Jane Austen discussion
General Discussion
>
Austen and metaphor
date
newest »
newest »
Hello Martin,As a Jane Austen fan and a member of JASNA, I am interested in what you have to say on this subject of metaphors. I have found nothing on your website.
My husband and I do not agree with your statement that Jane Austen's novels are romances.
I will quote, in part, from C.Hugh Holman & William Harmon's book, A Handbook to Literature, 5th Edition.
"Romantic Novel: A type of NOVEL markd by strong interest in strong Action and presenting Episodes often based on love, adventure, and combat. ... A romance,in its modern meaning, signifies that type of Novel more concerned with action than with CHARACTER; more properly fictional than legendary since it woven so largely from the IMAGINATION of the author; read more as a means of escape from existence than of familiarity with the actualities of life."
Jane Austen is much more concerned with character than romance.
Austen's contemporary, Sir Walter Scott, wrote romantic novels.
I am look7ng forward to your thoughts on Austen's use of metaphors.
Regards, Rissi Cherie
Sorry, Rissi. Meant to post but ... will PM youI'm using the RWA definition: "Two basic elements comprise every romance novel: a central love story and an emotionally satisfying and optimistic ending. A Central Love Story: The main plot centers around individuals falling in love and struggling to make the relationship work."
Scott himself called his work, "The Big Bow-wow strain"
"The Big Bow-wow strain I can do myself like any now going; but the exquisite touch, which renders ordinary commonplace things and characters interesting, from the truth of the description and the sentiment, is denied to me." (SWS diary entry, re Austen, 10 years after her death)
“Romance” meant something different in Jane Austen’s day than it does today, so you are both correct in your own way, though Rissi is more correct in the context of Jane Austen’s work. I would also question the notion that a love story is central to her novels; for me, the love stories are more a vehicle than a focus—perhaps, in that sense, the love stories can be seen as extended metaphors.I too would be interested to see your remarks on metaphor. Just off the top of my head, without examining the question closely, I would say that she employed less metaphor in her early works and more as her writing career went on.
Rissi's correct, in the context of an English literature course. That's an academic text, of course. The Romance Writers of America are people who earn part or all of their living writing romance, so their expertise should be respected, too. Nothing academic about it.I just posted here, I thought. At the risk of repeating myself, my first observation is 'hidden' at
http://www.martinrinehart.com/explici... (all the way to the bottom of the page).
So far I've only gone metaphor hunting in Pride and Prejudice. I've been surprised.
Great discussion! One measure of a great novel may be that everyone can enjoy it on many levels. I re-read Austen's novels and find a new perspective every time. I love it when people have not forgotten their academic classes, and I love it when people with no academic background are able to jump in and enjoy reading at all. Reading exercises the brain in different ways than video. And at least one study found readers of "romance novels" had better-than-average personal love lives.
When we talk about symbol and metaphor in English lit class, we can see conscious choice working in more modern novels. (e.g., Moby Dick's Whiteness of the Whale.) Perhaps the conscious use may have come in with the Romantics and all that nature sighing, pathetic fallacy talk? A good writer in any era will naturally incorporate things that are harmonious, the way a person (well, most people, we all know some exceptions!) will unconsciously choose colors that work with each other. So the weather, the state of the room, the behavior of others -- are all connected. When do things cross over into what we name as metaphor and symbol? I'll be thinking about this all day now.
Yes, Noe, and Mansfield Park as a metaphor for stability (after the play acting was exterminated) and...Actually, the 'metaphor' for which I looked is the bit of description of this in terms of that. Particularly when the comparison cannot be taken literally. Stormy gray eyes.
Yes, Danine. But now you got me going, too. Mansfield Park as a symbol v. a metaphor?
I read about the middle third of P&P yesterday evening, wondering if I asked the right question. I focused on the descriptive passages, thinking that would be where metaphors hid. I concluded that Austen didn't think much of descriptive passages, metaphors or otherwise.She avoided description ("The house was yellow.") whenever she could put the description into the narrative ("They arrived at the yellow house.") In fact I found just one pure descriptive sentence. (I'm sure that is not all as I tend to get lost in the story.)
I'm trying to decide if this is a fundamental principle to follow. Is this one of the fundamental merits of Jane Austen? She lets the story flow?
Better follow up on Abigail's suspicion that Austen used more metaphors in her later work. I've only read Mansfield Park once this year. Maybe time for another go.
For those who did not look up my hidden conclusion, it was that Jane did not use metaphors. She understood them. Collins silly little speeches use them. Austen is making fun of Collins, from which one may conclude something, I think. Maybe.
Mod
Actually within the very essay I was reading within the Marinucci book JA & Philosophy, one of your subjects comes up.
Film critic George Bluestone said that the success of films of Austen's work is partially due to her own style: the absence of minute descriptive detail in her original writing. This allows for film makers to be creative but yet still have "fidelity" to her original story. In other words, she left room for interpretation.
I also read recently in another source that another thing we may not realize that strengthens her works was that she also worked her characters through dialog rather than detailed descriptions.
I am double checking, Sarah, just to be sure but I am absolutely amazed at how little description accompanies the narrative. Yes, absolutely! re dialog. One of the things I mean to do is get a copy of the full text so I can analyze it. The first little program I'll write will split the dialog from the non-dialog so I could say, "Dialog is xx% of the text."
(Teaching a computer how to recognize description is a much harder problem.)
Mod
I have a project in mind, Sarah. Full text of P&P here By the by, there is a treasure trove of JA indulging in writing description in P&P, beginning of V3 where EB visits Pemberley. Jane really was in love with Pemberley. She strings the description along with the carriage ride through the park, and sometimes when they are being shown the interior.
She didn't stoop to metaphors.
I think the lack of metaphor helps her writing endure the test of time. I appreciate that she wrote compelling, relatable books without much use of metaphors and descriptions.
Jane is the consummate storyteller. Try "a rich, young single man has leased Netherfields." Now compare that with chapter 1, volume 1.She introduces her characters, shows them interact, shows Mrs. B being foolish and Mr. B being sarcastic, and also lets you know that a rich young single man has leased Netherfields.
In formal plot structure (which came into being a century after Austen) this is called the "inciting incident." An incident on which the rest of the story is built. In this case, Jane meets Bingley, Elizabeth is insulted by Darcy.
I've come to a rather unexpected conclusion about half way through.
I'll post my opinion on my website or somewhere to leave this discussion open.
How does Austen use metaphors, and is this constant or did she evolve? TIA