Jane Austen discussion
Is there anything to dislike in Jane Austen?
Great discussion questions, Beth! I’ve never been overly bothered by the cruelty—she was an eighteenth-century writer in her sensibilities, and ruthless mockery of foolishness is quite the standard in fiction of the era. Fanny Burney is much worse, and I’m reading The Expedition of Humphry Clinker in another group and it’s very harsh. She never mocks “what is wise and good,” after all.
People who don’t get Jane Austen or her popularity often say that nothing happens in her books and you always know how they’re going to end. (I say it’s about the journey, not the destination, and wars and politics and grand public deeds are not all that matters in the world.)
Interesting inquiry about the male characters. I would call Edward Ferrars pitiable because he is so depressed for most of the book, and is punished unfairly for having been a dumb kid, as well as for not wanting to fulfill his mother’s ambitions. Colonel Brandon, of course, has a deep well of sadness that may be hard for him to shake even after (view spoiler) Captain Benwick is sad but clearly not inconsolable. Captain Wentworth is what I would call “sangry,” sad and angry, at the start. Mr. Woodhouse is decidedly pitiable in his free-floating anxiety. But you’re right, the men in Austen tend to have more agency and therefore are to a degree responsible for their fate, or at least how they respond to their fate. The female characters must sit and wait for the most part.
Speaking of Eliza, Colonel Brandon, and the lot, I am currently reading a mighty tome by Christina Morland, The Year in Between: A Sense and Sensibility Variation, which explores the year between when Elinor marries and Marianne does. It is an extraordinary achievement, well written, thoughtful, and absorbing, and it puts Eliza in a whole fresh (and very believable) light. The book is about 650 pages but well worth the journey! I’m so involved with the characters and their concerns that it doesn’t feel long.
Mod
I myself have never really found anything to dislike in Austen. I agree with Abigail about the male characters and their sadness. (And that book sounds GOOD.)
I’m a pretty severe critic of some Austenesque fiction but this one is terrific!
Thank you, Beth!Read Austen, then Heyer. The latter is much better (and, one concludes, the former is not as good) with dialog. Austen's characters all speak as if they grew up in the vicar's home.
(If someone wants to pay for the beer, I'll happily argue all evening that Austen is better, too. Dialog's not everything.)
To a degree I agree with you, Martin, but there are exceptions to the proper-English dialogue. The Steele sisters in S&S and Isabella Thorpe in NA speak in jaw-droppingly vulgar ways. But I adore Heyer’s dialogue!
Abigail,re the Steele sisters, do you mean 'vulgar' or would that be 'uneducated'? I recall 'an't' which I assume is the American 'ain't'.
Their dialogue is also strikingly ungrammatical, misusing verbs in ways I associate with the lower classes—“You was” and so on. The ideas they express are vulgar and the manner of expressing them uneducated, notable for close relations of a tutor. Lucy tries to do better mossy of the time but Miss Steele sounds as if she’d never been in a drawing room. There are slight shadings of the same mode of speaking in Mrs. Jennings but her vulgarity is more in the subjects she chooses.
Personally, I think Austen's dialogue technique is superb. Ideally, dialogue should be constructed according to those elements that influence speech to such a degree that attribution isn't necessary.Of course, in long passages of conversation, you need attribution for clarity, but in Austen, you don't need it to identify character. The speaking styles of Mr. Bennet, Lydia, Caroline, Jane, Lady Catherine, Mr. Collins and so on, are so well bonded to character that you would never confuse the two, even without attribution.
J, Well, sort of.
Collins uses metaphors in his pompous little speeches. There are no other metaphors in Austen.
In terms of cruelty, she was probably cruellest about poor Dick in Persuasion, the teenage boy who died in the navy. OK, so he was thick and stupid etc, and a general pain, apparently to his senior officers, but he was only a teenager....
Miss Bates in Emma is very sad, but I think Austen freely acknowledges that. I always think she saw herself as becoming Miss Bates if she didn't succeed in writing commercially successful novels.
I think Lucy Steele is very interesting as a character - she's almost a predecessor for Becky Sharp. Go getting, ambitious and quite ruthless.I think she'll make a real go of her marriage to Edward's brother, and I think she might even succeed in winning round Mrs Ferrars.
A novel about her future would be fascinating.
She'll quickly learn to speak 'posh' and adopt the mannerisms of her betters.
