A neglected semi-classic, Lionel Trilling's only novel is less of a traditional story and more an inspection of liberalism's purpose and effect outside of narrow intellectual circles in 1930's New York. The actual story line, a summer vacation for a man coming to terms with life, death, and his philosophy, is the catalyst for intellectual introspection as opposed to the underlying purpose of the novel.In the story, John Laskell is a New York intellectual who takes a summer vacation in New England after emotional and physical devastation (his lover died and he later contracted scarlet fever). Invited to the country by two people from his circle, Arthur and Nancy Croom, he boards with a local family and gradually moves from pastoral observer to active participant in the rural life of New England. Throughout the summer, he slowly overcomes a small portion of his initial arrogance and allows himself to become involved with various locals. Most notable are his foil Duck Caldwell, Duck's wife and daughter, his hosts the Folgers, and the Folger's aristocratic and feudal benefactor, Julia Walker. These continued involvements force him out of some long-held beliefs and a final, unexpected tragedy forces Laskell to break with his earlier philosophies and, consequently, his inner circle of friends. Aiding in this change is Gifford Maxim, a mutual acquaintance of Laskell and the Crooms, whose earlier break with the Communist Party and subsequent religious fervor places an additional strain on the relationship between Laskell, his friends, and his ideas. (It is important to note that the Communist Party held a certain sway amongst intellectuals in the 1930's and 1940's that did not fully diminish until Stalin's atrocities became irrefutable.)The pace of the novel is extraordinarily slow at first. In early chapters, Laskell's every word is excruciatingly planned and subsequently reviewed for appropriateness, potential misperception, and consistency with his stated philosophies. As he moves away from constant introspection and towards a gradual embrace of the simpler things in life, the pace quickens and begins to approximate a traditional novel until the climax moves us violently out of the intellectual world and into a much more humane realm. Through it all, Laskell's painstaking inspection of each word in each exchange stands in stark contrast to Duck, a man who Laskell holds in cautious contempt but whose actions he follows almost without realizing (specifically, Duck's philosophy on sexual relations).One of the book's chief arguments is whether or not an intellectual should hold true to an idea no matter the cost. I personally do not believe that betrayal of an idea is morally repugnant, but this is obviously the position of the Crooms. It is also the key struggle for Arthur throughout the novel as he considers both Maxim's break with the Communist Party and his own break with long-held ideals. An interesting idea hinted at by Maxim's conversion is the inability of the liberal elite in the 1930's to understand that ideas are not people and, therefore, not sacred - whereas people can be forgiven, it is not necessary for people to seek forgiveness from an idea. This is the idea that serves as the heart of the novel's dénouement.The latter half of the book offers an excellent quote on Nancy Croom's personality: "He had seen in Nancy a passion of the mind and will so pure that, as it swept through her, she could not believe that anything that opposed it required consideration." That sentence is easily applied to any number of people and pundits these days, be it on the right or the left, and all would be well-served to read The Middle Journey to understand how little progress has actually been made in our political and philosophical flexibility in the past 80 years.