9-11          

6/7/02 DAGHDA Jim - Mrs. Bennet - Mother of the Year Candidate

Dear Meister,

I have been considering your (and possibly some other folks') advocacy on behalf of Mrs. Bennet. I agree that it was her job to marry off her girls, but would argue that she was her own worst enemy in the way she went about it.  Yes, she wound up 3/5ths successful, but most of that success was that of the blind pig who occasionally finds an acorn.

I don't believe she ever had any thought of whether any of the marriages would be happy ones; merely that they would happen.  And she almost queered Jane's chances by bragging loudly in public about the for-certain match with Bingley, giving Darcy, Miss Bingley, and Mrs. Hurst plenty of time and opportunity to work on Bingley.  And she probably gave the affable Mr. Bingley nightmares amidst his happy dreams of Jane.

Note that even after all was well, Bingley eventually decamped from Netherfield to get away from her.  Her campaign to get Elizabeth to accept Mr. Collins was nasty and manipulative.  Did she really see Lizzy as happy in such a connection?  Did she care?  Or did she feel that none of her daughters deserved to have any more happiness in marriage than she herself had experienced.

And as for Lydia's handsome husband, recall that Mrs B. had termed him a devil incarnate or somesuch until he was worked upon to marry the little twit.  The M.A.D-ster pointed out that the only reason that she treated Darcy badly was because she was sure he had stiffed Elizabeth at that first assembly. Normal enough, yet if she had ever had an early hint that Darcy was interested in Lizzy (how wise was Lizzy to keep mum about the first proposal, eh?), how she would have changed.

As she changed her opinion of Bingley, Wickham, Charlott, Lady Lucas, her own husband, etc.  (Oh, he will fight Wickham and he will be killed, and what will become of us? - Oh why did he not stay and fight Wickham and make him marry Lydia?) The woman did not appear to have a firmly-held opinion of anyone or any course of action that could not be reversed by the next page.  No, I think she neglected her girls, stirred herself into action solely when husbands were in the offing, and didn't otherwise do much for them.  It's amazing that Jane and Lizzy turned out so well.
D. Jim

6/7/02 Ashton - Perhaps, "advocacy" is too strong a word.

Dear D.J.,

I suspect that Jane Austen's gift was to imagine shadings for all her characters. That may be the quality that makes her characterizations so life-like. Remember I also said, "Start with Mrs. Bennet who is foolish, vain, ignorant, and gauche." My point was that Mrs. Bennet made do with what she had in the way of natural gifts and talents. She did know what had to be done and she tried to do exactly that in her—I admit it—clumsy and occasionally self-defeating way.

You raise the question of "happiness in marriage". That is very interesting so let us dwell on that topic for some time; I have always thought it central to Jane Austen's vision. (Perhaps she explores it most explicitly in Mansfield Park.) I think that Mrs. Bennet very much wanted her daughters happy, but thought only of financial security in that regard. Perhaps we should remember that this woman was very limited. As you point out, this narrowness lead her to blunder in the case of Collins and Elizabeth. But, remember, the wife of Collins would be the next mistress of Longbourn and would benefit from the additional income of Collins's appointments in the church.

Perhaps we should also remember that security was a far, far chancier thing in Jane Austen's time. Finally, don't you think it true that many unhappy marriages of today have tragic roots in economic woes?

You say of Mrs. Bennet, "Her campaign to get Elizabeth to accept Mr. Collins was nasty and manipulative." I cannot agree, she was straight-forward and forthright. Mr. Collins came with an intent to marry a Bennet daughter, was attracted first to Jane (as were Bingley and Darcy), and then was guided by Mrs. B. to an interest in Elizabeth. To me this was guidance and not manipulation. It was also a blunder because it was bound to end the way it did with everyone unhappy. What was "nasty" was Mr. Bennet's treatment of his wife in this affair. A decent man would have shut the door after his wife came to him and explained to her that he would support Elizabeth in her rejection of Collins. Instead he goes through that charade with the two women with no other view than to embarrass his wife in front of their daughter. Some think that funny and that Jane Austen intended us to think it funny. I don't agree and always ask those readers why they think that Elizabeth comes to condemn her father so thoroughly? Why would Elizabeth do that if Jane Austen intended us to approve of Mr. Bennet and laugh at his nasty jokes? (Remember that Darcy also refers to Mr. Bennet's behavior in his letter to Elizabeth.)

