9-11          

2/13/02 anonymous - Modern reader

Dear Ashton,

It's your modern-reader troubled or troublesome anonymous again - I have given my own question and your answer some thought.   I feel as if I found two sides and only half the argument ... Honestly it is somewhat frustrating.

First let me make clear that what disturbed me in my prior comment was not the generalization per se. The dynamics of social life are extremely complex - When one examines a group without bringing it down generalizations, the analysis becomes impossible (it's parallel to the math process of finding the minimum common denominator, and when you look at it from this angle you'll see that generalizations are rather simplifications - and this is not a game of words).

I see no problems with generalizations, and I use them all the time.  But I try very hard to establish their limits: not only by defining what is included in them, but by defining - on the same general terms - what is not.   I can't in good consciousness utilize only individual characteristics (although it is tempting to do so) to exclude from the group I'm generalizing over.

As I stated in my prior post, I understand the concept that you are trying to convey with your modern reader reference (what is included in it) - my problem is what is not included in it.

Is the dichotomy modern/non-modern? is the dichotomy young/old? is the dichotomy men/women?

I have a lot of convictions in my life, very few certainties - so what I'm doing here is food for thought, I'm not trying to convince you of my own opinions. I'm trying to learn.

As I did before, I'm limiting my observations to Pride and Prejudice (P&P) and its main characters.

While I have indicated that my own views of the main characters have changed as I gained more life experience, personally I don't believe that the dichotomy is young/old (I'm not disclosing my reasons for such belief, but I do have them).   In my prior comment I was trying to determine and to learn if you had observed something that I didn't.

Let's test your dichotomy: modern/non-modern.

I am the first to admit that a lot has changed in the modern/non-modern comparison: let me focus on the ones that I consider relevant: rules of propriety; and a system of moral values. In doing so I'm also establishing some parameters for what is included in non-modern (from the time of P&P publication to the early 20th century). I don't believe this is the proper forum for a deep exploration on this field; but we can do it, if you so wish.

Allow me to jump to some conclusions: at some point society changed its views on the rapport and social role of humans males and females. At some point Western society realized what is intrinsically wrong with the Greek code, that Descartes defended: what distinguishes us from other animals is not being rational (there is more and more scientific evidence accumulating in support of this conclusion). Hence being emotional, acting based on emotions, is not necessarily equivalent to being irrational. See what is wrong with the male rational against female irrational? Most Humans that are or become productive members of society seek the balance between reason and emotion. We all carry them.

I'm not a feminist, quite the contrary. I believe the feminist revolution, in my circle of social interaction (I'm taking into consideration where I live, my economic status, and level of education here), has placed men in a very disadvantageous, almost unfair, position - pointing-fingers at other circles does not, in my opinion, justify it.

Perhaps my resistance in accepting the modern/non-modern dichotomy has it origins in this: I look at Darcy and Elizabeth and for me they are morally neutral - there are implicit judgments of behavior, not of values.

We tend to accept a different system of propriety, of good manners, more easily than any other that we carry. Seldom it becomes the basis for extensive or deeper judgments we pass on other people.  Most persons I know, and myself, do not avoid becoming friends with so and so because so and so has poor table manners.  In P&P case we put the emphasis of the rules of propriety in a historical perspective.

I believe the most fitting dichotomy is the male/female one. Wait a second! Didn't I just say that most Humans that are or become productive members of society seek the balance between reason and emotion? Indeed they do, but I believe that different emotions sing at different tones for men and women ... Am I being able to convey my meaning?

Part of my day job and training involves trying to determine how people reach opinions about others [I'm a lawyer, with some philosophical background and demands (pragmatic demands, if you will) - not a clinical therapist].   For that reason I study the outstanding effect that P&P, specially the main characters, have in the female mind in some circles.

I am sure you must have asked yourself why P&P seems to have an effect in modern society that JA other books do not ... Of course you have asked yourself why the average male view of Darcy and Elizabeth is different from the average female one.

Let me propose this approach to P&P, in what concerns Darcy and Elizabeth: It has the same effects that some abstract paintings have, (some tools of psychoanalyses use the same device): It leaves so much out, so much unsaid, that we project some of our most intimate beliefs in it, and in doing so we strongly relate to the characters from a very intimate and emotional point of view ... they become a mirror of ourselves.

I also believe that this effect was not intended by JA.

Let me make a different proposition: While JA goes to the core of the average western (more and more global) ideals in creating Darcy and Elizabeth - she does it in half words, she does not rub it in the face of the reader, and we are left to find them ourselves or to just feel them, without understanding why.

Look at another aspect of the book: The lines between pride and self-respect are very tender. We never judge ourselves from a neutral point of view. JA never gives the answers to the pride and to the prejudice sides of the book (indeed, I believe they are very subjective): she does suggest that one may be seen as the reverse side of the other.