I just finished reading a novel that at least touches on Lucy’s future, Beth—The Year in Between: A Sense and Sensibility Variation by Christina Morland. She imagines her just as you do. I think the cruelty about Dick Musgrove is aimed more at his mother, who apparently had pretty shallow feelings about him when he was alive but then waxes sentimental and forlorn after his death. My sense is that Austen was offended by the social solecism of making a public parade of her loss and creating awkwardness for Captain Wentworth when she wasn’t really heartbroken.
Good point about Miss Bates! I have always been very touched by Mr. Knightley’s plea for honoring her and treating her with respect, and his empathy for her situation. I’m not in general fond of Mr. Knightley but that’s his shining moment.
J. wrote: "Personally, I think Austen's dialogue technique is superb. Ideally, dialogue should be constructed according to those elements that influence speech to such a degree that attribution isn't necessar..."Completely agree. Call me boring, in that I'm stringing along here with 99.99% of major literary professors, but Austen's dialogue (here in London) or dialog (elsewhere) is second to none. Just saying.
What the F***? Don't people ever curse? Oh My G**? Haven't you ever called someone a total A**?I'll take your word, for it Alice. I assume that 'major literary professors' use only the most careful language. And besides, half the time those phrases in Heyer have me just guessing. But Heyer's research was usually impeccable. I bet people said those things, even in the Regency. Even with ladies present.
Martin wrote: "What the F***? Don't people ever curse? Oh My G**? Haven't you ever called someone a total A**?I'll take your word, for it Alice. I assume that 'major literary professors' use only the most caref..."
This comment bears no, repeat no, relation to my comment above, LOL!!!!! Is there another Alice on this thread, or what?!?! Neither the comment I responded to OR my own comment had anything to do with swearing. Instead, they were considering clarity of attributions.
*&&^%$$££%&&&"!!¬!!!!! - as Jane Austen would (poss. not) have said!!!!
AM
Lol, on the saltiness. I am still working my way through a book of Jane Austen’s letters. She did not swear in her letters but rather, employed a rapier wit. I agree that Heyer’s research was quite accurate. Her slang (called Cant) was accurate as far as I can tell.
Heyer seems to have based her cant on Francis Grose, 1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue by Francis Grose: english, so it was accurate, though she might have sometimes confused which class of person used which expression.
Among the most common criticisms of Austen (that was our topic, right?) is that she wrote no male/male scenes. Ergo the occasional salty language that men use was never written by her. As it happens, there is at least one male/male scene in Austen and I just happen to have reread it. There was, however, a woman present. (Whether there was a 'lady' present is hotly debated by the characters in the book.
You’re quite right, there are actually several scenes with only men. Looking at you, Mansfield Park!
Interesting! So, which are the male-male scenes? Is one of the when Sir Thomas berates his son Tom for being so extravagant he has to sell off one of his brother's livings?And who is the 'not-lady'??!
I wouldn't call the lack of male-male conversations (if that is so, see above!) something to criticise Austen for, rather the reverse. It would show she accepts her limitations, and knows she cannot 'know' how men speak to each other when ladies are not present - it makes her yet more authentic I feel.If you compare her, say, with D H Lawrence (whom, I admit, I haven't read for decades), I used to be struck (in the days when I read DHL) about how I'd never ever come across a female anything like the ones in his novels. I used to think it showed he just didn't 'get' women at all.
But it remains a huge challenge, to present a verifiable 'vie interieure' of someone who is nothing like oneself.....OK, I know, that's the whole point of literarture!
Trouble is, it can affect what is written - think of the controversy these days when a writer attempts to depict someone not of their own ethnic background.
I take the point about Mrs Musgrave - I think Austen has some reference to her 'fat sighs'. As well as Captain Wentworth's tact in how he answers her.I'm not sure it exonerates Austen though. Without checking the text, isn't it her authorial voice that says 'poor Dick' who was regarded as a booby (or equivalent) when he was at home....but was it Mrs M who regarded him so poorly, or others?
I wonder why Austen created him in the first place, and put that scene in? What role does it play in the novel?
In respect of Jane Austen swearing (or not!), a friend of mine some years ago gave me a birthday card which depicts a cartoon of a regency woman in front of a stout man behind a desk, who is saying to her 'We love the story, Miss Austen, but all the effing and blinding will have to go'.....So, who knows what the 'original versions' might have contained?!
Slightly more seriously (I hope!), I wonder what the 'strongest' cant/swear/slang expression is in Austen?
