Jane Austen discussion
Newbie Corner
>
Introduce Yourself Part Two
message 1601:
by
BookishBrunette
(new)
May 17, 2020 11:21AM
But if guys can get the same lessons from a different book, and other than the art of her writing being sorely missed, I guess it would be okay to excuse them from reading JA.
reply
|
flag
Hi there. I’m new to this group so I came to introduce myself. I became a Jane Austen fan a couple of years ago when I got this lovely hardcover leather bound book (for Christmas) that had four of her novels, Sense & Sensibility, Pride & Prejudice, Emma, and Northanger Abbey. I loved all of them so much and immediately went to acquire a copy of Persuasion which I also enjoyed thoroughly. I haven’t read Mansfield Park yet but hopefully will able to soon. My favorite JA book is P&P and my favorite character is Mr. Knightly from Emma.
Mod
I love Mansfield Park, so please let us know what you think of it when you've read it!
Happy to have you with us!
Mansfield Park is a work of genius but the character of Fanny Price divides opinion to put it mildly. I’m coming to appreciate it more, but it not as funny as Emma or Pride and Prejudice
Terrence - I think in respect of Fanny Price, the problem is how to make a 'good' person also 'interesting'. I think that is why Austen put in Mary Crawford as her foil - she is Lizzy Bennett 'corrupted'.Have to say I don't find Emma funny at all - just excruciatingly excruciatingly embarrassing! I can hardly bear to read it or watch the various versions. The scene in the carriage where Mr Elton proposes makes my blood run cold - just ghastly ghastly ghastly! Oh, poor, stupid Emma....
Terrence - re DHL - but what about the nude wrestling scene between Alan Bates and Oliver Read in the Ken Russell WIL film?!!!! :) :) :) (It was very 'shocking' at the time I recall!)
Miss Bates, Mrs Elton, Mr Woodhouse ... well I find them funny.
Mrs Elton definitely! Caro sposo etc. I wonder who Austen modelled her on? There must have been some inspiration there! I think Miss Bates is difficult to find funny, exactly, as she is either irritating or 'pathetic' in the true sense of the word. It's always a challenge for authors to make irritating people funny, as showing their irritating habits (overlong ramblings for Miss Bates) is tedious to read.
Mr Woodhouse, yes and no funny! Also mainly either irritating or 'pathetic' again. The latter is one of the reasons I like the Romola Garai TV version, with Michael Gambon as Mr W - he really brings out the pathos of the character, traumatised by the death of Emma's mother - makes me sympathetic for the first time.
For me, embarrassment is a very, very hard emotion to cope with - too personal I suspect! I have enough cringing moments in my own life to look back on to enjoy seeing anyone else, fictitious or otherwise, being as embarrassing! Ouch, ouch, ouch!
I find Miss Bates’ ramblings hilarious!
The older I get, the more sympathy I have for Miss Bates. I will be her some day in the not so distant future. Emma could have been Miss Bates if not for Mr. Knightley. We don't really know who inherits Hartfield but I assume it's one of her nephews. Emma is cringeworthy but she does learn her lesson. The new movie is pretty cute but they missed the boat on Mr. Woodhouse. He's more hypochondriac than invalid.
QNB - I suspect Austen too saw herself as a potential Miss Bates, dwindling into nonentity and poverty. Mr Knightley depicts her so powerfully - and punishingly - to Emma when he berates her for her insensitive cruelty towards her at the picnic. ('Badly done, Emma! Badly done!'). I suspect all women also fear her fate. (Maybe the one 'upside' to the Miss Bates of Austen's world was at least they weren't in danger of being suspected of being witches and lugged out and drowned or burnt!!!!!)You raise a really interesting question about Hartfield. Is it ever spelled out in Emma just where the Woodhouse money comes from? I get the impression that the village 'squire' is in fact Mr Knightley, and that his is the 'Big House' of the neighbourhood. I sort of get the impression that the Woodhouses are more 'new money' (though old enough to be respectable by Emma's time!). Is there an estate that comes with Hartfield ? (ie, a number of farms bringing in rental income) (as Knightley has) (and a home farm too? viz that comment about his carriage horses being in use on the farm for harvesting?)