I think we must look into peoples hearts as best we can and pay far less homage to talents and abilities. If that was Jane Austen's intent then we can forgive Mrs. Bennet her blunders and withhold our approval of Mr. Bennet.

You are right, Mr. and Mrs. Bingley did remove from Netherfield, but they settled to within an easy drive of Pemberley and into the neighborhood of Jane Bingley's very best friend, her most beloved sister.

Perhaps we will agree on one point, we can reasonably debate Jane Austen's intent precisely because of her shadings. That is the exact same reason we can reasonably debate the actions of real people in our present-day world. I suspect this is also the reason you admire O'Brian.

6/8/02 Bruce - Mr. Bennet: Funny man

Dear Meister,

Since when is being funny incompatible with being nasty?  Mr. Bennet was certainly a tease, and some of his teasing was nasty, but does that mean that it isn’t funny?  Freud thought that laughter was the uncontrollable rumble of our subconscious, repressed desires.  Surely Mr. Bennet’s subconscious desire was to point out the stupidity of his wife (it may also have been his conscious desire).  If he points said stupidity out in a witty manner, he is being both nasty and funny.

Henri Bergson thought that humor was something mechanical encrusted in something human.  So Charlie Chaplin is funny because he walks like a wind-up toy.  Mr. Bennet is funny because we know that he is going to humiliate his wife (just as we know that someone walking near a pie store in a silent movie is going to get a pie in the face) but we don’t know exactly how or when.

Of course Austen disapproves of Mr. Bennet.  That’s quite obvious.  In addition to disrespecting his wife, he fails to control his wild daughters.  But may a man not be a lousy father and a good humorist at the same time?  I hate to see our own Meister reading Jane Austen novels as if they were some Medieval Morality Play, and nothing more.

While I agree with you that Austen censured Mr. Bennet, I cannot agree that she thought him unfunny, or meant for him to be unfunny.  I think that she thought he was funny, that she intended us to think he was funny, and that she intended to demonstrate that a sense of humor does not necessarily imply kindness, goodness, or a sense of responsibility.

6/8/02 Ashton - Isn't nasty humor another name for ridicule?

Dear Bruce,

It seems to me that if we are to think Mr. Bennet funny, then we should acknowledge that Emma Woodhouse was funny upon Box Hill. I am not ready to acknowledge that.

I think your view is in the majority and I admit I think that Jane Austen's novels were morality plays; but, so did C.S. Lewis. I also see them as great love stories—perhaps I see them primarily as love stories. Certainly, our Lady also was funny; for example, Elizabeth is hilarious in her conversations with Darcy after their engagement. Also, I frequently laugh at instances much like the one in Mansfield Park when, after Mary Crawford has confided in Fanny Price her concern that Edmund might fall in love with his host's daughter and Fanny has been convincing in communicating her indifference, the first thing Fanny asks Edmund upon his return is about that daughter. There are many instances like that in the novels; but, I do not believe that Jane Austen's novels were primarily comedies as so many others do.

And yes, I can even laugh at a certain kind of aggressive humor—I laughed (well, smiled) when Darcy punctured Elizabeth several times during the dance at Netherfield. But, in that instance, Darcy was answering her in kind and—this is important—he had to respond to her in that way or she never would have respected him. Most importantly, his opponent in that instance was worthy and capable of defending herself. To ridicule Mrs. Bennet or Mary Bennet is the equivalent, to me, of knocking Mr. Woodhouse to the ground with a sucker punch. I am not a Dorothy Parker fan, never have been, and never could be. I do not celebrate bullies.

6/10/02 Bruce - More Mr. Bennet

Dear Ashton,

If you don't celebrate bullies, answer me this: do you think Darcy is funny when he polishes off Miss Bingley with one of his bon mots?

I think Dorothy Parker is hilarious, by the way.

