The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the
Bulletin Board - c. June 21, 2000
Dear Janeites,
On June 15, the Meister posted a review on the board by an unknown person about the last film version of Mansfield Park. The reviewer commented that the characterization in the film of Mrs. Norris was too benign and not evil enough.
This brings up the question of whether or not Mrs. Norris is an evil character.
Without going into a discussion of the nature of evil, I would have to say that Mrs. Norris is not an evil person. At least, she is not an actively evil person. She is a selfish person. Her words and actions against Fanny are not so much to be cruel to Fanny, but are an attempt to elevate herself in the eyes of the Bertrams. Fanny does not mean enough to her to be worth considering, let alone being malicious to. The only times that she really thinks about Fanny, other than when she suggests taking her in, is when Fanny is in the way. Then she merely pushes Fanny aside like a pet that's blocking one's path.
Mrs. Norris is, in a sense, a courtier to the Bertrams. She has hitched her wagon to their star and, in doing so, attempts to raise them to a social level higher than they have any intention of going. She's like the modern businessman in that she's always looking to see where and with whom the advantage for herself lies. When Thomas returns from the West Indies, notice that she more or less abandons the elder Bertrams and attempts to ingratiate herself with the children. In doing so she's trying to look after her own future. The happier she can keep Thomas and Maria, the more likely she is to have a decent living in the future.
She is a corporate climber without the corporation. But she isn't evil in the classical sense. I do not recall her ever wishing ill on anyone. She just wishes her own good at the expense of anyone. She is almost an allegorical figure of the Puritanical vision of sinful humanity as a whole whose sin lies in self-occupation and self love.
The evil figure in the book is Mary Crawford. Not only does she take the role of temptress in attempting to lure Edmund from his intentions toward the cloth, but she actually and actively wishes evil toward Thomas during his illness in her letter to Edmund in which she almost gleefully writes that if Thomas dies Edmund will have the living. To quote my silver haired Daddy, " That's not good." She's the type of woman that blues singers used to sing about. Devil in the Blue dress and all that.
As far as Henry Crawford and Maria Bertram are concerned, well their brains are a little closer to their legs than their heads. Henry Crawford is like the newly saved and soon backslidden Christian. Maria is the naughty Catholic school girl during summer vacation away from the nuns. There's a bad drive-in movie there someplace, but fortunately there are many drive-ins around anymore.
But, to get back to the point. Mrs. Norris isn't evil. As a matter of fact, there's probably a lot more Mrs. Norris in all of us than we'd like to admit.
To All,
Re: standard behavior in the past. I think there is a natural tendency to see the past as homogenius, and the present as fragmented. People in Jane Austen's times probably did the same.
Dear Linda,
You have arranged some of my favourite passages from my favourite novel all in one posting. I shall re-read often, when time will not permit me to read and re-live the whole of Persuasion.
It is true that Anne's feeling for Wentworth, her understanding of what has passed between them just prior to the opera, has made her adore the whole world - Mr. Elliot included. It is this adoration of all things that brightens and stimulates her conversation, making Wentworth wonder if it isn't Elliot's presence that's making her so lively and happy. How masterly of the author to upset and unsettle a character by the vibrations he himself set in motion!
Austen's passionate pieces are very much like the Italian songs that Anne translates for Mr. Elliot - one shouldn't speak of the sense of these passages, one should just feel them. But like an evening at the opera, your "passionate postings" are brimming with marvelous examples of emotion for us to experience, and your thoughtful consideration of text must rival any of Anne's translations of lyrics. I thank you.
Dear Heather,
I thank you for your very kind words.
Searching for the passages was a labor of love for me. I have not only enjoyed doing the research but also have begun to see and realize the depth of Jane Austen. I keep finding more things than I have time to get posted.
Also, I do not take credit for all the words. I have engaged the
services of an excellent editor whose salary is equal to mine, I dare
say.
Linda
Dear Cheryl,
You have been absolutely brilliant around here; I have been very grateful for your insights and interpretations - most of the time. But there have been those occasions when you would say something totally off the wall, like the time you praised Bill Gates or the times you offered up those male stereotypes. There is no worse example than the one you just offered, " ... due to that natural male tendency to believe all women find one irresistible." Nonsense, men think no such thing.
I am reminded of that passage from Emma, where Emma is heatedly defending her actions in regard to Harriet Smith and Mr Martin:
" '... [Harriet] is, in fact, a very beautiful girl, ... and till it appears that men are more philosphic on the subject of beauty than they are generally supposed; till they do fall in love with well-informed minds instead of handsome faces, a girl, with such loveliness as Harriet, has a certainty of being admired and sought after, ... I am much mistaken if your sex in general would not think such a beauty, and such a temper, the highest claims a woman could possess.' "
Knightley's reply is swift, brutal, and dead center:
" 'Upon my word, Emma, to hear you abusing the reason you have, is almost enough to make me think so too. Better be without sense, than misapply it as you do.' "
(I swear that Jane Austen is a man's writer!)