An associated question is that if Knightley's family home is Donwell Abbey, was it, presumably, built on (and probably with the stones thereof!) a former maedival abbey? If it were (and I think it's a safe assumption, given its name!), then does that mean there wasn't actually a Domesday Manor in the village, because it was 'replaced' by an abbey? I don't know enough about land ownership/distribution after the Norman conquest, and how religious establishments were listed in Domesday. So, were abbeys and monastery 'instead of' a manor, or 'as well as'? I suspect the former, and that they were often founded in 'wild land', ie, uncultivated previously, ie, so there wouldn't have been a pre-existing manor on that land. (I believe it took until about the 13th century for all the cultivatable land in England to be actually cultivated - allowing for the sprinklings of 'Commons' even in cultivated land (and apart from land deliberately left to be hunting forests for the king etc).
But whether or not Donwell Abbey is a Domesday manor, or a former religious foundation, I still don't get the impression that Hartfield is the 'manor house' either.
As for who inherits it - ah, that's definitely not made clear, is it? If it isn't a manor house, then I guess the pressure to make male primogeniture paramount would be considerably less?? in which case, would the eldest male heir (as you say, the older sister Isabella's oldest son?) automatically inherit it, or perhaps not? If Mr W has free disposal, he could leave it to both daughters (effectively, their husbands and children!), or simply to his elder daughter.
I think Emma is at less risk of becoming a next Miss Bates as there is, at least' money in the family', and one would think (hope!) he would make provision for his younger daughter. But, then again, if the money is, after all, tied into rental income for a Hartfield estate, there may be less 'cash' around for her to inherit (ie, whether entailed or not). (This is, as you pointed out, the problem for the Dashwood sisters' father).
But, definitely, if either Isabella or Isabella's son inherited Hartfield, and Emma did not, then Emma's standard of living will definitely decline markedly, and she will also lose her home, Hartfield. Even she 'handsome, clever and rich' needs to be 'rescued into love' by Knightley, and not just for the sake of a happy personal ending, but a happy financial one as well.
One way of protecting Emma, even if she doesn't/can't inherit Hartfield herself, is to let her be a tenant-for-life after her father's death, so that she gets to continue to live at Hartfield, even if she doesn't own it, until she dies, when it could then be occupied by whoever did inherit it (Isabella or her son). I think this was a relatively common 'solution' for spinster daughters.
Final point - if Emma had fallen in love with someone who wasn't prepared, as Mr Knightley is, to actually come and live at Hartfield (presumably until Mr W pegs out?!), would Emma actually have had the heart to marry him?? I do genuinely feel for Mr W being afraid of being left alone with both his daughters living away from him. but, on the other hand, Emma might have had to sacrifice her own marriage and happiness to stay looking after her father until he dies. We sort of assume Mr W is old because he's a valetudinarian, but he might only be in late middle age! (or even just middle age!). He might live another twenty years, till Emma is in her forties and totally unmarriagable.....
To me, seeing Emma 'trapped' as her father's carer (emotional even if not physical, since he has lots of servants!), makes me far more sympathetic towards her. She has to compensate for her comfortable, but restricted (and pretty boring!) life by finding things to entertain her, eg matchmaking....
PS - just thought of a lovely 'happy ending'!. When Emma is married to Mr Knightley, Mr Woodhouse could marry Miss Bates! (Perhaps after old Mrs Bates dies!)(Hmm, what other 'Happy Ever After' pairings might there be lying latent in Austen's novels??)
The Woodhouses are definitely NOT new money! Emma is reluctant to socialize with the Coles who are new money. Industrial I think. I think the Woodhouses and Knightleys were both the big families of the village, hence John and Isabella's marriage. Making Emma a tenant for life would make sense. Mr. Woodhouse is nervous. He doesn't like people going away. He's resistant to the idea of Emma marrying.
Emma worries about Mr. Knightley marrying and cutting little Henry out of his inheritance so he's the Knightley heir. I would expect he's also Mr. Woodhouse's heir as well, to combine the estates or perhaps little John or little George is the heir.
"It would be a great disappointment to Mr. John Knightley; consequently to Isabella. A real injury to the children; a most mortifying change, and material loss to them all; a very great deduction from her father's daily comfort; and, as to herself, she could not at all endure the idea of Jane Fairfax at Donwell Abbey. A Mrs. Knightley for them all to give way to! No -- Mr. Knightley must never marry. Little Henry must remain the heir of Donwell."
