The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. Feb. 18, 2000
Dear Folks,
In her wonderful biography of Jane Austen, Elizabeth Jenkins has this to say about our Lady's working style at Chawton.
"... [Jane Austen] had, says her nephew, no separate study to retire to; there was no dressing room [at Chawton] as there had been at Steventon in which she worked with no one near her but her 'other self'. She wrote now in a living room near the road, in which any caller immediately perceived her to be at home, where the children from Steventon were constantly walking in. ... The many long spells of quiet when the others had walked out, her mother was in the garden and she had the room to herself; or when the domestic party was assembled, sewing and reading, with nothing but the soft stir of utterly familiar sounds and no tones but the low, infrequent ones of beloved, familiar voices--these were the conditions in which she created Mansfield Park, Emma, and Persuasion. They seem inadequate, it is true; the important novelists of to-day, who have their agents and their secretaries, whose establishments are run for their own convenience and who give out that they must never in any circumstances be disturbed while they are at work--these have, in every respect, a superior regime to that of Jane Austen's unprofessional existence--but their books are not so good."
"Hers were not conditions in which any but a mind of exceptional strength could have exerted itself to full advantage; but the shaping spirit of imagination that created human beings, whole and entire, was a force too powerful to be thrown out of gear by having to break off in a conversation or a paragraph because a child wanted to talk to her. When James Edward, in his Winchester days, or the young lady Anna, or the four-year-old Caroline, or one of the tribe of Godmersham cousins, on a visit to the great house opposite, came into the right-hand parlour of the cottage, they remembered afterwards that their Aunt Jane had been frequently writing at her desk before, at their entrance, she turned to greet them with her gay, affectionate manner. Their remorse, afterwards, for the mischief they may have done was intense; it could not be otherwise, when they considered that they had interrupted her in Mansfield Park, or Emma or Persuasion; but they did no injury; she put the sheet under the blotting-paper with a smile."Chapter Fourteen
I think that Miss Jenkins points to something crucial here. There is something amateurish about the Jane Austen experience and appreciation. This seems reflected a bit in the Jane Austen Societies which cater as much to the fan as to the academic. Recall what Kate2 said in her posting about the non-professional atmosphere at Chawton. And, of course, it is this aspect that allows just anyone to presume to design a web site for our Lady's honor. The elite have their journals and venues for their mighty scholarly criticisms, but their books are not as good.
Another facet to all this is the fact that Jane Austen never belonged to any literary coterie. That is as relevant in a comparison with others of her own time as well as our own. I mean that Fanny Burney associated with Johnson and Boswell; Maria Edgeworth, Mrs. Inchbald, and Mary Shelley had their associations, etc. It seems very clear that the only persons with whom Jane Austen ever discussed her art were her nephew and nieces.
Finally, I would like to make only this addition to Miss Jenkins's view: while it is true that only the last three novels were created at Chawton, it is also true that the first three were revised and prepared for publication there. We know, for a fact, that Pride and Prejudice was greatly modified in this process at Chawton. (What would you pay for an opportunity to read the original manuscript for P&P?)
Dear Sir,
For whatever reason, Jane Austen wrote as she did by choice: I wonder whether she did not sequester herself in order to work because she felt quite comfortable in her environment? The household at Chawton, (consisting as it did of four mature, sensible women, who had known each other for many years) must have been quiet and well-organised. One cannot imagine Mrs Austen, Cassandra or Martha intruding upon Jane Austen as she wrote. We do know, too, that Jane read portions of her work aloud to Cassandra, and, indeed, discussed her creations with her in detail as they evolved.
Now, I have to take issue with you on a comment you made
recently, to the effect that you do not believe that Jane Austen wrote
social commentaries. To me, the exquisite and intricately woven pictures
of life and society of the time are one of the chief attractions of her works
(the other being the equally exquisite and intricate use of language). The
novels all deal with love, courtship and marriage, of course, but they would not
be the masterpieces they are without the 'social commentary'.
