The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. Dec. 6, 2000
Dear Janeites,
I read a review of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon in the LA Times. Ang Lee has variously described the movie as "Sense and Sensibility with kung fu", or Bruce Lee meets Jane Austen.
Apparently the movie is based on a Chinese novel written about seventy years ago.
I think the Austen connection is that the two female characters are somewhat like the Dashwood sisters in that one is practical while one is a romantic. The character played by Michelle Yeoh is supposed to be a female bodyguard. The other female character has romantic notions about living a life of excitement.
The movie has gotten pretty good reviews and has been described as the "Star Wars of kung fu movies."
I think that if we give it a chance we may be able to enjoy it. What Lee may have done is use what he perceives as the Jane Austen spirit with a few flying kicks. At least he's not saying that this movie is a visual Jane Austen novel.
By the way, I think this is Lee's first kung fu movie. I enjoyed one of his earlier movies, Eat, Drink, Man, Woman. But then, it reminded me of my wife and her sisters
Dear Dave,
Where is the better three-quarters these days?
I have seen a number of Chinese films that I like these days. But, all of those were produced on the Mainland. This is odd, but makes some sense when you think about it - I am referring to some experiences I had about ten years ago. I had the opportunity to meet a number of young adults from the Mainland, and I had that opportunity for a number of years. I was stunned at how Americanized they were; it was almost like, "is that American? - then I will love it." Even their sense of humor was American - as were their accents. This is in contrast to those Chinese from Taiwan, who never fail to make me feel like a barbarian (as do third-generation Chinese-Americans raised in San Francisco.) I suppose that it has something to do with the fact that the mainland Chinese have never experienced the discrimination first-hand, and so they have not pulled back into a cultural shell. And, quite frankly, I suspect it has something to do with the Revolution. - I mean the break with the past and the opening up to new possibilities for culture and society. This is in contrast, as well, to cold-war Russians who always wore suits and - ugh - ties. Those guys had a monumentally narrow focus and could barely stomach talking to an American. (Besides, when you tried to talk to one of them, there was always that other guy - that guy who stood in the background, said nothing, and stared at me.)
If my experiences are valid generalizations, then we will find a lot of Janeites on the mainland. I hope so. Although, it is my distinct impressions that Jane Austen is very popular in Japan, so maybe I shouldn't go off half-cocked.
Dear Fellow Readers,
Hey, my name is Jen and I am in a development class and we are studying Frankenstein and I was wondering if anyone would mind giving me their take on who their favorite character was in the book and why?!
Dear Jen,
This is great - we have posted on kung fu, football chicks, and monsters on the same day.
First of all, let me link you other web sites. This to the women writers page maintained by Cathy Decker. I suspect that you will find something useful there. Here is a link to a page for Mary Shelley and her mom, that might be of use as well.
I am not sure that I have a favorite character, but there is a character that I think very well done and that is Frankenstein himself. Mary Shelley did us all a favor when she described such a person in compelling detail. I mean that mankind is growing ever more powerful through its understanding and manipulation of biology and of DNA in particular. We can now transplant organs and "repair" and manipulate genes. It seems that all this stem-cell research points to still other, previously unanticipated advances in organ re-growth. With great power comes opportunities for great corruption and turmoil. Shelley's Frankenstein helps us understand that it is not, necessarily, bad people we have to fear in this regard. - The greatest danger might come from all those basically good people with good motives, who become capable of creating monsters. And we are destined to lose control over those monsters. Perhaps we should think of all those advances in computer technology in the same way. I suspect that there are a lot of Frankensteins around. What do you think?
Stop by sometime, after you submit your report, and tell us what you found and what you said.
Dear Meister,
Thank you and Bob Dylan for the tribute to Our Dear Jane - thoughtful with
just the appropriate touch of wit. She would be honored! We could
only wish her back again!
Linda
Dear Folks,
Linda has pointed to a passage from Sanditon for me. This passage, if not a discordant note, certainly runs a counterpoint to my recent enthusiasm about Samuel Richardson and his possible influence on Jane Austen.
The context is this: the heroine, Charlotte Heywood, had made the acquaintance of Sir Edward Denham and had thought him, at first, to be attractive and interesting. Subsequently, she found him to be affected and silly. Jane Austen's authorial voice confirms the heroine in this interesting way.
