To Everyone,

Hi, I'm a high school student who is doing a paper on irony in Jane Austen's works. I was hoping that you guys could help me, first of all, choose which book specifically to focus my research on, and later, good websites (other than this one, of course!) that might have some sort of criticism or discussion of the irony in Austen's books. Any recommendations on books of criticism that are still in print would also be appreciated. I would be extremely grateful for any help you can give me. Thank you all in advance! Please don't hesitate to email me if you can think of anything.

Dear Laurie,

When "irony" is used in context with Jane Austen, it is usually "ironic humor" that is meant. I can appreciate why you received his assignment because Jane Austen is so often associated with ironic humor. (In fact, this may be a trademark - a trait of English humor. The English themselves seem to think so.) It is hard to think of any of her six published novels that is not, in part, ironic in this sense. However, I believe that Emma is your best bet; there is plenty of ironic humor in that novel, but, more importantly, there is also a great deal of irony in the much larger sense of the word. I would guess that you will score big by making the distinction in the uses of word, and then using passages from Emma to prove your point. For example, you might focus on the irony in the relationship of Emma Woodhouse with Harriet Smith.

The biography by Park Honan contains a great deal of intelligent criticism of the novels, but I cannot recall if he says anything useful in the sense you need him. You will have to check for yourself. I very much like the two volumes of criticism published by Southham. I hasten to add that I do not read criticism and so I am not a good source for you. I suspect that other members of the community will of more use. The primary link for all matters Jane Austen is the Republic of Pemberley. From there, you can link to many other places.

Good luck, I hope you will come back and post some of your thoughts, that might be a good way to test any theory you develop during your research.

I do share Bruce's sensitivity, only I never have those feelings about Jane Austen. My problem - don't laugh - is with A Midsummer Night's Dream - I said don't laugh! I was raised with the Bottoms of the world (at the bottom) and I become miffed when I think them misused.

I have been thinking about some postings. Julie wrote this on 3/3/99: "All I will say at this point is that [Persuasion] is the novel that I see most clearly in my head". I thought that Bruce wrote something similar on 3/4/99: "Persuasion is an autumnal book, set in the fall and colored with the mood of the falling leaves, red, yellow and brown, drifting down the river to the sea. ...". It seems to me that they were both getting at the art of Persuasion, and I wonder if they want to expand upon that? It is often said that Jane Austen never described persons or places. Personally, I think she did a bang-up job of describing Pemberley and, maybe, Julie or Bruce can point to some other things in Persuasion.

Ummm - is no one else interested in the love story? Is it possible that both Anne and Wentworth could carry the torch for such a long time? - And at their ages?

My literary preference is not mainstream. I show that quite clearly with the relative value I place on the Jane Austen novels - Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion at the top with Emma and Northanger Abbey at the bottom. This order is reversed in the lists of the very literate I think. I can appreciate what everyone is getting at, the writing in Emma is exquisite - one need not be erudite to understand that. I also hasten to add that I am describing the bottom of the Jane Austen list; so, the last two novels rank very high in my estimation. The point is that I am a sentimental man and so I respond the more to the deeper love stories. I do appreciate literary art very much, but I will turn away from it where morality and sentiment are not the things being explored.

The literate lecture me to enjoy literature without regard to the life and situation of the author. I don't much care for that notion, I will never explore that point of view. So, as I accept Julie's challenge to open the discussion of Persuasion, you have been warned that I will speak of love, sentiment, and Jane Austen.

