9-11
The Voices of Men in Praise
Of Jane Austen
Messages c.
February 9, 2002
9-11
Reference: 2/7/02
Dear Meister,
Since Austen was one of the first writers to mention baseball (in the opening of Northanger Abbey), we can divert our February attention briefly to the hot stove league.
Best Baseball fiction: Alibi Ike (Lardner), You Could Look it Up(?) (Thurber), and The Great American Novel.
Best Baseball non-fiction: The Glory of their Times (Ritter), The MacMillan Baseball Encyclopedia, The Historical Baseball Abstract (James).
Best pre integration player: Ruth (boring, I know)
Best post-integration: Tie - Mays, Mantle, Bonds. Koufax and Gibson were great, but they didn't play every day. Koufax really only had four great years. Gibson didn't even approach 300 lifetime wins. Bonds is a four time MVP, and had the statistically greatest single season in the history of baseball - the knock against him is that he has never performed well in the post-season. Mantle is the best World Series performer of my lifetime (although I wasn't born yet when he was a rookie). Mays splits the difference.
Dear Bruce,
O.K., so here is the passage that Bruce is talking about. This is from Chapter 1.
"Mrs. Morland was a very good woman, and wished to see her children everything they ought to be; but her time was so much occupied in lying-in and teaching the little ones, that her elder daughters were inevitably left to shift for themselves; and it was not very wonderful that Catherine, who had by nature nothing heroic about her, should prefer cricket, base ball, riding on horseback, and running about the country at the age of fourteen, to books -- or at least books of information -- for, provided that nothing like useful knowledge could be gained from them, provided they were all story and no reflection, she had never any objection to books at all. ..."
But, is that what Americans call baseball? Who cares? (Incidentally, I may have known Catherine Morland.)
Baseball has its eccentricities. One is that position players - guys who play every day rarely win a game single-handed, but pitchers often do. You can watch the best center fielder who ever played the game for ten games in a row and not see him do anything important. Every pitcher plays an important role every day he works. It's a pitchers' game. Koufax and Gibson were way dominant - I would sometimes get frightened just watching Gibson pitch; he was a mean sucker. Neither of them were cheaters - no spit balls there - and both were at their best in the big games. (For me, to not play well in post season is the fatal flaw - the death penalty.) Finally, but equally importantly, both men made the players around them better.
My favorite player? Well, that is another matter. That would be Mantle - easy! That film 61* did nothing to diminish my admiration, on the contrary. The film did help me to better appreciate Maris. I was raised in one of the northern coastal valleys of California where the dominant ethnicity is southern European - most often, Italian. I was taught to play by an Italian-American coach. Mantle broke in before the west coast had any teams, so people in areas like that were usually Yankee fans because of the Joe DiMaggio connection. I remember the day that Joe retired - it was a shock you wouldn't believe. After that, we were all interested in Mantle because he replaced the great man, we followed Mantle everyday in the papers, and were stunned when he was sent down to the minors in the middle of his first season as a starter. That was the second shock; but then, as you well know, things changed dramatically.
Dear Ashton,
I'm the anonymous that posted the Comedy or Tragedy subject. I have been re-reading some of your comments and analysis on Miss Austen, her work, and the development of her characters. I tend to agree with several of your points, but I would like, if I may, to make an observation and I would appreciate if you could answer a question.
You more than once refer to Jane Austen's "modern reader" - in all fairness, your generalization is not complete, you refer to the majority of the modern readers, if I'm not mistaken. I believe I am able to grasp the concept that you are trying to convey yet, it disturbs me. I am an adult, whose child is already an adult (time flies ...). I have the arrogance of believing I have lived in this world long enough to draw the distinction between what Jane Austen wrote and how her work is portrayed here or there. Still, I remember, as if it was yesterday, the first time I read Jane Austen. I was in my single digits years (I remember it so well because I escaped my mother, who needed me for some chore, and locked myself in the bathroom until I finished the book. I recall reading the book, in the bathroom; but not the punishment, which, I'm sure I must have received).
