9-11          

2/26/02 Cheryl - Maybe not crazy but ...

Dear Ashton,

... not quite right either.  Twain's main purpose in A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court was to debunk Sir Walter Scott and his romanticizing of the chivalrous age. This ties in pretty well with what we've been discussing. The south and the north, as everyone well knows, was settled by two distinct groups of individuals with very, very different world views and purposes. In the north, hard-working, god fearing religious dissidents. In the south, the get rich quick schemers, wastrel sons of British aristocracy, and a smattering of those attempting to escape the long arm of the law. (Some of these sorts arrived in the north initially, but soon left.)

In the north, the focus was on duty to god and community, in the south the focus was on getting as rich as possible as fast as possible then returning to England, or if such a return was impossible, recreating 17th century England in the new world.

Think about the south circa 1860.  A weak central government, very powerful local aristocracy, squire, tenant, and "servant" classes.  A society that refused to adapt or evolve in any way.  While the north with its influx of immigrants came more and more to value innovation and a broad spectrum of pursuits.

When we look at the "immediate" causes of the civil war: the south wanted to expand into the Caribbean, creating slave estates to grow more sugar, cotton, and tobacco while the north wanted to expand west creating opportunity and jobs for their growing population. (The north got its way on this, and federal troops accompanied settlers west.) 140 years later, we don't need to be confederacy bashers to realize that creating jobs for the majority was more important than protecting the large estates of southern families with multiple sons. And in the face of the south's hostility to any sort of technical innovations which could have reduced their dependence on slavery, northern sympathy was minimal.

The south's refusal to change made the outcome of the civil war inevitable.  The north with its manufacturing, stock raising, and commercial farming could feed, equip, and clothe both the troops and the families back home.  And with the long tradition of a strong government at all levels, Lincoln was able to take necessary but bitterly unpopular steps.  Despite the riots and accusations of tyranny, the federal government was never in any serious danger.  The south concentrated on "king cotton" in the foolish belief that the rest of the world would bow to its demands, rather than chance losing their supply.  The US blockade notwithstanding, the British played the game long enough to establish that it could get cotton elsewhere, then abandoned the confederacy.  The confederate "government" never existed anywhere except on paper. States' rights were supreme, war or no war.  It's hard to say whether Jefferson Davis was a knave, a fool, (or a queen as the saying goes) but he took a job he must have known was mere window dressing.

All of which eventually brings us back to Mark Twain. Many southern gentlemen based their code of conduct on Scott's romances. War for war's sake, trial by combat, glorious death, protecting the weak against the forces of evil. Twain shows what utter b.s. it all is, especially when the system itself is based on a belief that the majority of one's fellow human beings aren't truly human at all, or at least not enough to be protected under the laws of chivalry. Chivalry was as much based on slavery as the pre-war south was, and was no more romantic. Perhaps Twain felt he had attacked southern slavery often enough, or too directly for the south to admit any merit in his works.
Cheryl

P.S. And as I recall, it ends much the same way as Pudd'nhead Wilson: all the plans of mere humans, whether great or evil, coming to nothing but death and misery in the end.

2/27/02 Linda - (Not) catching up

Dear Cheryl,

It is all very vexing!  I haven't time to make a lengthly reply. I will agree with Bruce that you are a genius!  Great analysis!  I have some points to make but give me a day or two or three ...

It would help me to know if you have read or heard of The Private Mary Chesnut and Fried Green Tomatoes.  Thanks.
Linda

2/28/02 Cheryl - reply

Dear Linda,

I haven't read Fried Green Tomatoes, but I've seen the movie, which no doubt doesn't do it justice. (I found the modern part of the story completely incoherent.) Mary Chestnut I know only from quotes which seem to pop up anywhere anyone says anything about the civil war. Maybe it's selection bias of the quotes, or I just misunderstand her, but she's always seemed to me to be the quintessential southern apologist. Apologists always A: pretend the south shares no blame for the war whatsoever; that it was a "war of Northern Aggression" as the saying goes; and B: pretend that the war was about states' rights, money, agriculturalism versus industrialism, anything except slavery. I respond thus:

Stripped of all its verbal diarrhea, the confederate states decided that they were only bound by elections which their candidates won. Of course, secession didn't occur until after it was clear their candidate has lost. Had the south seceded before the election, one might be forced to admit that there was some principle behind the confederacy's action other than taking their ball and going home. Secondly, I would say that Abraham Lincoln was a great man and a great leader. But no man, not even god himself could have convinced either side to suffer through Antietam, or Shiloh, or The Wilderness over the questions of interstate commerce, or gerrymandering, or the route of the transcontinental railroad. The civil war was a great moral struggle, or rather the first step in a great moral struggle.
Cheryl

2/26/02 Ashton - Still crazy after all these years! Austen meets Twain - po' southern whites

Dear Cheryl,

Your comments on A Connecticut Yankee are very insightful and useful - thank you.

