《Middlemarch》是一本由George Eliot / Rosemary Ashton著作，Penguin Books出版的Paperback图书，本书定价：USD 10.00，页数：880，特精心从网络上整理的一些读者的读后感，希望对大家能有帮助。
《Middlemarch》精选点评：
●One of the best English novels.
●ah!
●还剩一个Finale，虽然19世纪的英国女作家是这样阴阳怪气，但是可能是“best novel in English”。
●写完论文怒标一记...正如尾声所说" every limit is a beginning as well as an ending", Middlemarch在各方面体现sociality&interconnectedness：free indirect discourse连接一三人称视角；依靠流言（Cadwallader）和突现小人物（Raffles）构成的人际网络；每章前的小引与正文情节呼应，更牵涉庞大的互文环路；主体间性彰显的瞬间（ch.81 Dorothea&Rosamond）和唯我论的失效。GE作为liberal humanist，在创作中对宏大叙事却有自反：对议会改革、铁路修建等重大事件的细微化处理，对情节剧的戏仿（ch83 被许多人诟病的恋情高潮处理），对史诗逻辑的颠覆。
●我的最爱。
●本来毕业论文打算写这本书的，，后来发现书实在太厚了，，写不了，就放弃了，呵呵o(∩_∩)o...
●怎么会有这么温柔的小说。尽管写满了人与人之间相互控制，还有占领统治着真相的假象与流言，甚至结局也不是我以为的好人最终洗脱罪名，但她却给你一个吻，一个来自圣母的吻，怀着特蕾莎的慈悲和安提戈涅的力量，告诉你这个世界的美好，不一定依靠宏伟、虚无、难测的理想和改革，这些被埋葬误解，却稳固如初的善意反而更值得依靠。
●重读之后感悟更深，究竟是性格决定命运还是环境限制人生。结尾依旧是我最喜欢的小说结局，在这样一个时代，过史诗般的生活和写出史诗般的巨制都是苍白的梦想。
●show and tell well organized
●其实我读的时候一直觉得在对婚姻隐忍道德的大框架下，其实漂浮着Eliot精妙设计的adultery impulse（double narrative progressions?）。典型的维多利亚偏重欢喜基调的结局。Middlemarch的‘middle"’，既是transition，又是commonness。
《Middlemarch》读后感(一)：情感的遺產
quot;誠然，他也對生活的種種可能有著夢境般的想象：這世上沒有人能既擁有激情又有思想，卻不思考他們所受的激情可能的結果；卻不發現腦海中浮現的想象時而以希望舒緩激情，或以失望刺痛激情。這雖然在我們每個人身上都發生過，對某些人，它的發生截然不同。[...] 他如何從他對Dorothea的感情中為他自己產生某種幸福，就是證明。說來奇怪，但事實如此：那個Casaubon疑心他擁有的平常的粗鄙的想象—— 也就是，Dorothea會成為一個寡婦，然後他在她心裡激起的某些興趣也許會讓她接受他作為丈夫—— 這個想象，沒有誘惑並捕獲他的力量；他不活在這個想象之下，並想著如何實現，不像我們面對想象的“也許”那樣，我們可實現的天堂。這不僅僅是因為他不願意去娛樂那些可能被譴責為低俗的思想。這裡還有別的原因。Will，如我們所見，無法忍受任何瑕疵出現在他的腦海：面對Dorothea看他並與他交談時平靜的自由，他同時感到憤怒和欣慰；而且有一種細膩的東西出現在他把她當成她去思考的時候，以致於他不嚮往任何改變，因為這改變必然會改變她。難道我們不會避而不聽優美樂曲的拙劣表演—— 或避而不聽如下的一個事實，原來那我們辛苦只為看一眼的稀有之物的稀有，並不罕見，也許唾手可得？我們的善取決於我們情感的質量和廣度。而對於Will，這個對生活中結實的東西不太在乎，而卻把那些暗藏的影響記在心裡的人，那心裡湧起的如此這般對Dorothea的感情，就像是一個豐厚的遺產。也許會被他人叫做激情的徒勞，卻給了他的想象額外的歡愉：他意識到一種大方的運動，並在自己的體驗中確認了那些曾滋養了他幻想的愛情詩歌。
Dorothea，他對自己說，已永遠地在他的靈魂裡被加冕。” Book V. xlvii (5.47)
而Will的表兄，Dorothea的丈夫，Casaubon，正是缺乏情感的質量和廣度，才會以為Will對Dorothea有非分之想。對於Casaubon，George Eliot說，“就我而言，我為Casaubon感到可憐。他們至少是不安的一群，那些受過教育但不知如何享受的人們，面對生命的偉大景觀，卻未能從狹小，飢餓並顫抖的自我中解放——從未能面對我們所見的榮光，從未能把我們的意識熱烈地轉化成思想的鮮活，激情的火熱和行動的力量；而是永遠地學究而枯燥，野心勃勃但又膽怯，嚴謹卻又目光短淺。” Book III.xxix (3.29)