As for Georgette Heyer, she certainly hit a rich vein in her novels - lots of writers copy her, but I would think she was the 'original' of that kind of usage in regency romantic novels??
Abigail, I agree it's Mr Knightley's shining moment, being protective of Miss Bates....but it is rivalled, I think, by his other shining moment, when he gallantly asks Miss Smith to dance, who has just been very humiliatingly snubbed by the repellent Mr Elton.Emma sees, and SO approves. And so do we.
Yes, Heyer was the inventor of Regency romance so far as I know.John Thorpe swears a whole lot in Northanger Abbey, but it’s all dashed out (“d–––”)
I seem to recall there’s also at least one scene in Mansfield Park where Sir Thomas and Edmund are talking about Fanny.
As for Dick Musgrove, Austen seems to include the entire family in his condemnation: “the Musgroves had had the ill fortune of a very troublesome, hopeless son; and the good fortune to lose him before he reached his twentieth year; that he had been sent to sea, because he was stupid and unmanageable on shore; that he had been very little cared for at any time by his family, though quite as much as he deserved; seldom heard of, and scarcely at all regretted... He had, in fact, though his sisters were now doing all they could for him, by calling him 'poor Richard,' been nothing better than a thick-headed, unfeeling, unprofitable Dick Musgrove, who had never done anything to entitle himself to more than the abbreviation of his name, living or dead.” I suppose the point of the scene is to put Captain Wentworth in an appealing light—he is being so unkind to Anne that we need to see him being kind to someone else?
Another flaw (or choice?) in Austen are those chapter titles. 'Three' tells you right away that you have just finished 'Two.' Would it be a spoiler if I told you 'Four' will come next?My second favorite author, Dickens, used chapter titles to advantage. A well-chosen title hints at the content. It's a hook for leading you out of the past and into the future (both relative to the novel's 'today'). Let's check 'Chapter III' in Dombey and Son "In which Mr. Dombey, as a Man and a Father, is seen at the Head of the Home-Department." Get's you to focus on Chapter III, leaving IV to its rightful position.
Right now I'm into my second favorite Regency romance novelist, who is very hot at the moment due to a Netflix series (that I will not watch). Instead of just 'Three' she writes "Three. In which Our Hero tries very, very hard." (On the Way to the Wedding. You know at this point that Our Hero, Gregory Bridgerton, is the only one of the eight Bridgerton siblings who is still unmarried.)
Chapter Two ends with foreshadowing. "Hermione would come around. Lucy would make sure of it." (Gregory has fallen in love with Hermione. Lucy is Hermione's inseparable best friend.) You start Three wondering exactly what Gregory will try. And will 'very, very hard' be enough to win Hermione's affection? Or at least get her notice?
"One potential source of tension is that she sometimes seems torn between humour and cruelty. For example, we are led to find humour of a sort in characters like Mrs Bennet, though the description can be cruel. Similarly, we are invited to mock poor Mary Bennet, yet she is quite pitiable really."I think Austen's view is in the vein of Elizabeth Bennet's when Elizabeth says, "I hope I never ridicule what is wise or good. Follies and nonsense, whims and inconsistencies do divert me, I own, and I laugh at them whenever I can. Austen might point out the errors of characters like Elizabeth, Marianne Dashwood, Catherine Morland, but she never ridicules them. Ridicule is reserved for the absurd, or absurdity of, characters who are nonsensical, whimsical or inconsistent.
Yes, fair point about Lizzi'es comment about not mocking what is wise or good.I also think it's OK to mock Lady Catherine, as she is rich and powerful - but mocking poor Mary Bennet is not OK I feel.
Even if she is truly pretentious, and not just desperately trying to find a 'role' as the ugly duckling middle sister in a family of attractive sisters, it's still cruel to my mind.
the Musgroves had had the ill fortune of a very troublesome, hopeless son; and the good fortune to lose him before he reached his twentieth year; **
That's pretty breathtakingly horrific, when you think about it. To regard it as 'good fortune' that someone dies before they are 20.
Who had the rearing of this misfortunate teenager anyway....??
Chapter headings - maybe Dickens did 'teasers' in his chapter headings as he wrote in installments??Don't dare for the Bridgerton ones though (but then I don't care for the books anyway - let alone the ghastly TV series...)
I dislike Bridgertons ;) and the rakes. Some books are slower than others but I love a roman de moeurs.