You ask "Exactly how am I ignoring Elizabeth's interest in other men by pointing out that Darcy has every reason to be jealous of Wickham and Colonel Fitzwilliam?" I am very glad you feel that way, but you said nothing of the kind in the post to which I was responding. Let me see, before that first proposal, Elizabeth told Darcy, on different occasions, that he was hateful and that his very character was in question. On another occasion, she attempted to embarrass him in front of his cousin by recounting his faux pas and then treated with him with the greatest contempt by speaking of him in the third person in his presence. You call that "sweetness"? This was the baggage that led Darcy to say, "In vain have I struggled. It will not do. My feelings will not be repressed. ... " Indeed, even I seethe every time I read that conversation of Darcy with Elizabeth seated at the piano with Fitzwilliam. Darcy truly was in love not to walk away from her forever after that. I am grateful to Jane Austen for writing the telling blow for Darcy in that particular battle.
And now a confession: you are right, I reacted too quickly. After rereading your posting, I see something more and something better. But, I did say I am grateful for your insights.
Dear Ashton,
Elizabeth says such things to Darcy with a sweet archness that prevents him from taking offense. You say,
"On another occasion, she attempted to embarrass him in front of his cousin by recounting his faux pas and then treated with him with the greatest contempt by speaking of him in the third person in his presence."
Here, all three are enjoying a witty exchange until Darcy realizes that he is dangerously near being enthralled by Elizabeth. He moves away to return mastery of himself to his superior intellect. In vain.
Dear Ashton, Cheryl, et al.
I am a bit of Johnny-come-lately to this debate, so forgive me if I misinterpret some of your positions.
In Africa, and in aboriginal America, there is a culturally mandated, highly structured relationship that anthropolgists call a "joking relationship." Members of certain clans, or people who have a particular "in-law" relation, are required by custom to insult and revile these particular relatives every time they see them, and the relatives are required by custom to take no offence. The "Joking Relationship" does not occur among close relatives, or between "brother" clans. Instead, it is common between in-laws, or between "brother-clan to your brother clan" clans.
Anthropologists explain this insulting behavior by suggesting that it shows both a closeness, and a distance. That is, the fact that the insulted relative takes no offence demonstrates a certain closeness. We’ve all seen this in American jock and frat-boy culture. The low-status frat brother calls the high status sports star, "You ol’ SOB" or some such. This affirms his closeness to the star, because if some stranger had called the star rude names, the star would pulverize him.
The psychological explanation for such "joking" behavior is that in these particular relationships (in-laws, for example) there is a certain closeness, but also a certain hostility. Both parties have other, still closer relationships which may cause conflict. By expressing hostility in a joking and non-threatening way, this ambivalence is somehow expressed and dissipated.
It seems to me that Darcy and Elizabeth have just such a "joking relationship", and, indeed, that many early courtships begin with such a relationship. All of those Hepburn and Tracey movies that Julie keeps talking about are rife with hostile "jokes".
Elizabeth archly bad mouths Darcy at Rosings, she says,
"You shall hear then -- but prepare yourself for something very dreadful. The first time of my ever seeing him in Hertfordshire, you must know, was at a ball -- and at this ball, what do you think he did? He danced only four dances! I am sorry to pain you -- but so it was. He danced only four dances, though gentlemen were scarce and, to my certain knowledge, more than one young lady was sitting down in want of a partner. Mr. Darcy, you cannot deny the fact."
Now this is classic, almost flirtatious, joking relationship behavior. Darcy need not be an idiot to think Elizabeth is flirting with him. A reasonable interpretation on Darcy’s part is, "This woman can’t stop talking about me. True, she’s not always complimentary, but she obviously thinks about me all the time, and I think her mildly and archly insulting comments are designed to show everyone how close of acquaintances we are, just like the frat boy and the jock. Also, I wonder if she is implying that she would have loved to dance with me herself?"
Indeed, it is almost a cliché in novels and movies to have the romantic lead couple brawl a little before they get married. Sexual tension is exactly that kind of disquieting thing which, like the in-law relationship which, in fact, it leads to, generates both hostility and closeness. Also, a feisty, intelligent pair like Darcy and Elizabeth engage in a bit of flirtatious verbal sparring to test each other’s mettle, much as wolves engage is a bit of mock fighting.
