Talk:Middlemarch

message: This is huge and quite messy, but it's got all the right elements and points to be made, so I'd really like to have a go at fixing it up a little. I will make small, on-going changes as I get time. Feedback is more than welcome.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oshimeon (talk • contribs) 02:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot summary 

message: I changed the Novels WikiProject rating to start as this thing is barely more than a stub now.  The plot summary is being rewritten, but there is almost no scholarship referenced here. Victorianist (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rating 

message: For the benefit of past and current editors I'd like to put forward a few suggestions as to how this article might develop. I started thinking about this when I noticed that the article had stalled recently, and I wondered whether a fresh approach might be beneficial.  In the last few days a new editor has come in, which is encouraging, but it would be good if all further contributions were within an agreed strategy for the article, which I suggest might be along the following lines:
*The article should be about the book, rather than primarily a summary of its plot and a list of characters. Obviously a plot synopsis is needed, but it should not be the main focus of the article, nor of the length that is currently developing. By "about the book" I mean its genesis, its reception at the time of publication, its importance in the canon of Victorian literature, its literary legacy, and "that sort of thing", as Mr Brooke would say.
I tried to add this http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/collections/projects/eliot/middlemarch/pub.html#serialization about the interesting publiscation history of the book but I have to learn how footnotes work.....[this gave me a 1 footnote but not the correct source).....from this, one learns that the book was published between 1871 and 1873. MKohut (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the approach you suggest, which would be well suited to the structure I have proposed. But meantime another editor has completed a plot summary, which runs to some 2,500 words. You can't have that length of summary, plus the historical background, plus a reasonable literary analysis, plus an informative list of characters, without the article having unacceptable length. My suggested policy remains as above, but there needs to be a consensus on approach, or there will be edit wars.  Brianboulton (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The plot summary should definitely be shortened. I don't mind if the plot summary is divided into sections or not (both formats have been used for books of similar calibre). I'm more concerned with the emerging "Themes" section. This kind of section should consist almost exclusively of published analyses and scholarship, and should contain appropriate references. Without this, these kinds of sections will be rife with original research. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 21:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To show willing, within a few days I will post my idea as to what the plot summary should be - around 750 words, treating the book's narratives organically rather than distinctly. This is not a bid to impose my will - I don't mind in the least if my summary is reverted, but at least it will demonstrate more clearly what I have in mind. Could I have some thoughts on the other idea - take the list of characters to another special page, and create the space for the "themes"? There is much published scholarship on which to draw.  Brianboulton (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A 750-word plot summary sounds good. I look forward to seeing it. I still think that a list of characters within the main article is useful, but I think we should trim the list of characters to those mentioned in the plot summary and also those that are essential in understanding it, with a brief explanation of each character's importance. A separate "List of characters in Middlemarch" could also include more characters. Thoughts? – Liveste (talk • edits) 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: General thought: lists spoil articles and take up lots of room (unless they are within specialized "list" articles). Also, a partial list of "main" characters will lead to arguments as to who should be in it. A proper, comprehensive list of characters, with informative descriptions, is a good long article on its own, and well worth doing in its own right. I for one would love to do it. So I'd stick to my position on this. However, let's take one step at a time - I'll do my plot summary first and then we can talk about the list. To provide the context for my summary I may have to alter the lead a bit. A lot, in fact. Brianboulton (talk) 10:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Future development of article

message: An anonymous editor has added a section headed "Class". The section, while interesting, is without citations and as such reads like this editor's personal interpretation. Is it possible that the editor can  add citations to the text? Otherwise, as opinion or original research it can't, unfortunately, remain in the article. Brianboulton (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Class section

message: The plot summary describes Will and Dorothea's marriage as one of convenience more than love, in this sentence: "But Dorothea, released from life with Casaubon but still the prisoner of his will, now sees Ladislaw as the means of her escape to a new life". Is he really just a 'means to an escape'? I disagree- she marries him because she loves him and it will make her happy! But perhaps, I'm an old romantic... 195.195.71.195 (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quibble with the plot summary 