Yes, I see what you mean, and fully concede the Woodhouses are 'posher' than the Coles and definitely they are the family next in consequence to the Knightleys, though I still think their wealth could be 'newer' than Mr K's. (How many generations did it take for new money to become old money?? It's clear the Bingleys, for example are 'new-ish' - there is no established Bingley family estate, which is why they rent Netherfield, but that doesn't stop the ghastly sisters mocking the the Lucas's for having 'kept a very good shop'!)(Perhaps like those who are not quite nouveau riche any more, they are keener to mock those who still do have the whiff of trade about them!) (The usual way for the nouveau riche to go upscale socially was to buy an estate and send their children to the right public schools, but could the children be 'poshed up' in a single generation??)With Emma, the last time I read the book I wasn't really paying attention to the economics of the two families, so can't really say, without further checking, if there are any references to Hartfield being a landed estate or simply a 'grand house'. I do think that the Woodhouses are likely (??) to be 'newer' money than the Knightleys, and I think it would all boil down to the question of what the original Domesday manor was (and if there was one, or if Donwell was a monastic estate), which isn't really addressed in the book?? (Probably not very relevant to Austen's purpose in writing it!)
It is clear from the text that Mr K is a pretty active estate landlord, and takes a very responsible interest in his tenants and farms (eg, won't use horses needed on the farms for his own social carriage use etc) (Hmm, was Robert Martin a tenant or a yeoman/owner-farmer? He could have been both, of course, simultaneously owning a farm of his own as a yeoman, plus then renting more land/another farm from the Donwell estate? It's clear Mr K thinks highly of him.)
As ever, I guess we as modern readers can feel frustrated there isn't more 'explanation' of the precise social/economic circumstances of the characters in Austen's novels, and I guess the reason is that either (a) she didn't bother to explain things that would have been perfectly obvious to contemporary readers or (b) she only does so when they serve her plot.
Re (b) in Emma, that very revealing passage you quote is clearly (to us!) showing that Emma is highly reluctant to see Mr K marry and is trotting out 'external' reasons for it - ie, cutting out little Henry. 'We know' (!) that of course her real reason (not yet fully realised by herself) is that she wants him for herself. (It's a brilliant use of her free indirect speech method.'
By the way, does Austen spell out what Mr K's brother John makes a living out of? I know they live in London, but what does he do?
Yes! Mr. Knightly was a lawyer.
Robert Martin is a tenant farmer of Mr. Knightley's working his way up the social ladder. He's a good catch for Harriet. He goes out of his way 3 miles to get walnuts for Harriet because apparently walnuts don't grow in Highbury and Harriet enjoys them. He has a "fine flock" and has been bid more for his wool than anybody, according to Harriet. This money will soon perhaps buy them the wages of an indoor servant, a boy. Mrs. Martin has "two parlours, two very good parlours indeed; one of them quite as large as Mrs. Goddard's drawing-room; and of her having an upper maid who had lived five-and-twenty years with her; and of their having eight cows, two of them Alderneys, and one a little Welch cow, a very pretty little Welch cow, indeed; and of Mrs. Martin's saying, as she was so fond of it, it should be called her cow; and of their having a very handsome summer-house in their garden, where some day next year they were all to drink tea: -- a very handsome summer-house, large enough to hold a dozen people." It takes 3 generations to remove the stigma of trade. Mr. Bingley's father inherited a fortune but died before he got to spend it. Mr. Bingley, in marrying Jane, is moving his future children up the social ladder to gentlemen and ladies.
All Jane Austen says about the Woodehouses and Hartfield is that Mr. Woodehouse has resided there a long time. Perhaps it's not an inherited family estate. Donwell Abbey is in the adjoining parish.
Searching the digital text it says :" Mr. Woodhouse was fond of society in his own way. He liked very much to have his friends come and see him; and from various united causes, from his long residence at Hartfield, and his good nature, from his fortune, his house, and his daughter, he could command the visits of his own little circle, in a great measure as he liked. He had not much intercourse with any families beyond that circle; his horror of late hours and large dinner-parties made him unfit for any acquaintance, but such as would visit him on his own terms. Fortunately for him, Highbury, including Randalls in the same parish, and Donwell Abbey in the parish adjoining, the seat of Mr. Knightley, comprehended many such. Not unfrequently, through Emma's persuasion, he had some of the chosen and the best to dine with him....
Real, long-standing regard brought the Westons and Mr. Knightley; and by Mr. Elton...