像擁有遺產一樣擁有情感。遺產這個比喻既能抓住情感的不由自主，它的珍贵，又強調了它來自於另一個個體。但這份情感的“質量和廣度”卻取決於我們，是我們的細膩或是冷漠，決定了它的珍貴，以及那個個體的珍貴。“我們的善取決於我們情感的質量和廣度。” 能夠對另外一個人有某種細膩的，親密的，安心的，“平靜的自由”，而不急於要求這份情感變成某種慾望，用這遺產去交換別的什麼東西，而僅僅是接受這份遺產，珍惜這份遺產。不急於去愛欲的愛情，一定是自有豐饒才能抵抗愛慾所受的饑寒交迫。當然，愛情的豐饒和愛慾的貧窮，都是情感的遺產。
《Middlemarch》读后感(二)：好！
可能现在提到Proper English，我会首先想到这本书。我一直觉得，任何作品如果耐看，甚至能穿越时间，必是自身形式语言本身就是美的。Middlemarch, 语言的质感没得说。熨贴，流畅，丰富。是素描的高手，能迅速地刻画一个形象；也是渲染的高手，归根结底，语言有间隙，有限的语言却把间隙填满，那就是气氛，而气氛最重要。
我之前说它是”简奥斯汀，张爱玲和托尔斯泰的结合“。真心不是夸张。简奥斯汀是题材的类似，英国乡镇的经济社会，婚丧嫁娶；张爱玲，是同样的尖锐和敏感，但是乔治艾略特不刻薄，不残酷。后者就像一直在«倾城之恋»的末尾，她对世界有一个巨大的谅解和宽容，是超越事实和理解的，她对所有人都体恤；托尔斯泰，是同样的刻画一整个社会，一整个时代，以及永恒的人的面貌的决心。
众多婚恋的推手里，我觉得最有趣味的，是Lydgate夫妇，大概也是相对最刻薄的，最交错的。Rosemond美丽和自恋，Tertius的野心和苛求。追求和虚荣所有的灰度，是标准和动力，也是妄想和分裂。怎么都觉得身边很多真实的人，看得见类似的挣扎。
然而读到后半程，不觉得这部书“写实”，即便它仍然生动地展现了人的面貌。因为所有人总的说来都太wise了。即便所有的“坏”人，Bulstrode（B夫妇达成谅解的一幕也是极为动人），Raffles，甚至揣测八卦的民众，也是顺应着自己的性情犯的“错”，错的都coherent and consistant。而我以为现实里，一个群体里必然有人，体现为矛盾和不稳定的，必然有偶然和崩溃，是很难线性的描述和整合的。这么说，好像那些偶像剧里几乎基因突变一样驴唇不对马嘴的人物才真实吗？至少，世界看上去，同样的不完美，也永不会像Middlemarch一般周整吧。
最近看«Sex Education»里自称女权主义者的高中女生Meave在她的房车里读这本书，并且她吸毒的妈妈后来捡起来看，说it’s actually not bad. 这本书大概是英国高中课外必读书目。我有时看到某国政要讲话，会觉得他哪怕读了一章Middlemarch，大概也不会把英语说成那样……今天的世界的确有太多令人绝望部分。而今天“女权”在中文世界也有太多泛滥，Middlemarch值得看的另一个原因，是看到女性其实被确立为一个可以选择人生的个体（哪怕人生仅仅是婚姻），是如此近代的事情；是看到有Dorothea这样的女性角色，让我们恨不得给女儿起名叫Dodo；更重要的是看到乔治艾略特这样的作者，她的睿智和温情，我不知怎样形容，但我狭隘而坚定地以为，是女性独有的。
这本书是几年前初看时，我就在想，我怎么之前不知道它？为什么满书店的各个系列的西方经典名著里没有它？当然这可能只是我的孤陋寡闻，它为什么没有像简奥斯汀一样在中国流行？肯定也不是篇幅的原因，因为也没有像«战争与和平»那样流行……
出于这样的迷思，我觉得很有必要，至少在这样的作品门前，大喊：好看！也许就会有听到的人，也会翻开进来瞧瞧。
《Middlemarch》读后感(三)：A thought about Middlemarch
http://www.douban.com/note/33165093/
According to my unscientific and by no means serious little survey, among the non-literary circles and common readers, it seems that more men than women have read Middlemarch. Is it simply because the ostensibly male pen name the author (Mary Ann Evans) uses puts off romance-craved female readers and irritates the feminist critics, or, her intensively analytical style and science-oriented narratives do appeal more to the male minds？ Well, there's a mean explanation...
