Felix Holt

In response to #2: I really don't know what to make of this book, so everything I have to say feels so speculative. Perhaps Eliot creates such an ineffectual character because she sees the futility of radicalism  in the face of bi-partisan politics, corrupt and greedy politicians, and ignorant constituents.  I can definitely sympathize with Felix's desire to educate the masses, transform them into thinking beings who won't be unfairly swayed and manipulated by the system, greedy politicians, etc. Those are admirable beliefs. And it's an ironic twist that Felix scorns Edith for reading Byron's "romantic" poetry when Byron was much like Felix: both are idealistic, radical, and ultimately politically ineffectual. And, eventually, both men are viewed with disdain and scorn in spite of their good intentions. (Well, admittedly, Byron's many good intentions can often be questioned as he was also quite the libertine for his day. In this instance, however, I'm thinking specifically of his assistance in the Greek Revolution in the early 1820s). But I think Eliot is making a commentary on how deeply entrenched the masses are in ignorance and apathy, and how much they are distracted by the daily grind of work and what they can get for themselves and families in the present. Also, because of their lack of education, political savvy and power, they are easily tricked by shady political men and their empty promises--as we see in the scene with Mr. Johnson polling for Transome. As Felix says in Ch XXVII, in a conversation with Mr. Lyon. Mr. Lyons says "it is our preliminary work to free men form the stifled life of political nullity..." Felix answers, ""...But while Caliban is Caliban, though you multiply him by a million, he'll worship every Trinculo that carries a bottle..." (264, my copy). The masses are ignorant brutes incapable of seeing behind politicians' smoke and mirrors. The brute metaphor is carried into the riot as well when the masses are compared to pigs and oxen: their bodies bearing the workload and being consumed rather than valued for their minds like humans. It's this cycle that continues to perpetuate itself and keep the bi-partisan groups in power and keep the workingman powerless. Like radicalism, Felix tries so hard to expose the truth, to educate, to empower the masses, but it falls short. Also, I think it's reasonable to assume that there are fewer radicals compared to the bi-partisan groups and as a result they have a shorter reach, less power. For instance, Mr. Johnson has the power (read: money) to buy the workingmen a round of beer and all they have to do is show up at the political rally and shout for Transome. The workingmen, because they are uneducated non-thinkers, are quickly and easily satisfied by a temporary treat of beer and easily persuaded that the buyer of the beer is a good man. So the workingman is easily and cheaply bought and sold in a system where they have no power, but where they also don't have to put forth much effort as citizens. They can go on about their workaday lives. Radicalism requires energy and effort to educate, to fight against larger, stronger powers, etc. I think that's why his character is so ineffectual because Felix becomes a sort of symbol of or metaphor for the radical movement. I think Eliot sees radicalism as a good thing, but something that cannot yet compete with or tear down the established system.