Lol, I felt the same way, it should be 'Daniel and Gwen' and 'Daniel and the Jews', not all intertwined. Gwen plays no part in Daniel's story with the Jews and Mirah and likewise for them in her story.
I always find characters like Daniel boring. People aren't that 2-dimensional. There is no real growth in Daniel's character, despite his journey. I loved how Gwen recognises her personality flaws, her selfishness and naivety, and attempts to rectify them and be a better person. I understand how Gwen comes across as a terrible person and why people dislike her so much. I liked her less in the book (though I probably empathised with her better in the book) but there is so much to explore in her character. I thought Romola Garai did a fabulous job of honouring the less likable aspects of Gwen's personality while also adding a small element of sympathy for her. It takes time for her to realise that she wants to become a better person, and she made that change genuine rather than it being wholly reliant on Deronda and her desire to please him. Of course there are parts of Gwen's character I don't like (such as her trying for sympathy), but I don't feel that she's a bad person for that. Whether her guilt is genuine or fabricated for her own self-interest, it doesn't change the fact that her marriage is hell. Whether she believes that she deserves it, as she says, is always up for debate by the readers. However, I do believe that she is truly changing for the better by the end of the book.
I've been trying to find more on what the literary critic, F.R. Leavis, said of 'Daniel Deronda'. He thought the story would be better if it focused on Gwen's character, since more of the book is devoted to her. I have to say that I agree with him, and I'm glad to find someone who shares my opinion ;)
reply
share