Jane Austen discussion
This topic is about
Persuasion
General Discussion
>
What's the problem with Persuasion and Mrs Smith in particular?
For me, the problem with Persuasion is actually the reverse--that these characters aren't sufficiently fleshed out to feel organically part of the plot. Mrs Smith seems especially a dea ex machina. It would have been easy to introduce the idea of her earlier in the novel, making anticipation of seeing her again one of the compensations for Anne of moving to Bath. Then the reality of her physical and social condition could come as a more dramatic revelation for Anne. And more frequent meetings with Mrs Smith could provide a counterpoint to Anne's encounters in her own sphere.I'm not bothered by Mrs Smith's gossiping. She is completely cut off from society and her only points of connection with the outside world are through the reports of the nurse and landlady (characters who could have been introduced directly instead of being described as background). Nor am I deeply bothered by her withholding info about Mr Elliot until she knew Anne was not going to marry him: many people in the nineteenth century were reluctant to interfere in the lives of others. The kind of intimacy and freedom to express our opinions that we enjoy today was not so common then. The thing that bothers me is that her connection to Mr Elliot is just so convenient. A problem that could have been fixed.
With Mr Elliot, I feel that dramatizing some of what we learn through narrative would help increase suspense. Instead of being told that he succeeded in pleasing so many disparate characters, for instance, we could have seen him doing it and have Anne's disquiet with his behavior emerge from watching it happen in real time.
The book is actually much shorter than most of Austen's novels and feels rushed to me because some of the characters are introduced only as the action speeds up, in Bath. If the Bath action had unfolded at the pace of the action when Anne was visiting the Musgroves, it would have felt richer and more natural to me.
Perhaps another problem with Persuasion is all the travel? Characters still crucial to the action, like Louisa Musgrove, drop off the stage and their denouements are described at a distance. Surely Louisa could have been sent to Bath to take the waters during her recovery, putting more pressure on Anne and Wentworth's desire to reunite! Benwick could have been tasked with escorting her there and been more of a disrupter in the relationship as well.
Just a few thoughts.
I enjoy Abigails way of looking at the novel and agree with her interpretation
Mod
By the way, Terrence, have you read Jane Austen's original final chapters for Persuasion? No swoony letter, but a deliciously awkward scene where Admiral Croft has tasked Wentworth with telling Anne that the Crofts are willing to give up the lease to Kellynch so that Anne and Mr Elliot can live there after their marriage . . .
Perhaps if Jane has been well enough or had time to submit the mss to her editor before her death, she would have fixed some of the problems. Maybe it was a mistake for her brothers to bring the book out so quickly. Or perhaps not because she was a Georgian writer coming from the tradition of long-winded novels (featuring lots of traveling) and epistolary novels. It's remarkable what an incredible writer she was with no training and little formal education. Personally, I think it's fabulous and nearly perfect as is. The point of Mrs. Smith is to ascertain Anne's feelings and keep her from bowing to her family's pressure to marry him. At this point, all of Bath, including Wentworth, believes the engagement is a done deal. It makes sense for her to marry her father's heir and help the family. "Marry for love? Who does that?!" they would say. Mrs. Smith does feel a bit forced into the novel but she helps bring about the happy ending and the swoony letter.
I'm really interested in this topic and would like to kick some thoughts around. I think rather than being padded, Persuasion shows signs of being curtailed and rushed. The following was written by, I believe, Jim Moody, not me, but he hypothesizes a lot of additional scenes and events which are not in the book as we have it: "The calendar supporting Persuasion reveals that the novel is in a heavily unfinished state; that the book was supposed to have the same kind of underlying hidden ironic story that we were to find out only at the close of a third volume. Since Anne did not have an opportunity to tell Lady Russell the truth about Mr Elliot, we were to have a Tuesday of intense mortification and reversal for both Anne Elliot and Frederick Wentworth (either at a card party organized by Lady Russell, or a gathering at a performance of a play bought by Charles for a Tuesday evening in Bath). We were to learn that Mrs Clay and Mr Elliot had a longer-standing relationship than Mrs Smith knows; as it stands, Anne Elliot says more than once that Mr Elliot's conduct does not make sense: we were to learn more about why he happened upon the party at Lyme, and why he looked so at her; we were to what was the package he was delivering for Mrs Clay in Bath and why she wanted to walk with him to the point of nearly making a point of it; where he went; what they were conferring over near the White Hart when spied by Mary Musgrove."
