Who would have thought I'd ever become a classics admirer? 

I have read so many reviews of people saying they despised reading it. Why? How? Did we actually read the same book?

Is the pacing off? Yes. Does it contain long, convoluted sentences that could have easily been avoided? Absolutely. Should this have been a lot shorter? Most likely. It's a book from the mid-Victorian era.

But it is a heartfelt story about a man losing everything and then losing everything he's ever held dear again. Against all odds, he finds happiness again in the form of a small child who helps him recover his lost belief and sense of self. George Eliot had me grieve a broken pot. And that was 23 pages in. 

As I said, the pacing is off. Rather than showing us how Eppie grows up with Silas, Eliot makes a time jump of 16 years. The first part of the book is slow and unnecessarily long; it talks a little about Silas's past and then repetitively approaches the life Silas lives, his role in the town he resides and the perspective of other townspeople. Yet I could still hardly put this book down. 

Silas's development from depressed weaver to loving father however: I adored it. I makes you root for him despite some unlovable characteristics. 

Before you start reading this, keep in mind that this book is highly moralistic and communicates a religious message. If that's not your thing, do not pick this up. As I wrote, this is a book that published in the mid-Victorian era and thus is what you should expect of Victorian literature <3