A manly life v tarts and confectionery

So much quotable George Eliot! One of the things I like about George Eliot's novels is her observations of the human condition along the way, and the chapters I read last night in Felix Holt (if you hadn't already deduced that I am reading this book) were full of them. I shall endeavour to restrain myself, except perhaps for the really good ones. There are some strange speeches from another time and place, like this one from Felix, remonstrating Esther and her undue concern for gloves and accessories:

I can't bear to see you going the way of the foolish women who spoil men's lives. Men can't help loving them, and so they make themselves slaves to the petty desires of petty creatures. That's the way those who might do better spend their lives for nought - get checked in every great effort - toil with brain and limb for things that have no more to do with a manly life than tarts and confectionery. That's what makes women a curse; all of life is stunted to suit their littleness. That's why I'll never love, if I can help it; and if I love, I'll bear it, and never marry.

These days you'd be more likely to hear a similar speech coming from women and directed at children. However, I don't know any women so prone to petty "littleness" as Esther in the story, but it did give me pause to ponder the ways women might hold men back from any great effort. It's the same idea that was presented in the movie The Last Station, yet in that case Sofya was equal to her husband's greatness, and had actually participated in his work of writing novels, but she was neglected by him later in life in the very basics of a marriage - so she began to wrestle for his attention and despise the "cause". It would seem it has been an age-long (this book was written 1866) difficulty in the search for a balance between commitment to marriage (hopefully to a woman not foolish by the above description) and family and the pursuit of some "great effort", and a balance for women in giving men the liberty and support to do so. (The question of women having liberty to do the same I am conveniently going to ignore!)

By the way, I don't know that it is necessary to state these things, or whether one should just do them and be quiet, but I've mentally altered my blogging philosophy of late (for now - because it happens nearly as often as I change my clothes). Somewhere along the way I got swept up into this "blog regularly or perish" mentality, and I don't really know why. One of the things I discovered when I went back to label old posts is that some of them used to actually be more interesting - I think because I blogged less often and I kept the bar higher. Feeling the need to blog almost daily, subscribing to the idea of blogging any old thing just so I am, has only meant the bar lowered, and unfortunately stayed low. And now it feels like drivel (or pointers elsewhere) mostly. When I started this blog I said I wasn't going to diarise online, but to blog often that's where it's headed, like yesterday I forgot to set my alarm clock, and am suprised that I didn't wake up anyway, and then this morning the shower blocked up when I was in it ... I also don't have a lot of appreciation for the idea of blogging just to keep readers irrespective of what they're reading (like we're all running businesses with marketing campaigns). And in the day of RSS readers, I don't think it's necessary. JB blogged her first post in 17 months recently, and I read it because there it was in my reader, and many blogs I like blog only once a week or so. So I am reverting back to blogging when I have something I want to blog about, rather than scrounging around for things to blog about. Maybe I am just in an uninspired phase at present - we shall see.