The book does have a lot of coincidences -- Mr. Elliot being in Lyme when the party from Uppercross was there -- Mrs. Smith knowing both Anne and Mr. Elliot -- and what was Elliot doing between the time he was in Lyme and arrived in Bath several months later?
I do love the book, don't get me wrong, but I like to think that if Jane had had time for more revising, she might have removed the unkind remarks about Mrs. Musgrove and her large, fat sighings over her son.
Abigail wrote: "By the way, Terrence, have you read Jane Austen's original final chapters for Persuasion? No swoony letter, but a deliciously awkward scene where Admiral Croft has tasked Wentworth with telling Ann..."No but I will before I post again. Thank you
Lona wrote: "I do love the book, don't get me wrong, but I like to think that if Jane had had time for more revising, she might have removed the unkind remarks about Mrs. Musgrove and her large, fat sighings ov..."Yes, that is the other uncomfortable moment in the book.
Abigail wrote: "For me, the problem with Persuasion is actually the reverse--that these characters aren't sufficiently fleshed out to feel organically part of the plot. Mrs Smith seems especially a dea ex machina...."Really good points. As you know, the most common criticism is that the revelation of Elliot's bad character does not really affect the plot. Anne postpones telling her friend Lady Russell about it, because she's busy with the Musgroves and then she has the moment of truth with Wentworth.
There is a recently published anthology of Persuasion "behind-the-scenes" stories, edited by Maria Grace, available on Amazon, all written by a variety of authors. Persuasion: Behind the Scenes
I think one problem with Persuasion is that there is really very little to keep Wentworth and Anne apart. They are already in love with each other, and at this point should be too mature to let themselves be interfered with. Obviously there is some interesting time for them to become reacquainted, but there are few twists and hurdles.As for Mr. Elliot, I always felt that turning him into such a criminal was rather unnecessary. Certainly his description about Sir Walter might have been strong, but it was basically what we all already thought of Sir Walter and Elizabeth, and it was a private letter.
Good points, Victoria! I generally agree, especially about Mr. Elliot; it might have been more interesting à la Mansfield Park and Henry Crawford had he been merely not up to her ethical standards. And as for Anne and Wentworth, she had to accept being distanced from her family, but after all the water under the bridge she couldn’t have regretted any breach too much. So it was down to their ceasing to misunderstand each other—and lots of rom-com drama has been generated out of that trope!
The problem that I have with Mrs. Smith is that she is there at all. Anne has only one friend, this friend happens to have moved to Bath, and this friend happens to have had a negative experience with Mr. Elliott. What are the odds of that. It is not the type of vehicle that Austen uses to pull things together. It is my favorite of her novels for many reasons, but the Mrs. Smith story line is not among them.
An interesting discussion. It's a good while since I read Persuasion and I don't remember being so worried about the incredulity of the plot. It is my favourite Austen novel, in part due to its brevity, but mostly because the redemptive quality of the love between Anne and Wentworth is so potent - and seems very modern in concept.In respect of what's been said about Anne and Wentworth not having an impediment to their union, I've always thought that the point is the difficulty that the two mature characters find in getting beyond Anne's rejection of Wentworth in her youth... But I think my memory of the novel is very much influenced by the 1990s BBC adaptation of it that accentuated this aspect.
Anyway, it's interesting to consider the idea that the novel is what it is due to Austen running out of time.
"It's remarkable what an incredible writer she was with no training and little formal education. "Oh no, thank heavens she wasn't!! Just imagine if she'd been to Oxbridge and done Creative Writing courses!!!!
To my mind, they are the death of 'individual voices' when it comes to writing!
Writing either comes from the heart, and you learn as you write - or it is mere imitation of others.
As you can see, I'm a bit prejudiced on this topic!!!!!!
(I'm trying to think of other 'untrained and uneducated' Great Writers, and so far can only think of D H Lawrence. Possibly Kipling? (learnt his craft in journalism in India). Oh, and the Brontes of course. What about Conrad? I think he simply trained as a merchant marine? (One of the things I like about him was that he was skilled in something other than only writing.)