message: Marriages are one of the major threads in what the narrator often terms the "web" of Middlemarch. For marriages provide links, not just between those joined in matrimony, but also between characters at quite a remove from the married couple. A prime example is provided by the two marriages (both childless) of Mr Featherstone--"the first to Mr Garth's sister and the second to Mrs Vincy's" (231*). Mr Featherstone's marriages serve not only to set in motion several features of the interwoven plots, but also to connect the country landowners, the more modest Garth family and the town "manufacturers." Furthermore, the marriages which editor Rosemary Ashton describes as "parallel cases" of "disastrous marriages" (Introduction, xii)--Casaubon's marriage to Dorothea Brooke and Lydgate's marriage to Rosamond Vincy--function not only to advance the narrative, and to allow complex psychological insights, but also permit commentaries on social structure, and to a lesser extent, on political and economic events. Even more disastrous, however, than the two marriages referred to above are the parallel "runaway" marriages contracted by Casaubon's Aunt Julia and by Ladislaw's mother, Sarah Dunkirk. These unions result in disinheritance, fatal illness and a general state of misery. Nonetheless, these "runaway" marriages provide an apparently unlikely thread between Casaubon and Bulstrode, a thread which is essential to the narrative of Middlemarch.
The thread linking Casaubon and Bulstrode is first evoked by the queen of Middlemarch upper-class gossip, Mrs Cadwallader. She informs whoever will listen that Casaubon's mother's sister made a bad match (69). The real thread begins, however, when Dorothea sees a miniature during her pre-bridal visit to Lowick. Casaubon dismisses the lady of the miniature: "My aunt made an unfortunate marriage. I never saw her" (75). Elsewhere we learn that Casaubon's Aunt Julia ran away with "a Pole" (Mr Cadwallader, 69) or a "musical Polish patriot" (Mr Farebrother, 719). Mrs Cadwallader, who has to have her say, describes Aunt Julia's husband as "a rebellious Polish fiddler or dancing master..." (819). Will Ladislaw, grandson to that Aunt Julia, speaks more charitably, and probably more accurately, of a "mésalliance...a Polish refugee who gave lessons for his bread." As he admiringly puts it, "My grandfather was a patriot--a bright fellow" (365). Unfortunately, however, Polish patriotism commands little respect in Middlemarch. Sir James Chettam, that "excellent baronet" (16), sums up the general feeling when he disparagingly states that "There is some foreign blood in Ladislaw" (379).
Shortly after seeing the miniature, Causabon and Dorothea meet Will Ladislaw. Casaubon introduces him as "a second cousin: the grandson of the lady you have been noticing, my Aunt Julia" (79). Casaubon insists that Ladislaw is not his nephew, but his "cousin" (81). Ladislaw will confirm Casaubon's generosity--or, as that worthy clergyman might have put it, his duty--to a family living in abject squalor. For it is the family of Aunt Julia's son whom the reader finds overcome by misery. As Ladislaw himself recounts it, his father "was lying ill, and I was very hungry, and had only a little bit of bread" (365). He continues, "...my father had made himself known to Mr Casaubon and that was my last hungry day. My father died soon after, and my mother and I were well taken care of" (366). Casaubon has paid young Ladislaw's school fees at Rugby and would gladly have put him in a university (81). He confirms that he has given his "young relative" (79) "to understand that [he] would furnish in moderation what was necessary for providing him with a scholarly education and launching him respectably" (81).
Another link enters the thread when Raffles, the "florid stranger" (609), tells Ladislaw that he had seen the young man's father at Boulogne and that the father was very ill. Ladislaw confirms that it was this illness that led to his death (610). At first, this might seem like one of the coincidences that abound in the Victorian novel, but it is more likely that Raffles' sighting of the older Ladislaw occured at the time of the sinister search which launches a large part of the plot in the later chapters of Middlemarch.
However, when Raffles accosts Will Ladislaw, after the auction of the goods of Edwin Larcher, Esq., the real thrust of the villain's semi-drunken innuendo is aimed at Ladislaw's mother, Sarah Dunkirk (609-10). (While at Stone Court, Raffles had remembered that the name of Sarah Dunkirk's husband was Ladislaw!) Raffles, trying to goad Ladislaw, asks him if Sarah Dunkirk was the name of his mother; Ladislaw replies in the affirmative (609). We are already aware that she had died some four years beforehand (366). Admittedly, her "runaway" was prior to her marriage but the consequences were similar. Bulstrode, in his remorseful, and largely self-pitying inner monologue (614 et seq.), recalls that Sarah Dunkirk ran away from her family (617) when she learnt that her father's wealth had come from semi-criminal activities: "the respectable thieving line--the high style of receiving house," as Raffles describes it (611). Bulstrode's fortune has also derived from the "receiving house," first when he works there and becomes a partner; but even more so when he marries the widowed Mrs Dunkirk. Things turn out well for Bulstrode. Not only has Mrs Dunkirk's daughter run away, but her son has died. When she too conveniently dies, the fortune goes to Bulstrode. He had been given some chance of redemption when, at Mrs Dunkirk's request, he sought out--and found--the "runaway" heiress, presumably living in the misery described by her son, Will Ladislaw. However, in inverse parallel to the behavior of Casaubon, Bulstrode denies that he has found Mrs Dunkirk's daughter, Sarah. Consequenly, when he arrives to settle in Middlemarch, he is a very wealthy man. But unfortunately for him, his misdeeds, "blabbed" by the alcohol-poisoned Raffles to Mr Bambridge (716-7), will finally lead to Bulstrode's public disgrace, drawing opprobrium both on himself and on the innocent Lydgate--ironically, one of the victims of the "disastrous marriages." Bulstrode even confesses the truth of his misdeeds to Ladislaw (623). He offers Ladislaw an annuity from the ill-gotten fortune, but Ladislaw refuses due to the money's dishonorable source (623-4).
Mr Farebrother sums it up neatly when he says that "our Ladislaw has a queer genealogy" (719). For Sarah Dunkirk, or Sarah Ladislaw, is, as Raffles sees it, Bulstrode's "step-daughter" (530). By the same logic, Ladislaw (Casaubon's "cousin") is Bulstrode's "step-grandson." Thus, the application of one of those Victorian eye-glasses to the "web" of Middlemarch reveals the apparently unlikely thread connecting Mr Casaubon and Mr Bulstrode. The thread comes full circle with the marriage of Will Ladislaw to Dorothea Casaubon. Again, it is seen as a "disastrous marriage" by Middlemarch society; and again, a marriage will lead to disinheritance.PeadarMaguidhir (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casaubon, Bulstrode and Ladislaw: A Thread in the Web 

