The Voices of Men in Praise of Jane Austen
Messages on the Bulletin Board - c. July 1, 2000

Reference: 7/1/00

Dear Meister,

Apparently you don't agree with me concerning Sylvestra Le Touzel's performance in Mansfield Park. I do not see what the problem is. She did not play Fanny as a weak sister. She portrayed Fanny as written in the book: socially awkward and exhibiting her strength through her unwillingness to violate her convictions for the entertainment of others.

As far as Miss Le Touzel's appearance, let it be said that her look is old-fashioned. She reminded me of old Coca-Cola ads from the turn of the century or silent screen actresses.

Remember, Sir Thomas said that Fanny had grown pretty. Not that she had become beautiful. Who do you want to play Fanny? Catherine Zeta-Jones? Tastes in beauty change and I think that Miss Le Touzel is closer to what Our Dear Jane conceived of as pretty than does Elizabeth Hurley.

Dear Dave,

To be perfectly truthful, I think Ms Le Touzel to be a poor actress, and, sad to say, I find her unattractive. However, in case that someone, someday might ask me to cast a production of Mansfield Park, I, long ago, prepared a list of candidates for the role of Fanny Price. (For some reason, the powers turned to Patricia Rozema for casting instead - a blunder!)

My first choice is a perfect choice and that would be Samantha Morton, who played Harriet Smith in the Kate Beckinsale version of Emma (BBC, A&E). Ms Morton would have been absolutely perfect physically and she is an excellent actress. She was the perfect Maria Western in Tom Jones (BBC, A&E) and she was an excellent Jane Eyre (BBC, A&E). In addition, if you have the stomach for post-modern, she has appeared in a number of avant garde films and has been perfect there as well. This is still another wonderful English actress.

My second choice is another cast member from the Beckinsale Emma; that would be Olivia Williams who played Jane Fairfax so brilliantly. In fact, in my mind, Jane Fairfax and Fanny Price are very similar in appearance and situation, if very different in personality.

Incidentally, what would you say to Kate Beckinsale or Jennifer Ehle as Mary Crawford?

I watch anything with Ms Zeta-Jones and nothing with Elizabeth Hurley; however, in the case of Ms Zeta-Jones, I mute the sound.

Dear Ashton,

Slyvestra Le Touzel must be doing something right because she manages to keep busy as an actress on the London stage and British television. But, as Schopenheur is supposed to have said, "Tastes differ."

Your line up for actresses to play Fanny has one problem: they are all too old. Fanny's supposed to be 18/19. Since I don't see much television and never go to the movies I don't know who's out there. The only names that come to mind are Leelee Sobianski and Natalie Portman, but I really don't think they can swing it.

As far as Elizabeth Hurley is concerned, she once said that if she were as fat as Marilyn Monroe was, she'd kill herself. I'll have to ask Hugh Grant what it's like to lie on top of a bicycle.

From the Meister: I wish Slyvestra Le Touzel well, and you are right - I have noticed her a number of times. However, I must remind you that Kenneth Branagh gets a lot of work too, so this must be a compliment of limited value.

Dear Folks,

I am going to take a lot of flak over this one.

Two of the most lovable characters in Pride and Prejudice are Aunt and Uncle Gardiner. They are wise and pragmatic, and they love their niece, Elizabeth Bennet, every bit as much as we do ourselves. So, when Elizabeth explained to them that Darcy was an evil dork, then "evil dork" it was - little doubt - I mean no doubt. However, this mature couple is alert and wise; so, when Darcy's housekeeper described the master as amongst the best of men, the Gardiners noticed and were puzzled. After Aunt Gardiner actually met Darcy, she declared that he didn't seem an evil dork - maybe just a dork. The Gardiners are too intelligent to jump back and forth among the conclusions, so they reserved final judgment until such time as they had seen more of him. They then noticed everything, they understood everything, and they were delighted and amazed with Darcy and with Elizabeth. - Sweet, wise, discreet, teasing Gardiners!

I want to discuss part of a letter that Aunt Gardiner wrote to Elizabeth. The aunt was responding to Elizabeth's request for some explanation of Lydia's nearly incredible information that Darcy had attended her wedding. Mrs Gardiner informed her beloved niece that Darcy, in fact, had done everything that was needed to bring the marriage about. The part I want to focus on is where the aunt describes Darcy's explanation of why he was doing all that.

" ' ... The motive professed was his conviction of its being owing to himself that Wickham's worthlessness had not been so well known, as to make it impossible for any young woman of character to love or confide in him. He generously imputed the whole to his mistaken pride, and confessed that he had before thought it beneath him to lay his private actions open to the world. ... He called it, therefore, his duty to step forward, and endeavor to remedy an evil, which had been brought on by himself. ... ' "

Poor Darcy! The Gardiners were bound to ask him what in hell he thought he was doing and this was the answer he came up with - I get ahead of myself. Anyway the explanation seemed to fit the way Elizabeth needed to think of the world; I say that because she thought this, while reading the aunt's letter.