Since then, I have read and re-read some of my favorite works by Miss Austen several times, in several languages (which is an interesting experience in itself). Her depth, in my personal experience, changed as time passed ... wisdom does not, and cannot, come cheap. It takes the precious consideration of living for one to start realizing that one does not have it ...
Perhaps, what you characterize as the "modern reader" is just the reflection of an age group.
If not, what, in your opinion, intrinsically changed in the reader that distinguishes it from the non-modern one?
Dear anonymous,
Your question is causing me to re-evaluate. I don't yet know where this will end up.
I do over-generalize and, as you say, there is a question of the maturity of the reader that is a factor regardless of the era. In the past, my target has always been what I have called "the modern orthodoxy". In particular, I am thinking about the views one hears commonly expressed about Jane Austen's intent. I believe her intent is being distorted if not perverted by these influences. I mean, I think that even I can do a better job of reading Jane Austen than this.
I had been told Pride and Prejudice was a story of a wonderful, brave young woman who reformed this really snobbish guy and made him a half-way decent prospect for marriage. Decades later, I took out the novel and found something different and something much better. In that particular novel, my divergence from the orthodox view begins at the first assembly when Darcy has the conversation with Bingley that sinks him in Elizabeth's eyes. I see Darcy's first remarks as a kaleidoscope as I have said. (A fascinating thing here is that Darcy's crucial second sentence is left out of P&P-95 - and all other filmed productions as well!)
Also, I could focus on what Bingley and Darcy are about at that moment; it occurred to me that only someone familiar with the way men converse could have written those passages. That notion was what first made me sympathetic to Jane Austen. Also, I was not insensitive to the great art on display in these passages. I then discovered that, indeed, men had liked her novels from the very beginning; it is only relatively recently that Jane Austen has seemed a "woman's" writer. These basic ideas grew and evolved into the present web site. But perhaps I have set up a straw man - this "orthodox view" or "modern reader" I go on about. Perhaps I am paranoid about the anti-male messages so prevalent in today's culture. It may merely be a question of maturity to see only Elizabeth's side when a reader is young, and then both sides as he matures. What do you think?
One of the things I like about your view is that you see that Jane Austen takes care with the underlying psychology and emotions of her characters. You say, "Every human being is multi-dimensioned, every single one of us acts based in emotion and reason (in my personal observation, based more in emotion than in reason). ... Darcy is the one who cannot, despite his rational objections, repress his feelings, thus in the crucial essence of the drama, he acts based on emotion. He succumbs to love, in spite of his reason - doesn't the audience get a feeling of the strength of his emotion because of that? doesn't the audience know how difficult that really is? ..." Well, yes, absolutely.
To that I would add something else, the observation that the world is slightly irrational and mistake prone. - Our Lady says it this way in Emma:
"Seldom, very seldom, does complete truth belong to any human disclosure; seldom can it happen that something is not a little disguised, or a little mistaken."
That is one of her golden rules and, I suspect it is what makes her writing so plausible. Along these lines, let me recommend a book to you: Mary Waldron Jane Austen and the Fiction of her Time, (1999). I recommend it to you because I think you will like it. To me, Waldron's seems compatible with your views and with mine.
Dear Linda,
Hi Linda - did you have a good trip? I tried to send you a message before you left to read "Scarlett Feather" by Maeve Binchy (for your travel time) but something happened to the posts during that period. Anyway, I have to say I like Mark Strong and Jeremy Northam. Maybe John Carson was in his 40's so he was too old technically for Emma, but I think he looked and acted Knightley-ish in many ways. Of course this BBC version was understated as to the passionate side. I think Northam and Strong were made to look younger than they were, just as Julia Sawalha posed as a teenager in P&P95, according to M.A.D., at the age of 27!
I also had a problem choosing Miss Bates, because all of them were so good, although Sophie Thompson was too young and did make more of a caricature than a character. The Mrs. Eltons were very hard to pick from too. Luckily, Ashton encourages us to vote as many times as we want to! I am re-reading Emma also, and wish I could have done this while viewing all the filmed Emmas, but somehow that didn't fit my schedule!
