I’ve been reading the posts on Mill on the Floss with great interest. Let’s keep them up!
We ended last class talking about the relationship between the “love” plot and the “money” plots in the novel. Poovey sees them as quite different strands that compete with each other for the interest of the reader and, possibly, point out some of the ironies in the way readers of “financial journalism” might have encountered a novel that only seems marginally to do with finance and capital–but which actually is. Kreisel, by contrast, sees the two plots as intimately related on the evidence of economic language (she is similar to Miles here) and of parallels between the novels’ major narrative developments and ongoing debates in political economy about social progress, consumption, and economic order. I’m wondering if any of you have a preference for either of these readings? Why or why not?
I far prefer Kreisel’s analysis of Mill on the Floss. I find her connection between the novel’s characters & plot and the optimistic & pessimistic views of economics quite compelling.
The characters in Elliot’s novel are easily connected to economic conversations about supply, demand, production, labour, prudence (frugality), and consumption which leads me to believe that this is a sound reading of the novel. On p. 74 where Kreisel outlines the various “stations” in society (labourers, landowners, and professionals), we can immediately draw parallels to the characters in Elliot’s novel (Labourers – Luke ; Landowners – Tullivers ; Professionals – Mr.Stellings). We can then follow economic conversations further and see how each grouping of characters represents a different approach to economics. For example, when Kreisel equates the “Dodson’s obsession with wills and funerals…[with] a logical extension of a measured, prudent, and frugal life” (p.96). This helps us to equate them with evangelical-economic writing and the value of thrift. Another example would be establishing economic security through the hoarding/fetishism of objects of value (ex. The Dodson’s p.85) or ideas about how to achieve economic growth (ex. Mr.Deane’s speech to Tom p.86).
In my opinion, Kreisel’s article is more palatable simply because the connections she makes are more direct. I believe this makes her argument more robust and less prone to objection or criticism.
That being said, I am completely open to your thoughts and opinions…