message: He seems to rate Middlemarch as the greatest novel in the English lanuage. Worth mentioning (alongside Woolf and V. S. Pritchett, as a contemporary writer) in the Literary significance and reception section? Upon his recommendation, I'm reading it.
Third paragraph here: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article6996980.ece?token=null&offset=36&page=4
printable version:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article6996980.ece?print=yes&randnum=1151003209000
86.176.124.211 (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for the links. I agree it's worth mentioning. SlimVirgin TALK contribs 12:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I've added it to the lead.  SlimVirgin TALK contribs 18:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Splendid.. Sometimes I get vexed by this place, but right there, your action: that's what Wikipedia is all about. Thanks 86.177.3.74 (talk) 01:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Actually I was thinking the same about you. :) SlimVirgin TALK contribs 06:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martin Amis 

message: I thought this section was pretty questionable. A few small criticisms are included although many more could be added. 
===Class===
The characters in the book belong to distinct social classes based on birth and money. The genteel class (that is to say, the class of people whose inherited wealth makes them financially independent and who need not work for a living) is represented by Sir James Chettam, Mr. Casaubon, and the Brooke family (Dorothea, Celia, and their uncle). The merchant and professional class is represented by the Vincy family (particularly Fred and Rosamond), and the labouring class is represented by the Garth family. Old Mr. Featherstone has amassed considerable wealth and substantial landholdings, but illustrates a stubborn class divide by the fact that he has never entered the genteel "county" circle of the Brooke family (who watch his funeral from a window, noticing that it is more elaborate than is customary among their own, higher caste).
 	