6/10/02 Ashton - reply

Dear Bruce,

Darcy never, ever comes within a mile of ridiculing or bullying Caroline Bingley. He defends Elizabeth against Caroline's attacks, but always in the most gentlemanly way—well, he does lose his temper with her at Pemberley when Caroline tries to celebrate Elizabeth's sudden departure. But, even in that instance, his remarks do not approach ridicule. Darcy is occasionally sharp with Elizabeth but never when she doesn't deserve the treatment. Another subtle thing that Darcy does with Caroline is to let her know where she stands with him and where his true affections are tending—he does not trifle with her affections.

I think that Mark Twain is hilarious—he always chose only worthy opponents—his equals.

6/11/02 Bruce - Mark Twain's equals

Dear Ashton,

No doubt Caroline Bingley deserved to have Darcy put her down.  Which he did. Also, I don't think Mr. Bennet was really all that cruel to his wife.  She barely noticed, although Elizabeth certainly did.  Cruelty is as cruelty does.  One cannot be cruel without hurting someone.

Mark Twain only attacked his equals?  With the excpetion of Austen, where did he find them?

6/11/02 Ashton - cruel Darcy, cruel Elizabeth

Dear Bruce,

I was thinking about your previous post and decided I may not have responded to your main point. At one place in the novel, Caroline reminds Darcy that he had said of Elizabeth, "She a beauty? I would as soon call her mother a wit." At another place, Elizabeth and the Gardiners were being shown Pemberley by the housekeeper when Elizabeth has a mean-spirited, witty thought about Georgianna in relation to Miss Darcy's near elopement with Wickham.

The point is that we all have cruel thoughts and ridicule is often on our minds. I hope—I very much hope that others do not have those thoughts as often as I do myself. The point is how we behave and what kind of atmosphere we create for others. And, there is always a price to pay for cruelty, a price for the perpetrator as well as the victim. Jane Austen makes her perpetrators pay dearly. Caroline's reminder comes just as Elizabeth has left him for the second time and at a time when Darcy might least bare to remember his cruel ridicule. And, a few days after Elizabeth is amused by her private ridicule of the Pemberley inmates, she receives those two letters from Jane to inform her that their sister had just gone down the very same road trod by Georgianna.

You make too good a point about Twain, I have no reply.

6/9/02 Linda - You may be right!

Dear Ash,

Now that you bring those dueling instances to mind and your understanding of those "affairs of honor" puts things into perspective for me.  My guess is that dueling was not an everyday occurrence, and that is why we have just a few examples reported in our history books.  I do remember the reference in Pudd'nhead Wilson, but do not remember the details of OK Corral.  I'll have to check that out.

As far as 'today' is concerned, I remember in the movies that when someone made an offensive remark about another's 'woman', the offended grabbed a fistful of shirtfront and made threatening noises, etc.  That was as close as they got to a duel.  All that 'drive-by' stuff is usually because someone has offended another person/gang/whatever.  I can see that as their way of 'dueling'.

I remember once as a teenager my Father mistakenly thought someone had offended me and he was ready to 'take the offender on', even if only verbally.  Maybe it has something to do with testosterone and the protective nature of men towards women or their honor, etc.

Incidentally, though 'honor' is not involved, only money, there are two men who are trying to knock one another out in a senseless boxing match just a few miles from where I sit tonight as I type.  [Shakes head in disbelief]  Excuse me, I forgot, it is a sporting event.  Don't bother reminding me that in today's world we now have women boxers.  I said 'women' not 'Ladies' and IMO it is to put on a show for money period.  Sports aside, maybe one day we will learn about forgiveness, mercy, and grace.  End of sermon!

So, from my subject line you thought I was all agreeableness, yes?  Well, hold on to your hat!

You said and I quote: "That is interesting because the feminist seems determined that women should behave like men in all possible instances." Just slipped that in, did you?  Thought I wouldn't notice it, huh?  Well, another coincidence this week - what you said and the way you said it about 'feminism' has come under fire at another place I frequent.

The problem being that the word 'feminism' suffers from the lack of a common definition understood by all.  People make definition assumptions based on their own understanding.  A Lady there put forth this definition: Feminism is anything that causes me to differentiate myself from a doormat.  I like that very well indeed!  However, my Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (Tenth Edition) says:  "feminism" is

• 1) the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
• 2) organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests.