Julie
Dear Julie,
Why should I discuss anything with you? You ignore us (sniff) and neglect us (sob), and then, when you feel like it, you come back here for a conversation. Why should I allow myself to be used in this way? You are thoughtless and cruel.
Oh well, I am magnanimous.
First off, Jenkins did not suggest that the other women in the cottage unduly interrupted Jane Austen. That biographer was merely assembling some well-known biographical information supplied by the nephews, nieces, and the friends of the children themselves. I don't really have to remind you of that because you are as well acquainted with that material as anyone I know. Also, it is well known that the children visited their favorite aunt, Aunt Jane, very often indeed; so, I can only guess the extent to which Chawton cottage was "quiet and well-organised" during those riots.
As to social commentary - this is an old debate between you and I, is it not? - I find not one iota of such a thing in the novels and I am glad of it. I know that others are desperate to find such things, are desperate to confirm themselves by proposing that Jane Austen agreed with them, but it simply isn't true - it is so much wishful thinking. My view is best expressed by Elizabeth Jenkins and I posted that quote previously. Jane Austen always focused on a small number of the better families in an English village. This is hardly the material for social commentary, but it is ideal for a study of human nature which was exactly the focus of Jane Austen. Some like to look to the inheritance problems of the Bennet or Dashwood sisters and think they see a protest about the lesser rights of women. If only this kind of reader would read just a little bit more closely, she would notice that many female characters in these novels inherit all the wealth and are willing to try to use that power to manipulate male characters. In other words, Jane Austen's limited focus on social conditions is balanced and it is balanced because it is true.
Dear Web master,
I write on behalf of the non profit Institute of North American & Atlantic Colonial History. In conjunction with the daily newspaper the Royal Gazette to which it is linked by web site, it publishes the 116 web files of Bermuda Online.
All of us look forward to your visit in May. We hope you will find our files useful in the meantime.
Keith A. Forbes
Dear Voices,
I am reading a book (I know, but it's true!) about Sumerian beginnings of things. I went to a play last night that was written three years before JA was born and has been popular its whole life, so I'm sure she must have read it - perhaps performed it with her siblings. And I've been to Hollis's site to read a short story from five years before I was born. (I shall go back, of course and read others - very well done, Hollis!). I love the sense of history that seeps through literature. And today I feel as though I've been swimming in a time warp.
Or something.
By the way, Commonwealth or no, I get The Learning Channel, and The History Channel and A&E etc. etc. Do you get Bravo! or its European counterpart, Arte? Hollis has suggested she'll wait for the cable version of who's-it's M&P and John said it's coming on Bravo! soon. We could all watch it on the same night - different time zones, I suppose, but it would give a sense of community, wouldn't it? Like we'd all gotten together in somebody's living room.
From the Meister: Yes, I do get Bravo!, and yes we could get a sense of community that way; except, the effect would not be complete unless we set up some sort of e-mail hook-up by which John and Cheryl could tell us what was about to happen at the beginning of each scene. (I suspect the novel will not be of much use in that regard.) Do you - um-mm - would you ever - I mean - well, I have this friend that watches The Sopranos, and he tells me that Tony Soprano always watches the History Channel.
Dear Voices,
This morning I discovered that the marquee at the theatre around the corner was changed overnight. And guess what's playing for the next seven days? Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately, but that remains to be seen), I'm going out of town this weekend. Mansfield Park will just have to wait until Monday.
Ashton: You can tell your friend that I don't believe The Sopranos plays up here. We don't get HBO on my cable service, but we do get some of its shows on Bravo! I have seen Sex In the City, for example - I mean, a friend of mine has seen it. It's just that whatever I view is entirely by accident. (The accident being that my daughter the night owl has finally worked herself to a state of exhaustion and has fallen asleep somewhere - preferably a bed.) I have read much good stuff about your friend's show, however. You know, I wouldn't be surprised if you watched it yourself!
From the Meister: I only like the music.