Of course it turns out that Elizabeth was not (consciously, at least) attempting to flirt with Darcy. But for Ashton to claim that Darcy must be obtuse to misinterpret this "joking" behavior as flirtatious is going a bit too far. This kind of teasing is very common in early courtship, and Isabella Thorpe is guilty of it no less than Elizabeth.
From the Meister: The thing I noticed is that neither Darcy nor Elizabeth is African or Native American - much to their disadvantage, I am sure. You are to be congratulated; in the face of a great deal of talented and enthusiastic competition, your Darcy is the biggest dolt of all. Come on Bruce, put yourself in Darcy's place - in Jane Austen's place; can you really maintain this view in either context?
Dear Ashton,
The point of the anthropological lecture is that "formal" joking relationships help us understand informal ones, like that between Darcy and Elizabeth. In modern America and (I assume) in 18th century England, these "joking relationships" indicate both closeness and distance. Austen seems to agree, since we all remember that Elinor Dashwood "agreed with everything (Robert Ferrars) said, because she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition." Darcy was never in any such danger from Elizabeth.
Like others who post here (remember the "sensuality" debate), I think the early scenes between Darcy and Elizabeth are rife with sexual tension. If Darcy senses this as well, why is he a dolt? True, he misinterprets Elizabeth’s conscious intentions and feelings, but he recognizes her deep-seated attraction to him. In a sense, the events that follow prove that Darcy was right about Elizabeth’s attraction, and sensed her feelings for him better than she did.
Dear Bruce,
In England, the joking relationship takes the form of the witty insult, of which this month's surprise, Samuel Johnson, was the acknowledged master.
I see in the novels his effect on Jane Austen. Mr Bennet's flair for the witty insult is deplorable because he uses it against his own family. Mrs Bennet's exercises in this device are failures because she is not witty. In her flirting with Darcy, Elizabeth Bennet uses it pretty well. At Rosings, Darcy breaks off because he feels himself powerfully drawn to Elizabeth.
To All,
Cheryl: quite right, from start to finish.
Christian duty: I don't think it is possible or fair to judge Sir Thomas' actions by today's principles. Before condemning what he did to and for Maria, let us consider what he might have done, and what many other families did do, in the face of a daughter's sexual misconduct: chuck her on to the street to die of the side-effects of prostitution, and/or starvation.
The fact is that Maria would probably have been far more miserable had she been brought back home, where the whole neighbourhood knew her history, and where she would have been a pariah, regardless of how Sir Thomas treated her. Living at a distance, she may at least have had the gift of comparative anonymity.
It was not within Sir Thomas' power to make Maria Rushworth a socially
acceptable article - as a divorced, adulterous woman, her social options were
virtually nil. I'm willing to hope, however, that Mrs Norris dies
reasonably soon, and leaves Maria all her money, with which the younger woman
can then make her own arrangements.
Julie
From the Meister: Your second paragraph on "Christian Duty" is quite good; the third is too exaggerated to be useful; and the first contains very little to recommend it. Women were not treated in the way you suggest in that initial paragraph. Anyone, who has read diaries from the period, including the ones that you have recommended to this board, knows that, while there may be some anecdotes of this nature, this was hardly the rule for English society. As for the elite, say for Lady Hamilton, the wife of the Prince of Wales, Georgiana - Duchess of Devonshire, Lady Elisabeth Forster, Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Shelley, etc., etc., etc., etc., the suggestion is - well - gravely in doubt.
Dear Julie & Ashton,
Ashton: I give up. You remain too attached to your vision of Darcy whom you allow to love, but cannot be allowed to act as a lover might. The fact that the text itself contradicts you on every page matters not. You are a man obsessed. And while I think you've got your head stuck in a bucket, I admire your tenacity. And (dare I confess it?) I admire the way you can be so easily baited by my arsenal of male stereotypes. Your obsession with Bill Gates worries me a little though. You don't own any pipe bomb building materials, do you?
On another subject, I just saw Magnolia which is written and directed by the same man who did Boogie Nights. (Anderson, I think the name is.) It's an interesting experiment in filmmaking ... I see why it was such a darling of the critics. (Unlike American Beauty, which I think critics like simply because it validated their own pointless screwing around and drug use.) It contains at least two thirds of the "Boogie Nights" cast, including your favorite, Julianne Moore, playing, just for a change, a drug addled loser. It didn't make me like Tom Cruise any better, but I will admit that his willingness to take on such a shitty human being for a character shows at least a desire to learn how to act.
