Pride and Prejudice
question
Why Jane Austen Vs The Brontes?
Maxine
Jun 18, 2014 09:18PM
I often see the writing of Jane Austen compared to that of Charlotte and Emily Bronte but I have never quite understood why. They have little in common that I can see other than they are women authors who wrote in the 19th c albeit during very different periods. Austen wrote at the beginning of the century during the Regency Period, a fairly liberal period of time, and her books tend, not only to reflect the period but also the popular (and different) genres of the times. The Brontes, on the other hand, wrote decades later during the Victorian era and reflect the Gothic Romanticism popular during their time. The only book by Austen I see as remotely similar to that of the Brontes would be Northanger Abbey which is really a parody of the Gothic Romance. Granted they were all exceptional and important writers who influenced and still influence literature but I don't understand why these writers, in particular, are so often compared especially why Pride and Prejudice, a Comedy of Manners, is so often compared to Jane Eyre and/or Wuthering Heights, both Gothic Romances?
reply
flag
One theory might be that Charlotte Bronte made some scornful and dismissive comments about Jane Austen both as a writer and even as a woman, thereby manufacturing a controversy that invited subsequent readers to compare the two and 'choose sides'.
But I suspect that there is a deeper explanation. They seem to represent different and almost opposite 'poles' of personal outlook. Jane Austen exhibited clever and elegant mental activity in her writing; the Brontes exhibited vehement and passionate emotion in theirs. Jane Austen was interested in a whole society of varied personalities-- while the Brontes were interested in intensely self-focused, lone and lonely individuals who were fairly estranged from society. Jane Austen was humorous, while the Brontes were practically humorless. Jane Austen implicitly champions a rational world emphasizing self-honesty, thoughtful sensitivity to the feelings of others, and emotional self-governance. The Brontes insist on the primacy of feeling whether rational or irrational, hurtful or uplifting. Jane Austen seemed to preserve an affection for life despite its myriad imperfections, while the Brontes seemed to regard it as a lifelong struggle for personal dignity with the hope of a better afterlife always its first and last consolation.
There are probably other things to identify; but they seemed to represent distinctly different outlooks and values. And although there are many readers who appreciate all three writers, it is interesting to note the characteristic criticisms that fans belonging to 'team Austen' or 'team Bronte' generally make of the rejected other(s). One team sees Jane Austen as confined, bloodless, vapid, etc etc. And one team sees the Brontes as melodramatic, self-absorbed, tedious, etc etc. It leads me to believe that there is some sort of 'outlook continuum' upon which Jane Austen occupies one pole (call it the primacy of reason), the Brontes the other pole (call it the primacy of feeling), and that our individual reactions to each show us where we generally reside on that continuum (with some of us tending toward one pole, some of us tending toward the other pole, and some of us kind of balanced more toward the middle).
Or something like this anyway.
But I suspect that there is a deeper explanation. They seem to represent different and almost opposite 'poles' of personal outlook. Jane Austen exhibited clever and elegant mental activity in her writing; the Brontes exhibited vehement and passionate emotion in theirs. Jane Austen was interested in a whole society of varied personalities-- while the Brontes were interested in intensely self-focused, lone and lonely individuals who were fairly estranged from society. Jane Austen was humorous, while the Brontes were practically humorless. Jane Austen implicitly champions a rational world emphasizing self-honesty, thoughtful sensitivity to the feelings of others, and emotional self-governance. The Brontes insist on the primacy of feeling whether rational or irrational, hurtful or uplifting. Jane Austen seemed to preserve an affection for life despite its myriad imperfections, while the Brontes seemed to regard it as a lifelong struggle for personal dignity with the hope of a better afterlife always its first and last consolation.