Class climbing and class sinking also feature in the book. Mr. Vincy, who has become reasonably wealthy but who is living beyond his means and who is teaching his children Fred and Rosamond to do the same, is hoping that his children will make it into the upper class.
:I'm not sure this is stated clearly in the book. 
He believes Fred will inherit a substantial amount of money from old Mr. Featherstone, so he does not push Fred to work hard at university or pass his exams. He raises Rosamond to spend foolishly because he hopes that, with her beauty and charm, she will be able to marry up. Neither of the Vincy children succeed.
:It is not clear that their definition of "success" constitutes entering the upper classes. 
Fred alienates Mr. Featherstone and does not inherit the fortune he hoped for and it is not until he embraces work and fulfils his destiny as a member of the mercantile class that he earns Mary Garth's respect. Rosamond marries Dr. Lydgate believing that she's marrying into an upper class family when in reality Lydgate is short of money and sinking into debt. Rosamond in fact insists on maintaining an upper-class lifestyle even when her husband tries to cut back expenses and to sell off unnecessary belongings in order to avoid bankruptcy.
 
Lydgate, unlike his wife, is not trying to move up in class but to move down. He was born into a wealthy family, but alienated his relatives by deciding to become a doctor. As a professional, he voluntarily stepped into a lower class. Yet he is still accustomed to the material luxuries he enjoyed in his youth, so he spends more than he should to buy a practice and to set up his household. He persists in idealistic, upper-class activities such as working without pay for the hospital and alienating patients by not dispensing medicine and by charging for consultations in a manner inconsistent with the traditional practice of medicine in Middlemarch. His patients believe he is an arrogant snob and they want nothing to do with him. So, by belonging convincingly to neither class, Lydgate effectively shuts himself out from both.
 
Another class-crossing character is Ladislaw. 
:I don't see Ladislaw as "class-crossing" but someone whose place in the class hierarchy is indeterminate. There is a difference. 
He lives a fairly Bohemian life at first, but comes to Middlemarch and seeks employment as a clerk. Since he works for a living, he puts himself on a far lower social rung than his relative Mr. Casaubon. Dorothea's marriage to Ladislaw is shocking not because he is a relative or because it is in defiance of Casaubon's will, but because the class and financial differences between Ladislaw and Dorothea are so great.
:The section was interesting but I think much of it represents original research. I do think that we could mention the wealth situations and class situations of these people, as they would be obvious to people reading the novel at the time it was written, and were basically for the time pretty clearly stated. But when the characters are analyzed based on class aspirations, that crosses into original research. Like Fred "fulfills his destiny as a member of the mercantile class" is a bit too interpretive, even though I would for the most part agree with it. QuizzicalBee (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable section  

message: The characters in the book belong to distinct social classes based on birth and money. The genteel class (that is to say, the class of people whose inherited wealth makes them financially independent and who need not work for a living) is represented by Sir James Chettam, Mr. Casaubon, and the Brooke family (Dorothea, Celia, and their uncle). The merchant and professional class is represented by the Vincy family (particularly Fred and Rosamond), and the labouring class is represented by the Garth family. Old Mr. Featherstone has amassed considerable wealth and substantial landholdings, but illustrates a stubborn class divide by the fact that he has never entered the genteel "county" circle of the Brooke family (who watch his funeral from a window, noticing that it is more elaborate than is customary among their own, higher caste).
 	