Dear Ashton,
It would seem that the two Mr. Knightleys who actually were the correct age were made up to look younger (maybe to romanticize the films for audience appeal, especially Emma 96). Maybe John Carson was technically "too old", but I think BBC director knew what he/she was doing to cast him, because he actually acted like a grown up. But what an amazing job was done with Julia Sawalha. I couldn't believe how much older she was than she looked - I of course knew she wasn't 16, but she was older than Jennifer Ehle, and probably a number of the other cast members. To look at the Emma ballotting, most voters go for the "cotton candy", ie Paltrow, version. Too bad Timothy Peters, Constance Chapman and Ania Marson are so slighted. If Jane Austen were voting, I wonder ... whom SHE would have picked???
Are you quite convinced that Jane Austen was really Darcy in disguise???? I wonder if she isn't a combination of all of them, with a strong streak of Mr. Bennet? Anyway, it is very intriguing!
Dear Bree,
I just realized why you and I don't see eye to eye on this age thing: to me, a man Knightley's age is a still a very young man. And yet, as you may remember, I correctly guessed the ages of the actors before we looked them up.
I am, indeed quite convinced that Jane Austen was very much like Darcy in character and personality. But, I pulled together all those contemporary accounts of our Lady in order to convince you. Did I have any luck? I always say that Darcy is the person who Jane Austen was and Elizabeth is who our Lady would have preferred to be. I also think that Elizabeth was like Darcy in many ways, but enough different to be exactly the woman that Darcy would have loved so deeply. I don't much care for Mr. Bennet. Darcy hints in his letter that he doesn't much care for him either. Also, Elizabeth has that sudden realization that her father was not the best of husbands or fathers. Jane Austen might have been critical and teasing, but I doubt that she was ever snotty.
Dear Ashton,
Are you not being a little severe on the character of Mr. Bennet? Anyway JA had such a good insight into all her characters that I felt she must have identified in some small way with each. However, Mr. Bennet was very often found in the role of observer, rather than participant, in the action. Rather like an author. Also, he had a fondness for books and privacy, reverence for good sense, dry wit and the perception to appreciate his two oldest daughters (principally Elizabeth). While it is true he was too passive in providing for and disciplining his daughters, we all have our faults! He suffered long for having been attracted to Mrs. Bennet!
Anyway, I know which character I am - Miss Bates!!!!!
... to Mr. Bennet. This character is popular with readers and I never know why; I find him insufferable. He insults his wife in front of his children and his children in public. Darcy said this in his letter to Elizabeth:
"... My objections to the marriage [of Bingley and your sister] were not merely those which I last night acknowledged to have required the utmost force of passion to put aside, in my own case; the want of connection could not be so great an evil to my friend as to me. But there were other causes of repugnance;- causes which, though still existing, and existing to an equal degree in both instances, I had myself endeavored to forget, because they were not immediately before me. These causes must be stated, though briefly. The situation of your mother's family, though objectionable, was nothing in comparison of that total want of propriety so frequently, so almost uniformly betrayed by herself, by your three younger sisters, and occasionally even by your father. Pardon me. It pains me to offend you. ... I will only say farther that from what passed [at the Netherfield ball], my opinion of all parties was confirmed, and every inducement heightened which could have led me before to preserve my friend from what I esteemed a most unhappy connection. ..."
Later, Elizabeth is listening to her family and she muses,
"... Such were the lamentations resounding through Longborne House. Elizabeth tried to be diverted by them; but all sense of pleasure was lost in shame. She felt anew the justice of Mr Darcy's objections; and never had she before been so disposed to pardon his interference in the views of his friend. ..."