After these came a second set; among the most come-at-able of whom were Mrs. and Miss Bates and Mrs. Goddard, three ladies almost always at the service of an invitation from Hartfield, ..."
QNPoohBear wrote: "Robert Martin is a tenant farmer of Mr. Knightley's working his way up the social ladder. He's a good catch for Harriet. He goes out of his way 3 miles to get walnuts for Harriet because apparently..."Excellent post!
Ah, a lawyer - thank you! I believe it was one of the three professions that younger sons of landed gentry could 'respectably' engage in - the other two being the clergy and the army (possibly navy, but I think that was more egalitarian than the army, and more open to a 'cariere au metier' as I think Bonaparte called it - that every sergeant in his army carried a marshall's baton in his knapsack!. I believe (?) in the navy promotion was actually on merit and ability, rather than by purchase, as in the army - as in, in the navy you actually couldn't buy your way upwards! (?).(That said, I think it was still hard to impossible to rise from the rank of seaman to officer??? So it wasn't that egalitarian!) (It's still quite tough to do so in the Armed Forces even today, though avenues are open)(I think it was the Great War that really started the true social opening up of the officer class - the army simply ran out of junior officers slaughtered at too great a rate, so competent NCOs were sent off to OTC, Officer Training Camp, to be commissioned.)
So, Robert Martin is definitely a tenant farmer (of Mr Knightley's) and not a yeoman-own-your-own-land farmer. But as you point out, definitely on an upward trajectory.I believe, thought, that even tenant farmers could do well financially, in the era of the agriculturally-protective Corn Laws (not repealed fully until the 1840s, in a crisis that brought down several governments - as power in England shifted decisively, thanks to the Great Reform Act a decade earlier widening the franchise significantly, from the landed gentry and aristocracy to the industrialist capitalists whose interests were essentially incompatible - the former wanted high prices for grain, which they sold, and the latter low, so that food cost less and they could get away with paying their factory workers less....)
In a way, even if more social prestige attached to owning land, even a single farm, not renting it, maybe it could be more profitable NOT to own land (or certainly, not to buy it!), as once your rent was covered, all your profits from farming went straight to you. That said, if you wanted to improve the land, or extend, say, barns and so on, I'm not sure that the landlord was obliged to compensate you for any money you spent on improving the capital worth, or the rentable value, of his property. (This, I seem to recall, was one of the big stumbling blocks in Ireland, where tenants were simply not recompensed for any improvements they made, so went on living at wretched subsistence levels.)
With a good landlord, Like Mr Knightley,. though, one would think he would encourage Robert Martin to improve yields etc,. I seem to recall there is a comment about RM reading agricultural journals, so he was clearly keen on investing in the farms productively and profitability.
I wonder, as an aside, what it would have cost Robert Martin were he to have aspired to buying his own farm? Obviously it depends on the quality of the farmland, as it does today, but how expensive was land compared to, say, a house, etc etc?
That said, maybe there wasn't much available land around to buy in the first place - it all belonged to the landed gentry and aristocracy?? (Who'd also bagged all the commons during the Enclosures!). Maybe the only chance someone had of buying a farm, even assuming they could accumulate the capital with which to do so (or be lent it???), was to wait till a profligate landlord went bankrupt, or had to sell off some of their land, and then hope to snap it up 'piecemeal' (ie, rather than as a single estate?)(which were snapped up by the incoming nouveau riche gentrifying themselves!)
On the other hand, maybe owning your own farm - which then maybe you could enlarge by, say, judicious marriages in the next generations, or snapping up another farm later on, gradually building it into an estate itself - was not the best use of your surplus capital? It might raise you socially, but it tied up a lot of money in land, that could only be recouped by selling up.
Maybe it was better to stay a prosperous tenant farmer instead?
Aha, so Donwell Abbey is in the neighbouring parish! That certainly opens up the likelihood that Hartfield is the 'Big House' for its parish after all. Thank you!But was Emma's father the first of his family to move there? There is a sort of implication he was in the phrase 'his long residence at Hartfield', as though he'd arrived there as a young/married man, rather than having inherited it?? And his having a fortune might also imply that he'd had the free capital wealth to purchase so notable a house in the district???
BTW - very interesting take on Mr Bingley - that his marriage to Jane Bennet, the daughter of a landed gentleman (even if at the lower end of that scale financially) was actually socially 'upwardly mobile'. Nice way of putting it!