Dear Voices,
Did anyone else watch the TLC Great Books special on Pride and Prejudice yesterday (2/19/00)? I thought it was interesting even though it didn't really tell me anything that I didn't know before. They had interviews with Nora Ephron and Helen Fielding (author of a book named Bridget Jones's Diary, which is supposedly a modern retelling of P&P), as well as the woman who wrote the screenplay for the 1979 British movie version. It was basically a 1 hour synopsis of the story and how the characters involved formed but later changed their first impressions.
For those of you who live in the Commonwealth, "TLC" is The Learning Channel. This cable channel devotes at least two days per year to the "Great Books"; that is, twenty-four hours of one hour per book.
Dear Laurie,
I did not happen to see the hour devoted to Pride and Prejudice; although I could not help noticing that that particular hour was repeated at the end of the day. Some of those presentations were very effective. I was particularly moved by the presentation of Heart of Darkness. I have always admired the film Apocalypse Now, but I had had no idea that it was based upon one of Joseph Conrad's short stories. I then read the book and came away even more impressed with the film because it so accurately captures the mood and sense of Conrad's dark vision. (I wish that all filmmakers, who would produce a version of one our Lady's novels, could be so thoughtful and so respectful.) The really weird part is that, in the book, the main character is telling the story of his experience on the Congo river after being inspired as he and his companions were travelling up the Themes. I mean, he begins by speculating what it must have been like for the Romans when they first traveled on that Celtic highway. And then, in the film, the same kind of tortuous trip is made up the Mekong river. - Talk about resonance!
I recommend the book-then-film experience to you; however, I wonder if that can have the same impact on someone of your generation? I mean someone who has no first-hand memory of that recent war. If you do chose to make this journey into the heart of darkness, you will need to follow up by rereading two Jane Austen novels in order to perk youself up sufficiently that you can come back and post your impressions.
Dear Julie and Ashton,
Julie - Right now I'm reading Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire by Amanda Foreman, based on your recommendation. And so far I really like it and agree with your assessment. Georgiana was a fascinating woman, and I really like the author's style of writing the book. I hope she comes out with more books in the future!
Ashton - I have seen parts of Apocalypse Now and also read part of Conrad's Heart of Darkness. A boy in my AP English class last year loved the book and did his author presentation and paper on Conrad (I, of course did Jane Austen). It was very interesting and I do plan to finish the book someday, when I have more time.
Dear Heather,
May I recommend the rather aptly named Jane Austen Cookbook (Deirdre Le Faye & Maggie Black). This draws on the recipes of a number of Our Lady's close contemporaries. The most important of these is probably the recipe collection of Martha Lloyd. Martha's sister Mary married James Austen, Jane's eldest brother. Martha lived with Jane, Cassandra senior and Cassandra junior for some years. After Jane's death, Martha married Jane Austen's widowed brother Frank Austen. (I know, I know, you know all this already). So anyway, to cut to the chase, Jane probably did eat some of these recipes exactly as they are shown in the book. Interestingly, curry, (a thing I have always believed to be the preserve of the late 20th-century Englishman) features strongly.
I think we can safely say that Jane Austen's favorite pizza topping would have been White Soup or possibly jaune blancmage with jugged flounders.
Dear Heather,
The piece of fruit on Shakespeare's desk was not like any tomahto that my family could recognize. Nor an apple. (The tape was on "pause" for a good examination.) It was neither diseased nor rotten: the splotches were ink from Shakespeare's previous plunging/parking his Dave Payton into into the fruit. It was not a quince (wrong colour), may have been a persimmon, pomegranate, or another red fruit of that size. I could not not object to a very red orange (lighting influence), if there were such a thing. I'd need a botanist's recognition of the stem.