Mr. Wodehouse is pitiable. Captain Benwick is mearly sad because he is grieving.
I suppose Fanny's father is pitiable in a way.
Charles Musgrove is stuck being married to Mary in Persuasion.
For the most part, though, pitiable men suffer from their poor choices, not their lack of them.
A roman de meours - that's a completely new one on me! What does it mean?
Here on the left side of the pond, Beth, we would say 'comedy of manners.' At one time that was applied to Austen's romances. More literally, it would be 'novel of manners,' avoiding the confusion of 'comedy' in its 'funny, amusing' meaning.
Ah, OK, that makes sense. I think the term 'meours' is the same as in 'autres gens, autres meours' which I think means 'other people, other customs'??(Is it 'left' when you are looking south, or when you are looking north? If the former, then Europe, if the latter then North America??) (I'm not very good on orientations!!!!)
Actually, Beth, Americans call California et al 'the left coast.'
Totally confused now! I guess my mental image of the world is I am standing in the north looking south, so west is righthand and east is left hand.
I can remember once seeing a map of the world 'upside down' (which, since it's rolling around in space anyway, is just as likely as the other way!), and it was very disturbing to look at.
Australia 'is' 'Down Under' and that's that!!!! :) :)
(Maybe California consists of a lot of 'lefties' politically rather than geogrpaphically??!) (or both.)
Beth, stand and face the Faroe Islands. With your left hand, wave to me! (And to all your other friends in the U.S.)
Ive always thought it was the "west coast" and the other side(Maine to florida} the "east coast"
Ah, but I would more likely stand with my back to the Faroe islands and the North Pole, and look towards the warmer south!!!Also, from the UK, there is a lot more 'south' than there is 'north', so it makes sense to keep the North Pole 'behind me' when I look out!!!!!
On the other hand, when one looks at a printed map, I agree that one 'looks north' which would accord with your orientation.
Tricky business!!!!!
Mrs B, I find it always strange to think that if one is in California, China and Japan are to the west, whereas in the UK they are to the East.It's all relative I guess!!!!
It can also be unnerving to map places by latitude and longitude. I'm always unnerved realising that Hamburg is on the same latitude as Liverpool, as the latter seems further north to me. And it's unnerving that Prague is further west than Vienna, as Prague has always been 'Eastern Bloc' !!!
And I think (????) New York is the same latitude as Madrid (or am I dreaming that?!!) which seems seriously far too south for NY!
If I had to find fault with Jane, I would give her a dictionary of names. She repeats first names frequently and it can get a bit confusing.Elizabeth, William, Jane, Mary, Charles, various versions of Ed, etc
That is a pretty small complaint. If only I could be that flawless.
Jan wrote: "If I had to find fault with Jane, I would give her a dictionary of names. She repeats first names frequently and it can get a bit confusing.Elizabeth, William, Jane, Mary, Charles, various version..."
There were only so many names to choose from! Those were very common names even in the Austen family. It makes geneaology confusing when person A has ancestors with the same names as person B but in different locations so probably not related.
I am a French granny, and a true fan of Jane Austen. Have been for decades, progressing and discovering new details as I age. As far as I am concerned Jane Austen has all the greatest qualities in the world as a writer and also as a person. And I really think there is so much to tell and to discover yet, about her and in her novels. Endless richesses.Reluctantly, I may see a fault, in my opinion, but I am not sure : I think that at times she seems to be a little too austere, or perhaps can it be modesty, but pushed to the excess. (Jane Austere Austen ?) A slightly austere/over-modest tone I found in Mansfield Park once or twice in the way Fanny reacts in certain circumstances, for example in the theatre play episode. Can it be that Austen thinks that the play 'lovers vows' is too trivial, or else what really shocks her is the fact that the play is used as a screen or a pretext by the young people in order to express their amorous feelings - which would remain secret otherwise. A clever way to tell 'I love you' in public ?
I have been reading all her most popular novels and watching all the movie adaptations, sometimes different versions of the same novel. I continue to do so periodically over the decades (I am old enough). I just cannot do without it. Each character in her novels are portrayed in an interesting manner, with many relevant details, much humour, wittingly, ironically, sometimes with cruelty. I like her style and vision. For example, I like the way Mr Collins in Pride and Prejudice is described. Even Collins I find interesting (sorry). So you can imagine how interesting I find all the other more profound characters. He behaves and sounds like a half-wit. (The people in his parish are to be pitied !). What does it tell us about his profession ? Such a contrast between Collins and Edward Ferrars. What does Austen think about religion and priests ? She conveys her own views through Edward (Sense and Sensibility) and she tells us what she detests most through Collins's views (Pride and Prejudice) and other characters that are portrayed as despicable. Some more food for thought, it never ends, for my pleasure at least. Looking forward to some other views on these topics and others. Thank you.