And, of course, thinking about it, the greatest 'untrained and uneducated' writer is....Mr WS!!
Maybe the boot is actually on the other foot - that not that many 'Great Writers' were actually formally trained/educated??
I think I may have stirred a can of worms here!!!
Thomas Hardy - another uneducated and untrained Great Writer!Virginia Woolf? Certainly 'uneducated' in the sense she didn't go to uni?
I've always thought one of the purposes of Mr Eliot was to make Anne realise she was still attractive to men! Plus, most importantly too, that Captain Wentworth could see that other men still fancied her!
I know that sounds base and venal etc, but I think that realising he has a rival in Mr E does actually spur CW on to take a renewed shine to Anne.
Remember she hears from her sister Mary that CW had given her a devastating put down on first seeing her again, that she was 'so altered he would hardly have recognised her' (or words to that grim effect!).
All that fresh sea air in Lyme, and being 'eyed up' by Mr E (and I do think it's before he knows who she is??), does wonders to pique CW's renewed interest in her!
Hi Beth,In response to your first post, I don't think the problem is with creative writing courses - it's with courses that are encouraging writers to write things that are likely to be commercially successful - that's what's probably stifling true creativity!
Interesting to ponder what constituted a proper training for a writer historically. I would argue that Shakespeare was a trained writer - he got on the job training, writing for theatre!
Yes, I agree - on the job training (both WS and Kipling for another example).I tend to have a beef about creative writing courses, as I think they should be banned for anyone who hasn't written at least one novel, and preferable three!
I really think you have to try it yourself and learn by doing it, rather than try and follow rules and guidelines.
As for the commercial vs literary .....ooh, that's a real can of worms!!!! :)
Beth-In-UK wrote: ""It's remarkable what an incredible writer she was with no training and little formal education. "Oh no, thank heavens she wasn't!! Just imagine if she'd been to Oxbridge and done Creative Writin..."
I'm with you, Beth-in-UK. I'd be very wary about taking a creative writing course.
Glad I'm not alone! That said, thinking about it, if, say, I felt the urge to become a painter (of pictures, not walls!!!), would I spurn art classes that taught me how to draw the human figure, how to handle perspective, that sort of thing??Or would I just grab my paintbrush and paints, and a nice fresh canvas and daub merrily away?!! (Maybe yes if I only wanted to be an abstract painter and just do 'patterns' rather than representational images.)
Similarly, if I wanted to design and make beautiful clothes, would I just buy material and thread and 'have a go'?? I doubt it!
Maybe I feel writing is 'different' from art/painting because writing is something we 'all do' to an extent (viz, this post!). Also, I guess I'm sort of taking it for granted that we 'all' know the basic rules of grammar, syntax, vocabulary, etc etc (which may not be true of 'everyone' of course!)
I think what I fear about creative writing courses (having never been on one!!!) is that they will 'steer' me and constrict my 'natural inspiration', and channel my 'natural flow' or whatever?
As I say, I think one should 'have a go' at writing first (and maybe painting too, come to that - but probably not clothes design, unless wasting good fabric is not a problem!!!!!), to get a first hand idea of what it is like to try and tell a story, and create characters, to conjure up atmosphere and effect and impact of words. Then, when you've had a go, and seen what the issues are, taking a creative writing course may (a) make more sense and (b) won't have too 'cramping' an impact on you because you yourself won't be a blank canvas.
I'm sure creative writing courses are great fun, but I would worry they would stifle the individual voice an author develops as they write.
A lot probably depends on the teacher. I had a creative writing teacher in college who had a very narrow sense of what was "good" writing (mainly experimental fiction), and she was savage toward those of us in the class who preferred a more mainstream approach. She encouraged the mostly male students who were into verbal pyrotechnics to be cruel to the mostly female students who were more interested in telling stories. Stopped me writing for a decade.On the other hand, when I took a Regency romance writing class, the teacher challenged me for sure (she thought my approach too intellectual, and it was for the drek being churned out in the 1980s), but she did it in a respectful and open way that allowed for debate, and all of us learned more about the marketplace and the potential of the genre.
So I would agree that the prescriptive type of teacher--probably the more common sort--can do great harm to a writer, but a teacher with a broader perspective can actually be valuable.