Dear Voices,
Thank you for your responses regarding plants and pizza and whether or not we're talking tomatoes. One day I will have to have a Ball such as the one at Netherfield, but with flushable toilets, and probably that CD instead of a quartet. I will invite you all, and we'll do the dances, sing the songs, eat the food, and jab pens into a squooshy round object - as soon as I find the shop that sells jugged fish. Also, I need to locate a reasonable facsimile of Netherfield. Cheap.
From the Meister: I have just this very minute received a comprehensive report from our Department of Research and Counter-Information - that object on Shakespeare's desk has been positively identified as a chook. We tend to forget that W. S. was a charter member of Greenpeace (originally, Greensleeves) - what we are witnessing in that scene is Will's effort to reconstruct and revive the creature.
Dear Ashton,
I just reread your analysis of Ms. Thompson's "Sense and Sensibility" and enjoyed it just as much as when I first read it. It's been a while since I've been here. I saw Thompson on Oprah, and Oprah actually said that her "S&S" was better than Jane's! I know, I know, it's only Oprah, but still...
One more thing: I got the chance to catch the second half of the Jennifer Ehle "Pride and Prejudice" which this site praised so much. Frankly, I was disappointed and surprised. I found her quite fine in her portrayal, except for some looks between Lizzy and Jane that I don't believe Jane Austen would have allowed. But, in the long run, I found most of the portrayals flat and unhumorous. And I do believe that "P&P" is meant, at least on the entertainment level, to be politely making fun of social situations, not trying to be Tolstoy or Dostoyevsky. Mrs. Bennett is not Prince Mishkin she is the product of her time and place. Jane, I believe, sees the humor while still respecting both the individual and the society. I didn't feel any of this humor, sympathy and respect in the Ehle "P&P" and so I stay on record as liking the Elizabeth Garvie/David Rintoul version better.
Dear Hollis,
Where have you been? - I have missed you. Please stop by more often.
Actually, you are not the only member of the community that prefers the Elizabeth Garvie version. We seem to split along gender lines; although, there are crossover votes on both sides of the sexual aisle. I find Elizabeth Garvie too girlish for my interpretation of Elizabeth Bennet; the far more womanly Jennifer Ehle almost exactly fits the image that Jane Austen creates for me. More importantly - far more importantly, I am disgusted at the portrayal of Darcy in that 1979 version. I am perfectly sincere when I say that, to me, David Rintoul appears ill during the entire production. Is he still alive? It is inconceivable to me that Elizabeth Bennet could ever have fallen in love with this version of Darcy created by the feminist screenwriter, Fay Weldon. Jane Austen's Darcy is quick-witted, even humorous in his understated way, and the perfect match for one of the greatest heroines of all time. Jane Austen's Darcy is worthy throughout but unappreciated by Elizabeth. Incidentally, Darcy's personality is far closer to Jane Austen's than is Elizabeth Bennet's. The subtlety of Jane Austen's Darcy is perfectly captured in Andrew Davies's screenplay and Colin Firth's portrayal.
I agree with you that the part of Mrs. Bennet was overplayed; but, I think, only by a little bit. The character of Mrs. Bennet drives all the action of the novel. Her hysteria puts pressure on her daughters, especially Lydia, and explains their actions and choices. It is crucial to understand that the interactions between Darcy and Mrs. Bennet are used to motivate and explain Darcy's attitudes and actions. To my mind, Andrew Davies is the only screenwriter to appreciate that crucial fact.
Finally, I wonder if there might not be a difference between the way you and I think about Jane Austen. Our Lady was hilarious at times, but I don't think she wrote comedies. To my mind, Jane Austen wrote deadly serious love stories. Her heroines and her heroes are wonderful and attractive characters. I also don't find anything that remotely resembles social commentary in her novels - not one scintilla. In fact, I suspect that Jane Austen carefully avoided such topics because our Lady wrote at a time when everyone else was doing that - her society, her nation, her world were awash in social commentary.