I should disclose this: in my opinion Jane Bennet as JA wrote her is as shallow and dis-likable as Caroline Bingley. I do not identify myself with Elizabeth Bennet; and I tend to sympathize with Darcy.

Sorry for the length of the post, feel free to edit it.

What do you think? I thank you in advance for your input.

PS: I will try to follow your suggestion and read the book, but by my latest calculation I'll have to live until I'm 650 years old to read all the books I wish to read ...

2/13/02 Ashton - reply

Dear anonymous,

I suspect that you are frustrated because I have been wishy-washy. I will here move away from that unfamiliar role and become my usual in-your-face self. Well, not your face - some generic face.

The dichotomy I had in mind - perhaps, always have in mind - is feminist/non-feminist. This in no way corresponds to male/female, or young/old, or modern/non-modern. That assertion might require some explanation. As I have taken great pains to show at this web site, the word "feminism" is new but the ideas were already old by Jane Austen's time. I have done that with my overly-long posting on Mary Wollstonecraft and her daughter Mary Shelley. I continued that theme with discussion of Mary Hays and others. I show, in another place, that famous men had been feminists long before Jane Austen began to publish. If anything, a reaction against feminism had arisen in the decade just prior to our Lady's publication. These things go in cycles.

Perhaps you see why I believe the dichotomy is feminist/non-feminist and that overlaps no other dichotomy. Of course, I do say "modern" in the places you indicated; so, any confusion has been caused by myself. (I think I said "modern" in those contexts because my sense is that feminism dominates the modern - I should say "current" ideas of correctness, its time has come again.) This has been a sloppy use of language on my part - I can see that now.

Here are some other things I believe. Everybody wants Jane Austen to be on their side (when, in fact, she is always on mine.) Feminists are determined that Jane Austen was an encrypted feminist and are willing to perform the decoding for us - even if they have to change the original text to make things fit. They create monstrosities, the worst example is that terrible filmed version of Mansfield Park, whose creator, Patricia Rozema is my favorite target at this web site - I cannot say enough harsh things against her. Actually, I even attack that much sweeter woman, Emma Thompson for doing some of the same things.

I think that Jane Austen was a great artist and above this political rattling. I think I can demonstrate her explicit contempt for those who over-generalize along gender terms. I will not do so unless you request it. I believe she wrote great love stories, some of the greatest I think, and there are current influences who would either deny or deface these stories.

I think my treatment of Darcy must seem wildly eccentric; but, for the life of me, I think that I point to very explicit passages where Jane Austen's intent is quite transparent. Perhaps, that intent would have been even more clear if Jane Austen had been able to use her original title, First Impressions. It is unfortunate that someone else used that title first.

I have never been one to agree that men think much differently than women on important matters. There are biological differences in reactions, but I think it must be true - is true that these differences have evolved so to enhance relationships and never to antagonize. How could it have been otherwise. Long live the differences! The differences provide each of us with surprise and wonder at precisely that moment in life when it is most felt. Of course, one can come to believe anything unnatural and dysfunctional with enough salesmanship; so, what might have astonished and amused us can, instead, be used to breed contempt - prejudice. A short life to the salesmen!

If you want to convince me that there are more profound differences, your major problem will be to explain how Jane Austen, a woman, could so accurately describe a man. You don't have to take my word for it, read what G.K. Chesterton had to say about Jane Austen.

I am afraid I have failed in other ways. I have never understood the examples that people offer of changes over time and space of human values. It always seems that I can invent other interpretations that prove the opposite. I would have failed any anthropology course I might have attempted. I never attempted such a course because I knew that I would become a target for physical abuse in the discussion sections. I am good at math though.

I like Jane Bennet more than you do. She does not have the energy or the brilliance of her sister, but that is not such a terrible thing. Jane Bennet is sweet and good. I am not hard on Miss Bingley either. She is in love and has a good idea of why she should be the one. She tries to convey that idea to Darcy. That effort backfires on her but it would not have done if he had been unworthy of Elizabeth. Miss Bingley took her shot and there is nothing wrong with that; in fact, it was a useful test of the man. Incidentally - here I go again - aren't you - is anyone else impressed with the elegant manner in which Darcy handles that relationship. He preserves the friendship at the same time he subtly defends Elizabeth, and in such a way as to enlarge Miss Bingley's mind. Bravo! Well, he does lose his temper with Miss Bingley just after Elizabeth is forced to abandon Pemberley for home. "Bravo" to that as well.

2/13/02 Ashton - Addendum: On propriety, emotion, and reason

Dear anonymous,

I will try to respond more directly to your interests in this addendum.