" ... But [Darcy] had given a reason for his interference, which asked no extraordinary stretch of belief. ..."

I don't agree. Elizabeth seems to get closer to the truth with her next thought.

" ... though she would not place herself as his principal inducement, she could, perhaps, believe, that remaining partiality for her might assist his endeavors in a cause where her peace of mind might be concerned. ..."

Yeah, especially since Darcy had actually witnessed how the news of the elopement had turned her into a weeping mess. Well, Elizabeth is smart but young, and in a such a state that too much understanding might have set her up for a bad fall. The Gardiners were just as wise but far more experienced; Mrs Gardiner had said this in her letter.

" ... The reason why all this was to be done by [Darcy] alone, was such as I have given above. It was owing to him, to his reserve, and want of proper consideration, that Wickham's character had been so misunderstood, and, consequently, that he had been received and noticed as he was. Perhaps there is truth in this; though I doubt whether his reserve, or anybody's reserve, can be answerable for the event. But in spite of all this fine talking, my dear Lizzy, you may rest perfectly assured, that your uncle would not have yielded, if we had not given him credit for another interest in the affair. ..."

"Perhaps"? "Perhaps there is truth in this ... "? - and, " ... in spite of all this fine talking ... "? - Whoa! Aunt Gardiner sure knew how to read a Jane Austen novel! Think about Darcy's position; the only time that he and Elizabeth had talked of his love and hopes, she let him know she thought him an evil dork. Later, things had seemed different at Pemberley, but they had had no opportunity for new declarations at that time. That simple fact greatly limited what he could say to the Gardiners; but, not to worry, the Gardiners knew what was going on.

Dear Ash,

I read those passages about Aunt and Uncle Gardiner as you do.  If there is some other meaning it will have to be shown to me.

Dear Ashton, Cheryl, John et al,

I agree with Cheryl.  If there’s one thing a married woman SHOULD NOT SEEK, it’s sexual gratification.  Leave that kind of thing to the cheap, single floosies.

Actually, you make some good points, and, although I still think Lydia and Maria are alike in some ways, I admit there are many differences.  No doubt, however, Lydia and Maria are both blameworthy because they bring embarrassment and shame on their families, as John points out. Of course this supports my contention that it is those very families who should forgive them, as the sin is, in part at least, against them.

Reference: 7/1/00

Dear Bruce,

I don't know what you mean:

"No doubt, however, Lydia and Maria are both blameworthy because they bring embarrassment and shame on their families, as John points out. Of course this supports my contention that it is those very families who should forgive them, as the sin is, in part at least, against them."

Their families do forgive both Lydia and Maria. I think that you are whipping a dead horse.

You seem to take shame lightly. Many people have committed suicide as a result of shame.

Dear John et al.,

John says to me, "You seem to take shame lightly.  Many people have committed suicide as a result of shame." (quoting form memory)

I assume, however, that neither the Bennets nor the Bertrams want their daughters to commit suicide.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Sir Thomas certainly puts Maria in a situation which could lead ANYONE to search for a bare bodkin (if he knew what it was).

Dear Janeites,

I beg to differ on this discussion concerning the resemblance between Lydia Bennett and Maria Bertram-Rushworth. They are as different as night and day.

The character in Mansfield Park that most resembles Lydia Bennet is Mrs. Price, Fanny's mother. Mrs. Price is the middle-aged Lydia burdened by a rounder husband and life's circumstances. When I read the first description of Mrs. Price in MP, I immediately thought of Lydia Bennet. They are both described as being pretty, not overly bright and having a taste for uniforms. They are basically silly, empty-headed party girls of the type all too often seen around naval bases.

Maria Bertram is another kettle of fish altogether.

But, of course, I could be wrong.

From the Meister: As I read the board, half of
us agree with you and the other half does not.

Reference: 7/2/00

Dear Dave,

Half of me disagrees with you but the other half does not know what you mean. I have seen night and I have seen day.

Mrs Price, Lydia, and Maria share this deplorable trait in common: they care nothing for their families in the face of selfish goals. This is Austen's point. Jane does not say that this destructive characteristic is limited to a wildly gay, intelligent, or very pretty woman. It is a universal in the sense that it might be found in any family.