"The truth was that Sir Edward, whom circumstances had confined very much to one spot, had read more sentimental novels than agreed with him. His fancy had been early caught by all the impassioned and most exceptionable parts of Richardson's. And such authors as had since appeared to tread in Richardson's steps (so far as man's determined pursuit of woman in defiance of every opposition of feeling and convenience was concerned) had since occupied the greater part of his literary hours, and formed his character. With a perversity of judgement which must be attributed to his not having by nature a very strong head, the graces, the spirit, the sagacity and the perserverance of the villain of the story out-weighed all his absurdities and all his atrocities with Sir Edward. With him such conduct was genius, fire and feeling. It interested and inflamed him. And he was always more anxious for its success, and mourned over its discomfitures with more tenderness, than could ever have been contemplated by the authors.
Though he owed many of his ideas to this sort of reading, it would be unjust to say that he read nothing else or that his language was not formed on a more general knowledge of modern literature. He read all the essays, letters, tours and criticisms of the day; and with the same ill-luck which made him derive only false principles from lessons of morality, and incentives to vice from the history of its overthrow, he gathered only hard words and involved sentences from the style of our most approved writers. Sir Edward's great object in life was to be seductive. With such personal advantages as he knew himself to possess, and such talents as he did also give himself credit for, he regarded it as his duty. He felt that he was formed to be a dangerous man, quite in the line of the Lovelaces. ..."
"Lovelace" is the anti-hero of Richardson's Clarissa, who abducts the heroine and, ultimately, rapes her. Clarissa's then declines and dies. In other words, Jane Austen has Richardson to Sir Edward a bit like what Mrs. Radcliffe was to Catherine Morland. Perhaps some of the blame rests with Richardson himself who may seem, to some, a bit ambiguous about his villains.
I don't see the ambiguity, personally, but I have wondered about something odd in The History of Sir Charles Grandison and maybe this is something of the same complaint hinted at by Jane Austen. In Grandison, Oil-Can Harry - I mean Sir Hargrave, abducts and roughs up Harriet Byron. Sir Charles Grandison rescues the heroine and, in the process, knocks out Sir Hargrave's front teeth and permanently disfigures his upper lip. So far, so good - What bothers me is that no subsequent punishments are undertaken - what is that all about? I mean, the same actions in present-day America would have earned Sir Hargrave twenty-five years to life. But nothing is done in the novel, not by Harriet's family nor by her grandison protector - Nothing! At first I thought that, well, things were different there - then. After a little thought, I am not so sure and I can explain. The novel was published in 1754, but only 45 years later, in 1799, Jane Austen's aunt was arrested and charged with shop-lifting a minor item in Bath. This was a wealthy, well-known, influential woman who, nevertheless, was held in jail for six months and then tried and faced with possible deportation to Tasmania! I can't believe standards had stiffened so much in only 45 years. The point is that it almost seems that Richardson was too easy on his villians and, so, weak minds such as Sir Edward's could come to the wrong moral conclusions. This is, perhaps, Jane Austen's complaint.
I desperately need to find online a synopsis of Mary Shelley's THE LAST MAN by 12/14 at the latest, for a project. I'm very frustrated, can't find any such thing with my searches. I've only found the whole novel online. If anyone know where a synopsis is hiding in cyberspace, I'd be so grateful. Thanks in advance.
Dear Jeanne,
There is my own synopsis at 3/18/00. That has a lot of background as well a synopsis. But, perhaps you need a more respectable source. Here is a link to a site devoted to Mary Shelly and Mary Wollstonecraft (her mom). Here is another link to a Mary Wollstonecraft site. Her dad was famous too, his name is William Godwin and you might be able to find something at sites devoted to him.
Your best bet might be a site devoted to women writers of that period. There is an excellent site like that maintained by Cathy Decker. - Super-excellent!
Good luck! If you have the time and inclination, stop back and tell us what you find.
Dear Folks,
OK - so, I took a deep breath, and opened The History of Sir Charles Grandison. Why I should do so - the motivation for this brave if foolish act, I have described elsewhere. I am now only about half-way through the first volume, not too soon to give my first impression.