That is all well and good as far as it goes, but it omits the fact that there are differences between the sexes.  Some people tend to forget or overlook those inherent differences, therefore I believe that women should not behave like men in all possible instances.  Dr. Phil has explained that 'difference' very well.  Vive la difference!

I say all this because I take exception to your statement above.  You did not qualify the word 'feminist'.  Do you mean "all" or just "some" feminist seem determined?  I go along with the dictionary definition, but in no way do I go along with your statement 'that women should behave like men in all possible instances' as a definition.  I am assuming that is what you believe the (partial or full) definition to be.  Since you failed to qualify the term, I [poor, stupid girl!] will hereby take advantage of your slip to comment on it.  A Gentleman [and he knows who he is] at that 'other place' said: "Actually, I know you probably don't mean exactly what you say, but I couldn't resist calling you on it anyway."

And another coincidence this week, I discovered the "female" Mark Twain!  Her name is Marietta Holley (1836-1926) a contemporary of MT who wrote witty and satirical novels advocating women's rights.  For example, "Samantha [her heroine] cannot understand why men are trying so hard to protect women from the effort it takes to walk to the polling booth and slip a piece of paper in a box. She has noticed that these same protective instincts do not apply to churning butter, baking bread, and washing clothes, which she observes take considerably more effort."  I can't help but wonder why her books have not be reprinted since then.  One of her novels was on the best-seller list for nigh on to 10 years.  I suppose 'they' did not want us ladies of the next generation to get any ideas.  'Nuff said!
Linda

6/9/02 Ashton - I did not make myself clear

Dear Linda,

I was talking about the particular feminist character in the book; her name is Harriet Freke and is someone that many think was intended to represent Mary Wollstonecraft. I was thinking about my post afterward and realized that I had not been clear and I should go back and rewrite it. I should have followed my instinct. Oh well, maybe something interesting can come of my miscommunication.

Did you know that women were NOT denied the vote in the U.S. Constitution? If you ever take the trouble to read that short, simple document you will find that women were given equal rights at the federal level way back in 1787 by our founding Fathers. That is true because gender is not even mentioned until an amendment that passed after the Civil War and that, ironically, in an amendment intended to give equal rights to African Americans. In other words, if "feminism" means what you say it means then all goals were achieved over two hundred years ago.

The problem is that "feminism" does not mean what you are finding in the dictionary. You know, if you stick to dictionary definitions, you can find innocuous sounding definitions of National Socialism too. That would be the political science of planning a nation's economy in the best interest of the entire public. However the acronym that was invented for the German words for National Socialism was "Nazi". I bet you will agree that the phrase "planned economy" does not tell us anything—well, not much about Hitler's regime. I think the same about feminists and "equal rights for women". Feminists are as feminists do.

You seem to be struggling with the difference between "equal rights" and "equality". Am I right about that? The latter does mean sameness. To that fictional feminist invented over two hundred years ago by Jane Austen's favorite woman author, equal rights did mean equality or sameness. Perhaps that was the point Maria Edgeworth was trying to make with her all-woman duel. (And the point you might like to make about women prize fighters.) I suspect that your struggle in this regard will lead you to new ways of thinking and will lead you and I into a new and fruitful aspect to our debate. This might be a debate you would prefer to avoid as too controversial. Avoid it if you prefer, but I think it does relate to an understanding of Jane Austen and her intent; so, you are most welcome to pursue the issue at this venue.

If possible and if true, I hope you might make clear that I am not that "Gentleman [and he knows who he is]" to which you refer.

Incidentally, Jane Austen did not have the right to vote and you do—you have voted all your adult life. I guess this means that you are a lot happier and a great deal more fulfilled than Jane Austen ever could have been?

6/10/02 Linda - Now that you have made yourself clear - short reply

Dear Ash,

My excuse for the short reply is that I was at Elvis' house yesterday for lunch but no plane ride because the pilot was on vacation.  The pink Cadillac needed gas so we did not take a spin in it.  The scrapbooks took longer than expected to peruse so we had to postpone the pony and motorcycle rides.  I got a bad case of the sniffles in the Meditation Garden, but it was a lovely day for a trip down Memory Lane.