Julie: Thank you for your support. Do you have any drugs that
might help Ashton with his Obsessive/Compulsive Disorder? You're quite
right about Sir Thomas as well. Christianity wasn't about "forgiveness" in Sir
Thomas' day, it was about toeing the line and sparing the rod. Maria made her
own choices, (women ARE capable of making conscious decisions) and now she has
to live with the consequences. Ain't life tough?
Cheryl
From the Meister: There is no reply to this kind
of
attack; the debate is over and you have won.
Dear Julie,
Not having read Cheryl's post (a deficiency soon to be remedied), I rush into cyberspace in real imaginary space-time (a term to be explained at another time). As a gentleman it is my duty to defend the honour of your posting, which I wear like the colours flying from my lance.
I have searched a little to detect even one word out of place in your latest discussion of Mansfield Park. Finding none, I conclude that my mind is firmly allied to the Antipodean. If a Tasmanian devil be loose in California, my mirror detects none here.
I had not only great pleasure in reading your post (as I do in reading the Meister's own sometimes wayward posts) but also a total, nothing-held-back concurrence.
Dear John,
I challenged Julie's statement, " ... what many other families did do, in the face of a daughter's sexual misconduct: chuck her on to the street to die of the side effects of prostitution, and/or starvation." You rushed to our friend's defense and so I assume you are about justify this statement. I don't think you can, but go ahead - prove me wrong - lotsa luck! Just to show what a difficult task you have taken on, I listed a number of women who enjoyed sexual misconduct without the penalties of starvation or prostitution - not in the least.
This statement lies at the heart of Julie's, Cheryl's, and your interpretation of the novels - what I call the "orthodox interpretation". It is based upon a false and self-serving sense of the role of women in Jane Austen's day; it is this false sense of history that drives Emma Thompson and Patricia Rozema to rewrite the original and incompatible versions of the novels. And, of course, it requires that Darcy be a prig and that he must undergo changes in order to be worthy of the Woman. Elizabeth Bennet said that Darcy had not changed and that he had always been the best man she ever knew, she just hadn't known it before the first proposal. Ahh, but then, it does me no good to quote Elizabeth Bennet because I will then be accused of not paying attention to what Jane Austen said and to bend everything to fit my own personal view - how ironic.
Dear Ashton,
What Julie said was that Sir Thomas did not do "what many other families did do." She did not say that every family acted in the same way. Your list of women does not in the slightest represent the main stream. Do a standard deviation analysis of the main stream with these deviations and you will see that the deviations make a statistically insignificant effect upon even the arithmetical average. As Anne Elliot might say, I will accept no proofs from the fact of deviation.
Like you and Elizabeth Bennet, I do not think that there is change in Darcy in the course of the novel. All that happens is that he comes to see that Elizabeth wants to marry where she is in love. She does not wish to be a mere possession. This desire in itself is supported by her father, who had been afraid of what she might do in a match where only her husband loved.
Darcy has always been the best man that Elizabeth ever knew, but her wounded vanity and increasing prejudice hid the fact from her.
Weep ye no said fountains for me, Ashton. I permit myself the useful pleasure of gaining my personal view by consciously looking through Jane Austen's eyes.
Dear John,
I'll have to forward to you a kerchief (a tissue wouldn't be the same, would it?), that you may tie it to your helm, when jousting in my defence. You'll know, however, if the Antipodean influence should become disproportionate: people will start looking at you and asking about your funny accent ...
When I was studying Jane Austen at school, many critics took issue with her 'presence' in her novels: Jane Austen never leaves her readers in doubt as to how she feels about her creations, and their ac4tio115 (sorry, kitten on the keyboard) actions. I, for one, love meeting Jane Austen in her novels I love seeing 'through her eyes', as you say. Her great gift for painting accurate miniatures with so few words, ('Mary wished to say something very sensible, but knew not how ...') is to me a joy, always, as his her gift for character analysis, similarly brief, and wonderfully accurate.
If this is orthordox, I have no problem in being so, though it's not an
adjective that generally attaches to me. However, I have difficulty
agreeing with 'unorthordox' views (though, three cheers for those who have
them), because, to me, Jane Austen's own interpretations and opinions of her
characters are so clearly stated.
Julie
From the Meister: Yes, absolutely, there
is no
excuse for mistaking her meanings.
Dear Laurie,
A newspaper item states that Harry Potter IV (title unrevealed) has a UK first edition first printing of 1.5 million copies. Perhaps a record for a workof fiction.
Canada has a 200,000 printing in Vancouver. These two editions will come on the same day early in July. Eager denizens of all other countries will have to wait.
I think that the UK and Canadian border guard should be alerted to the certainty of a mass influx of Harry Potter addicts impatient to get their hands on this now 14-year-old boy who discovers that girls are interesting--and other matters, too.
Links