Maybe it's because 'art' of any kind/media, is so subjective......your bad experience I'm sure could be echoed by many 'pupils' in lots of artistic media alas, and we only have to think of the Salon des Refuses of the Impressionists, and the hostility that Turner got for his 'messy' pictures etc.Teaching is a very 'dangerous' profession I think - SO much opportunity for the teacher to grandstand and do a Jean Brodie and influence all those 'niaive and impressionable young minds'!!!! That initial teacher of yours sounds a nightmare!
I suspect, for me, I'm just too arrogant to pay any attention to what someone else thinks of me and my output, or what I should be doing! Especially now I'm 'grown up'!!!!!
On the other hand, I could see that taking a deliberately 'commercially minded' writing course, with the specific aim of writing something that is commercially successful, rather than artistically creative (though I know the two can overlap), could be genuinely useful. After all, if there is a specific genre, then there isn't any point in being 'revolutionary' I guess!
How are your Dorking novels coming along? I was thinking of them when the BBC showed a trailer for the forthcoming War of the Worlds that is, I believe, set in Dorking! (I shall NOT be watching it - far too scary! I hated the Tom Cruise updated version as well - hate all scary films!)
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Glad I'm not alone! That said, thinking about it, if, say, I felt the urge to become a painter (of pictures, not walls!!!), would I spurn art classes that taught me how to draw the human figure, ho..."Yes, I feel I need to expand on what I meant. It's the "creative" part. Talking a course on writing a novel, or joining a writer's group, I would not be afraid of that. Something that studies the mechanics of a story. To me, "creative writing" means poetry and literary fiction, maybe a memoir about some harrowing experience. Not a good fit if your ambition is to write popular fiction, or children's books. And my own experience has tainted my outlook. I took a creative writing course way back in college. The instructor was a poet and I wanted to write light humour. I didn't attempt anything but non-fiction again for decades, and didn't publish my first novel til I was 60. So, that was my experience, your mileage may differ.
Abigail wrote: "A lot probably depends on the teacher. I had a creative writing teacher in college who had a very narrow sense of what was "good" writing (mainly experimental fiction), and she was savage toward th..."Exactly! Very similar to my experience.
I don't think poetry is in the slightest 'teachable'! It is the ultimate self-expression!OK, I guess if you want to write sonnets, you have to know the various formats etc, but once one abandons the need to make things rhyme or scan, the English language is yours to do as you will with!!!!
Surely all a teacher can do is tell their students to 'write from the heart' and leave it at that!
Beth-In-UK wrote: "I don't think poetry is in the slightest 'teachable'! It is the ultimate self-expression!OK, I guess if you want to write sonnets, you have to know the various formats etc, but once one abandons ..."
I will slyly segue-way this back to the topic of the thread. Speaking of the mechanics of the novel, are there arguably some structural issues with Persuasion? I love the tone of the novel, but the Mrs. Smith revelation, and the fact that there are no consequences arising out of it?
Yes, I agree - I think in the other Persuasion thread here there is quite a bit of discussion about how Austen had to write the novel under time pressure because of her increasing illness, and that had she lived, she would very probably have revised it. She already had an alternative final chapter. Mrs Smith is a bit of a 'contrivance' as others have pointed out, simply a device to 'reveal' Mr Eliot's duplicity etc etc.
It's always struck a sour note with me that Mrs Smith was apparently happy for Anne to marry a cad like Mr Eliot without warning her, and only tells her how badly he has behaved when Anne says she isn't going to marry him! Not much of a friend?
It's also interesting to speculate just how 'genuine' Mr Eliot is about Anne? I think he definitely fancies her (that glance at Lyme, which does so much to cheer up Anne, as in, show her that she isn't 'past it'!)(and to pique Wentworth's interest in her again!).
And Mr Eliot is open to Anne that they both have to be on the lookout for her father falling for Mrs Clay's insidious charms, such that he might marry her, and beget a male heir to cut out both the daughters and, of course, Mr E himself from the baronetcy.
(Speaking of which, again, it's always been a bit off to me that Mr E when poor and younger, was so scathing about being the heir to a baronetcy, saying something like anyone could have bought it off him for a song....but maybe it was the cash value that was interesting to him, rather than the 'empty' title?)(and the estate of course!)