And still later,
"Elizabeth, however, had never been blind to the impropriety of her father's behaviour as a husband. She had always seen it with pain; but respecting his abilities, and grateful for his affectionate treatment of herself, she endeavoured to forget what she could not overlook, and to banish from her thoughts that continual breach of conjugal obligation and decorum which, in exposing his wife to the contempt of her own children, was so highly reprehensible. But she had never felt so strongly as now, the disadvantages which must attend the children of so unsuitable a marriage, nor even been so fully aware of the evils arising from so ill judged a direction of talents; talents which, rightly used, might have preserved the respectability of his daughters, even if incapable of enlarging the mind of his wife."
Now, that is what I call, "being severe on Mr. Bennet." Bennet is lazy, so he likes the family members that can care for themselves and reflect well on him, while he is irritated by those that need his guidance.
I am the male counterpart of Fanny Price.
Dear FAshton (FannyAshton),
You do make some good points regarding Mr. Bennet, but as you yourself admit, you PRIDE yourself on being PREJUDICED against him in the first place. Being American, I get off on British dry humor, and of course the 1985 and 1995 films were kind to Mr. Bennet in the acting of Moray Watson and Ben Whitrow. It is most interesting you identify with Fanny Price. She is just about my favorite JA heroine, besides Anne Elliot. For some reason, she is captivating. I am really hoping that a version of Mansfield Park will someday be made which will do her justice. (Actually, Sylvestra Le Touzel wasn't too bad.)
Henry and Mary Crawford were also insufferable! Henry turned my stomach.
I have seldom found any JA character insufferable, except perhaps for Lady Russell and Elizabeth Elliot. Oh yes, also the cousin, Mr. Elliot. But most of the villains have some comic saving grace, even Mrs. Norris. But there I go, rambling on again, like Miss Bates. If you have read this far, you are so very obliging! Capital, capital!
Dear Miss Breets,
Whoa! You and I see eye to eye on Mansfield Park. I hope you know that it is you, Linda, and I against the world. (Actually, that seems fair.) Brace yourself, I feel an assault coming on us from the Fanny-Price ogre of the Northwest.
My favorite heroines are Elizabeth Bennet and Anne Elliot - in that order. I also like Catherine Morland because I played with her as a child.
I keep meaning to react to your assessment of Alison Steadman as Mrs. Bennet in P&P-95. Basically, I agree with you - less might have been more there. Perhaps we should blame the director. I have a lot more to say. First of all, Steadman was playing as much against type as was Julia Sawalha (Steadman usually plays a street-wise, working-class character.) Both casting decisions were brilliant. Let me explain. Steadman (or her director) understood that it was Mrs. Bennet that drives the action in Pride and Prejudice. She is not getting any younger, her husband is not getting any younger, and her daughters are not getting any younger and have not been adequately provided for. Her lazy husband hides in his library and does nothing but sneer at her efforts to keep her daughters noticed in society. She is carrying the entire burden and she lacks the grace and education to do it well. But, she will do it. The sad thing is that she drives Lydia into the arms of a worthless husband and causes her two older daughters to react by showing far less interest in marriage than is usual and far less, even, than they feel. Still, she is trying to do the right thing. - More for her, says I. So, Steadman has the right slant but she may have overdone it - or not - remember, Mrs. Bennet is the person who makes the family appear mercenary in the eyes of society and to Darcy in particular.
Jane Austen did this sort of thing a great deal; I mean she purposely made foolish characters in the right and attractive characters basically wrong. If you go back over the things that Mary Bennet or Miss Bates say, you will find that they say many wise and prophetic things. On the other hand, Mr. Bennet and the Crawfords, for example, are never right about anything.
Think about this - think about Mr. Collins. Lady Catherine tells him he must marry so he dutifully tries to do just that. His first choice is to marry one of the Bennet sisters even though he has never seen them and - this is important - even though they are essentially penniless. Unlike the wiser and more intelligent Mr. Elton, Collins does not set out to find a woman with the larger fortune that he could expect given his handsome preferment and his prospects at Longborne. And why does he seek out a Bennet sister instead? He does that because of the entailment! he would make a Bennet sister the next mistress of Longborne. The foolish, unattractive, clumsy Mr. Collins tries to do an exceedingly honorable thing! Mrs. Bennet tries to steer him to Elizabeth, an unwise choice that was bound to end in disaster. But, her thinking may have been that she wanted to marry off the girls in order of age. Her husband would have been perceptive enough to make the right choice, which was Mary Bennet, but he was too above it all to involve himself outside the library. Instead, of ridiculing Collins and Mary, he should have recognized the match and given Collins the gentle guidance the man obviously needed and would have accepted. Instead, Collins is picked off by another attractive, intelligent character, Charlotte Lucas, who had no other intention than to manipulate Collins out of her life as much as possible.