All goes to illustrate the chronic British obsession that you just can't buy class - you have to be bred to it!!!!! Still here, to an extent!!!!!
Rereading your quoted passage about Robert Martin - it's clear he's definitely 'improved' the farmhouse by adding a summer house for recreation and tea parties!! (Let us trust that Emma, as Mrs Knightley, will be deigning to accept an invitation thereto - I feel her husband will insist, and her friendship with Henrietta, which does become quite genuine I feel, once the 'patronage' has dissipated, will urge her to anyway.)
I found this article and map A Hypothetical Map of Highbury. That helps figure out the logistics of who lives where and is important in village life. It looks like Emma's home is a part of the village, while Donwell Abbey is the great manor house.
Brilliant - thank you! I shall study the map and read the article. :)
What a wonderful article, and it really helps to set the scene for Emma - thank you for the link. I think it confirms our discussion here, too! One (new) thing I'm wondering now is what was the status of Mr Elton's living? Who had the disposal of it? Again, my limited historical knowledge doesn't know how many of the parish livings were in the gift of landowners, or still belonged to the church (?) etc, but if the former, would it be right to assume that Mr Knightley had the living at his disposal? Or, if Donwell is in a neighbouring parish, as the text tells us, would he therefore have had his own church, and the living associated with it? I think the question is pertinent, ie, whether Mr K appointed Mr E, because I doubt that he would have! ie, I think Mr E would not have been Mr K's choice - he doesn't think much of him, and would have been unlikely to have chosen him? So how did Mr E get to Highbury? This may be in the text of course - probably time for another re-read! (One always hopes the wretched man, egged on by his dreadful wife, will be off from Highbury soon to a more fashionable parish elsewhere! And a nice vicar like Edmund Bertram and Fanny will turn up!) (Rather than a Mr Collins and Charlotte....)
Church patrons were not limited to the local landowner. They can still be Oxbridge colleges, the Crown, the Bishop, the Dean and Chapter, some private individual etc. I thought Sir Thomas had sold the right of presentation to Mansfield. The Reverend Henry Tilley would be my preferred successor
Ah, thank you! Yes, I remember Sir Thomas berating the feckless Tom that because of his debts he now has to sell off the living, and so deprive his younger son of the income therefrom. (Tom just grumbled that his debts weren't as bad as a lot of his chums!) (As an aside, I think there's a novel in the 'born again' Tom, post-near-death illness, when he wises up and becomes a decent human being finally!)
Great idea re Henry Tilley - yes, definitely a very good choice of successor to the dire Mr E. I think Emma and Katherine will get on as well - and I can see Katherine being chummy with Harriet Martin too!
(I always find it hard to think of Henry Tilley as a clergyman - too jolly by half!)
Hello!I became a member of the group a little time ago, but it never occurred to me to come here and introduce myself.
My name is Débora, I'm 28 years old, currently doing a master's degree in Chemistry. I discovered Jane Austen's books when I was 16, in my high school English class, my teacher sent out an assignment to read an adapted version of Sense and Sensibility, but as I was not good at that time in English, I didn't try to look for other books because I couldn't read the book (that year was not good for me). When I was 19, in the year I started college, I took Pride and Prejudice (translated into Portuguese) and fell in love with this book, so much so that I looked for all the other works by the author, but I was still holding on to read them all, because I don't want to not have another book of her to read in my life!
Since I will be 30 next year, I intend to read at least 2 of them.
I hope they can participate in other discussions about the group!
Mod
I'm glad you gave Jane Austen a chance despite the language barrier! Glad to have you here with us!
DeboraTry these P&P sequels by Anna Elliott - written by an English author, so no USA howlers!
If you have not already read these 2 novels, I hope that you would enjoy -
https://www.amazon.com/Georgiana-Darc...
and
https://www.amazon.com/Pemberley-Wate...
I think S and S would be a real challenge to anyone for whom English is not their mother tongue! Austen's use of English can appear simple, and even modern in many respects (eg, compared with eighteenth century authors), but it is very sophisticated and extremely subtle, which is why linguistic and literary analysis of her outwardly simple tales continues to this day. Just trying to cope with her sense of irony is a challenge, let alone to understand her morality, and how she uses certain words as a sign of 'approval' and others as 'condemnation' etc, signalling to the reader much more than may superficially appear. Then, too, although she may sound quite modern, some of her language is 'not the same' as it would be now, so the precise meaning of individual words may not be what a reader first takes them to be.
