Jane Austen discussion
This topic is about
Jane Austen
General Discussion
>
First Time Reading "Sense and Sensibility"
date
newest »
newest »
Hi, Joshua, what you’re saying may be heresy to many readers of Jane Austen, but I tend to agree with you! The romance genre in past times was more of a structure or framework for telling a broader story about human nature or the state of society. It wasn’t so much about “does the boy get the girl.” Personally, I prefer romances that aren’t first and foremost about romance!
She wasn't a romance writer. Romances were what Sir Walter Scott wrote. The romantic period followed the period in which Jane Austen wrote. (Think the Brontes and Victor Hugo). Jane Austen wrote an entirely new style of novel which is often classified as drawing room comedy or comedy of manners. I don't think there was a name for it yet in her day but it's definitely not romance. She certainly did have amazing insights into human nature that remain the same 200 years later.
I think JA’s plot lines had their roots in the pastoral romance genre, which is what I was thinking of. The Romantic period (the one with the capital R) had a whole different genesis, of course.
I do wish English would have better distinctions between words, but, sigh, when it's a continually evolving language you just have to take what's available! It's hard to mention "romance" these days without people getting a picture of Harlequin books in their heads.And, although I like the "comedy of manners" title better, it still doesn't come close to the complexity of Austen, does it?
If all they have is a picture of the books that's not so bad; far worse is to be haunted by a picture of what goes on in the books. 'Social comment' is one description I've heard and used but no, none of them do justice to her close observation of character and ironic acceptance of the vagaries of people's behaviour. 'Romance' as understood today certainly does them an injustice because it is only quite a small part of the whole - there are so many other aspects. If you want to depict people relating to other people (not necessarily lovers), you must add some bits about people falling in love. 'Romance' as a genre these days often means a laughably simple plot involving two people with no sub-plot and ill-realised characters. Sad!
In my opinion Jane Austen dealt with the function both of the manners and the mind. She focused on how people behave in society, but also on how they think. In "Northanger Abbey" she wrote that a novel could represent all the types of human beings and situations. Besides, her novels weren't only a narration of events, but a narration which explained how a narration works. Infact, she used to report some comments directly to the readers, as in the occasion of the travel of Elizabeth in "Pride and Prejudice": Austen told the readers that she would not have explained the places of the journey, because the readers already knew them.So, in Austen's books there are not only stories about love and marriages, but principally there is a consideration on literature and on how it can show knowledge about itself and human society. Thanks to Austen the genre of novel kept some traditional aspects, but it acquired new and experimental ones.
Thank you for your attention and I would like to apologise for my english.
Your English is excellent, Henry! And I agree that JA brings an element of self-awareness--or awareness of the mechanics of writing--to her books, especially Northanger Abbey, where she includes what amounts to a manifesto (chapter 5). I also admire the way she moves seamlessly into and out of the minds of her characters, as reflected in the passages where dialogue merges into narration (like the first proposal in Pride and Prejudice) and you are so wrapped up in what is happening that you scarcely notice.
Bravo Henry! You summed up her novels nicely and in perfect English. You have the beginnings of a scholarly paper there. Literary criticism of Austen's novels has been going on for about 100 years and most people, based solely on the movies or previews of the movies or preconceived ideas, are prepared to dismiss the books as "chick lit" or "romances." I'm happy to see so many new fans popping up here, especially males. It's nice to know that Jane Austen transcends time and genders.
Dear Abigail and QNPoohBear,my name is Simone and I'm from Italy. I started reading Austen's novels one year ago thanks to my neighbour Deborah, who is from England.
Until now I have read "Pride and Prejudice", "Mansfield Park", "Sense and Sensibility" and "Northanger Abbey". Soon I will afford "Emma" and "Persuasion". In order to comprehend Austen's thinking and her context, I see "The Cambridge Introduction to Jane Austen" by Janet Todd now and then.
Firstly, I agree with Abigail, because Austen's dialogues are perfect. Secondly, I agree with QNPoohBear, in the film there are only the simple parts of the novels.
I have a lots of ideas about Austen and, because I studied Italian literature, have many comparisons with it.
I hope to share my passion for Austen's books with you soon.
Good night.
Ciao Simone! My parents' friends' son from Parma staying with us right now. I haven't read any Italian literature so I am interested in reading your comparisons.
Dear QNPoohBear, It's ok.
See you soon in my group.