Class climbing and class sinking also feature in the book. Mr. Vincy, who has become reasonably wealthy but who is living beyond his means and who is teaching his children Fred and Rosamond to do the same, is hoping that his children will make it into the upper class.
:I'm not sure this is stated clearly in the book. 
He believes Fred will inherit a substantial amount of money from old Mr. Featherstone, so he does not push Fred to work hard at university or pass his exams. He raises Rosamond to spend foolishly because he hopes that, with her beauty and charm, she will be able to marry up. Neither of the Vincy children succeed.
:It is not clear that their definition of "success" constitutes entering the upper classes. 
Fred alienates Mr. Featherstone and does not inherit the fortune he hoped for and it is not until he embraces work and fulfils his destiny as a member of the mercantile class that he earns Mary Garth's respect. Rosamond marries Dr. Lydgate believing that she's marrying into an upper class family when in reality Lydgate is short of money and sinking into debt. Rosamond in fact insists on maintaining an upper-class lifestyle even when her husband tries to cut back expenses and to sell off unnecessary belongings in order to avoid bankruptcy.
 
Lydgate, unlike his wife, is not trying to move up in class but to move down. He was born into a wealthy family, but alienated his relatives by deciding to become a doctor. As a professional, he voluntarily stepped into a lower class. Yet he is still accustomed to the material luxuries he enjoyed in his youth, so he spends more than he should to buy a practice and to set up his household. He persists in idealistic, upper-class activities such as working without pay for the hospital and alienating patients by not dispensing medicine and by charging for consultations in a manner inconsistent with the traditional practice of medicine in Middlemarch. His patients believe he is an arrogant snob and they want nothing to do with him. So, by belonging convincingly to neither class, Lydgate effectively shuts himself out from both.
 
Another class-crossing character is Ladislaw. 
:I don't see Ladislaw as "class-crossing" but someone whose place in the class hierarchy is indeterminate. There is a difference. 
He lives a fairly Bohemian life at first, but comes to Middlemarch and seeks employment as a clerk. Since he works for a living, he puts himself on a far lower social rung than his relative Mr. Casaubon. Dorothea's marriage to Ladislaw is shocking not because he is a relative or because it is in defiance of Casaubon's will, but because the class and financial differences between Ladislaw and Dorothea are so great.
:The section was interesting but I think much of it represents original research. I do think that we could mention the wealth situations and class situations of these people, as they would be obvious to people reading the novel at the time it was written, and were basically for the time pretty clearly stated. But when the characters are analyzed based on class aspirations, that crosses into original research. Like Fred "fulfills his destiny as a member of the mercantile class" is a bit too interpretive, even though I would for the most part agree with it. QuizzicalBee (talk) 07:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Class

message: I thought this quote would close out the section nicely. 
In another letter (to Thomas Wentworth Higginson, 1879) Dickinson inquires of him, "And perhaps you have spoken with George Eliot. Will you 'tell me about it'"? Linscott p. 310.Ol'Campy (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dickinson on Eliot 

message: The info box image shows that volume 1 of Middlemarch was published in 1871, yet the date of publication (after it was serialized) is given as 1874. I checked the Encyclopaedia Britannica and it states that the novel was published in "eight parts in 1871–72 and also published in four volumes in 1872". Isn't 1872 therefore the date of first publication as a book, whereas 1874 is the date of the first one volume edition? Both the current lede and info box are confusing. I can fix, if there's no objection. Rwood128 (talk) 19:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here. For starters I wasn't certain about how "first published" is defined on WP (is it from first serialisation in which case 1871, or from first publication as a completed volume?). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I read the article more carefully (Composition and publication) and it seems that the image with the infobox is of the first volume/installment of an eight volume edition, confusingly described as a serialization in the article. This first volume appeared December 1871. Rwood128 (talk) 10:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of publication 