On top of that is the whole 'moral dilemma' so to speak of trying to balance between what comes across as sometimes black humour (quite cruel - such as her authorial comments on the teenage sailor who was a misfit in his own family, but died young at sea, in Persuasion, which can read as very callous indeed), and her 'true morality' where she makes it very, very clear that what is essential is a sound moral sensibility (such as Fanny's in Mansfield Park), rather than witty humour (as contrasted to Fanny by Mary Crawford).
I don't speak any other language than English well enough to have any appreciation of what must go into translating Austen, but it certainly must be a challenge to replicate what she can do in English, in another language.
The Kindle version of the first volume of Ann Elliott’s books is free right now.
Hi Janet,I have both of the books you mentioned and love Anna Elliot's work. There is a third book that completes the series called "Kitty Bennet's Diary" which is just as good as the first two. I would add this to your recommendation.
I am curious about your comment regarding "USA Howlers". I may have written and published two such books, but I would enjoy hearing your views on what distinguishes an English author from an American one when reading Regency fiction. Thanks!
Shana
Rachel wrote: "WELCOME, Debora!I'm glad you gave Jane Austen a chance despite the language barrier! Glad to have you here with us!"
Thank you!
I'm glad as well I could try again to read her books.
Janet wrote: "Debora
Try these P&P sequels by Anna Elliott - written by an English author, so no USA howlers!
If you have not already read these 2 novels, I hope that you would enjoy -
https://www.amazon.com/..."
Hi Janet, I never heard of those books. I will definitely look them up! Thank you for the indications.
Jane Austen is challenging in English, let alone when English is not one's first language. When I went to JASNA 2016, I attended a panel discussion of Jane Austen Societies around the world. One of the speakers, Adriana Zardini, founder of Jane Austen Society in Brazil (JASBRA), translated of Mansfield Park and Sense and Sensibility into Portuguese. She said it was difficult because in Portuguese there's only one word for carriage but Jane used many different words to denote different types of carriages. How to convey the meaning of each carriage in Portuguese was the difficult questions. She had to look at Italian translations for some help.
Speaking personally (even though I wasn't asked!!!), I would say one of the things that UK readers can find 'howlers' in (some) US authors is that the latter can find it hard to navigate the British class system, and especially the issue of titles etc.I don't know that it still happens in modern US-authored regency romances, but it used to be possible to find total confusion about what happens when a character has a title. I've come across howlers such as Sir Roland Daredevil, the Duke of Battersea (or whatever), where the author failed to twig that either one is a knight or baronet (Sir) or one is a Duke! (Dukes, and other peers, can have multiple titles, but they are known by their highest ranking ones!) (Lower titles are usually used by their eldest sons as a courtesy title, so, for example, the oldest son of a Duke could be a Marquess, if the Duke has a marquesate in his possession!)
What definitely still happens - and not just in novels, but all over the press these days too, sigh - is not understanding the use of the term 'Lady' in front of name.
The ONLY time 'Lady' appears in front of a female Christian name is when that woman is the daughter of an earl or peer of higher degree (ie, Marquess/Duke) (Below those ranks she is an 'Hon').
Otherwise, 'Lady' goes in front of her husband's surname or title.
Sir Roland Daredevil's wife is Emma, Lady Daredevil ...UNLESS he's married the daughter of an earl/marquess/duke, in which case alone she is Lady Emma Daredevil.
The one reliable TV series for getting it correct is Downton Abbey, and that is because the author is a life peer himself, and is married to the niece of Lord Kitchener. So he moves in posh circles!
Fellowes gets its right, for example, with the Earl of Grantham's wife and daughters. His daughters are Lady Mary, Lady Edith and Lady Sibyl, but his wife is NOT Lady Cora Grantham, she is Cora, Lady Grantham, as she has no title of her own (being American!), only her husband's.
Georgette Heyer also gets it right - again, I think she was pretty 'posh' herself (relatively speaking), plus, of course, in her generation knowing social niceties was more important!
I'm not blaming US authors in the least - the British class system, let alone the peerage etc, is fiendishly complicated, and howlers are made here - and even I might not go into a witness box on the points above!
I'm not sure if this is a howler, because it's really just a case of the old adage, that England and America are divided by a common language (!)(who said that, it sounds like Oscar Wilde or George Bernard Shaw to my mind!).But all the same, an English reader can find it jarring when American language usage creeps in, such as saying 'gotten' instead of 'got' or 'dove' instead of 'dived'.