This is a must read for all Janeites.
Everything the experts say about Richardson is true - all of the defects are there and are as described by the critics. I will contribute still another accusation as this posting develops. All the criticisms are valid and true - and perfectly irrelevant. You want to read the most relevant things that can be said about Samuel Richardson and his writings? Read what Jane Austen and George Eliot had to say about those matters. Jane Austen and George Eliot had the most useful things to say - quelle surprise!
Richardson is extremely intelligent and his novels are treasures. I am already beginning to think of him as a necessary precursor to Dickens and to Tolstoy; except, he is better than Dickens. Remember, I actually like Dickens (go figure.) More to the point, I think Richardson an important Jane-Austen influence. Oh, and feminists will like him. He is far more the feminist than Jane Austen ever was or could have been. (Don't let this characterization of mine prejudice you. - one way or the other.) But then, there is wisdom in that new old-saying, "it was only a Nixon who could have gone to China."
There are some other important, obvious differences when one compares Samuel Richardson and his novels with Jane Austen and hers. Perhaps we should deal with those things first; in fact, that is my only goal here today.
On the humor scale of 1 to 10, Richardson comes in at about 7.0, while Jane Austen is history's record holder at 12.4. Everyone knows that. Jane Austen's novels are polished and honed and their true content must be carefully discerned. On the other hand, Richardson was only using the novel to set down a large set of ideas - his novel was only a vehicle for examining the psychology and morality of the male-female relationship. Subtlety was not a Richardson goal; nor, apparently, was editing a Richardson tool.
As far as we know, Jane Austen never had a single conversation, or exchanged even a short note, with another author or any other type of creative person. Richardson was well connected with the literati and with the stars of the critical press. His discussions about his novels were carried on, with a large number of correspondents, even as his manuscripts were being composed.
Richardson wrote in the epistolary form. Jane Austen experimented with that style in Lady Susan, but never attempted it again. At first, you might think that Richardson's characters are too well-spoken, their diction too perfect; however, the epistolary form allows that because everything is a letter - a composition. Incidentally, one sometimes hears that criticism of our Lady - that her characters are too well-spoken.
For me, the major difference between Richardson and Jane Austen is the way they treated their heroes and, especially, their heroines. Richardson's versions are perfect in their manners, in their education, and in their understanding. They are beautiful and handsome beyond compare and win every public debate, regardless of the credentials of the opponent, all the while garnering public acclaim and admiration. Everyone - I say, everyone wants either to wed or to bed them. On the other hand, Jane Austen begins her masterpiece with Darcy's famous, first-impression of the heroine,
"... 'She is tolerable, but not handsome enough to tempt me; and I am in no humor at present to give consequence to young ladies who are slighted by other men. ...' "
Elizabeth Bennet frequently tries to embarrass Darcy in company, but Jane Austen wrote the telling blows in those battles for the heroine's opponent! - Most un-Richardson like. (And, don't think that this habit of our Lady went un-noticed and un-lamented by her contemporaries.) Of course, it is well known that Jane Austen invented human frailties for most of her heroines and heroes. Bravo, I say.
Jane Austen ridiculed the gothic novel, but Richardson seems to partially embrace the form in his The History of Sir Charles Grandison. That novel depicts a kidnapping of the heroine by the villain, followed by implied threats of rape and attempts at a forced marriage ceremony. Men are pigs! All of us Janeites will proudly explain that Jane Austen would never have resorted to such foolishness - and - and, the activities of Wickham with Georgianna Darcy and Lydia Bennet easily can be explained away in that regard - I am sure they can.
Whew! - I am glad that is over! I am sure that I now have established my credentials as an objective observer in the conventional if insincere manner. - What has sincerity got to do with anything?
Dear Meister,
Well, I have lost count of the times I have read your post. Don't get a swelled head, but I wish I could write like that!
I spent over an hour on the internet trying to find a used copy to buy to highlight. Amazon is looking for me, too.
What really caught my eye was your comment that Richardson used the novel as "a vehicle for examining the psychology and morality of the male-female relationship." That I have to see for myself. I am as skeptical about a man understanding that as I was that a man could be the Meister of a Jane Austen web site!