Your comments on the white classes facing each other during the Civil War are not disagreeable to me, but you and I are prejudiced in the same way. Also, I don't think that anyone can possibly disagree with your fine analysis of Mark Twain's intent vis-a-vis southern culture and traditions. After having said all that, I think I must point out an important omission on your part. I am thinking of the typical Confederate soldier - the guy who did all the fighting and who did not come from anything like the rich, slave-holding, southern-gentleman class you describe. What caused so many couragious young men to make the commitment and the sacrifice that those men made (something like 500,000 casualties). It is incomprehensible to me, and yet I must try to understand. Mark Twain thought that he must try as well and he did just that in A Connecticut Yankee; so, I will pass that along to you. This is from Chapter 30: The Tragedy of the Manor House. The protagonist is a modern man somehow thrust back into sixth century England. He has just watched as peasants, in defense of their Lord's person and property, had brutally put down an uprising of others of their class. He begins to muse about his own distant future time.

"This was depressing—to a man with the dream of a republic in his head. It reminded me of a time thirteen centuries away, when the 'poor whites' of our South who were always despised and frequently insulted by the slave-lords around them, and who owed their base condition simply to the presense of slavery in their midst, were yet pusillanimously ready to side with the slave-lords in all political moves for the upholding and perpetuating of slavery, and did so finally shoulder their muskets and pour out their lives in an effort to prevent the destruction of that very institution which degraded them. And there was only one redeeming feature connected with that pitiful piece of history; and that was, that secretly the 'poor white' did detest the slave-holder, and did feel his shame ... it showed that a man is at bottom a man, after all, even if it doesn't show on the outside."

When I thought of the youthful Jane Austen's History of England while reading Twain's Yankee, I was not thinking of intent or content; rather, I was thinking about style especially style of humor. I mean, I wonder if Twain's humor isn't a cruder, in-your-face-American, barroom version of Austen's. - ? - Probably not.

We cannot know what would have happened had Twain ever met Jane Austen when both were in their prime - vigorous and alert. But, the results might say a lot about the speaker who tries to imagine such a thing. So here goes - I will reveal myself, or maybe say something useful. First of all, it is clear that Jane Austen's effect on strangers was nearly identical to that of Darcy's. So, the best guess might be that Mark Twain would have gone away with the first impression that confirmed his prejudice against the English privileged classes - a bunch of supercilious Darcies. But, what if he had gotten past that first impression? What if circumstances had allowed for him to develop a more accurate understanding? Well, the extreme upward-mobility of her family would have impressed him, he would have thought it almost American - a high compliment from him. Then, had he caught hold of her sense of humor and humanity, he would have been turned around completely. As for her, our Lady would have been amused by him from the beginning and then, had they been able to avoid the subjects of British vs. American culture, come to like him exceedingly and to seek him out. They would have acted out outrageous, hilarious scenes together - convulsing their company, and he, poor man, would have fallen in love. That's what I think.

2/28/02 Cheryl - no mystery, really

Dear Ashton,

Twain definitely observed humans and their follies so yes, he and JA did have a lot in common. His comments about her works seem to me to indicate that he admired her writing, just not her choice of subject matter. I think he felt her talents were wasted.

I certainly don't deny a bit of prejudice (okay, a lot of prejudice)  when it comes to the causes and events of the civil war, but nothing that I said about it was even vaguely new or original.

WARNING: incredibly depressing and cynical comments coming.

Your question about the lower class whites who fought for the confederacy is a good one. However, it's a pattern that's repeated around the world, and not so very mysterious. The need to have someone to look down on seems to be universal. Freeing the slaves, in theory should have put african americans on the same social level as white tenant farmers who had no rights, no money, and no education. In reality, the plantation owner needed slaves to maintain his rich lifestyle, but not his social position. The poor don't have a lifestyle to maintain, only a social position. This is why class stratification becomes increasingly complex the lower you, not the higher (as you would intuitively assume.) Elizabeth Bennet wouldn't be leaving her social sphere by marrying Mr. Darcy "He is a gentleman and I am a gentleman's daughter." (Another instance of the high-born Lady Catherine displaying "Non U" outlook.) But look at the complexity of class when we talk about Harriet Smith and Robert Martin.

This was equally true in the north and its parade of immigrants: Irish, Italian, Sicilian, German. As each new group came in turn, the preceding moved a step up on the social ladder. Look at the cartoons of Robert Nast for an idea.