Jane Austen was dying when she wrote Persuasion. I know - I know, everyone says that Sanditon was the last thing she (almost) wrote, but the complete truth is a little more complicated than that I think. The story I have seen is that Jane Austen had been given her last rites but then rallied sufficiently to rewrite the ending to Persuasion, to "cancel" the last chapter Julie mentioned. The fact that our Lady was dying only reinforces my prejudice that the story was semi-autobiographical; this would have been the time for her to record a statement. I believe the novel is autobiographical in the following complicated sense: Jane Austen lived the life of Captain Wentworth while Anne Elliot lived the life Jane might have wished for Tom Lefroy, a real person. (I have fully described my speculations about Jane Austen's love for Tom in my examination of her eleventh letter and will not repeat that here.) Let me explain myself. Captain Wentworth was rejected by the Elliot family because of his lack of wealth and, so, by Anne herself even though she loved him very much. The Elliots should have known better; they should have seen his worth. In fact, subsequently, the wars made Wentworth quite wealthy from the prize money obtained from the capture of enemy ships. Jane Austen was rejected by Tom's family and by Tom because of her lack of wealth. The Lefroys should have known better; they should have seen her worth. Jane Austen was becoming wealthy as she wrote this novel, the result of the prize money she was receiving from the capture of our hearts and minds. On the other hand, Jane Austen was a woman and so she must use the heroine to express her own sentiments, the sentiments of a love lost but not forgotten. And that sweet Jane does most admirably and most painfully. Persuasion is painful for me to read - I love it!

Finally, I must say that I believe that the model for Lady Russell was Tom's Aunt, Anne Lefroy. Madame Lefroy advised Tom away from Jane Austen much as Lady Russell's advice turned Anne Elliot away from Captain Wentworth. Jane Austen never lost her love and respect for Madame Lefroy just as Anne Elliot was never to regret her friendship with Lady Russell. Anne Elliot's speech to that effect, near the end of the novel, is probably the most difficult thing to understand for our generation and will, I suspect, be the subject of some debate at this place.

Dear Madams and Sirs,

I don't know where you get the impression that the very literate prefer Emma and Northanger Abbey to Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion.  My impression is that literate Austen fans are split between thinking Emma or Persuasion is her best novel. Of course the true Austen fan is tempted to look down his nose (at least a bit) at Pride and Prejudice because the hoi palloi admire it so much. If Elizabeth Bennet is the world's darling, she cannot, surely, be mine.

Since we have just been discussing Fanny, let's compare her to Anne. Both are quiet, reserved heroines. Both are undervalued by their families. Although I agree that Fanny is not a wimp, her problem is that she doesn't like people. She (alone) fails to be taken in by the Crawfords partly because she's in love with Ed, partly because she has high moral standards, and largely because the friendly, sociable manners and lifestyle of the Crawfords are anethema to her. While it is, perhaps, understandable that the an august, middle aged man like Sir Thomas would want peace and quiet in his house instead of noisy play rehearsals, few 18 year olds that I know of would agree with him. Yet one suspects that Fanny, along with her other objections to the play, objects to it because she doesn't like all that bustle and excitement around the house.

How different Anne is! Although, like Fanny, she is not lively or athletic, she furthers everyone's pleasure rather than detracting from it. She plays so people can dance. She translates tranposed and curtailed Italian lines. She quotes poetry to Captain Benwick. And the people around her respond. With the exceptions of Elizabeth and Sir Walter, everyone (whether they know it or not) values Anne and her company.

Persuasion is an autumnal book, set in the fall and colored with the mood of the falling leaves, red, yellow and brown, drifting down the river to the sea. The famous scene in Lyme (although the action segment is badly done) is some of Austen's best writing, as the sunshine and sparkling sea air restore bloom to Anne's cheek and  hope to her heart. Who has failed to look at the sea, and think that, however broad, there are pastures new on the other side? Certainly, Persuasion is the most romantic of the Austen books, and the one, along with Sense and Sensibility, that can bring the reader to tears.

I still think, however, that Sir Walter would have been a happier man married to Mrs. Clay, and Anne should not have tried to prevent it.

From the Meister: Actually, I think it was Mr. Elliot, and not Anne, who foiled
Mrs. Clay's plans. He did that by seducing her and then setting her up with a home
in London. He did that to eliminate the chance that Sir Walter might have a son.