There are probably other things to identify; but they seemed to represent distinctly different outlooks and values. And although there are many readers who appreciate all three writers, it is interesting to note the characteristic criticisms that fans belonging to 'team Austen' or 'team Bronte' generally make of the rejected other(s). One team sees Jane Austen as confined, bloodless, vapid, etc etc. And one team sees the Brontes as melodramatic, self-absorbed, tedious, etc etc. It leads me to believe that there is some sort of 'outlook continuum' upon which Jane Austen occupies one pole (call it the primacy of reason), the Brontes the other pole (call it the primacy of feeling), and that our individual reactions to each show us where we generally reside on that continuum (with some of us tending toward one pole, some of us tending toward the other pole, and some of us kind of balanced more toward the middle).
Or something like this anyway.
Funny how the Bronte sisters are lumped into battle against Austen, as if they were a single entity and not individual personalities.
It's important not to let personal bias cloud the achievements of each respective author. You must respect the vision and creativity of the other author, some people prefer to put them down. Bronte's never set out to be the antithesis of Austen, so fans of Austen shouldn't feel this way. The Bronte's were building upon what they knew and grew up with; Shakespeare, Byron, Shelley, Milton, Goethe, French literature, Arabian Nights, Walter Scott.
The Bronte's being the Beethoven is a good analogy, and yet, I wouldn't classify the Bronte's into such a label as "Gothic Romance", which denies the realistic elements explored in their novels. The Bronte's were crossing genres, experimenting with narrative structure, utilising various literary devices for the plot, inner psychology and setting of their novels. It's almost as if they were bored of the novel, and sensed the unlimited opportunities it held. It's quite astonishing what they achieved. The impact and stir Jane Eyre caused in 1847 cannot be denied.
As to the humour? I found plenty of humour in their novels, Emily especially had a great sense of humour with the bumbling Lockwood's observations, and Joseph's tiresome self righteous reiterations. I guess that's my sense of humour though. I think Emily Bronte could've been one of the great humourists if she was spared to write a couple more novels. But then, I haven't discussed Anne, and I sense there is a strong kinship out there for dear Anne Bronte, the lesser known and forgotten sister.
It's important not to let personal bias cloud the achievements of each respective author. You must respect the vision and creativity of the other author, some people prefer to put them down. Bronte's never set out to be the antithesis of Austen, so fans of Austen shouldn't feel this way. The Bronte's were building upon what they knew and grew up with; Shakespeare, Byron, Shelley, Milton, Goethe, French literature, Arabian Nights, Walter Scott.
The Bronte's being the Beethoven is a good analogy, and yet, I wouldn't classify the Bronte's into such a label as "Gothic Romance", which denies the realistic elements explored in their novels. The Bronte's were crossing genres, experimenting with narrative structure, utilising various literary devices for the plot, inner psychology and setting of their novels. It's almost as if they were bored of the novel, and sensed the unlimited opportunities it held. It's quite astonishing what they achieved. The impact and stir Jane Eyre caused in 1847 cannot be denied.
As to the humour? I found plenty of humour in their novels, Emily especially had a great sense of humour with the bumbling Lockwood's observations, and Joseph's tiresome self righteous reiterations. I guess that's my sense of humour though. I think Emily Bronte could've been one of the great humourists if she was spared to write a couple more novels. But then, I haven't discussed Anne, and I sense there is a strong kinship out there for dear Anne Bronte, the lesser known and forgotten sister.
I don't understand it either. You might as well compare Jane Austen to any English novel.I can only guess it's because they're the most popular female writers of english literature, and they both have a huge influence despite not having put out a lot of complete books ( Jane:6, Emily:1, Charlotte:3?)- people who like to read have at least read one Austen and one Bronte, if not most of them, and so feel like they have a handle on their respective oeuvres. Then student compare/contrast essays naturally follow. It's been done to death, but it's a new, interesting discussion for many younger people. I just wish some people didn't think it has to be a contest. You can like both.
I read on another thread here on Goodreads that Charlotte Bronte's publisher urged her to read Jane Austen and to use her as a sort of a model. You can see how that would garner resentment. George Eliot/Marian Evans later read Jane Austen, accepted the influence, and then went off in her own direction. Anyone who loves both Austen and Bronte will probably like Eliot. If Austen is Bach and Bronte is Beethoven, Eliot is Rachmaninoff.