The spousal unit wants me to add a couple of things. First that slavery, for poor southern whites was the "NASDAQ of it's day." In other words, it was a way for the very poor to become very rich. Or at least that was the common perception. Destroying slavery was the equivalent of telling modern Americans that no one with less than X number of dollars could buy dot.com stocks. Roy also mentions "patrol states" which were the southern states that had virtual militias dedicated to riding around with guns, looking for runaway slaves. These militias were made up of poor whites, in many cases drafted, good preparation for what was to come. And no doubt many a young confederate joined up thinking war was all about riding around, beating up slaves, drinking whiskey and shooting at things.
Cheryl

From the Meister: I protest. I was raised in the white underclass of the North and, while that was unpleasant and unwelcome, I can say a good deal more that is positive about my class than you might wish to venture. We were not all hooligans and, in fact, we suffered more at the hands of that faction than did a lot of others simply because we were more accessible. And, we knew how to deal with them. I am afraid I must sign on to Twain's more general and more generous view in this regard.

2/26/02 Bree - Disillusioned with Sprightley Mr. Knightley

Dear Mashton (Meister Ashton),

I have just re-read Emma in its entirety (with my schedule, it has taken a while). I realized that the Box Hill scene in which Mr. Knightley rebukes Emma for her treatment of Miss Bates has a disturbing element.  Emma excuses her rudeness to Miss Bates by claiming that the good and the ridiculous are blended in her.  Mr. Knightley responds by saying, "... were she prosperous, I could allow much for the occasional prevalence of the ridiculous over the good. Were she a woman of fortune, I would leave every harmless absurdity to take its chance; ... Were she your equal in situation" etc.  So it transpires that it is perfectly OK to poke fun at a harmless older woman IF she has a sizeable bank balance and is "of consequence."! It is not that Emma is being needlessly sarcastic to a fellow human being, but that the fellow human being is not rich or important enough to withstand the sarcasm? Badly done, Mr. Knightley!

Oh - I hope there will be continued interest in voting on the Emma films.  The totals are still fairly small. Let's have a "get out the vote" campaign.

2/26/02 Mashed-on - Maybe, our Lady meant something else.

Dear Bree,

Before I get started, here is web site of links to e-texts of Jane Austen's novels. In particular, here is an e-text of Emma. I mention those things because you can copy and paste from e-texts to include complete quotes in your postings. For example, I copied and pasted this excerpt which is the one to which you refer.

' "Oh!" cried Emma, "I know there is not a better creature in the world: but you must allow, that what is good and what is ridiculous are most unfortunately blended in her."

"They are blended," said he, "I acknowledge; and, were she prosperous, I could allow much for the occasional prevalence of the ridiculous over the good. Were she a woman of fortune, I would leave every harmless absurdity to take its chance, I would not quarrel with you for any liberties of manner. Were she your equal in situation-- but, Emma, consider how far this is from being the case. She is poor; she has sunk from the comforts she was born to; and, if she live to old age, must probably sink more. Her situation should secure your compassion. It was badly done, indeed! You, whom she had known from an infant, whom she had seen grow up from a period when her notice was an honour, to have you now, in thoughtless spirits, and the pride of the moment, laugh at her, humble her--and before her niece, too--and before others, many of whom (certainly some,) would be entirely guided by your treatment of her.--This is not pleasant to you, Emma--and it is very far from pleasant to me; but I must, I will,--I will tell you truths while I can; satisfied with proving myself your friend by very faithful counsel, and trusting that you will some time or other do me greater justice than you can do now." '

Is it not possible that Jane Austen intends that Knightley is saying that Emma has engaged in an unfair fight? It seems that Knightley is saying that if Miss Bates or her niece had had the social standing to stand up for herself, he would not now be admonishing Emma. I am not convinced that he is suggesting Miss Bates would be fair game if she were richer - what say you?

I am sorry about the low election turn out; it is a function of the simple fact that this is an Internet backwater. (Maybe not - maybe the idea is a silly one.) Linda has urged me to link to the ballot in a more prominent way, but that would mean that it would be the first impression of the web site. That might not be a bad idea, but I am not convinced. What do you think? You might be interested to know that 75% of the ballots were cast in a single night and that only because Linda posted a notice at the Republic of Pemberley web-site. That gives an idea of the relative hit rates at the two web sites. Sometimes I wish our site was more popular, but most of the time I do not. This is a one-man, non-commercial, non-academic site and how popular can that ever be? How much traffic can this one man handle? - actually, not much more than we get at present.

