Hey, it's a whole book about one of my favorite books! Which, okay, so what? Man, I was talking about how much I like Wilkie Collins the other day, and some dude was like oh hey then you should read Dan Simmons' [b:Drood,|3222979|Drood|Dan Simmons|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/books/1344270075s/3222979.jpg|3257056] because Collins is in that, and here's the thing: this dude hadn't read Wilkie Collins. (Or Dickens, for that matter.) So shut up, right? Go read Wilkie Collins! Why would you suggest a book about a made up version of an author I like? Why would I not just read the actual thing? This happens to me all the time with [a:Jasper Fforde,|4432|Jasper Fforde|https://d202m5krfqbpi5.cloudfront.net/authors/1350497674p2/4432.jpg] too - people are all "Hey, you like classics, you'll love Jasper Fforde." But that doesn't follow! I didn't say I liked books about classics! I said I like classics! Why don't you recommend a classic to me instead?
I did eventually read Jasper Fforde. It was okay.
But this is nonfiction, so that's much better. And I do think that for our most towering works, which Middlemarch certainly is, it's rewarding to read books about the books. But generally I want them to provide context and deeper insight into the books, not just...a totally different story that mentions the books. So this might be a good idea in a few years, when I reread Middlemarch.