But whilst he can see Anne being 'Lady Eliot' as his wife (Lady Russel's dream that she take her mother's place...and DISplace the ghastly Elizabeth as the chatelaine of Kellynch Hall), I don't know how much he feels, if anything, towards her.
Could she have 'redeemed' him by her goodness I wonder? (Shades of whether Fanny Price could have 'redeemed' Henry Crawford had she married him!)
One of the nice touches at the end of the novel, to my mind, is the throwaway comment by JA that Mr E had succeeded in seducing Mrs Clay, who was now living 'under his protection', but that the jury was still out as to whether Mrs Clay might persuade him to make her his wife! (Shades of Becky Sharp here, methinks!)
Thanks for the inquiry about my Darking novels! I'm currently doing a final polish on the first in the series and researching which agents to approach. I agree that Persuasion suffers from being too short; JA needed time to flesh it out and motivate some of the characters better.
As far as Mr. Eliot's early rejection of Sir Walter goes, there's something in the book about how he didn't want to hang around flattering the baronet for decades, waiting to inherit, when he could take a much faster route to independence by marrying a vulgar girl with money.
His motives in relation to Anne seem mixed: he is clearly attracted to her (if not, he could just as easily have wooed Elizabeth), but his main interest is mercenary, and the most urgent goal is to keep Sir Walter from marrying a woman of childbearing age. Maybe he thought Anne was more likely to help him get rid of Mrs Clay than Elizabeth. (If this were a novel by Wilkie Collins or Anne Bronte, he would succeed in marrying her and then would embroil her in a murder plot!)
Abigail wrote: "As far as Mr. Eliot's early rejection of Sir Walter goes, there's something in the book about how he didn't want to hang around flattering the baronet for decades, ..."Abigail,
It's been a while since I read this book--not may favorite. Mr. Eliot isn't a good fellow, but I can enter into his horror at having to sit around kissing the arse of Sir Walter-the-pompous-idiot and pretending to like his disagreeable elder daughter!
I agree, I don't hold it against him that he kept away from Sir Walter and the Ice Dolly! He's much more insidious when he comes smarming around trying to mend fences.
Ah yes, that makes sense! And yes, hanging around Sir Walter would have been pretty tedious indeed. It's a shame really he didn't make a play for Elizabeth, as she was supposed to be handsome, and her only 'fault' was to be ill-tempered and ageing (by now). But they'd probably have been well-suited??Or maybe he thought Anne would be more 'malleable' as she is 'sweet natured' etc.
Elizabeth really is a challenge, I think - could anything make her nicer, and would any man actually take her on? Maybe the best she can hope for in reality is a wealthy 'vulgar' man who simply wants to marry a baronet's daughter and claw himself up in the world a bit thereby, and who is 'rough and tough' enough to slam down her high opinion of herself??
I really liked Phoebe Nicholls portrayal of Elizabeth in the 1995 Persuasion. She would have these flare-ups of irrational bad temper that would be off-putting to potential suitors, despite her good looks and elegance.
Lona, is that the one with Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root as CW and Anne respectively? If so, I completely agree with you. True spite and temper whenever anyone crossed her.It was a totally brilliant adaptation to my mind, and I'm hard pushed to think of anything negative about it. I loved the way Amanda Root looked really downtrodden to begin with, and how she perked up at Lyme (and that lovely rippling music, and the sense of fresh sea air and open vistas)....and how Mr Eliot (again, a very 'slimy' Samuel West, with just enough elegance to be momentarily deceiving etc) definitely eyed her up....did her a power of good!
As for Mary, I truly think the actress gave a stunning performance of a very difficult character - half pitiable and wholly contemptible and incredibly irritating. A woman who'd married 'almost beneath her' and a wretched husband (Simon Russel Beale, another superb actor) who realised that he'd been saddled with a total pain in the neck.
My only criticism would be the horridly messy hair of poor Captain Wentworth (and perhaps the irritating voice of Fiona Shaw playing his sister.)
I love that adaptation too - I think it really captures the element of redemption in the Anne and Wentworth plotline. I actually liked Fiona Shaw in it - and Susan Fleetwood's character too - interesting mature female characters. I must watch it again some time!Beth-In-UK wrote: "Lona, is that the one with Ciaran Hinds and Amanda Root as CW and Anne respectively? If so, I completely agree with you. True spite and temper whenever anyone crossed her.