I think that standards of propriety are pretty much the same everywhere and anytime. Standards did become more rigid in the period just after Jane Austen's time, during the Victorian. The result is that our Lady's time was more like our own period than like the intervening. That is true even for the more extravagant, celebrity classes. Here are examples: the examples of Mary Shelley, Lady Hamilton (my favorite), and even Jane Austen's own aunt. I am about to post on the Prince and Princess of Wales of Jane Austen's time. That pair led lives remarkably similar, in detail, to the most recent version, except the pair of Jane Austen's time were more extreme in their behavior.

I think that Jane Austen's novels take on more meaning when these facts are known.

As to emotion and reason, I think that rationality is what we use to get what we want. That view is tempored by the fact that I am certain that some people can be reasoned with sometimes to more clearly see what they are doing and what the implications are for others. So, trying to reason with other folks might lead to some good and should be attempted. Of course, that may be related to the evolution of our group behavior - mutual aid. I mean that empathy and consciense may be inherent or at least a tendency to that sort of thing may be. To me, it is a wonderful thing and an emotional thing when those feelings are activated. Doing good feels good. Think about it and I bet you will agree.

You never talk about love. One of the failures of all the women at this web site is that they shrink at the mention of love between men and women, and the prospect that Jane Austen might have been interested in same. What is that all about?

2/13/02 Cheryl - Why women who post here don't like to talk about love.

Dear Ashton,

You ask why the women who post here don't like to talk about love. It brought to mind the following lyrics:

Beware of their promise
Believe what I say
Before I go forever, be sure of what you say

So, they paint a pretty picture and they tell you that they need you

And they cover you with flowers and they always keep you dreaming
And they always keep you dreaming, you won't have a lonely hour
If the days could last forever, you might like your ivory tower.

But the night begins to turn your head around
And you know you're going to lose more than you've found.
Yes, the night begins to turn your head around.
Beware of their promise
Believe what I say
Before I go forever, be sure of what you say.

Oh the words may come too easy if you don't believe I'm leaving
And goodbye will come too quickly, if you really think they love you

If you really thought they loved you, you would give you love so sweetly
If the days could last forever, you might fall in love completely.

But the night begins to turn your head around
And you know you're going to lose more than you've found.
Yes, the night begins to turn your head around.

A bit cynical for Lene Lovich.  It's not so much  "men are only after one thing" but that men are always laying traps for us. Or at least leading us into traps of our own making.  A man believes a woman loves him when she agrees to sex.  A woman believes a man is in love with her when sex becomes secondary, but of course there's only one way to find that out and we don't like to be caught making fools of ourselves.

2/13/02 Linda - You have thrown down the gauntlet!

Dear Ashton,

You say,

"One of the failures of all the women at this web site is that they shrink at the mention of love between men and women, and the prospect that Jane Austen might have been interested in same. What is that all about?"

And I will pick it up!  I will put that very interesting topic on my 'to do' list, even if it is at the bottom of Page 5!  You will hear from me on that subject!
Linda

2/13/02 anonymous - Modern reader

Dear Ashton,

Thank you for your reply. Allow me to comment, from the top of my head.

First, I have very little doubt that you know Jane Austen her life and legacy better than I do. I also have very little doubt that I know the group that I study better than you do.

My interest is focused on the outstanding fascination that just one of Miss Austen books, Pride and Prejudice, exercises on the contemporary female reader.

I appreciate you spelling out what your dichotomy is. The only logical explanation for the modern/non-modern one would be you imputing in Pride and Prejudice some judgment of a moral nature that most persons don't see in it. While several will see Pride and Prejudice is based on two system: of rules of propriety, the other one is ethical. The book is morally neutral. What I mean by that is: in society we necessarily live under rules: the systems in which these rules are organized are in essence: propriety, moral, ethics, law. There is an increasing order of importance and of reach in the life of individuals. The fact that these systems exist in every society (their existence is what distinguishes society from other types of human associations, like communities or organizations) at any time does not make it less true that the content of the rules change over time.

Your view of Mr. Darcy is hardly unique. There are plenty, plenty, of others men and women that share it. I don't pass judgments in how people relate to the characters in Pride and Prejudice. As I said before, I believe the book offers a somewhat rare opportunity for people to relate to the characters based on uncommonly subjective values and experiences. It is my turn to suggest you a book, it is a pleasant, fascinating, book anyway:  Art and Illusion, by E.H. Gombrich. (The only critique I have to the book is that it is a Western book, it does not apply to Far-East art).

Again, I don't believe such effect was intended by Miss Austen. This did not happen on purpose, it is probably the result of the very tender lines that she was tracing. She left a lot unsaid because there are no right answers. It is right against right.