I knew there was more to Our Dear Jane than what meets the eye (or funny bone, as the case may be)! You get a "Well done!" on that one!
Dear Linda,
Still, I am a little bit shocked whenever it is clear that someone has actually read my nonsense.
You are skeptical that a man can write about "the psychology and morality of the male-female relationship." Let me heighten your skepticism by reminding you that I also said, "... feminists will like him." Oh, and remember that Lord David Cecil said, "No doubt both [Jane Austen and George Eliot] were impressed by Richardson's ... extraordinary insight into the workings of the female heart. ..." I think I am beginning to know you, so I am willing to wager that you will agree, eventually, with all those judgments. Of course, neither Lord David nor myself will be sure until you make your pronouncement.
Lord David also made a judgment about Grandison, in particular; he found it, "now and again absurd and at all times long-winded." Well, he is right in the first instance and smack, dead-on wrong in the second. Don't imagine that you are beginning a daunting task - you are not - that novel goes down very, very easily. Every bit of it is a treasure - even the absurd parts, and there are enough of those. To me, even 10 pages of literary criticism is "prolix", "tedious", and "desultory", while the 1200 pages of Grandison are fascinating. (I shouldn't say that - If you can get hold of Elizabeth Jenkin's biography of Jane Austen, you will see literary criticism at its infrequent best.)
Here is an example of what I mean. The heroine, Harriet Byron, is abducted by the evil Baronet, Sir Hargrave Pollexfen. The details surrounding the abduction, and the reactions of people afterward, seem improbable if not impossible. Jane Austen would never have made those mistakes. Also, the reactions of the heroine seem, at first, absurd and even unintentionally comical. But then, I began to realize that the actions of Sir Hargrave are rather convincing as those of a psychotic gone over the edge. The development of his character to that point in the novel is dead right on - makes you think that you are actually reading of the behavior of a Ted Bundy. I mean those passages can become very affecting, extremely disturbing. Harriet gets roughed up and that is especially disturbing. Then, I decided that while a woman would not have suffered those "fits", as Richardson describes them, she certainly would have been in shock and so her reactions were no longer funny to me. I ultimately decided that the only bad part about those passages is that Sir Hargrave could never have had so many accomplices; I mean, it is impossible that so many would be there and none would switch allegiances. There are some interesting follow-up passages. I especially remember Harriet's male cousin rushing to see her, immediately after her rescue by Sir Charles Grandison, and one of the first things the cousin tries to ask is whether or not she had been raped. The hero's sister, Charlotte Grandison, cuts him off at the pass and will not allow such a question in Harriet's state - Bravo!
I have completed the first volume and I have already found many, many passages and attitudes that, it seems to me, are echoed in Jane Austen's novels. I will be interested to learn if you agree. I want to be careful, I am not saying that Samuel Richardson was as good as Jane Austen - he was not! And, I am sure that Jane Austen laughed at those parts of the novel that you and I find unintentionally funny. In spite of that, I am also convinced that Grandison is the most important and profound Jane-Austen influence.
Dear Janeites,
I just discovered that a film is opening this week in LA and NYC by Ang Lee. Ang Lee is the man who directed the version of Sense and Sensibility starring Emma Thompson.
The movie is titled Crouching Dragon, Hidden Tiger and stars Michelle Yeoh.
What does this have to do with Our Dear Jane? you may ask. It is described as an Asian martial arts film based on Sense and Sensibility.
If nothing else, it should be interesting to see how Lee pulls it off.
For some strange reason I don't think there will be any country dance scenes.
Dear Dave et. al.,
Let's face it. We've always wanted to see Lucy and Elinor just start karate chopping each other. Take off the kid gloves and go at it -- I say!
Dear Dave and Bruce,
I don't know - side kicks, eye gouging, karate chops - I suspect that Lucy will be in her element and Elinor will be out of her depth.
