TO: whomever reads this

I am a senior in high school, but I am not here to ask help with answering any "questions." I will be reading Jane Austen's S&S (excuse the shorthand version of the title, I never was good at spelling) I have started reading the book, and I love it. I think very highly of Jane Austen. She was and is (through her books) an intelligent and witty woman. There is only one question to ask this group. Do any of you know were I could find a literary critique on Jane Austen's S&S, that an English teacher would take as a reliable source and fair critique? That would be the most help. I do not believe in asking others opinions to put in my papers. My papers come from my heart, mind, and soul. I do not plan to change that. I have been told that it is this stubborn decision that makes me a good writer. Although I don't like to say my work is good. I downplay it as much as possible. I believe I am rambling on now, so I will stop. If anyone has info or opinions to share, e-mail me. I don't think it will be very soon that I will come back here. Good night friends!!!
-Seth Shaw (Chival1)

Dear Seth,

Welcome to the community. Don't worry about the spelling thing--I run everyone's submission through a spell check and apply some minor editing as well. So, you mustn't be inhibited, especially since you are a good writer. You mention that you do not want to read opinions, but are on the lookout for some reliable and fair literary critique--do you contradict yourself? In any case, I hope you will share some of your opinions of S&S with us.
Good Luck,
Ashton

Dear Ashton,

In my sadly fruitless search for the R.L. Stevenson quote I came on one by Kenneth Tynan who in case you don't know was a well-known theatre critic, diarist and Literary Director of the National Theatre under Lord Olivier. He was said to have "offended a whole generation" and I'm afraid the quote will offend you, as it did me.

"You say of Emma that it is a tale to be read alone. But there lies the point. None of Jane's works has a plot. They are all ludicrously plotless and situationless. I suspect that much of our pleasure in reading her comes from the smug critic in all of us who can sit back and say "Of course, this is childish, only a woman could get away with it."

This is in a letter to Julian Holland, but I can't date it.

Could I also correct an error I have led you into? I belong to an ENGLISH golf-club as I have lived in England for some time. On the whole Scots are a far more egalitarian lot and the sort of snobbery common south of the border would not be tolerated there. Underneath the starchiness, though, the English are decent, honourable people and class-consciousness is slowly dying out with the generation who remember the Empire (which was built by the Scots, of course!)

Dear Kate,

Go, Kate!!!!  When I grow up, I'm going to marry Hamish Macbeth.  Isabelle doesn't have a chance.  Anywhere with scenery and cattle like that is obviously my spiritual home -  nyah, nyah, nyah, Ashton!  Well, you can't really expect decent behaviour from a denizen of an ex-penal colony, can you?  I would like to know, from Kate, whether the Julian Holland mentioned was Vyvyan's brother i.e., Oscar Wilde's son?  Just curious.

To call Emma plotless is, in my view, to advertise one's stupidity. My Penguin edition, in its introduction, calls it 'the most fiendishly difficult of detective stories', and I think that is exactly right. In order to appreciate the intricacies of the plot, one needs to approach the book with a mind 'wiped clean' of previous readings, and start over. Almost every main character is leading two lives - imagine the action being played out on a split TV screen, with the overt events on the top, and the covert underneath.  The thing is so perfectly done that one is left breathless. Do you feel Emma's growing confusion and uncertainty, as she begins to realise that things are not as they seem?  You can feel it gathering from Box Hill onwards - she can feel that her supposedly firm ground is, in fact, quicksand, but she is helpless to deal with it or understand it. I think she is a pitiable figure at this point, and one becomes aware of how young she really is. I have always had a soft spot for Emma - she behaves in the novel exactly as she has been taught and encouraged to behave, all her life, by everyone around her except Mr Knightley.  The wonder of it is that she is not a good deal worse, but, of course, she is a decent person underneath.  This is the same technique that Jane Austen employed with the character of Mr Darcy, though, of course, the characters themselves are quite different.

I'm off to find Hamish!
Julie

Dear Kate,

Thank you so very much for your research on R.L. Stevenson. At least now, I have been alerted to this quote. I will very soon be expanding the collection of "What men have said about Jane Austen" and I will use your hint as I am putting that together. Before that though, I will be posting on Jane Austen's eleventh letter, which I consider to be quite dramatic and revealing.

Of course, Tynan is perfectly wrong. Jane Austen novels have extremely intricate plots; that is one of the reasons they appeal to me (certainly, not the main reason). I suspect that he was confused because the events are mild in nature, which is not the same thing at all. I often ponder why a Jane Austen character did something or other and the answer is always found in some earlier passage (or passages); every event is set up in an intricate and perfectly logical way. The woman never wasted a single word and anyone who doesn't understand that misses much that is worthwhile. Some don't notice these things and Tynan was one of those--how childish and superficial of him. I notice that the Star Wars films have plots, would Tynan call them "mature"? And there is my point; I think of a plot as irrelevant and even dispensable. Just before your posting arrived, I was being entranced by a filmed version of Uncle Vanya--excellent! As you may recall, that is a story of a few isolated country families and is nearly devoid of plot, certainly far less plot than in any Jane Austen novel. Would Tynan call Chekhov childish?--He wouldn't dare. One isn't required to concentrate on a Chekhov play, you only need to allow yourself to experience it. And what an affecting experience it is. One must work a bit truly to read a Jane Austen novel.

