4/17/00 Cheryl - Putting 2 & 2 together, so to speak

To All,

Ashton made a comment, on 3/24/00, about Frances O'Connor's "suberb" er, um, attributes, which she displayed in the PBS production of Madame Bovary. An Idaho legislator has introduced a bill which would forbid PBS from showing programs which contain immoral characters or their attributes in the future.  A recent production involving an adulteress and the display of attributes is mentioned, but without specific names.  Most of the spud heads I know are pretty nice people, but I can't help but wonder if they elect their public servants to be deliberately embarrassing so as to keep any more Hollywood types from moving to the state.

From the Meister: I think the spud heads need to
come up with a way to keep out the Mark Furmans.

4/17/00 Ashton - "the charm of recent composition"

Dear Folks,

As I study Boswell and Johnson for signs of Jane Austen's influences, I am struck by a common, juvenile attitude that I want to highlight and discuss with you. For one thing, it demonstrates an important difference between our Lady and Dr. J.

Firstly, I will provide a little background. Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) wrote poetry, plays, biography, and a novel, but he is most famous for his dictionary and for his literary criticism. Some say he was the arbiter of the literary style of his day. He came from a poor family (he had to leave Oxford before he could earn his degree) and, so, he always had to think about what sorts of writings would sell well in the London marketplace. Personally, I prefer his poetry over all else - but, wait, wait! - that is not a recommendation because I don't know my poetry from a hole in the ground.

One of the things that strikes me as I read Boswell's biography is that, apparently, Dr. J was very, very proud of the fact that he could put together a composition rather rapidly. For example, his most famous poem was composed in an extremely short time. Let me add here that this was written after his mother's death and there was a need to compose rapidly because he was trying to assemble the funds to pay for the funeral - remember that. Boswell goes on and on about the rapidity with which the dictionary was put together, etc. He could only have done that based upon Dr. J's testimony.

I have to tell you, I do not admire rapid composition (that's why this is a bulletin board and not a chat room). It leads to a lot of error and other types of clutter. A sure sign of an overly rapid composition is its length. That kind of composition is invariably too long. If you want to write something succinct, something just the right length, then take your time and then edit - and then edit - and then again. Sure enough, a typical Dr. J writing is repetitive and fleshed out with irrelevant detail - signs of rapid composition. Now, this ill-placed admiration may have been a fashion because Mary Wollstonecraft was very proud of the fact that The Vindication of the Rights of Woman was composed in only six weeks - and her husband repeated his boast in his biography of her. Vindication gives every indication that these claims are well founded; Mary should have taken six years.

Contrast this with Jane Austen's attitude; her brother, Henry Austen, said this:

"... though in composition [my sister] was rapid and correct, yet an invincible distrust of her own judgement induced her to withhold her works from the public, till time and many perusals had satisfied her that the charm of recent composition was dissolved. ..."

This shows a greater maturity and wisdom on the part of our Lady - I think you will grant me that. But, isn't this the sort of thing that must be accounted for in the evaluation of style? That is an honest question, I am interested in your opinion. It shows something else I think; it shows that Jane Austen might not have been under the same kind of economic pressure as Dr. Johnson. I think those brothers took damn good care of baby sister, and that allowed Jane Austen the time to get things right - nay, perfect. I know there are people in our world who don't want the brothers to be so thoughtful and so useful - tough! that is the way it was.

I will conclude with a little counterpoint. Elizabeth Jenkins wrote a most superb biography of Jane Austen (see references). I especially like her treatment of the novels. Refer to her treatment of our Lady's Persuasion: there Miss Jenkins points to two passages that are mean-spirited and not characteristic of a Jane Austen novel (although, these things are seen at times in her letters). Miss Jenkins makes the point that this manuscript was not complete at Jane Austen's death and, in her opinion, the passages would almost certainly have been edited away if our Lady had been granted the opportunity. Jenkins convinced me - totally. I very much like the idea, because it is a clear indication of what Jane Austen censured in herself. Interesting?

4/18/00 Heather Swallow - [hms@blakes.com] Ramblers

Dear Ashton,

I don't think you have read enough 18th century literature.  It is almost all repetitive, at least that's how it seems to this 20th century reader, and I suspect that has very little to do with the speed with which it was written.

Perhaps we should recognize, or at least consider as a possibility, that "what the public wanted to read" in that era may not have included conciseness.  They kept their letters to read over and over again in those days. They sat for hours over the dinner table just talking to one another.  They had time.  It was nothing to sit down and read a novel from cover to cover in an afternoon.  I have difficulty imagining that.  A Harlequin Romance, maybe, but not the stuff they had on their shelves.  Surely they must have been skimming?!  In which case, repetition does not do a bit of harm.  Also, when you're reading aloud from a serial, repetition helps to remind the listeners what came before.   That was a common mode of production and dissemination, I understand.