Dear Meister,

I know Anne didn't foil Sir Walter's marriage plans (indeed, it's not clear that he had any). However, I've always wondered why she thought the potential marriage should be prevented (as she evidently does).  Perhaps she has not completely escaped the Elliot pride.

In this instance, it seems that Austen sees nothing wrong with Anne's snobbery.  We readers, looking at the situation from the vantage point of a couple of hundred years later, do.  Surely a modern daugther would adobt the attitude, "Whatever makes you happy, Dad."

Of course we readers also know that Mrs. Clay turns out to be duplicitous in running off with Mr. Elliot.  But does Anne know of any character defects in Mrs. Clay that make her want to prevent the marriage?  Or is the objection that she is a poor widow with no sirname of distinction?

I cannot agree that Anne Elliot was a snob, I believe quite the contrary. While I consider it consistent with Jane Austen's inventions that Anne would disapprove of a marriage of her father to Mrs. Clay, I don't think that would have anything to do with snobbery. Neither can I recall that Jane Austen makes any of that explicit nor can I recall any overt action on Anne's part in this regard. I want to be correct on all matters Jane Austen; so, if Bruce can point to specific passages on those matters, I will be grateful.

Anne Elliot's egalitarian nature is made quite explicit with her friendship with Mrs. Smith. Anne does use the phrase of "poor widow with no sir name of distinction" in reference to Mrs. Clay, but, the interpretation there is quite interesting. Anne is trying to defend her attentions to Mrs. Smith to her father and says to her father that Mrs. Smith "is not the only poor widow with no sir name of distinction" to be inhabiting Bath at that moment. She was trying to hint to him that he should remember his own attentions to Mrs. Clay. We don't know, but might guess that Sir Walter was too obtuse to take the hint. Also, Anne's kindness and friendly behavior to the Musgroves is clear indication of her class attitudes. Jane Austen does associate class consciousness with one of her heroines (and only one), but that would be Emma Woodhouse and no one else. Perhaps we can begin to discuss the class attitudes of Jane Austen; I would enjoy that and would have much of a positive nature to offer (and no negatives).

Anne is distressed that all sense and frugality had left her home after the death of her mother. In part, she must be concerned about her family, but self interest would play a large role as it appears that she might never marry and be forever dependent upon her inheritance. There is nothing in Mrs. Clay's obsequious behavior to excite Anne's confidence. Indeed, Mrs. Clay might very well reinforce Sir Walter in his silly ways, and accentuate the decline of the family fortune. I have nothing against Mrs. Clay other than she seems to be using Elizabeth's credulity in order to place herself near Sir Walter. However, that may be unconscious - not overt - and I always remember that she is only trying to improve her situation. If she could produce a son that would, someday, be a Baronet, then she would have succeeded most admirably. However, she could not avoid Mr Elliot's seduction and, so, was actually sunk to the status of a kept mistress. I am not sure she deserved that.

Dear Mr. Dennis,

The relationship of Anne Elliot and Mrs. Clay is interesting.  Anne certainly avoids the egregious snobbery infecting the rest of her family.  Yet it seems that she cannot be acquitted altogether of class pride.  From Chapter 5:
"Anne herself was become hardened to such affronts  but she felt the imprudence of the arrangement quite as keenly as Lady Russell. With a great deal of quiet observation, and a knowledge, which she often wished less, of her father's character, she was sensible that results the most serious to his family from the intimacy were more than possible. She did not imagine that her father had at present an idea of the kind. Mrs Clay had freckles, and a projecting tooth, and a clumsy wrist, which he was continually making severe remarks upon, in her absence  but she was young, and certainly altogether well-looking, and possessed, in an acute mind and assiduous pleasing manners, infinitely more dangerous attractions than any merely personal might have been.

Anne was so impressed by the degree of their danger, that she could not excuse herself from trying to make it perceptible to her sister. She had little hope of success  but Elizabeth, who in the event of such a reverse would be so much more to be pitied than herself, should never, she thought, have reason to reproach her for giving no warning. ..."