Dear Sir,

No, you've summarised my views on Pride and Prejudice a little to the left of centre.  I, too, think it one of the greatest love stories ever.   I have commented before, I think, that I feel that the novel vibrates with sexual tension whenever the two main characters meet (and even when they are thinking of each other).  I don't at all think Darcy a snob - he has no need to be, really, snobbery is for people like Miss Bingley, who are unsure of their social status - but I agree with his own estimation of himself, in that he was a little complacent in his good opinion of himself - a little like Emma Woodhouse, perhaps?  It is a mark of his worth that, when challenged by Elizabeth to 'take a bloody good look at himself' at the time of his first proposal, he was man enough not to retreat into defensive resentment, but to do so honestly - and to continue to do so for some months to come.  He had been well accustomed during his adult life to women courting him - even his aunt was doing it, on her daughter's behalf - when he realised how unworthy were his pretensions to please a woman worthy of being pleased, he changed.  I believe that, had he been accepted by Elizabeth at his first proposal, the relationship would have been a failure, and that Mr Bennet's comments would have been correct, because I believe that, though he obviously loved Elizabeth, he also had a sort of unconscious 'contempt' (not the word I really want) for her - he was doing her a favour.  Both characters needed to grow up a bit and gain some insight into themselves and each other, before they could renegotiate the relationship on terms of equality.

But they were obviously crazy about each other, right from the start!

I think that the great era of class probably came during Victorian times (I am no scholar, though) during the Great Age of the Servant.  It seems that people were more mobile during Jane Austen's time, from reading her biographies, and other books describing the period, such as James Woodforde.

Don't confuse class consciousness with pecking order.  You are right, of course, that all societies have divisions (except Tasmanian goatherds, who are strictly egalitarian) with varying degrees of mobility up and down, but in a paddock full of Earls, for instance, there will be dominant and submissive Earls - even though they will all precede a Knight into dinner.

Isn't it interesting that Elizabeth and Darcy both choose as best friends people that are so easy-going and bland as to be rather boring? I wonder why.

Julie

Dear Julie,

What an extraordinary posting. Thank you. I was well wide of the mark and I apologize. I have been thinking about your comparison of Darcy and Emma ever since I read it--thank you for that as well. There truly is a tangency of Darcy's character with that of Miss Woodhouse and for good reason. You will not respect me if I capitulate on everything; so, I decided, arbitrarily, to reserve a single final judgment--the one on goatherds.

I also noticed that Darcy chose Bingley and Elizabeth chose Jane as best friends and that these friends are easy going and might even be called sweet. First of all, that sets up the other love story but it also allows the friends to be very useful to the protagonists. Darcy tells us his chief defect; he has a bad temper. He tells us that in several places in the novel; in fact, it is his quick anger at Bingley that starts all the trouble at that first assembly. Do you agree that this is also Elizabeth's main defect? I mean it is her quick anger at Darcy that starts all the trouble at that first assembly. (Tell you what--I suspect that this was Jane Austen's chief defect as well.) Anyway, Bingley and Jane act as calming influences on their best friends. Jane tries to get Elizabeth to think more rationally about Wickham and Darcy and she tries to calm Elizabeth about everyone, including Lady Lucas, during all the fuss about Lydia. In turn, Bingley and Jane are so sweet and so unwilling to judge that they can be indecisive and, perhaps, a bit passive so Elizabeth and Darcy supply decisiveness and activation. Elizabeth calms Jane's fears and misgivings about Bingley and activates her to go to London to give Bingley a clear demonstration of her feelings. Darcy believes that Bingley is being duped into a loveless and disadvantages marriage and he damn well takes steps to make sure that doesn't happen. My great concern at the end of the novel is that the Darcys will find themselves at Pemberley and outside the influence of the Bingleys at a time when they both become angry at the same third person--poor bastard!

You are the person who recommended Park Honan's biography to me (Jane Austen: Her Life St. Martin's Griffen, New York, 1987). I am almost as grateful for that as I am for your posting. I am going to quote from that because I believe that this will put the final punctuation to our discussion on class divisions. These are his opening paragraphs to Chapter 3, Social class, school class.