Miss Austen could not have had psychological insight in the sense that we now attribute to her work. She has philosophical insight. I am not suggesting that she studied it consistently (you misinterpreted my meaning of instruction in my other post, which may be attributed to my lack of accuracy, but that is another topic), although I have very little doubt that she read some Greek tragedies, and she saw in some of Shakespeare works more than the average person did - or does, for that matter. My guess is that Miss Austen was more concern in knowing herself, in understanding her own being, than others. I imagine she had a lot of whys in her head. When I assert that she did not intend this effect of Pride and Prejudice I am in no way doubting Miss Austen's wisdom: were she not wise she would not have realized that the lines were there and were tender to start with.

I cannot define wisdom. I cannot define sophia. But I can tell you this: we necessarily relate (pass judgments, form opinions) about others and about what goes around us based on our own personal values (and our values are based in a myriad of factors). We judge all the time, whether or not we express these judgments. Were it true that these values and judgments are based in reason the world would probably make more sense, but we would be less human. I like it the way it is.

I have not read your observations on Wollstonecraft - I don't need to. I have read her books myself, and feel very comfortable with the conclusions I have reached (unless one has a respectable dot edu, as much as I would wish to, restraints of everyday life make it impossible for me to dedicate myself to explore other's opinions on such subjects).

In my opinion Wollstonecraft is sophistry at its worse. By the middle of her first chapter of The Rights of Woman I have two pages of logical inconsistencies in her reasoning. Taking a true factor (based on observed or admitted reality) and an axiom (by definition a proposition) does not lead to a logical conclusion, it leads to another axiom that she then proceeds to use as truth. It aggravates anyone that requires some consistence for logical reasoning, which I generally demand when trying to prove something. She falls into the same traps she believes she is criticizing.

I can hardly agree with you that common Western's values supported at the time Jane Austen wrote defended equality in the social role of men and women (and here I am defining, hence limiting what I read when you talk about feminism). The use of  exceptions to prove the rule is very tricky.

There is, I agree, much left unsaid about love. Let me make some considerations:

When I refer to emotions I am referring to four basic ones: primitive ones: fear and curiosity (unquestionably shared by humans and many other warm-blooded animals), complex ones: love and anger. One of the common marks of every civilization we have a record of is the recognizance of the complex feelings [the other is some sort of organization, as primitive (often naturalistic) as it may be over faith].

This simplification of emotions into fear, curiosity, love and anger is necessary to make the analysis possible. The myriad of feelings in between is reduced to one of those or a combination of those.

I spelled out in my first post why Mr. Darcy fascinates women. He allows his love to overcome his rational objections ... It is no wonder that movies like Pretty Woman are successful ones and the audience is mostly feminine (it contains the other element of female fascination: power (money and social status - this is not a critique, it is just the way it is, probably based on primitive necessities).

Can men love that way? Undoubtedly. Is it common? Hardly. Give me an average cosmopolitan contemporary man that loves enough a prostitute to marry her without hiding her past and I'll give you Mr. Darcy. The stronger the objection or the obstacles the more fascinating it becomes to women.

Men (more often than women) love to death. Love enough to kill the object of that love when other emotions enter the play. Make Othello a woman and I'll give you Clytaemaestra in Oresteia [which, if you are interested, is the first feminist character (she defends her equality to men) we have a record of].

I never meant to imply, nor have I stated, that the fact that men and women experience different emotions differently make it difficult for them to relate to each other accurately. Some particularly violent sports attract more of a masculine audience, some particularly mushy books are read almost exclusively by women. That proves nothing in connection to their actions or opinions towards one another - it does indicate, however, that what moves them, what appeals to them is different. I'll dig deeper into this if you wish.

My personal dislike of Caroline and Jane are based on different reasons. But I find them, as characters, fascinating. Proving her genius and what I said before about leaving things out, with one passage JA tells all her female readers what Caroline is. She, as usual, does not do it through Elizabeth. She does it neutrally, by praising Caroline: it is because Caroline is agreeable while away from Darcy's presence that most women know what she is, and contemporary women will search some non-given reason (they will add to the story) when Caroline advise Elizabeth about Wickham. JA never discloses if that was an spontaneous act of kindness or if Caroline had some moving force behind her action, leaving the space to be filled.

When I confront women with the assertion that other than being a productive member of society there is no basic difference between the characteristics given by JA to Caroline in P&P and the characteristics of certain characters of Sex and the City (which they like) they spell out the difference. Men are left standing wondering what the difference really is. Contemporary women look at Caroline as if she was Wilde's Boise in De Profundis.

Is that how JA wrote her in your opinion?

Jane requires a little bit more of my time to analyze. I'll do it, if you allow me, at another opportunity.
Thank you, again

Links