Kelly Jane, I agree with most of what you said, but not about the Brontes' humorlessness. It's true they weren't satirists, but Jane Eyre could sometimes be sarcastic and whimsical with Rochester.
Kelly Jane, I agree with most of what you said, but not about the Brontes' humorlessness. It's true they weren't satirists, but Jane Eyre could sometimes be sarcastic and whimsical with Rochester.
People simply compare them because they were both British, female authors who wrote in the 19th century. The same reason people compare Tolstoy and Dostoevsky because they were both 19th century Russian authors who wrote long, densely philosophical novels. You are correct that the prose, genre, and style of the 2 authors are quite different.
I have read both of them, and to the extent os their works, and altough i have a slight preference to Jane, i will say that i like them both but that they are opposites.
I don´t see why the need to compare them - the only common ground to them is they both wrote their novels in the Regency period. And that´s about it. Their themes were not similar, the settins in which the books took place were not similar (except for NA).
I don´t see why the need to compare them - the only common ground to them is they both wrote their novels in the Regency period. And that´s about it. Their themes were not similar, the settins in which the books took place were not similar (except for NA).
I think it's because after Jane Austen's death, Charlotte Bronte wrote a review of Austen's work basically slamming her calling her out and saying, in that time period's manner, that she wasn't a real writer and just wrote fluff pieces. So I think that's what started the comparison between the authors.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that both Austen and the Brontes show up on most high school reading lists? If I remember correctly, they were the only 19th century female authors that were required reading while I was in high school (and other than Dickens, I think they were the only 19th century Europeans whose novels we read in full). For that reason I think the two will always be associated in my mind, though of course now I can think of much apter pairings.
Really enjoyed all these answers!
From my perspective being a fan of the Brontes and not so much Austin, I believe it's just a case of personal preference. Like most have stated, women wrote them in a similar period.
I like the Brontes because of the dark and mysterious literature, the solitary characters, the landscapes and the settings.
Austin I have never got on with, which isn't to say I don't respect her. Her work just doesn't do much for me, I feel like every book is more or less the same- I'm sure you'll all be horrified to read. However, it's just the way I feel, and I'm sure many others feel differently.
I think partly this also is to do with the feminist streak in all the works. All are about women going against the conventions at the time. I guess that's going to create some competition.
For me the Brontes are truly remarkable, they literally came from nothing. I mean they lived in a parsonage over looking a graveyard that went straight out onto the desolate moorland. How on earth did they write what they did?
If I'm completely honest, when I think of that and then think of Austin novels with all this talk about marriage I just can't stand it.
I just like literature that I can sink my teeth into.
Perhaps it's actually the personalities attracted to Austin and Bronte. Maybe they just repel one another.
Quite a few of the people in my english lit class liked Austin, and I can't say I got on with them particularly well. Amusing.
From my perspective being a fan of the Brontes and not so much Austin, I believe it's just a case of personal preference. Like most have stated, women wrote them in a similar period.
I like the Brontes because of the dark and mysterious literature, the solitary characters, the landscapes and the settings.
Austin I have never got on with, which isn't to say I don't respect her. Her work just doesn't do much for me, I feel like every book is more or less the same- I'm sure you'll all be horrified to read. However, it's just the way I feel, and I'm sure many others feel differently.
I think partly this also is to do with the feminist streak in all the works. All are about women going against the conventions at the time. I guess that's going to create some competition.
For me the Brontes are truly remarkable, they literally came from nothing. I mean they lived in a parsonage over looking a graveyard that went straight out onto the desolate moorland. How on earth did they write what they did?
If I'm completely honest, when I think of that and then think of Austin novels with all this talk about marriage I just can't stand it.
I just like literature that I can sink my teeth into.
Perhaps it's actually the personalities attracted to Austin and Bronte. Maybe they just repel one another.
Quite a few of the people in my english lit class liked Austin, and I can't say I got on with them particularly well. Amusing.
Not sure why they are so compared either. They didn't even write in the same time period.
I guess it's not a good comparison but I definitely prefer Bronte. I like my strikes to run deep and Austen is just too fluffy.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