"Cassandra and Jane derived a fine sense of social class from their mother--and this was one of Mrs. Austen's finest gifts. The social-class system of the Austen's England was delicately complex, and the boundaries between were hazy and obscure--or far less rigidly fixed and plain than those in France. But everyone was conscious of class. It may be said, (from our modern viewpoint) that most of the English people from beggars and thieves up to the nobility were snobs. To know just where you were in the class system was as vital for a footpad, a burglar, a chandler or a duke as it was for a young lady, and the comic realism of Jane Austen's novels solidly rests on her fine understanding of this system. ...."

"The Austens were country gentry. This put them well beneath the British aristocracy and a niche below most baronets and squires of the wealthy landed gentry...."

I especially like Honan's acknowledgement, at this place and others, of the great contribution that Jane's mother made to her daughter's development. I have long suspected this and have been a bit puzzled that most biographers almost ignore Mrs. Austen. Perhaps they are overly influenced by Jane Austen herself who gave her mother too little attention and credit.

Dear Sir,

Just one more point on the relative social positions of Elizabeth and Darcy.  Their social inequality is necessary for the plot and character development. I feel that where we in the 1990s are going astray is in not understanding Jane Austen's point - she meant it to be obvious that there was a social gap between the pair, and contemporary readers would have been in no doubt.  Darcy is the grandson of one Earl, and the nephew of another (the elder Earl's son). This is a maternal line. Elizabeth's maternal grandfather 'had been an attorney in Meryton, and had left her three thousand pounds, a sum that Jane Austen further emphasised as being 'ample for (Mrs Bennet's) situation in life'.  Mrs Bennet's sister, Mrs Phillips, is married to the man who succeeded the late Mr Gardiner in the business - and Mr Phillips' social position is nowhere near that of Mr Bennet, let alone Mr Darcy.  As regards Mr Bennet, Elizabeth herself comments to Mr Collins (her father's cousin) that it would be inappropriate for Mr Collins to initiate conversation with Mr Darcy, as the latter is the superior in consequence.

Their social inequality (just enough to be interesting, not sufficient to make the story impossible) is intrinsic to and necessary for the developing tension of the plot. It is, ultimately, irrelevant to their appreciation of each other as human beings, and intellectual equals.

What do you reckon?
Julie

From the Meister: I reckon I don't agree with any
of your pronouncements of Jane Austen's intent.
And, they are not supported by your observations.

P.S. It just occurred to me that some readers may not know how one can deduce the social position of Darcy's grandfather.  It comes from the titles of his mother and aunt.  The fact that  their titles are, respectively, Lady Anne and Lady Catherine, indicates that these women are the daughters of a Duke, a Marquis or an Earl.  Elizabeth comfirms that Darcy' cousin, Colonel Fitzwilliam, is the younger son of an Earl, in her conversation with him at Pemberley.  Lady Catherine is, presumably, the widow of a knight, as her title has not merged with his.  Note that Sir William Lucas' wife is Lady Lucas, not Lady Emily Lucas (or whatever). To call her so would be highly incorrect. Please don't include this bit in the posting if I am stating the bloody obvious - it just occurred to me that some people may have been a little bemused by the intricacies of the whole thing.

P.P.S. Did you know that the Princess of Wales was never 'Princess Diana'?  Her correct title was Diana, Princess of Wales, the Princess of Wales, or (though unlikely to have been used) Princess Charles.  She was never a princess in her own right, as is Princess Anne, the Princess Royal, and Princess Margaret. Now, isn't this SO much more interesting than football!
Julie

From the Meister: No.

P.P.P.S. I can't help it, I just have to ask: Why are my pronouncements on Jane Austen's intent not supported by my observations?  (I know I'm going to regret this!).
Julie

From the Meister: Your observations constitute a
recital of relationships within the various families and
some sweeping generalizations about the culture of the
times and from that you leap to conclusions about Jane
Austen's intent. I am sorry, but I don't think that she
intended to be a sociologist or social critic. She wrote
love stories, Julie.

P⁴.S. Don't put her in a box.

I didn't make any sweeping assumptions, I merely related facts, each of which is supported by the text. I agree with you that Jane Austen wrote love stories, but why should we limit her to that?  She was an acute observer and social critic (in the real sense of the word), and this is obvious from her private as well as from her published writings.  Good heavens, man! How could she have presented to us these exquisite pictures of Regency life, intelligible almost two centuries later, if she were not an acute observer of people!

Jane Austen understood what motivates people. It is a measure of her greatness that her characters and their motivation is as readily understandable to us, now, as it was to contemporary readers. I simply do not understand why anyone would feel that it is lessening the merits of the love story that is Pride and Prejudice to look at, and think about, the intricate social weave of the novel. We can all be very sure that not one word was written at random. If Mrs Bennet's fortune was mentioned, it was for a reason. If Darcy's fortune was mentioned, it was for a reason. Jane Austen never 'waffled'.  She is as sharp as a razor, in life and in her fiction.