There are a number of other passages in the book which support the case for Anne's snobbery, but this one is so definite that it does not admit of dispute.  Anne is so worried about Mrs. Clay marrying her father that she goes to Elizabeth to try to prevent it.

It certainly appears that Jane Austen neither condemns nor supports Anne's attitude toward  Mrs. Clay.   Indeed, it appears that she just sees it as the reasonable response that ANY daughter of a baronet would have toward some upstart widowed daughter of a soliciter.  To what extent should we judge fictional characters of the Regency period by OUR standards, and to what extent should we judge them by THEIR's?

By our standards, Anne is guilty of snobbery, meddling, and failing (perhaps) to promote her father's happiness.  By Regency standards, Anne is acting (and she doesn't really DO anything to prevent Mrs. Clay from seducing Sir Walter) as would any reasonable, responsible daughter.  My opinion: we should judge using some combination of both sets of standards.  By the standards of HER time, Anne is less snobbish than most.  By the standards of OUR time, Anne is more snobbish than most.  We can admire Anne for her lack of snobbery, while at the same time condemning both her and the standards of her age for being overly concerned with social class.

Dear Bruce,

I think there is a slightly different interpretation that can be placed on this passage, having less to do with snobbery than cultural expectations. (Is an older person who expects to be treated with respect due to his age a snob?) The key phrase in the passage is: "Anne herself had become hardened to such affronts...."  The affront of not being treated with the respect due to her social and familial position by her own family. In the modern patois, her father and sister are disrespecting her. I don't think Anne is attempting to prevent the marriage as much as she's trying to save her sister from the insult of their father raising his solicitor's daughter to a social level above themselves. The scene goes on to say something along the lines that it would not be as bad for Anne as it would be for Elizabeth because Anne could go live with Lady Russell. Such a marriage would also be much worse for Elizabeth because, unlike Anne, Elizabeth's self image is entirely based on her social status. One can scarcely imagine a household less likely to be pleasant than one in which Elizabeth is required to give up first consequence to a Mrs. Clay.

Dear Sirs,

I had always thought that Anne Elliot disliked Mrs Clay because she was a toadying gold-digger, not because she was a poor woman with an 'unprosperous marriage' behind her. I have often wondered what happened to her 'additional burthen of two children', while she was swanning around at Bath, trying, if not exactly to get into Sir Walter's pants (sorry), then at least into the late Lady Elliot's shoes.  She is an unpleasant, conniving piece of work who 'understood the art of pleasing' - unattractive trait, that.  As such, she understands that Anne, while not to be treated badly, is nevertheless not 'worth pleasing' - in other words, is unlikely to be seduced by flattery. Remember that Jane Austen has Mrs Smith comment that the Elliots' casual Bath acquaintances are aware of what Mrs Clay is about, and are 'generally surprised that Miss Elliot should be blind to the danger.' Anne has a 'sense of the personal respect due to her father', but is nonetheless not blind and with a clearness of sight 'that she often wished less', was quite aware that her father was a vain, shallow, silly man. She acknowledges when Kellynch is let that 'they have gone who deserve not to stay' except when she thinks of her late mother. It is interesting to compare Sir Walter Elliot with General Tilney, these men have much in common, with the exception that the General can handle his finances, thank you, where Sir Walter cannot.

From the Meister: I don't feel that comparison at
all. Tilney is twice as smart and ten times meaner.

Indeed, I must say that Anne Elliot is the least snobbish of women, when thinking of her relationships with the Musgroves, the Hayters and the Harvilles. Jane Austen might have drawn Mary Musgrove on purpose to provide a counterpoint to Anne, and Mary is present and performing whenever there is interaction between Anne and the families mentioned above.  At no point in the novel, ever, is any character, Anne included, congratulated or encouraged for valuing income or social position above human worth. Even Mr Elliot acknowledges as much, when Anne deprecates what has been done to cultivate the Dalrymples, and describes her idea of people who are worth knowing, as being those with good manners, good hearts, and plenty of conversation - 'you are wrong - that is not good company, that is the best.'