Your assessment may be perfectly correct, I hasten to add, however, I think there are elements we cannot even contemplate because we are looking back across a gulf of centuries into the libraries of a different world.  I simply mean to suggest that a rambling style may have been appreciated more in those days than it is now, and no writer made a conscious effort to pare down a work.  It simply was not a consideration.

I think the fact that Austen is so concise is more a part of her style, as fresh and new in that century as her perspective and subject matter, than it is merely the result of multiple self-editing sessions.  We admire that her work does not repeat itself, but your example from Jenkins doesn't prove that it was rambling text to begin with.  All it proves is that she probably was in the habit of editing out passages that were mean-spirited.  Persuasion is a marvellously concise novel with only a few difficult spots near the end that would suggest that the work was unfinished. Thus, your discussion of Jenkins has proved for me that JA's writing was pretty darn well-thought-out to begin with.

And while I'm rambling on, I might as well comment on the "influences issue."

Now then, was Austen influenced more by Sterne or Johnson?  The answer is "Yes."  I have no doubt she was influenced by everything, whether read, discussed or observed.

Picasso's contemporaries, it is said, used to gripe because he stole all their ideas - and improved them. I guess that if your contemporary is influenced by you, you are allowed to accuse him of stealing, even if he has outlapped you.  Or especially if he has outlapped you.  It isn't so much who influences the minds of these types, but how they mix those influences to create something entirely new.

Austen was not a thief, of course.  She merely read and wrote and observed, and with practice, developed a style and a wit that has been unequalled.  She couldn't help herself. If we have trouble determining exactly who her influences were, it is only because she has made them unrecognizable - they cannot match her genius.

4/18/00 Ashton - tangles

Dear Heather,

Let us try to untangle these things.

You say that I have not read enough 18^th century literature. To be fair to myself, I must point out that I confessed that on 4/10/00 (third paragraph). However, the question is interesting to me and I thought to think about it anyway. Besides, I have you and the others to guide me, so who knows what might happen.

I think my most recent posting was more focused than you suggest. I focused on Johnson and on his repeated boasts of rapid composition. I was not so general as to include all literature of that century. I also pointed out that Johnson rambles. You say that the two habits are not necessarily connected. You are right. However, do you agree that some people who write rapidly and do not edit tend to ramble? I mean, will you grant the possibility without relinguishing my point?

On the other hand, now that you bring it up, I am not convinced that all literature of that century was rambling. I am thinking of Swift, Goethe, Voltaire, and Scott, would you call them concise? I have read some things of those authors and I think them as concise as Jane Austen. I prefer her novels.

Are you contradicting Henry Austen? He said that his sister did a lot of rewriting (refer to my posting); her father sent her original manuscript of Pride and Prejudice to a publisher and described its length as better than twice that of the version actually published more than a decade later. So, we know that P&P was highly edited by Jane Austen.

Your final paragraphs cannot be turned away, and you add your protest to those of Julie and Cheryl. The only thing I can say is that I am investigating specific claims of C.S. Lewis and James Austen and it very well may turn out that I will join the three of you. Let me give an example of what lies at the center of my motivation. This is a short passage from P&P: Elizabeth has just accepted Darcy.

"... Had Elizabeth been able to encounter his eye, she might have seen how well the expression of heart-felt delight, diffused over his face, became him; but, though she could not look, she could listen, and he told her of feelings, which, in proving of what importance she was to him, made his affection every moment more valuable."

For me, this kind of passage is very moving and is the most important part of the novels - for me. (I know that it is the humor for you, but not for me.) That kind of passage is found throughout the novels and, yet, no one talks about them - they are overshadowed by the humor, logic, conciseness, and human insight. However, those passages are crucial to me. I want to know where they come from. To my barely literate self, that sort of thing reads like Sterne.

4/20/00 Cheryl - Now I understand you

Dear Ashton,

I take fully your point in using the "heartfelt delight" paragraph from P&P.  It is a perfect wallow of romance (and passion) sandwiched between Elizabeth's acute, and very funny, observations and the  practicalities of a country walk.  The mind tends to glide over the passage, without taking in its true significance, but when one does see that paragraph for what it is, it's like the delight of suddenly coming upon a beautiful wildflower while walking the dog, or mowing the lawn. It isn't Virginia Wolf's  "moons and mountains and castles" which she claims Jane Austen  consciously ignored.  It's better -- deeper and more talented, because Jane Austen doesn't need a telescope or a mysterious journey to make us see something wildly romantic.