Unfortunately on Saturday at the library book sale I found not one book on my 'to buy' list, but I managed to find a large box of miscellaneous books to bring home anyway.  Strangely enough there is always a dearth of Jane Austen books.  I get the sense that no one wants to get rid of theirs; I wonder why!

I will make it clear that you are not a Gentleman, excuse me, I mean 'the Gentleman', of whom I am referring.  Sorry 'bout that!

I most decidedly do not wish to avoid this debate, because I consider it most vital and important in my study/research of all things pertaining to Jane Austen.  That said, I want to take a few minutes to study before I answer the remainder of your post.  It deserves my undivided attention.
Linda

6/10/02 Bree - Lakers and MWC, Wickham and happy marriages

Dear Demitashton, Linda and other voices,

I think Mary Wollstonecraft would not have been a Laker's fan.  But what NBA team would she have rooted for?  There's one for a sleepless night!

I found your insights into Wickham's motivations interesting.  I still remain puzzled, however.  Wickham was calculating.  With his ability to attract women, wealthy or otherwise, he didn't need the baggage of Lydia if he really was on the run.  He must have been more vengeful than I realized if it was worth it to him to get embroiled in the subsequent problems of having Lydia on his hands.  But he probably meant to do the same thing with Georgiana Darcy, except that SHE had MONEY!  Also, after all was said and done, and the smoke cleared away, didn't some of his "friends" assist him in getting a commission in a northern regiment?  Well, it's one of JA's mysteries.

Re happy marriages, I find that many of JA's most admirable characters are happily married.  Take Mr. and Mrs. Gardiner, who are refined and intelligent people.  The parents of Catherine Morland, who were raising an enormous family, were a contented and sensible couple.  I think Sir Thomas and Lady Bertram were also pretty happy, mainly because Sir Thomas didn't ask for much in a wife; Lady B. wasn't exactly admirable, was she?  Mr. and Mrs. Weston were another example of a good marriage.  I think about the Palmers in S&S, but he was such a sarcastic grouch.  She however, seemed totally oblivious and thought he was "droll".

One off the subject note:  Anna Chancellor.  Remember her as Miss Bingley, well did you catch her as the mistress in The Cazelets?  She was so different, I could hardly recognize her!  Possible Mary W?  Hmm-mm-mm-mm-mm

6/10/02 ashTone - Wickham and unhappy marriages

Dear aBreeable,

I cannot agree that Wickham was calculating. A calculating man would not have made himself persona non grata at Pemberley. He was mercenary and an opportunist, but that is a long way from "calculating". It was those traits that put him on the wrong side of Darcy in the first place. Why would you wonder why he dallied with Lydia Bennet when he showed the same inclination with Elizabeth Bennet until May King came along with her 10,000 pounds? If you read Elizabeth's reaction to Darcy's letter, you will find that Wickham's intention in her regard suddenly dawns on her. Finally, Wickham doesn't leave the militia in order to bed Lydia, he leaves to escape his debtors. He merely takes Lydia along for temporary sexual gratification.

Wollstonecraft would have been a baseball fan so that she could root for the Cincinnati Reds.

I also cannot agree that the Palmer marriage was happy, quite the contrary. In S&S, his mother-in-law, Mrs. Jennings, reminds him that she paid him to marry her daughter, he should honor his agreement, and shut-up about it. I find Mrs. Palmer's laugh and her references to her husband's "drollery" as the behavior of the embarrassed and slightly hysterical. I feel for her. As for unhappy marriages in the novels, I would point first of all to the marriage of Brandon's brother to Eliza Williams. That was so unhappy that the wife slipped into adultery and then out of her husband's house. As to others, there were those of Mr. & Mrs. Collins, Mr. & Mrs. Bennet, Mr. and Mrs. Elliot, and Mr. & Mrs. Robert Ferrars. I pity anyone that marries one of Crawford or Thorpe siblings.

Maybe I can contribute to your list of happy marriages. You already have made all of the best choices except for two—the marriages of Captain & Mrs. Harville and Admiral & Mrs. Croft. Well, we might also guess that the Bingleys, Darcys, and Knightleys will be well married, as will the Captain Wentworths and the Edmund Bertrams. I am less certain about the marriages of the Edward Ferrars and the Colonel Brandons; and, I am in downright trepidation for Catherine Morland's marriage.

Links