It was a totally brillia..."
To me, Fiona Shaw seemed to sound Irish, which was odd, considering her brother speaks with an English accent! Remind me whom Susan Fleetwood played?? It's a familiar name, but I can't place the actress at the moment.I thought Ciarian Hinds was very well cast as Wentworth - in fact, better than when he played Mr Rochester in a Jane Eyre adaptation (where he had a very unflattering moustache!)
The later adaptation (Rupert Penry?) was OK, (can't remember who played Anne now, I must look it up!), except for the rather daft 'running scene' at the very end. I suppose the problem facing any 'subsequent versions' is how to make them different. Sometimes a new take works, sometimes not.
Of course, if there is a TV series, then there is so so much more time for the book to be transformed to screen, so I guess any comparisons are unfair - not that that really excuses for example the dire Keira Knightley Pride and Prejudice, which was a turkey of bad-casting (ie, not bad actors, just miscast) and a director who didn't understand the subtleties of the British class system!
Not to mention the atrocious costumes in the Keira Knightley movie, the fact that they changed all the best lines in the book, and the pig in the house!
The Mr Elliott/ Mrs Smith drama is a bit over dramatic, it seems unnecessary to make Mr Elliot into such a black hearted villain. He seems to be really attracted to Anne, which shows he has good taste anyway. But The visits to Mrs Smith are quite interesting, Mrs Smith is in a lower situation than most Jane Austen characters, and the references to Nurse Rook are interesting. they show that nurses could be sensible and competent, even in those pre Nightingale days.
Abigail, the pig in the house was the final straw for me! It was like something out an 'Oirish bog begorrah'!!!! I can't believe that the decent British actors in it (from Judy Dench onwards) couldn't have raised hell over the utterly crass class mistakes the director made.Really, like it or not, ONLY the Brits can navigate our fiendishly tricky class system, with all its layers and subtleties and endless sub-classes and sub-sub-classes etc etc.
Louise, I always thought one of the challenges for Austen about Mr Eliot was that, as a lady herself, she could not allow herself to do more than give the merest hints about just what Mr E had got up to! To know more, and to set it in writing, would have been very 'unladylike'! So we get something as mild-as-milk as 'Sunday travelling' to attack him on.....(that said, presumably 'Sunday travelling' was a lot more shocking in those days than it is to us....)
He married beneath him socially for money, so that is a black mark, but it isn't 'that' bad, though again, in Austen's day presumably the non-genteel class was far more 'beyond the pale' then that it is now.
I think, on the whole, had Austen had been able to spend more time on the novel, she would have revised his character more.
And, of course, she was not, after all, afraid of referring to some really quite shocking things in other novels - eg, (view spoiler)
Beth, I hope you’re not right about your “only the Brits can navigate our fiendishly tricky class system” comment, since I’ve just finished writing a novel that features a protagonist caught in the space between gentleman farmer and gentleman in the year 1800, and his ambiguous position is a major part of the story! Here’s hoping I don’t embarrass myself! :-)
Abigail - I thought you were a fellow Brit!!!!!You're picking a very interesting issue indeed, because it was a journey from 'yeoman farmer' (ie, owned and farmed his own land, not a tenant)(which I've always assumed was the distinction, but perhaps not?) (anyway, a farmer who owned his own land - that was essential if one aspired to gentleman status!), to 'gentleman' that was not uncommon.
I would say, personally, that THE distinction between 'farmer' and 'gentleman', even if the former owned his own land (and, ideally, more than one farm!)(ie, a 'proto-estate'), was that at some point he might be able to apply to the College of Arms to have a Grant of Arms.
In a way, the easiest way to identify a 'gentleman' was whether they were armigerous - had a coat of arms and a crest. (Again, I THINK, but am not sure!, that to use the honorific 'Esquire', it was necessary to be armigerous??) (I'm sure the College will know!)(it still grants arms, of course, to newly-created peers).
BUT, I don't know well enough just how possible it was for a farmer 'going up in the world' to become armigerous??
Austen, in Emma, shows that Robert Martin is 'going up in the world', but at what exact point would he - or perhaps more likely his sons? - be regarded as 'gentlemen' rather than farmers.
It's such an interesting topic, and I suspect there is quite a bit of 'slide' and 'wiggle room' involved.