Reference: 7/1/00

Dear Voices,

Here is something on Derrida:

"What Derrida does is to look at how a binary opposition--the fundamental unit of the structures or systems we've been looking at, and of the philosophical systems he refers to--functions within a system. He points out that a binary opposition is algebraic (a=~b, a equals not-b), and that two terms can't exist without reference to the other--light (as presence) is defined as the absence of darkness, goodness the absence of evil, etc. He doesn't seek to reverse the hierarchies implied in binary pairs--to make evil favored over good, unconscious over consciousness, feminine over masculine. Rather, deconstruction wants to erase the boundaries (the slash) between oppositions, hence to show that the values and order implied by the opposition are also not rigid."

Light is not the absence of darkness: it is the set of electromagnetic radiation. There is no place in the universe without light, just places where there is more or less light. Darkness may mean less of certain radiation, but it is not a thing. Light is a thing. Goodness is not the absence of evil. It may well be that these concepts depend on each in the human mind for their distinction, but acts or thoughts that are good could exist without evil-- we just could not call them good because the concept could not exist. Time does not exist; time is a pure human invention arising from the observed motions of things. Mixing apples and oranges is pointless--except in salads.

I agree with the forces against Derrida and company.

Dear John,

Thank you for your thoughtful and interesting posting. I sense that you and I share a revulsion with this modern (post-modern?) fascination with relativism. This has always struck me as more like cowardice or rationalization than sagacity. As C.S. Lewis points out, there is precious little relativism in Jane Austen's novels, so this seems a fair topic for our community. Unhappily, I will not be able to contribute as much as, say, yourself and Dave. My guess is that our social scientist, Bruce, will be able to provide the other view. Yes, I should think an anthropologist has much to say on this. - Actually, as I think about it, it seems that Bruce may have already begun his defense.

What do you think of this? I say the Ten Commandments define evil without any reference to good and the last five Beatitudes define good without any reference to evil; I am on unfamiliar ground here.

I will take exception to your comment that time is not a thing and I will also acknowledge one theory of relativity. Certainly, the concept of an "event horizon" in physics seems to tie space to time in an irrevocable way. I mean if space is a "thing", time must be as well. I am not a physicist, but I believe that Einstein posited that the space-time continuum is a real thing and not just a mathematical construct. I could be wrong. I also, after a great struggle, have come to surrender to the notion that there can be no absolute framework for the measurement of motion in our universe, and that the concept of simultaneous events is an illusion (perhaps "approximation" is a better word). So, I can accept some theories of relativity, but perhaps I am, here, too far astray from the central topic for our community.

Dear Ashton, John et al,

Cultural relativism is, of course, all the rage in anthropology.  When I taught Introduction to Anthropology courses, on the first day, I would describe some horribly evil custom (like the suttee) and ask the class what they thought of it.  Inevitably, some yahoo would say, "I don’t think we can really judge the customs of another culture."  Of course, the only reason the student would say that was that they expected it to be the answer I was seeking.  They were wrong.

I agree with Ashton that the Ten Commandments define evil without reference to good, as in #2: "the Lord thy God is a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation ... "   What could be more evil than that?

I think John is over simplifying Derrida.  The structuralists whom Derrida deconstructs don’t think that darkness is the absence of light, they think that we humans THINK of darkness as the absence of light.  It seems to me that John is AGREEING with Derrida when he says, "It may well be that these concepts depend on each in the human mind for their distinction, but acts or thoughts that are good could exist without evil."  Isn’t this the same thing as "deconstruction wants to erase the boundaries (the slash) between oppositions, hence to show that the values and order implied by the opposition are also not rigid."?

I admit that I've never read Derrida, and the above opinion is simply based on John's post.

Dear Ashton,

I take the Ten Commandments to be absolutes. They are the referents for all human action. They just are.

I must say that your invitation (royal command performance?) to comment final five Beatitudes is very nearly compelling. Still, I think I see in the way you couch the invitation that what you truly require is the comment of an Episcopalian. Consequently, I defer to Dave. Besides, what do I know well enough about the Beatitudes to put into real joined-up writing until I have seen my written word and heard my oral one on the subject. First, I say yes and then I say wait, wait. I'm not ducking, just pondering. Refresh my memory: list the final five. No, I must be candid: I just want to read Dave, Bruce, Ray, Michael, Cheryl, Heather, Laurie, Linda, Hollis, and, definitely Julie on the matter. And how fine it would be if people yet unnamed rose to the challenge of not being nameless and enriched our lives.

I believe that you said something like this, also:

I will take exception to your comment that time is not a thing and I will also acknowledge one theory of relativity. Certainly, the concept of an "event horizon" in physics seems to tie space to time in an irrevocable way. I mean if space is a "thing", time must be as well.

Whoever said that space is a thing? Such words do not find genesis in me. No sirree! Space and time are useful inventions, but they are not concrete things. I have no reason to question that you and Julie are in the absolute epicentre of the universe, along with everything else and everyone else.