I agree that the term romance or at least how we view it through our modern lens does not fit as genre for Jane Austen's works. I really like the idea of drawing room comedy. Sorry if i didn't get the quote exactly right, I'm on an iPad and can't go back and reread. I am rereading Sense and Sensibility for the oh I don't know what time and I am seeing it very differently. When I was young I certainly saw the grandeur, the beauty of the romance, who didn't want a Darcy after all (different book I know, but I was never really drawn to the men of S and S). Now that I am older I see things more as a wise observer. I am struck this time with how ridiculous and naive Marianne is. She is convinced that Edward is not the one for Elinor because he lacks passion, or at least what she perceives passion to be. She is convinced that that is what Elinor must have, Marianne's ideal. Elinor of course sees things very differently. Marianne is indifferent to Colonel Brandon because he is "gasp" 35, two years younger than me I might add. In really thinking about it now, I think it is more the life stage of the reader that determines where Austen's works truly belong. To the young it is romance, to the older more mature reader it is more ironic, satirical. Wherever you find yourself, Austen will have an answer for you. Truly remarkable if you think about it.
I agree with you about Marianne, Anne! When I read about her now, she seems very juvenile and a poseur; whereas when I was younger, I felt her pain!
Oh, I'm definitely more sympathetic toward Marianne now than when I was young! I knew that I would never have behaved the way that she did, so I was very impatient towards her. I'm not sure that I thought she actually deserved Willoughby's idiocy, but I certainly wasn't surprised at it. Now, however, I can see that her youth and temperament combined to really make her act without any sense, and I positively pity her!
There is a similarity between Marianne and Catherine Morland in terms of their youthful susceptibility to imagination. Marianne's sensibilities have been fed by a more high-minded brand of literature, but she also has the disadvantage of not having Catherine's very stable home life and pragmatic parenting to offset her imagination.There's always a point in Austen's major novels when the characters have to take a step back and see others for what they really are. In Marianne's case, that moment of clarity has more impact because what's implicit is that she came very close to being another Eliza.
J. wrote: "There is a similarity between Marianne and Catherine Morland in terms of their youthful susceptibility to imagination. Marianne's sensibilities have been fed by a more high-minded brand of literatu..."Yes, I can only imagine how horrified she would be to realize how similar she and Eliza were in situation, both of them "in love" with Willoughby and blind to convention. It was a narrow escape that had to have scared her immensely.
Susan wrote: "Karlyne wrote: "J. wrote: "There is a similarity between Marianne and Catherine Morland in terms of their youthful susceptibility to imagination. Marianne's sensibilities have been fed by a more hi..."And they always (I think) hinge upon the character's integrity-or lack of it!
Good insight, Karlyne! The good are saved by the wickedness of others! I’ve seen it a time or two in real life—though it’s certainly not always the case.
True about Wentworth and Edward escaping unsuitable attachments, but the consequence to Edward would have been greater - a lady might have a change of heart, but if a gentleman broke an engagement it was a legal breach that could wind up in court.
Actually, imo probably it being her first book, failed to catch my emotions as pride and prejudice or persuasion did.Although I would never want criticize Jane Austen , this book didn't reach up to my expectation .But moral wise it was a good read.
it is not one i am very fond of. i don't find Elinor a very appealing heroine, nor Edward a very appealing hero. and i am always a bit sorry for marianne having to end up with Colonel brandon, poor girl.
I like Colonel Brandon He is a bettrr person thaan Wouloby And Wl make a nicer husband He was a little foolish to put off marriage because of a lost love in his youth but wouldn't you prefer him for your daughter?Elenor should have grabbed him
Mrs wrote: "I like Colonel Brandon He is a bettrr person thaan Wouloby And Wl make a nicer husband He was a little foolish to put off marriage because of a lost love in his youth but wouldn't you prefer him fo..."poor. Marianne though has to settle for a man she doesn't really love, though apparently he grows on her with time. it's a bit sad. it wouldn't matter if she was an unromantic practical girl like Charlotte lucas, who doesn't expect to marry for love, but with all her passionate feelings it aeems sad that she has to settle for such a lukewarm relationship.
how do you know it was lukewarm he probly treated her royally and she learned to love him passion is shortlived but love is there to stay
That is the whole point of S&S; Marianne growing up and learning to value what Brandon can offer: steadfast, unyielding, lasting (but by no means lukewarm) love instead of Willoughby's fleeting passion.
Minerva wrote: "That is the whole point of S&S; Marianne growing up and learning to value what Brandon can offer: steadfast, unyielding, lasting (but by no means lukewarm) love instead of Willoughby's fleeting pas..."A pity she couldn't have someone who she didn't have to learn to value though. With her warm passionate nature i would have liked her to have someone she could really love passionately. her fate seems rather dismal to me. not much fun to have a relationship with no passion in it.
Mrs wrote: "I like Colonel Brandon He is a bettrr person thaan Wouloby And Wl make a nicer husband He was a little foolish to put off marriage because of a lost love in his youth but wouldn't you prefer him fo..."if I had a daughter, I'd like her to have a vigorous young man she could have fun with, not a sad old man in flannel waistcoats. Poir Marianne.