My original point, which I reiterate, is that we tend to be anachronistic in the judgements that we put upon Jane Austen's depiction of the social reality of her day. The relative fortunes and social positions of characters in Pride and Prejudice would have been instantly understood by the audience for whom she wrote. Readers of our generation need to be very careful not to put our own value judgements on the work.

Barbara Cartland writes "love stories".
Julie

Dear Sir,

You are a tad hasty in concluding that when I suggest that Pride and Prejudice was Austen's response to the French revolution I am saying that it was some sort of apology for it. Not at all. I am familiar with the personal losses and hardships which she suffered as a result of those fearful years and feel that this makes it likely that her work would be influenced by the momentous themes of her day, even if she does not address them directly. I hasten to add that this opinion is based on my reading of various commentaries and I offer nothing new.

Considering the enormous social changes taking place, the sheer amount of post-Revolution anxiety in the air, the challenging of the "old order", it seems quite possible that Jane Austen meant her novel to be taken-----on one level, at least-----as an optimistic model of how revolution could be avoided in Britain, and could have been avoided in France, by the breaking down of some of the rigidity of the class system. So the bourgeoisie (Elizabeth) becomes the bedfellow of the aristocracy (Darcy) in a marriage founded on mutual esteem and where the value of the individual is of more importance than birth or rank.

If you like, the "family party" at Pemberley in the last chapter can be seen as a representation of this ideal model, with the new order merging with the old---a bloodless revolution. That is what I meant when I said that Darcy was to be congratulated for overcoming his class-consciousness. He is becoming a "new man" who can compromise and re-evaluate old ideas.

In answer to your question, I think Austen was writing at the end of the golden days of class-consciousness. As I have said, the Revolution had begun the process which the Industrial Revolution and the whole series of legislation surrounding the Reform Act of 1832 speeded up. By this time the middle, entrepreneurial classes were gaining in influence and the wealth and political power of the upper class was in decline. Which is not to say that was the end of the story---snobbery is still alive and well in Britain (just visit my golf-club).

I still take issue with your assertion that Darcy and Lizzy are of the same class. That she is a gentleman's daughter only means that she is not completely beyond the pale socially, but she is far beneath Darcy in terms of "blood". I refer you to Julie's eloquent assessment which I could not improve on.

As a post-script, I have been trying to add to your collection of quotes from writers on Jane Austen by finding a letter I once read by a fellow Scot, Robert Louis Stevenson. Sadly, I haven't been able to unearth it and can remember only one phrase, which I love: "I fall to my knees whenever Elizabeth Bennet opens her mouth to speak". Perhaps you know of it?

Dear Kate,

I do not know of the quote by Robert Louis Stevenson that you mention. If you can find the reference, I will be most grateful and I certainly will acknowledge you when I post it.

If you are suggesting that Jane Austen was a liberal-minded person and was reflecting the liberal intellectual influences of the eighteenth century, then you and I are in perfect agreement. I have said as much in several places at this site. (Although, for me, the point is better made with the text of Emma than with that of Pride and Prejudice.) On the other hand, if you are suggesting that Jane Austen was a closeted English Jacobin who was subliminally advocating the violent overthrow of the existing social order, then I am incredulous. You must know that she came from an unrepentant, pro-Stuart, Tory family? I suppose that all great art is exploited with all kinds of political interpretations: I have an Indian friend who assures me that Jane Austen was an imperialist and that he can prove it. I once watched a TV interview of a Jane-Austen expert who confidently announced that JA was an incestuous lesbian and a gay-rights advocate. This is the same TV that brings me stories of alien abductions and of the alien origins of crop circles.

Pride and Prejudice is a love story, Kate.

You say "I still take issue with your assertion that Darcy and Lizzy are of the same class." You take issue with more than just me, you take issue with Elizabeth Bennet herself. How do you feel about that?

Both you and Julie are citizens of the Commonwealth and reason demands that I defer to both of you on the social history of your community. Except--well, it was never said of me that "he plays well with others". I do not believe that the regency period constituted the "golden days of class consciousness"; in fact, I believe the Victorian age deserves that honor and the honor was earned well after JA's death. I have explained my view on this in my postings to Julie on 9/8/98 and 9/15/98. See my third paragraph there. (Incidentally, I liked your "golf club" example so much that I edited it into the posting of 9/8/98.) I believe that revolution was avoided in Jane Austen's England because there was no real basis for it. This is most clearly illustrated in the thoughts and actions of the English Jacobins themselves who, while they advocated the immediate overthrow of the existing social order, they would not have their followers proceed in such a hasty manner that someone actually got hurt. Their American and French counterparts were more practical.

Don't call Julie "eloquent", you will only make it difficult for the rest of us to deal with her.

Love,
Ashton

Back to the Bulletin Board

Table of Contents

Index and Archive

References and Links

The Male-Voices Home Page