Actually this will be a sequel to that travesty Ang Lee put together with Emma Thompson. I can say that because, what Jane Austen called a "disturbance in the household", Ang Lee interpreted as a WWF event involving Lucy and the younger Mrs. Dashwood. I was raised in the country - surrounded by horse and cow pastures - so, I didn't need Lee's reminder that horses defecated. I am very glad that Ang Lee has been relegated to that genre where he belongs; I hope his new film is a great success so he can stay where he belongs
Oh, and speaking of Celebrity Death Match - umm, well, I mean I know that neither of you gentlemen actually watches TV, and certainly not MTV - and, I probably don't watch either. However, I have heard tell of that program (it is a clay-mation representation of fights-to-the-death between famous celebrities.) Anyway, I will watch when they pit Patricia Rozema against Jane Campion. Hey! wouldn't it be great if they made it a tag-team event by including Oliver Stone and Kenneth Branagh? Bill it as "The Bowdler's Brawl by the Bay!" Except, I wouldn't know who to root against - you know what I mean - kind of like with our recent Presidential election.
Dear Bruce and Ashton,
More news on the kung fu front. I just found out today that the movie, Crouching Dragon, Hidden Tiger, was made with the dialogue in Mandarin Chinese. So it'll be time to polish up the bifocals.
I'm not a martial arts movie fan, but there was one I caught on television a couple of months ago while flipping through the infomercials at 4:00 AM. I can't remember what the name of if was, but it was funnier than hell. The hero's mother kept pulling his ashes out of the fire while trying to set him up with a wife. Keep an eye out for it. It was almost Shakespearean.
How about if we have this presidential mess settled by a little kung fu action? We can have it take place on the White House lawn and show it on ESPN. Make politics a real contact sport. Yeah!
Dear Ashton,
You asked: "Incidentally, I think that you - as well as myself - have now associated one of the characters in Northanger Abbey with a living person. True?"
I had intended to answer that question in my last post and overlooked it. Sorry, 'bout that. Yes, that is true and IMHO only the tip of the iceberg. I used General Tilney as an example. I do believe that Jane drew most if not all of her "characters" from real life, because, to my great astonishment, I find elements of her characters in lots of people I know, as well as myself. Hmmm... I have often thought that if I could just video "so and so" to show them what they looked like in their awful behavior, I wonder if they would be able to see themselves as the world does and correct themselves. My conclusion was that it wouldn't work. I wonder if Jane also thought that by writing about them.
You said: "I do not think that it was Jane Austen's intent that we think Catherine read Grandison."
Well, I am uncertain about that. Notice this in Chapter 1: But from fifteen to seventeen she was in training for a heroine she read all such works as heroines must read to supply their memories with those quotations which are so serviceable and so soothing in the vicissitudes of their eventful lives.
Jane then tells us she read Pope, Gray, Thompson, and Shakespeare, which might lead one to conjecture that if Grandison was lying around the house she might have read it. But, and I repeat, 'but' in Chapter 2 in describing her character, Jane says: "... and her mind about as ignorant and uninformed as the female mind at seventeen usually is." I am perplexed. How could someone read the aforementioned authors and then be described as "ignorant and uninformed". Am I missing something?
I missed, or disremembered, that Tilney and his sister read Udolpho. You made a good point!
I am anxiously waiting to be shocked at your next "interpretation" - it does sound interesting.
One final word about Tess, I am going to try very hard to read it without getting so disturbed that I flip out. I would like to make a thoughtful comparison of it with the works of Jane Austen. I read the bio of Hardy in britannica.com and it gave me some ideas about the comparison. But that is "down the road apiece". I am certain others have made the comparison, but I have my own POV about it. I must start Sanditon before Dave gives up on us - while squeezing in Udolpho! What did you say - Christmas is coming? Oh, well, one day at a time! And since you asked - oh, I thought I heard you say something! - I am sitting here freezing waiting for the heater repairman since the heating system decided to quit last night!
From the Meister: Tess is disturbing but not in the same way as Jude. Just remember - you are reading a tragedy. The characterizations in Northanger Abbey are remarkably complete and consistent. I will try to argue that Jane Austen painted herself into a corner with the character of Henry Tilney. The development of his character is complete but I don't like him - he is unworthy of Catherine Morland. I will present some circumstantial evidence that something was bothering Jane Austen about that finished manuscript. Also, it is clear that she did not want to submit it, a second time, for publication until she had revised it. - A task for which she was not given the time on this earth.
Links