Now, let's hear from Dave and _____ and _____ and ____, etc., etc.

Dear Ashton,

I take it that you mean the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount?.

I have quoted a little fully because of what I think is Jane Austen's use of the Beatitudes in MP. All eight of the Beatitudes are expressed in the person and life of Fanny Price. And I think that Mansfield Park is not just about the ordination of the ideal clergyman but it is also the sermon that he ought to be preaching every Sunday in some form or other and in relation to the entire Bible.

I wait for Dave, but this to me is MP.

Beatitudes

Beatitudes, (Latin beatitudo,"blessedness"), in the Bible, expressions of praise for those who are considered exemplars of piety and who may consequently expect a reward from God. A beatitude is pronounced on the righteous person who may confidently anticipate earthly rewards such as peace, material prosperity, and the enjoyment of family (Psalm 41:1-3  65:4  112:1-4 128:1-3  Proverbs 8:32). According to the Old Testament, the benefits of divine favor are to be enjoyed in the material world.

In their formal structure, the New Testament beatitudes recall the Hebrew examples, but they differ in one important respect: In place of earthly rewards, the beatitudes of the New Testament emphasize rewards that will be realized only in the eschatological future.

This aspect is evident even in the beatitudes that are most closely related to those in the Hebrew Bible (Romans 4:7-8 and Psalm 32:1-2 James 1:25 and Psalm 1:1). It is particularly apparent in the Sermon on the Mount and in Revelation.

As a result of their eschatological orientation, the New Testament beatitudes contain an element of paradox: It is precisely those who appear least fortunate--the martyrs, the poor, and the destitute--who are declared blessed. The most familiar examples occur in the Sermon on the Mount by Jesus Christ. Eight promises are recorded in Matthew 5:3-11  The eight beatitudes in Matthew are:

And now, may I have a cookie?

From the Meister: WHOA! you are dead center with this one;
Fanny Price is defined by the Beatitudes. And now, she is being
crucified on the internet. How very interesting - actually, you
earned the entire bakery with this one.

Dear Ashton, John, et al,

Ashton thinks Miss Price "is defined by the beatitudes", and certainly there is more than a grain of truth in his contention.  My own religious education is sorely lacking, so I have no idea what some of the beatititudes mean.  However, here’s my analysis of Ms. Price and her relation to them.

To All,

The character most like Maria, I think, is Elizabeth Eliot. Elizabeth is older and more worldly than Maria, of course, and is not repressed at home by her father (unfortunately), but the characters are alike in their arrogance and vanity:  and in the fact that they both miss the point, entirely, in their relations with the men they do care about.  We know of Maria's mortification upon hearing that Mr Crawford preferred her insignificant cousin: while not wishing Anne Eliot to marry Mr William Eliot, I would still give something to have Elizabeth know that he wanted to marry her sister!

The attitudes of both women remind me of a line from Working Girl when Sigourney Weaver, discussing the likelihood of being proposed to by Harrison Ford, comments, 'I am, after all, me.'

Both women are duped by their own vanity: while onlookers can see the manipulations in progress, the girls themselves cannot believe that these two men could NOT be in love with them.
Julie

Dear Voices,

Perhaps there are some similarites between Maria Bertram-Rushworth and Lydia Bennet after all, most notably that they both seem to be trying to escape from their families.  Also, they both seem to be ill-used by the men who eventually cause their downfalls.  Henry abandons Maria as soon as the scandal is uncovered, and Wickham must be bribed to marry Lydia after their elopement.  Both men use the women for sex and then abandon them when the going gets rough. Wickham may have married Lydia, but they ended up hating each other and things were actually made worse.  There were certainly differences in the ways that Maria and Lydia got involved in these situations, though.  Lydia was much more innocent than Maria, who began the affair with Henry with her eyes wide open to the possible consequences.

Bruce: "Is there neither good nor bad but that thinking makes it so?" You've answered that question. Derrida must be proud.

Meister: Mein herr, I'm afraid that I must disagree with you regarding the performances in the BBC Mansfield Park. I thought that, while Anna Massey did a good job, the best performance was by Sylvestra Le Touzel, who played Fanny. She had a thankless role and managed to portray a young woman who is shy, socially awkward and yet with an interior life that is revealed in non-verbal ways. Her role is the most subdued of the main characters, and yet Miss Le Touzel make Fanny the most interesting character.

From the Meister: You are extremely generous!
I actually see Fanny as a basically strong woman
in the weakest of all possible positions. I also
think her to be beautiful - not robust, but pretty.

Links

Back to the Bulletin Board

Table of Contents

Index & Archive

References & Links

The Male-Voices Home Page