Louise wrote: "Mrs wrote: "I like Colonel Brandon He is a bettrr person thaan Wouloby And Wl make a nicer husband He was a little foolish to put off marriage because of a lost love in his youth but wouldn't you p..."Yeah, but.... That vigorous young man would probably end up running off with a fun-loving younger woman, especially if he were anything like Willoughby. I see Colonel Brandon as a happy man with Marianne, and that means that they will indeed have fun. Fun really isn't just the province of the young!
Karlyne wrote: "Louise wrote: "Mrs wrote: "I like Colonel Brandon He is a bettrr person thaan Wouloby And Wl make a nicer husband He was a little foolish to put off marriage because of a lost love in his youth but..."i can't really imagine Colonel Brandon ever having fun. i expect he was always a rather dull type even when he was young, probably why Eliza (was that her name?) ran off with someone else in the first place.
Louise wrote: "Karlyne wrote: "Louise wrote: "Mrs wrote: "I like Colonel Brandon He is a bettrr person thaan Wouloby And Wl make a nicer husband He was a little foolish to put off marriage because of a lost love ..."I'm sorry that you have such a dislike for him!
Col. Brandon appears old to Marianne. Indeed when I first read the novel in my early 20s, I thought he was old too. EWW! I adored Alan Rickman in the film and now I'm also on the wrong side of 30 - nearly 40 (gulp) - I don't see Col. Brandon as old. He's steady, reliable and caring. Is it a passionate match? No. Marianne learned her lesson and learned to judge love on a man's personal character rather than passion and excitement. Col, Brandon's love Eliza ran off not from him but from his brother who was not a nice man. He says Eliza loved him too but as a younger son, he was not allowed to marry her. His father married her off to the eldest son to unite her money and his property as was common practice at the time.
Karlyne wrote: "Louise wrote: "Karlyne wrote: "Louise wrote: "Mrs wrote: "I like Colonel Brandon He is a bettrr person thaan Wouloby And Wl make a nicer husband He was a little foolish to put off marriage because ..."I just think he's rather dull, and too old for Marianne. I would have liked her to have someone she could really love with all her passion and enthusiasm. Colonel Brandon should marry someone more staid and nearer his own age.
well, i'm old enough to be Colonel Brandon's mother, but he still seems a dull stick to me. Maybe if he was a different kind of man the age difference wouldn't matter so much. But I would have liked Willoghby to turn out to be all right, Eleanor gets the man she wants, i'd like Marianne to get hers. Colonel Brandon could marry their mother, that would be more suitable.
I don't understand your reasoning Louise, I didn't see Colonel Brandon that way at all. Marianne wrote him off without getting to know him, when she did she found he wasn't old and boring.
Louise Sparrow wrote: "I don't understand your reasoning Louise, I didn't see Colonel Brandon that way at all. Marianne wrote him off without getting to know him, when she did she found he wasn't old and boring."Marianne was, frankly, just being prejudicial - and judging someone because of his age. I'm glad that she learned to really look at people and their hearts and not just at their outward appearances. She learned that snakes can be beautiful and deadly and that mongrel dogs can be homely and full of life. She really grew.
I think it's not so much about the age difference; it's roughly the same age difference as Emma and Knightley, which I find to be a more incompatible pairing. Marianne sees Brandon as someone incapable of passion, and begins to think differently when she learns the history of his first love. We also see in Austen that the consequences of allowing oneself to be ruled by passion , as with Maria Rushworth and Crawford, or Lydia and Wickham whose "passions were stronger than their virtue", or even Eliza in S&S.
Don't forget that Brandon fought Willoughby in a duel. That is VERY passionate according to Marianne's point-of-view. Brandon even won the duel so huzzah points for Brandon and none for the cad Willoughby. Plus Brandon has the tragic romantic story of his lost love. Finally, Brandon rushed back to get Mrs. Dashwood when Marianne was so ill. All of that would have made teenage me think twice about stuffy old Brandon though I still would have thought he was an old geezer and wouldn't want to marry him but considering the time period and lack of options for women, I think it's OK. Marianne will be happy enough with Brandon.
About halfway through it and enjoying it very much.
Perhaps it just reflects my prejudices...but I don't really think I would classify Austen (at least on my first meeting) as romance. Yes, it is a book about marriages and all that, but her characters feel too real, to alive to ever deserve being slandered with the term "Romance". Who can not help but love old Mrs. Jennings? Or be inspired by Colonel Brandon?
As an aside I rather dislike what passes for romance these days. The same tired, wilted cliches in book after book (you try staying a summer at my grandma's where that's the only books to be found in the entire house and see how you feel!). And don't even get me started on RomComs...
I sincerely believe we need to bring back real romance, especially to guys. Romance shouldn't be just a "woman's thing", it should be a "everyone's thing". Hm, I don't know, I find I can't put my thoughts right...
(By the way, I started reading because Ms. Austen was Patrick O'Brian's favorite author. And I adore his Aubrey/Maturin books.)