose examines just seemed to be misadjusted by their own neuroses. For example, Charles Dickens crudely shoved his wife aside at mid-age simply for not being good enough any more. This was after she bore him ten children, which apparently was her fault. Or art critic John Ruskin, who never consummated his marriage because a naked woman’s body disgusted him too much. Sometimes it’s not the institution of marriage that’s the problem, but the people who enter into it without self-examination.
A really good book - highly recommended - and this coming from someone usually not interested in the Victorian era. ( )
I just read this a second time and loved it as much as the first. I'm thinking it's probably because 1) She's so freaking smart 2) You get to see inside 5 relationships. So intimate! So much dirt! 3) George Elliot's my hero 4) Author links personal to political, role of women in relationships to role of disempowered in society 5) All about power! 6) Get to compare then and now 7) Victorians and their sex habits, always fascinating 8) Ah, the footnotes ( )
This is one of the best books I found about Victorian marriages and literary couples. Insightful, full of unique details, and a great pleasure to read. When I lost my copy years ago, I went out and bought a new one to replace it. ( )
Through the examination of relationships of five Victorian literary couples, Rose illuminates the lives behind the work. Or you could think of it as very well-written literary gossip. Either way, a pleasure to read and an entertaining way to add to your literary education. ( )
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen VidenRedigér teksten, så den bliver dansk.
Marriage affords great collective excitations: if we managed to suppress the Oedipus complex and marriage, what would be left for us to tell?
--Roland Barthes, Roland Barthes
Tilegnelse
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen VidenRedigér teksten, så den bliver dansk.
To D. S.
Første ord
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen VidenRedigér teksten, så den bliver dansk.
When Leslie Stephen, the Victorian man of letters, read Froude's biography of Carlyle in the early 1880's, he was shocked -- as were many people -- by its portrait of the Carlyles' marriage.
Citater
Sidste ord
Oplysninger fra den engelske Almen VidenRedigér teksten, så den bliver dansk.
Because of her the Carlyles' marriage seems, in the strange afterlife which literature grants, to be also a marriage of equals, where equality consists -- as perhaps it must, in an imperfect time such as hers or ours -- in perpetual resistance, perpetual rebellion.
In her study of the married couple as the smallest political unit, Phyllis Rose uses the marriages of five Victorian writers who wrote about their own lives with unusual candor: Charles Dickens, John Ruskin, Thomas Carlyle, John Stuart Mill, and George Eliot--née Marian Evans.
▾Biblioteksbeskrivelser af bogens indhold
No library descriptions found.
▾LibraryThingmedlemmers beskrivelse af bogens indhold
)
)
)
Google Books — Indlæser...
1
One of Rose’s main points is that human relationships and desires are far too idiosyncratic to all fit the monolithic model of marriage. Why, she asks, are we so willing to create our own life narrative and self-identity in every area of our life but marriage? This is especially true for the Victorians. Yet some of the people Rose examines just seemed to be misadjusted by their own neuroses. For example, Charles Dickens crudely shoved his wife aside at mid-age simply for not being good enough any more. This was after she bore him ten children, which apparently was her fault. Or art critic John Ruskin, who never consummated his marriage because a naked woman’s body disgusted him too much. Sometimes it’s not the institution of marriage that’s the problem, but the people who enter into it without self-examination.
A really good book - highly recommended - and this coming from someone usually not interested in the Victorian era. (