What is ironic, of course, is that the US usage is actually a form of 'old English', that we over here have updated, but the Americans haven't!! So actually, would be more suitable in historical novels anyway!
Beth-In-UK wrote: "Ah, thank you! Yes, I remember Sir Thomas berating the feckless Tom that because of his debts he now has to sell off the living, and so deprive his younger son of the income therefrom. I find it hard to imagine Henry Tilney as a clergyman.."Henry Tilney Is like many Anglican clergy I know with a highly developed sense of irony and camp – that brilliant off the cuff parody of Udolpho.
As the younger son, he has been given the family living – his father is the patron although not of the village nearest to Northanger. He would pay some curate to take the services while he visits Bath, Northanger Abbey and elsewhere. Twenty years later with the rise of the Oxford Movement he would be considered very irresponsible.
He would be unlikely to move from the family living, although with Eleanor away from Northanger and his father hostile to his wife he would no longer find the place so convenient and might move if he found a richer living.
Although marrying a clergyman may not sound romantic now (although I always think of JA as deeply anti romantic) It is worthwhile remembering half her heroines marry one.
Henry is my favourite Austen hero.
I don't allow American authors leeway for getting the peerage system wrong. A quick Google search brings one to Debrett's and the correct usage. No excuses in the age of the Internet. There's also Georgette Heyer's Regency World and other reference books.
Terence, I think many modern readers somewhat identify with Mary Crawford, wishing the 'hero' weren't a 'boring clergyman'!! I suppose these days we tend to think that no one would become a priest without an extremely strong, overriding spiritual vocation, that would define their entire being....whereas in Austen's period (probably right up into the 20th C?), it was far more of a profession than a vocation??Especially in the 18thC, where the spiritual laxness of so many C of E clerics lead to the Methodist 'revolt' against such endemic worldliness etc.
I think, maybe for us - certainly for me perhaps! - it's hard to imagine Henry Tilney, Edward Ferrars or Edmund Bertram interceding with God to save someone's soul, or joining two people in a marital bond that only God can divide, or despatching them in 'sure and certain hope of resurrection' etc etc.
They are all 'good men' but are they actually 'priests of God'? They seem, to me, to lack that 'divine power' that these days we would expect in someone who has chosen (or been divinely chosen!) to become an intercessory for God to Man, etc etc.
But I'm probably over-thinking all this!!!!!!
QNPB - I'm probably more 'merciful' (!) than you being only a lay enthusiast! but I do think the peerage system/order of precedence/correct form etc etc is inherently very complicated (Americans in that respect are lucky in their restriction to 'Mr', including famously, of course, Mr President)(SUCH a telling insistence!)(Democracy in a single expression!).Think, for example, of all the conventions about visiting cards, with what you left (yours and your husbands), and how (was the corner turned down, etc etc), and then all the 'who goes into dinner first?' and the 'what if they are widowed/dowagers' etc etc.
Apart from the issues of social precedence etc etc, I do personally find another 'howler' in British characters referring to 'Napoleon' as (I'm taking a punt on this one!) he was always referred to as Bonaparte. To have called him 'Napoleon' would have been to have recognised his 'right' to be an Emperor, which is what the Brits were disputing! (I even think I've heard him referred to as Napoleon in episodes of Sharpe - but that might be because the scriptwriters feared that audiences would not realise that Bonaparte WAS Napoleon, etc??)
On the 'howler' issue, it would be interesting to know what it is that US RR authors find the most challenging aspects of recreating this world in their novels?PS - not sure the visiting card complications were so pronounced in Regency times, might be more late Victorian??
Edmund is going to be an earnest clergyman, but he would be boringly earnest in any case. He just happens to have inherited his mother’s stunning good looks.
Yes, I rather agree. He's obviously an ideal match for Fanny! There was a part of him though, that was smitten by Mary Crawford, or, at least, dazzled by her. Whereas Fanny was never in the least smitten or dazzled by Henry CrawfordAgain, begs the question whether, had Edmund not been a clergyman (but had, say, entered the navy perhaps, as younger sons also did) (and such a glamorous uniforum!) would he have gone off with Mary after all?? (Assuming Henry hadn't run off with the dreadful, but also pitiable, Maria)
Would Edmund's virtue have 'improved' Mary's flawed morality, just as, say, would Fanny's virtue have 'improved' Henry's, had she married him?