Meister: Yes, I fully agree. But I think Mary is
necessary on another count; do you agree that it was
brilliant of Jane Austen to make Anne the middle child?

To my mind, Persuasion is the most egalitarian of all the Jane Austen novels - not, I imagine, because its author had changed her views of society, but rather because she was, in middle life, addressing such issues in more depth.
Julie

P.S. Napoleon was a Corsican.

Dear Cheryl, Julie, Ashton,

Persuasion, as Julie points out, is an egalitarian novel.  Wentworth is a nobody who, through diligence, skill, and luck gains the wherewithal to be an acceptable match for a Baronet's daughter.  It's almost an American dream.

The snobbery, class consciousness, and pride of the Elliot family is lampooned throughout the novel.  Clearly, Austen sees these traits as unjustified, unattractive, and, indeed, silly. That's why Anne's attitude toward Mrs. Clay is jarring.  True, as Cheryl points out, Anne's objections to Mrs. Clay may be personal rather than status oriented.  But whom is Sir Walter supposed to marry?  It's unlikely that a rational, respectable woman will have him.  Is he supposed to live the rest of his life in celibacy so that Elizabeth will not be supplanted? Perhaps we can find a Charlotte Lucas for him.

I certainly don't want to make a big deal out of this. But in a book where snobbery is so thoroughly satirized, it's a little strange that Austen appears not to have noticed the fact that Anne's objections to Mrs. Clay may themselves be objectionable.

Dear Sir,

Alexander was a Macedonian.

From the Meister: Ah - yes of course - and do you think of Napoleon as an Italian?

I was going to start on Persuasion, but became side-tracked by the fascinating Mansfield Park debate. I agree with you, Fanny was no wimp.  People often do not consider that it takes a lot more courage to do something when one is scared than when one is not - a nervous horsewoman, for instance, is showing great courage when riding, whereas one who has no fear, is not.  We cannot be justified in criticising people who lack 'our' courage, unless we feel their fear.

But on to Persuasion: well, really, I think it's your turn to start!  All I will say at this point is that it is the novel that I see most clearly in my head.  I can see the 'dripping, comfortless virandah', and the 'steaming streets' of Bath, as if I were there now. I also take a great interest in the cancelled chapter, if only because it taught me what a mantuamaker was!

But, as I said, it's your turn.
Julie

Meister: I shall do my duty, Madam.

Dear Cheryl,

No, not quite. I am a nursing sister by trade; farming goats is what I do in order to get rid of any excess money my children don't account for. I also find goats handy for the rapid and efficient cultivation of ulcers, as well as being great conversational stimulants between husband and wife, as in 'I told YOU to shut the bloody gate.....' type of thing. I milk twenty or so of these action-packed beasties per day, before going to 'work'. And then I come home and bicker on the internet!
Julie

Dear Julie,

Frankly, it sounds too much like real work for a lazy beggar like me. My goat experience is entirely vicarious: my sister-in-law, with whom I occasionally stay, kept three milk goats until very recently. I'm trying to translate "nursing sister" into American. Licenced Practical Nurse, Registered Nurse, Nurse Practioner... not that any of us here (outside of the nursing profession) really knows the difference between an Rn and an LPN anyway.

Dear Cheryl,

I would translate as a registered nurse and, believe me, in Australia there is NO way that anyone would fail to notice the difference!  Especially me!  The term is becoming a little archaic now in Australia, but I adhere to it, myself, as a mark of respect for that great band of early career women and feminists (sorry, Sir!) who made up the nursing sisterhood in Australia over the last century and a half.  And also, in this country, lay people still very often say 'she's not just a nurse, she's a sister!' You'd better believe it, sunshine!

Cheers,
Julie

Links