message: Citations 16, 17, 53, 56, 57 are notes but I don't know how to reformat them. 
I'm also confused by the "Reference"/Bibliography section. What system is being followed here? I don't recognize it. Rwood128 (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also shouldn't  the heading "Further reading" be deleted and the reviews be treated as a subheading of the "Bibliography"? Rwood128 (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please make it so with regard to the Further reading section, User:Rwood128. There is something absurd about having a Further reading section at all about a novel this famous. There is of course any amount of further reading, and it's not hard to find. Having a little selection of it here is just.. grating.  Bishonen | talk 15:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

text: I have changed the last section to "Notes and References" (so it indicates that the section has both) and changed "Bibliography/Select Bibliography" to "Sources" (the former might indicate the entire output concerning Middlemarch, which is the wrong impression; but the latter might suggest we're not referencing some sources we've made use of [i.e. we have 'selected' some]). Hope this is acceptable. Naming conventions around this are fairly arbitrary and highly variable, but this seems a decent compromise. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 18:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an improvement. It feels very much this afternoon (here) like a race to the finish. Great working with you. Rwood128 (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and notes 

message: I'm teaching a course this semester called "Victorian Modernity," and students will be making some changes to Wikipedia for part of an assignment. Each student has researched and presented on a historical or cultural context for Middlemarch, so this might be a page they can improve. What are the priorities, from those who have been working here?
At a glance, it looks like the characters section could perhaps use a subheading, "minor characters" (some listed are quite incidental, and several other minor characters aren't listed). And the "themes" section might be fleshed out with several topics -- scientific inquiry, medicine, reform and progress, etc. A section on the narrator might be useful, too.
In any case, suggestions are welcome: students will make their own choices, ultimately, but I can and will provide some guidance. PCFleming05 (talk) 21:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestions sound good. In addition the article doesn't consider Eliot's place in relation to other 19th century writers and especially those who influenced her and whom she may have influenced. The names of Thomas Hardy, Elizabeth Gaskell and the Brontë sisters come to mind –also later Drabble and Lessing? It is good to see this attention being paid to Middlemarch.  Rwood128 (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  November 2015: priority changes? 

message: It could be added to this article that Virginia Woolf described Middlemarch as one of the few novels for grown-up people. Vorbee (talk) 08:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Vorbee, but that comment is already in the article. Rwood128 (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Virginia Woolf on Middlemarch

message: The recent addition to external links, and subsequent revision to it, seems perfectly reasonable, so can someone give a better explanation, than has been supplied so far. Though perhaps the link could be moved to the bibliography? Rwood128 (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have now discovered that some edits (including mine?) have been reported as vandalism]. This is bizarre. Rwood128 (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Surely Evans's real name should be used in 2020 and not the Victorian pseudonym. Rwood128 (talk) 18:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a reasonable response but while George Eliot comes to mind first, out of habit, her real name is also known to many. It is unclear why Evans is the only major nineteenth century woman novelist who is still known by a man's name. Rwood128 (talk) 22:22, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Change is apparently in the air, as I've just discovered that Middlemarch has now been published under Mary Ann Evans's own name for the fist time by a project called "Reclaim her name", undertaken by the Women's Prize for Fiction in celebration of the award's 25th anniversary. Rwood128 (talk) 22:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine the attempts to change the names past authors chose for themselves go beyond one novel. There's probably discussion among feminists as to whether it's worth doing. If so, the Women's Prize for Fiction page is a more relevant place to discuss it than here. Wikipedia editors as such can have no view on the matter. Unless there's a general change of view in the lit. crit. community, the variant author name will appear on this page if the new edition is worth adding to the bibliography. Bmcln1 (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Bmcln1, I fully understand your point of view, but this is an anachronism in 2020, and technology deals with any identification problems. Mary Ann Evans did not choose to be anonymous and the only reason her birth name isn't used is presumably habit and because publishers fear they would loose financially if they changed the "brand name". Furthermore, this is, to my mind, a matter of literary scholarship rather than feminism: Currer Bell is known by her real name. But lets not waste any more time debating this as that will not lead anywhere. Rwood128 (talk) 10:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pen name