Beth-In-UK wrote: "On the 'howler' issue, it would be interesting to know what it is that US RR authors find the most challenging aspects of recreating this world in their novels?PS - not sure the visiting card com..."
I’ve been traveling and was so pleased to see some comments about ‘howlers’ upon my return. I’m a new author and new to Goodreads Groups so it is quite fun to see what other people obsess over in Regency literature versus my own pet peeves. So many of the comments I’ve read have been charming and insightful and are a quick reminder of why Jane Austen is so well loved, even today, by so many people including myself.
Now about howlers, yes, I would imagine that reading about your own country and culture when the author knows less than you do, would be quite the opportunity for humor (or annoyance, as the case may be). And this is even more likely when you consider that writing a work of fiction occurring 200+ years ago is a most promising way to mangle a plot. From the clothing to the customs as well as a different set of laws and the lack of modern conveniences (not to mention the foreign money!); the possibilities of what you can get wrong are truly endless! As a reader, plot lines that include inventions that do not yet exist drive me to distraction. But, QNPoohBear is right; there is ample information online to assist with researching the peerage system. One of my favorite finds online is posted by Laura Wallace and she covers Correct Forms of Address. She cites an old edition of Black’s Correct Form for her research, which is very detailed. This is where I learned how to refer to the entire cast of family members for each titled character I created. And I credit Ms. Wallace with teaching me why Lady Catherine is Lady Catherine, not Lady de Bourgh and Lady Lucas is Lady Lucas, just as Beth-In-UK is referring to.
But I am American, I have never been to England, and I certainly did not live in the early 1800s, so I have made some mistakes, which I have gone back to fix (endeavor should be endeavour, etc.). But, speaking for myself alone, I would say my biggest challenges are my blind spots; the things that I don’t know that I don’t know. I love to research and am not shy about including what I learn to add authenticity to a scene. But sometimes something slips through that is never considered as a possible problem. One of my first reviews of my first book was written with what I felt was delighted cruelty. After getting the best of my natural temper, I decided to use the review to become a better a writer. I knew Mr. Collins was referred to a clergyman. But I had created a character, a clergyman, whom I had named Pastor Smith and referred to as a pastor throughout the book. Ooops! So I fixed it. All 167 (thank you Microsoft word count) instances of it. And I concluded that forms of address extend far beyond the peerage across the pond. Clergyman, doctors, apothecaries, farmers, and basically anyone else who is worthy of being included as a character in your plot, needs to be property addressed. After all, everyone knows Elinor is Miss Dashwood and Marianne is Miss Marianne; everyone except perhaps a few American authors who have never been to England.
I think clergy are particularly tricky in English! I don't think any are ever called 'Pastor', which sounds either Germanic or American to my mind. Clergy tend to be addressed by their parishioners by their 'title', as in 'More tea, Vicar?' or 'Will you be staying for dinner, Bishop?' that kind of thing (unless it's a servant saying 'Will you be dining, my Lord?' (Bishops being Lords Spiritual!)
But no one ever 'says' 'Rev' (any more than they say 'Hon'), though it's become a jocular form of casual address, as in 'Hey, Rev, cool sermon today!' (?!).
'Father' is exclusively RC or at the most, High Church Anglican (and controversial in the CoE for that reason!).
Even more so, I know of a parish priest, a female, who wants to be known as 'Mother'......
'Pastor' might just apply in non-conformist (ie, non CoE, non RC) churches in the UK??
On the 'Miss Dashwood/Miss Marianne' issue - in the absence of Elinor, would Marianne have been addressed as Miss Dashwood 'pro tem'? On 'precedence', having just watched the BBC's 'treat' for lockdown, a rerun of the Colin Firth P and P, it was ouchy to watch the dreadful Lydia, turning up with Wickham, pushing past her oldest sister, Jane, saying that as a married woman SHE now went into the house first! Ooh, slap, slap, slap!!!
Jane Austen
Books mentioned in this topic
The Lord of the Rings (other topics)Emma (other topics)
Georgette Heyer's Regency World (other topics)
Pride and Prejudice (other topics)
Sense and Sensibility (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Angela Thirkell (other topics)D.E. Stevenson (other topics)
Georgette Heyer (other topics)
Katherine Reay (other topics)
Marian Devon (other topics)
More...