2/28/02 Bree - Knightley and time

Dear Mashton,

Thank you for the link to an e-text of JA. I hoped that my few lines were sufficient to illustrate what I meant. I know that Mr. Knightley intended to tell Emma that she was hitting below the belt so to speak, but his words implied that, were Miss Bates wealthy or consequential, Emma would be allowed to take any potshots she wanted. Knowing that the Brits have the best manners in the world (when they want to), it would seem that just the fact that Miss Bates was so much older than Emma would command her respect, rich or poor.

I am interested that so many votes came in from the Republic of Pemberley. Could I say that, just between us, I hung out during two separate intervals on that web site, and found it so arrogant and confining, I gave up? I don't know what they really want to achieve on the site, but during my times with them I found there were a lot of rules and regulations regarding e-mail, how one expressed oneself, what was allowed and not allowed. Come on, is this a Republic or a Dictatorship? I can't imagine what their ladyships could propose by it.

What you say regarding time for this website is very reasonable. At times I say to myself "M.Ashton must be retired, or else how could he have so much time to run this cool website and answer our e-mails and provide links, keep up with everyone, etc." It is like having a whole other job isn't it? So I guess it is as well that our voting population is not so big as to be out of hand. By the way, may I respectfully ask, do you have a "day job"?

2/28/02 Abashton - Knight time job

Dear Bree,

You are very perceptive. I am retired; in fact, I retired in 1994 but continued to receive assignments until 1997. Where I worked and what I did are uninteresting and perfectly irrelevant facts for what we do here. I have no credentials or experience to qualify me to hold forth on literature or history - I just do - I always have done so. I have a lifetime of experience to qualify me as an impertinent wise-ass, I mean as a self-appointed "Meister".

I am not qualified to operate a web site either. I made my first trip on the Internet in Sept. '97, didn't like what I saw in regard to Jane Austen, bought an introductory HTML manual in Oct. '97, and had this site up and running in Dec. '97.

As you may have sensed, this lack of any manner of qualification weighs heavily upon me.

I chose the title of the site primarily to warn feminists that they would not find one of their choirs here. Feminists are very welcome, but their assumptions will be questioned, their facts will be checked, and their logic will be scrutinized. A secondary reason is that I actually did imagine that there were droves of men out there who felt the same way about Jane Austen as I did, and where aching for a venue to express themselves. Imagine my surprise! - well, maybe the assumption is correct but, rather, the venue needs a redesign. Obviously, women have been the major contributors here and that is O.K. with me because I have enjoyed - often preferred - the company and conversation of women. I am grateful for the small number of men that do stop by here and wish only that more would feel comfortable enough to post. I think that a larger, more self-confident, male audience would contribute to a better diversified and, therefore, a more accurate discussion of Jane Austen's work. What is your opinion?

As to Knightley and that passage you referred to, I still interpret things differently but, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that you are right. Since Jane Austen wrote those passages, it is fair to ask you what you think our Lady's intent was in that case?

2/26/02 jess whately smith - [mailto:jesswhatelysmith@hotmail.com - Pride and Prejudice and A Room with a View

Dear Meister,

I have to do a 3000 word comparison of Pride and Prejudice and E.M Forster's A Room with a View-my title is "Explore the ways in which Austen and Forster offer a critique of their contempory society through the female Protagonists?" Help, please!

2/26/02 Bruce - Protaganists and society

Dear jess,

Jane Austen was more interested in people than in "society". Her heroines (including Elizabeth Bennet) serve to criticize themselves.  The obvious bit about the entailment seems to me to be incidental to the main action of the story, serving to provide a bit of slapstick comedy in the form of Mr. Collins.

In A Room with a View, I suppose you could make the point about how Lucy is seen as another "possession" or "work of art" by Mr. Vyse. Still, I think you’ve chosen a lousy topic. These novels are about people ­ their foibles, their tendency to deceive themselves, and the processes by which they learn the truth about themselves. Of course the backdrop is social, but let’s not overdo it. Choose another topic.

2/26/02 Meister - reply

Dear jess,

I am sorry to say what might discourage you, but I join Bruce on this one; Jane Austen wrote about human nature and not about society. Of course, it may well be that your instructor insists that Jane Austen wrote in this way. You might choose to give her what she wants, in which case I can be of no help. In that case, you might ask your instructor a few questions: (1) Are all novels about society?; (2) Are all great novels about society? Her answers might guide your writing.

The idea that Jane Austen wrote about society is the conventional wisdom of today, which means it is a kind of fashion. To show how ridiculous this style appears, I have tried to call attention to writers, of Jane Austen's time, who really did write about social conditions and the need for change. For example, I have a long posting on Mary Wollstonecraft, her husband, and her daughter. A better example might be that of Mary Hays. Jane Austen's time was one of a great deal of writing about society, so much so that readers of her time might have felt some sense of relief in the publication of her novels.

Links