Nadinella.
I also have been reading Jane for decades. I first read P&P at about age 12 and have reread it many times. I am listening to them all again this year. Oh, to be able to read P&P for the first time again! Would I realize Wickham was a villian before all was revealed? Would I realized what a gem Darcy truly was all along once he remebered his manners? What would I have thought of Mr Bennet? Did I realize the role of his neglect in the character and behavior of Lydia or would I have merley delighted in his dry sense of humor?
After multiple rereadings and viewings I know so much more, but to once again experience the original joy of discovery of this fabulous author and her timeless tales. 😊
My first P&P read was over 40 years ago. Jane is still part of my life. I probable watch the Colin Firth/Jennifer Ehle version about once a year. I reread the books periodically. I have tea parties with my sisters. The talk inevitably turns to cats, birds, and Jane Austen. And please do not mention Kira Knightly or you will get an earful of serveral fronts.
Jane Austen was a clergyman's daughter. Mr. Collins in P&P and Mr. Elton in Emma are both buffoonish clergymen. I believe it was a commentary on how one didn't need religious convinctions to become a member of the clergy. All they needed was money enough to go to University and fulfill a bare minimum of requirements. It was a profession for younger sons and those without independent means. Remember, Mr. Darcy Sr. left money for Mr. Wickham to be educated for the church. Can you imagine?! We can assume Jane believed her father was one of the few faithful and she was poking gentle fun at those who were not. Lover's Vows is a pretty racy play. Fanny's reaction to life mirroring art and the shocking content of the play shows her character. Jane could be passing judgment on immoral behavior. I haven't read MP in awhile. It's not my favorite. It needs a real ending- more romantic development on how Edmund came to appreciate Fanny and love her as she loves him.
The 'worldliness' of so many of the Church of England clergy who, as you say, regarded it as a profession with an income (and a house!) attached rather than as a divine calling (!), was a key reason why in the 18th Century there was a strong move to 'reform' the Church, and make it more 'godly'. Methodism started out as such an urge to reform, and then went its own way as a dissenting 'sect'.In defence of Mr Collins, he may not come across as very spiritual (!), but I think as a 'pastoral' vicar he is OK - he will do his duty by his parishoners, and apart from endlessly sucking up to Lady Catherine, I don't see him neglecting his parish duties.
He's not a bad man!
I agree that it can be slightly irritating - and confusing - that JA uses only a limited selection of first names for her characters. I appreciate they were common names in her time, but even so.In fact, thinking about iot, of her characters, who is it that only appears once in her novels? I'm going to have to have a think!
In Sense and Sensibility there's Elinor and Marianne (I don't think there are others?), and their younger sister Margaret. Any others?
In P and P, there's Kitty and Lydia, and Georgiana.
In MP there's Julia (and Maria?), and Fanny's sister Susan. What about Tom/Thomas?
In Persuasion there's Anne herself, and possibly Elizabeth? Walter isn't re-used is it?
Maybe I should start a new thread on this!!!
Jane Austen
Books mentioned in this topic
Lovers' Vows (other topics)1811 Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue by Francis Grose: english (other topics)
The Year in Between: A Sense and Sensibility Variation (other topics)
The Expedition of Humphry Clinker (other topics)
The Year in Between: A Sense and Sensibility Variation (other topics)
Thinking about the universal praise that Austen receives, is there any mileage I wonder, in identifying anything about Austen and her books that one might dislike?
One potential source of tension is that she sometimes seems torn between humour and cruelty. For example, we are led to find humour of a sort in characters like Mrs Bennet, though the description can be cruel. Similarly, we are invited to mock poor Mary Bennet, yet she is quite pitiable really. (Or is she?) Is this fair?
Who, by the way, does one consider the saddest character in Austen's books? There is Anne de Burgh, for example, with her domineering mother. Mary Bennet, plain and discounted. Fanny Price, for a lot of the story. Colonel Brandon's ruined ward (Eliza?)
Are any of the male characters pitiable I wonder?