Dear Ashton,
Let me respond to your point about our different views of Jane Austen's intentions. I can only say that besides Jane Austen, my favorite and most inspiring figure is Socrates. Of course, in the Apology, etc., but I'm particularly attracted to his comment, at the very end of the Symposium, on the connection between comedy and drama. I have spent many, many years contemplating what he might have meant, and I have come to no complete conclusion -- there is no such thing as a "complete" conclusion in my opinion, every answer leads as a stepping stone to the next (inevitable) question. But I do believe in the special bond between comedy and drama, in Man's nature, if not in God's. Jane, I believe, writes about men and not God or gods. She knows the difference, and can afford to apply shades of comedy to her "deadly serious" dramas. Is there anyone else out there who can picture this "power couple" that I admire so? Socrates and Jane -- better than Ted and Jane in any millennium!
From the Meister: I read your impressive resume.
I would like to
read of your term at St. Clare's
Hall, Oxford. Are you willing to tell us of
that?
Dear Ashton,
As to St. Clare's Hall, it was very long ago, I was very young, and unfortunately didn't take advantage of the opportunities I was handed. Valuable lessons, those. But it was a delight living in Oxford, reading Middlemarch and Ulysses. Why didn't I visit Bath, or any of Jane's sites? Well, I wasn't such a big fan in those days. Youth, you know, is wasted on the young. However, I did get to eat at one of the very best restaurants I've ever eaten at, before or since: The Nosebag. I wonder if it's still there? That's where I learned how to bake cakes properly (i.e., no icing, just big bowls of flavored and unflavored whipped cream for topping or alongside). Which I make and serve at my Janeteenth get-togethers -- I haven't had one in a long time, but June is only a few months away, so maybe then ... Maybe someone here will know about The Nosebag. I'd love some of their recipes.
By the way, I really like the BBC versions of both Mansfield Park and Sense and Sensibility, as well as their Pride and Prejudice. I read the critiques of MP on your site and enjoyed them lots -- I had a feeling I wouldn't like the recent film; I'm waiting for cable. When I saw Emma Thompson's S&S, I didn't make it through 30 minutes; as soon as I saw her wrapping presents "for the servants," I made my exit. Later, on cable, I was able to at least sit through it, but I absolutely hated her heavy hand. Until then, I had been a big fan of hers (Henry V was wonderful!).If you link to my web site you
can either read my hypertext ebooks or look at my thread crochet sampler. I must
warn you, though, that the MSIE browser (4.0 or later) is recommended -- I
provide a link to download it on my home page.
Hollis
Dear John and Ashton,
I was not intending to be overly critical of Mary Shelley in my comments. "Frankenstein" is a remarkable novel, but like many of its time, it's a rather tedious read. I should have said Victor's reaction to his creation is a feminine reaction, rather than "artificial." The natural male reaction would have been to either "kill" the creature and (re ?) dissect it or discover a mutual love of spitting long distances and become inseparable friends.
I finished "Frankenstein" last night. The creature's resemblance to a growing child is clear and deliberate. We can choose many paths here -- perhaps Mary Shelley was warning against the effects of education on the poor, maybe she was advocating the new "hands on" style of child-rearing. Or maybe, as I said before, she has taken that normal parental fear that one's child will become a monster, physically and morally, and set it within the context of the Greek tragedy. Thus the innocent child must be transformed by fate (and the De Lay's) into the Furies, relentlessly pursuing his father in and out of madness and finally to the grave.
The idea that the Creature represents the poor makes little sense. Victor's punishment is his sense of personal responsibility for the havoc wreaked by his offspring. He believes himself as guilty of murder as the Creature. Why would Shelley give the rich such a poignant conscience? Had Victor cheerfully pursued life, never accepting or even thinking about his responsibility, I would be more willing to accept such an idea. But he can't be both demon and tragic hero at the same time.
I'm sorry that my comment about moral cowardice offended you, but shall we
look at the "heroes" of "Tess Of The D'ubervilles" or "The Scarlet Letter" or
the Arthurian Legends? Perhaps "expect" was a strong word, and I will
gladly replace it with "forgive."
Cheryl
Links