Henry James said of Eliot, "She is magnificently ugly--deliciously hideous...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." We girls have a right to feel a bit jealous and intimidated by a woman who charms gay writers.
And straight scientists:
1) Robert Oppenheimer read Middlemarch at 14 years old, in a summer camp, and was very obsessed with it. (hey Robert, didn't you hear Virginia Woolf say it was for "grown-up people" ？)
2) Stephen Jay Gould was a huge fan.
quot;Women's Brains" by Stephen Jay Gould
While Dorothea is too "ardently" (as GE loves to put it) religious and ethereal for my own taste, I find the characters of Mary Garth and her family, who reflect certain autobiographical elements related to the author herself, very lovable and warm. The most morally troubled banker Bulstrode, is psychologically engaging in the same way that Raskolnikov of Crime and Punishment mesmerizes readers worldwide. My favorite character？ Mr. Farebrother, the good-humored vicar of Middlemarch who's Mary Garth's not-so-secret admirer and also a science junkie typical of Victorian intellectual society.
小调查： 如果你是Mary Garth, 你会选择嫁给谁，Fred Vincy 还是 Farebrother？
《Middlemarch》读后感(四)：Book review for Middlemarch
Dorothea and Lydgate’s story lie parallel in their quest for the “truth” in life. Dorothea is always looking to apply herself, whether through intellectual assistance to her husband or financial support for the new hospital. Lydgate, on the other hand, has been piloting new medical treatments. He does it so ardently to the point of being untactful in relationships with the Middlemarch society. But unlike Dorothea, his determination was gradually worn out by Rosamond’s erosive obstinacy as well as other unfortunate circumstances in life that are beyond his control.
That is why I like Dorothea more than Lydgate. I like to see human being’s character and will power triumph over circumstances in life. In that sense, I am an idealist.
Eliot thinks that Dorothea represents the invisible forces of women that lie behind society’s progress. Their compromised self-value is compensated by addition to the greater social good. Is that a value less than value direct to one’s own？
I realized that maybe it is wrong to compare values of different lives. The most valuable life is the one that is the fittest to one’s nature, filled with love and joy - no matter where they are derived from.
Another reason why I was made to think this way was the many different types of people’s lives in Middlemarch.
Mr. Caleb founded his calling in working with his hands. Things so real that you can touch every part of it. He never wanted or had much money. But he has a sensible, caring wife, loving children. I am very jealous of people like him and always wonder - do they just happen to find what they love or do they stick with one thing and fall in love with it.
Mr. Brooke and Sir James Chettam to me seem to be the same type. They always have the luxury of options and practical means to walk away from things that displease them. Brooke has the advantage of age’s wisdom and seems to be more mischievous. But both of them are self-assured.
Compared with Dorothea, Cecilia is a realist. This is most telling in her relationship with Dorothea. Whenever her point has been made, she see through the impossibility of changing Dorothea and immediately allies with her.
Compared with Cecilia, Mary Caleb weighs more heavily in the whole story. Eliot gave detailed depiction of her look - plain, yet with eyes that are always ready to perceive. If you see a girl like her in the market you will definitely remember. How much does she love Fred？ She has always wanted to wait for Fred to set himself straight, but is this because she never thought Mr. Farebrother will be in her reach, until it was revealed to her？
Last on George Eliot’s style, she uses really detailed depiction of character’s thought processes, laying out the options and pros and cons, e.g. Lydgate and Bulstrode on Raffle’s death. As critics pointed out, the perspective switching between characters captures the distance between and delicateness of two people’s thoughts in the same situation. This shouldn’t be surprising for a great novel like this since reading people’s mind is one of the greatest attractions of literature. Just Eliot does it so well with such details and intricate analyses. The book is considered a panoramic presentation of life in English countryside in the mid 19th century. However, this great ambition is a double-edged sword for me. Because story development are often interrupted by attempts to loop in political, economic affairs, such as the railway and Reform Act.
I spent almost three month’s spare time finishing the book. The writing could be hard to understand, but by the end I was proud to be able to understand the complicated sentences much more easily. My friend read the book before and gave up halfway. So it also gives me extra sense of achievement to just finish reading it. One tip is for long books like this, it helps to get an overarching idea of the story development and points of conflict. Just so that you know what to expect and fill in the details as you move ahead.