It has always been Jane Austen's curse that, because she could not write poorly, as, say the Bronte's could (with a vengeance), it's believed that she couldn't write feelingly.   But it's clear she felt acutely.  How else could she compress Fitzwilliam Darcy's months of anger, recrimination, doubt, regret, self-recrimination, anxiety, hope, and joy into a single paragraph or Edmund Betram's years of celibacy into an exclamation totaling eight words.

I, for one, am certainly prepared to talk about those passages, though I believe there's so much of the woman Jane Austen in them that it may be almost impossible to separate out Jane Austen the writer.  I will, of course, be wearing dark glasses and a non-descript trench coat as I remain a slave to my early training that there's no character flaw in a woman so evil as a weakness for romance.
Cheryl

4/20/00 Ashton - I love you, man! Let's do it.

Dear Cheryl,

OK, so let us find some other passages like that and post them. Maybe we will start a whole new trend in thinking about Jane Austen. I hope, I hope others will join us. Boy, if ever Ray joins us, then we will know we have accomplished something.

Lose the disguise, if anyone bothers you, just remind her that men are far worse - far more romantic than women.

4/13/00 Laurie - [l_mease@hotmail.com] New thoughts on irony in P&P?

Dear Voices,

I received an email from someone else who is writing an English paper on irony in P&P and wondered if any of you had any new thoughts on the topic since last year.  I'm planning to send her some of the sources that I used and stuff but I thought that some of you might have a different perspective from my own.

P.S. I just started re-reading Mansfield Park.  It's amazing what you can discover the second time around!

From the Meister: You never did share your thoughts
on those things with us. I hope you will do so. That will
inspire a response from Ray, but that is always a good thing.

4/13/00 Laurie - [l_mease@hotmail.com] Addendum

Dear Voices (and Ashton in particular),

I apologize profusely for the omission!  I find it hard to believe that I never made a post of my conclusions.  In a nutshell, my topic was that Austen's irony in Pride and Prejudice provides several different types of contrasts - for example, how the characters attitudes change between the beginning and end of the novel, how the characters think a situation will turn out versus how it really does turn out, the separation between simple and complex people, etc.  If any of you would be interested in reading it, just drop me an email and I'll send it to you because it's way too long for me to post here. I hope some of you do read it.  My English teacher thought it was pretty good. It would make me really nervous to have you read it because you guys know way more than me about the subject (though I am endeavoring to learn!), but I would love to share my conclusions.

Less than 2 months left till graduation!!!!!

4/13/00 Ashton - new thoughts on Elizabeth Bennet

Dear David,

The connections that you make between 18^th century, fashionable London and 20^th century, fashionable New York are excellent. I remember the Abbot case very well and I remember my revulsion at the time. There is a sickness in that society that can manage to make itself fascinating by insulting the elite while dining at their tables. Johnson and Savage were nauseatingly sycophant while having the appearance of being independent, critical thinkers. In fact, it was the appearance that was their meal ticket. Do you remember Eldridge Cleaver? He became a darling of the fashionable set after writing Soul on Ice. I think that he managed to convince that set that he had been a "political prisoner" because all his victims were white - One black victim and his goose would have been cooked. I learned a lot about radical chic from those events. He eventually married a gorgeous black woman; I remember her because she had striking blue eyes.

If nothing else is to be gained from this exercise, I have at least gained a better understanding of Fanny Burney. I once posted on her novel Evelina. I didn't much like that novel and I wondered, out loud, about why Jane Austen liked it so much. In retrospect, I think that I was reacting to the fact that Fanny Burney's England was nothing like Jane Austen's and so the author must have made some terrible error. Now I understand that Burney wasn't writing about our Lady's England, she was writing about London - yeeachhh! (Incidentally, Burney became a member of Johnson's coterie as had her dad before her - he was a famous London musician.) That insight gives more depth to my understanding of Jane Austen's Mary and Henry Crawford - now I really understand what our Lady was getting at.

This has become an entirely new way to respect Jane Austen and I am grateful for it.

Finally, let me say something new about Elizabeth Bennet. I loved that woman from the first moment I met her. However, I had one reservation; I had thought that she was a little hard on Darcy for just one little faux pas. I mean she seemed far too dependent on first impressions. Well, now I can reflect on the fact that Darcy had a house in London and expressed a comfort with London society. I mean, that habit carried some baggage with it and so it was quite reasonable for dearest, loveliest Elizabeth to make the snap judgment she made. Based upon your posting, I think you might have made the same. Boy, now I really love Elizabeth Bennet - and Jane Austen.

4/12/00 cheryl - A grace period, please?

Dear Ashton,

You do me wrong. I'm not derisive of the idea that Jane Austen was influenced by earlier writers.  I dislike your phrase "father of" because it has for me the connotation that Jane Austen was somehow derivative of another writer, and I don't believe that's the case.  At any rate, you have my sympathy if you're slogging through Boswell.