One of the key characteristics of the British aristocracy and landed classes was that they were mobile - they admitted newcomers into their ranks, and it was this ability to 'move up in the world' that helped to ease class distinctions overall. It is a 'truism' in Britain that 'we' avoided the French Revolution because our aristocracy was not as fixed as theirs was.
Whilst those who made their money in trade or politics could become 'instant' gentlemen by (a) buying a ready made estate (presumably from a land owner who was losing his fortune??)(the flip side of upward mobility!) and (b) getting a grant of arms, I'm not sure how it worked when someone who came up via the land, and became increasingly prosperous as a landowner......
I definitely think his precise social status would be somewhat ambiguous - do you remember in, I think, P&P, there is a character who has recently made some money, aspires to 'genteel' status, and, though he's lived in the neighbourhood for years, is only now being 'invited' to the posh houses!
A complete new-rich newcomer who snapped up an estate, and had a shiny newly granted grant of arms, would be a clear 'arriviste' which was one thing, but a chap who had always been regarded as a 'non-gentleman' (ie, yeoman farmer) might have found more barriers to entry to 'genteel' society because the existing landed/gentlemanly classes would have regarded him as 'only a farmer still'??
I suspect someone like Robert Martin 'going up in the world' would have found it highly beneficial to be personally respected by Mr Knightly (the 'lead' gentleman of the neighbourhood) as well as his wife (Harriet) being a personal friend of Mrs (Emma) Knightly.
It's definitely a fascinating topic, and one which I suspect the local families would have discussed quite a lot, and tried to come up with their decisions as to whether your farmer had, indeed, become a gentleman.
(May I just point out that, again only speaking personally, I've always taken the term 'gentleman farmer' not to mean a farmer who was almost/claiming/aspiring to be a gentleman, but rather a gentleman who decided to farm his own lands directly.....it rather implies having a smallish estate, however, perhaps the landowner farming the 'home farm' of the big house? It's also a term I associate with the 20th C as landed folk became poorer, and so had to - shock horror! - actually take on the work of directly farming their own land, just as, again shock horror!, their wives had to start doing the cooking and washing up more....)
PS - just to say, I know a 'gentleman farmer' who, when you meet him, driving along country lanes on his tractor, looks nothing so much like a farm labourer, wearing overalls covered in mud and with muddy wellington boots, and a distinct smell of cows about him, etc, etc .....the guy is worth £8m!!!!!!!!!!! (Owns about four farms!)
Beth, Susan Fleetwood played Lady Russell. Beth-In-UK wrote: "To me, Fiona Shaw seemed to sound Irish, which was odd, considering her brother speaks with an English accent! Remind me whom Susan Fleetwood played?? It's a familiar name, but I can't place the ac..."
Ah yes, I'd forgotten all about Lady R!!! She was very good, I agree - quite austere, and one could see that the younger Anne could easily have been a bit 'cowed' by her.The whole 'persuasion' aspect of the novel is rather sad, really, as Lady R only wanted 'the best' for Anne - so she did the wrong thing for the right reason alas.
Up to Anne’s moving to Bath all is well – Mary Musgrove, whinging and unsuccessfully manipulative but just the right side of insupportable, is one of JA’s best comic creations.
But once we get to Bath and Louisa Musgrove is out of the running, there remains nothing but for Anne and Wentworth to discover through chance that they still love each other. Even in this shortest of JA novels there is an amount of padding and that padding takes the form of Mrs Smith and Mr Elliot.
Mrs Smith is the only major player in JA who has fallen out of the narrow social sphere in which all the other characters move. It is good JA shows us someone in such a situation. Like Miss Bates, she is bearing up under a social disability. But she makes me uneasy. She is a gossip such as would be criticised elsewhere. She wants to know the details of the fashionable personages at the evening Anne has attended. Sir Walter or Elizabeth could well do the same and it would be to their discredit.
She unmasks Mr Elliot comparably to how Willoughby and Wickham have been unmasked, but there is just not the same interest. He was never that interesting in the first place and we only have her word for it. The letter that she shows Anne (and Anne has her doubts as to the propriety of her doing so) only reveal he had the same low opinion of Sir Walter as Sir Walter suspected.
Is there too much padding in the book? What do you think of Mrs Smith and Mr Elliot?