Dear Voices,
Back from the garden show where we spent way too much money on (what else?) books. And salmon mousse peroshkies, of course. Let the tourists go watch the geeks throw fish, it just leaves more peroshkies and cardamom rolls for the rest of us. Heh, heh, heh. There didn't appear to be any runaway hit this year ... last year everyone had to have his lucky bamboo curlycue and the year before that, you couldn't see for all the black pussywillows. I did manage to find some Mandragora autumnalis seeds, and should they ever sprout, I'll let you know if Harry Potter's description of them is accurate. (Unfortunately, the seeds require up to several years of cold stratification to sprout, so it may be some time before we know. And where does one find baby mandrake-sized mittens anyway?)
Linda: The Scarlett Letter is a very dark novel. It's a Romance in the original sense of the word, as were all of Hawthorne's works. Ashton's remark that Hawthorne didn't "square with contemporary accounts" is partly right, but Hawthorne was concerned with religious mania in general rather than the specific sense. (A good one to read as a companion novel is Wise Blood by Flannery O'Connor, a souther writer of some reknown.) Anyway, men in general seem to dislike TSL; no doubt Arthur Dimmesdale hits too close to home. I really do think everyone should read The Innocents Abroad at some point—it's both very funny and very informative.
Bree: Rather than unleashing my wrath upon the Fannyphiles, I shall merely say that my favorite heroines are Anne Elliot, Elizabeth Bennet, and Catherine Morland in that order. While she seems just another Fanny at first, Anne becomes JA's most active heroine; a woman who takes her own fate into her hands. As I predicted, I received Persuasion (the film) for my birthday. I had forgotten about that silly bit of simplifying Mr. Elliot's motives, but on the whole I like it. It retains more of the intent of the novel than most of the other adaptations. Elizabeth and Sir Walter were the only serious misteps—neither of the actors was attractive enough for the part and both roles were overblown, though whether it was their fault or the director's we don't know.
Ashton: I suspect you and I are going to find little common
ground in our discussion of Pudd'nhead Wilson, but I'm willing to
try. Be prepared to discuss the issue of "bad blood" in the next few days!
Cheryl
Dear Cheryl,
Well, you snatched that "wuss"-title right away from Linda didn't you? Read hers of 2/4/02 to learn what a real Male-Voices meal is like. I bet you ate those salmon mousse peroshkies with just your thumb and index finger didn't you? You don't even have to tell me about your pinky finger. - Cloth napkins, I suppose?
Here is an odd thing; Linda's birthday was Jan. 30, mine the day before, and yours sometime between Feb. 1 and Feb. 12. (When exactly?) What does that tell you about early May? Ee-ou-uu, yuck!
I am so ready for you on this Pudd'nhead thing. I can't wait to go to the mat with you on this one - ? - I mean, figuratively speaking. I am Thor and you are Wuss!
Dear Ashton,
No, with salmon peroshkies I just stuff my face before the hubby tries to sneak the last bite out from under me while I'm reading the comics. But would it make you happy to know I had fish and chips with Bridgeport ESB on tap for dinner the night before? And no, I didn't use a knife and a fork.
My birthday is February 2nd. I have a February brother also. Somehow I think my father's May 13th birthday might be significant in all this.
Please excuse me for trying to be polite about Fanny Price, I won't let it happen again. Happily, I don't feel compelled to add either versions of Mansfield Park to my video library. Not that I would have time. I just got the entire Monty Python's Flying Circus set on DVD and expect to have plenty to watch for the next few weeks.
Links