I wonder if Lewis' comment may have had  more to do with the need to make Jane an honorary "Dead White Guy" so he could take her seriously for the next 1200 words, than anything else??

I have been doing some reading of my own in preparation for real answer to the influences question, but you must excuse me for a few days at least.  Spring has arrived here in the coulee and, with it, the motivation to do a major garden project involving retaining walls, deer fences, and the removal (by hand) of a few square yards of native rock.  It's really very satisfying work as we have some very nice terraced garden beds now.

4/12/00 Ashton - But, but ...

Dear Cheryl,

Does this mean that you will not participate in MW day? Phooie! Oh well, I wish you well in every endeavor except the deer fences. I hope they are only moderately effective.

You do me wrong. That "father of.." thing is C.S. Lewis's idea. By the bye, my wife informs me that a lot of folks have signed on to the notion that Johnson was a major Jane-Austen influence, so I will not be pounding away on a straw man.

You have contributed to my inspiration for this project, but not the way you think. On 3/22/00 you said, "Anyone who hasn't thrilled to the merest brush of another's hand has missed something great in life." And, you said that in relation to our Lady's novels; you are the only other person, besides myself, that I have ever heard say that. (Sniff - I love you man!) But then I began to think that this may be, in fact, the undiscovered essence of her novels. If so, that would mean that Sternee is the major influence. What do you think of that?

4/13/00 cheryl - Miss MW-D?? never!

Dear Ashton,

I think I haven't the foggiest clue who Sterne was, that's what I think.  But I'll see what I can do about that.  I'm flattered that I can be an inspiration for something.  Sex and JA is a dangerous train of thought to pursue because people tend to react like you're selling dirty post cards.  However, I'm intrepid and have some time while it's pissing down rain this morning.

I think that two of the novels in particular, Pride and Prejudice and Persuasion, capture that part of courtship dealing with the anticipation of the sexual relationship.  In Pride and Prejudice, it's less deliberate and less mature -- more of a function of the age and vitality of Elizabeth and Darcy.  It also has to do with seeing P&P portrayed on the screen so often. Look at the dance scenes especially, and think about what it must have been like for Jane, clasping hands with Bingley, then Mr. Hurst, or Sir William, then a sister and back to Bingley. Or the brief moment after Bingley's proposal when Elizabeth surprises them as they're standing close together -- perhaps more closely than they have in the previous year. (Think how good the A&E P&P could have been if the director had put that in the actresses' minds instead of "good in bed.")

The long delay while Elizabeth sorts out her feelings and Darcy declares his again reinforces the "sexual tension", as Julie puts it.  If I and my friends of 20 years ago are any indication, Elizabeth's indecision parallels most women's feelings about first having sex (that's what marriage was, to some extent then.)  Yes, no, maybe ... the complete inability to read what the man's actions mean ... the fear of looking like a fool ... what will my parents think ... etc. Even after the declarations, Jane Austen gives us the continuing awkwardness and embarrassment that "...[takes] from the season of courtship much of its pleasure."  I'm sure everyone remembers those first months of married life or the equivalent.

Persuasion is a little different. Without trying to pound Anne Elliot into a mold that makes her Jane Austen in print, I think it's safe to say Anne reflects JA's personal world at forty-something, just as Elizabeth reflects Jane's world at 19.  Persuasion is certainly more sensuous... we have an explosion of colors and textures both in the physical world and the heroine's perception of that world.  At nineteen, one enjoys the autumn colors, at 40 one still enjoys them, but the memories they evoke even more.

And maybe it's safe to say that instead of pursuing life, Anne's been enjoying her memories of love for eight years to keep herself from getting hurt again.  But Captain Benwick and Mr. Elliot change all that.  Benwick's intellectual admiration followed within hours by Mr. Elliot's 19th century equivalent of a wolf whistle remind Anne that she's not just a daughter, or a sister, or an aunt. Feeling herself again to be an object of physical interest, Anne's own physical side is reawakened.  And we see not only a change in her at this point, but a subtle change in the novel's language as well.  Now nearly every appearance of Captain Wentworth contains some physical description of him.  He looks positively red, he looks very well, he's in a crowd of other men but there's no mistaking him, a well looking man, a very fine young man indeed...

And now it's time to go to work.  Just FYI Ashton, you shouldn't feel too sorry for the deer. We're only fencing the vegetable garden.  They can and do still munch my tulips to the ground, climb the front porch to nibble the new leaves off the plants and generally raise hell in the neighborhood.  If you like, I'd be happy to send you a few pounds of deer-snot crusted lettuce this summer.
Cheryl

From the Meister: great posting - thank you.
That lettuce you mention might go well with
dried chook heads and a full-bodied Chianti.