Why are the books Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility so closely related?

  For this blog post I decided to go a different route than just focusing on either of the Austen novels. Instead I would like to discuss the strong similarities between the two novels Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility. While I have only read the novel Pride and Prejudice I had no idea what the movie Sense and Sensibility was going to be about. I was quite surprised that the storyline is very similar to that of Pride and Prejudice. There are several ways in which the books are similar:
   1-There are at least two sisters who are constantly being compared to one another
   2-There are love triangles galore
   3-Women struggle with financial issues
   4-Men have the upper-hand in society
On Wednesday we discussed that Austen based her writings off of her own life story and the time period in which she lived. I understand why the political and social issues are so similar in the books, being that they were only written two years apart from one another (Notes). What I question is why the comparison of two sisters and their problems with love are so similar? It almost seems as if Austen did not know how to write about anything else other than two or more sisters who are the complete opposites of one another and their struggles with the unbending ways of love. I will have to admit that there were times where I forgot which novel we were discussing in class as the story lines are so similar.
  Does anyone else have any opinions on this comparison between the two novels? Do you think Austen was only writing based off her own life because she knew nothing else? I mean just look at the book covers below, granted Austen does not have a say on the ways in which the covers of her books look but look at how publishing companies have chosen to depict the front covers. The images are almost identical in nature.

Works Cited
Google Images
Class Notes. April 9, 2014.

Pride and Prejudice: A Very Amiable Movie

I'll be the first to admit that the 2005 movie directed by Wright and starring Keira Knightly did not accurately portray the Jane Austen novel. And you can go on just about any website to find all of the inaccuracies of the movie rendition. However, I think that Wright managed to portray a few major themes from the novel very well. One of these themes is the constraints on marriage. 

Constraints on marriage are mentioned by various characters throughout the entire movie, just as they are in the novel. Mr. Bingley is at first hesitant to propose to Jane because of Mr. Darcy's insistence on avoiding the Bennetts, whom show little regard for decorum and propriety. But he is also swayed to delay his proposal because of Jane's lack of wealth. As we have discussed, these were important factors to consider in the marriage context of the early nineteenth century. Therefore, Mr. Bingely's hesitations, or rather, Mr. Darcy's hesitations on Bingley's behalf and his own, were very reasonable and rational ones. Marriage was a delicate matter to consider, and all factors needed to be regarded with utmost seriousness. 

And men are not the only ones shown considering the more practical aspects of marriage. Charlotte's out-lash at Lizzy over her marriage to Mr. Elliot also keeps close to the theme of marriage constraints. Charlotte who is neither pretty nor wealthy has few marriage prospects. So when Mr. Elliot offers his hand in marriage, she gladly accepts, for now she has security, protection, and in a way, more freedom. Love, in her mind, is not a requirement to be happy with her marriage. This is something inconceivable to Lizzy, but quite real and rational to Charlotte. Austen and Wright, with the case of Charlotte Lucas, provide the eye-opening view that marriage was a practical and economical matter in the nineteenth century, despite the wishful thinkings of women such as Lizzy. While Lizzy may have, in the end, received all that she ever wanted in marriage, she was one of the rare ones. 

Overall, I enjoyed Wright's movie. I feel that he did a decent job of portraying Mr. Darcy in the beginning as very proud, snobbish, and somber, and then, slowly throughout the movie, as a man conscientious to others' needs, loyal, and utterly devoted to and in love with Lizzy. He was like an onion, and as the movie progressed, the layers were peeled away to reveal the Darcy that we all are smitten with. I also enjoyed Lizzy's portrayal. Though decidedly more outspoken and defiant than the Austen character, Knightly makes Lizzy bold, headstrong, and intelligent, the kind of modern character many long to see in the nineteenth-century setting. I liked this more brash Elizabeth, and it made her interactions with Darcy all the more enticing. 

To conclude, though  you shouldn't watch this movie if you are expecting an accurate theatrical rendition of the Jane Austen novel, you should watch it to be provided with an idea of the whole marriage process in the nineteenth century, to see these peoples struggles, hopes and aspirations, and to grasp their opinions on love and matrimony. 

Jane Austen: Writing What You Know

For this week’s blog, I would like to further explore the parallels between Jane Austen’s life and her novels. Firstly, her life in the country, her education at home, the close friendship with her sister, and her brothers’ careers as military officers are all reflected in Pride and Prejudice, as well as her other novels, through her characters and settings. In addition, she made visits to a brother in London and to a brother who lived on a wealthy estate, while also moving to and living in Bath with her family for a time, all of which indicate settings or travel destinations in her characters’ stories. Like the female party of the Dashwood family in Sense and Sensibility, after Mr. Austen’s death, Jane, her sister, and mother were forced to relocate, dependent on her brothers’ generosity, and eventually living in a cottage provided by one of her brothers. Austen also fell in love with a man who was forced to marry for money elsewhere, while rejecting a proposal from another whom she respected, but was not in love with. This is obviously reflected through the way in which Austen uses her novels to critique the marriage system for its economic priorities over considerations of romantic love.  Finally, Mr. Austen encouraged Jane to write and even promoted her novels, which may indicate a close relationship between her and her father like that of the one between Elizabeth and Mr. Bennett in Pride and Prejudice. Altogether, Jane Austen’s personal biographical information has close ties to the plots, characters, and criticisms integral to her novels. Although Austen was said to have lived a “quiet life,” we can see that she charted the interactions between the middle class and the wealthier classes of society in her novels, as well as pursued settings of both town and country, which relates to her personal acquaintance with a diverse range of people and locales (within England itself). Such a strong link between Austen’s life and novels enables the reader to gain a vivid and somewhat realistic picture of English society at the time, and more importantly, an idea of Austen’s perception of her society’s norms.

Sources:

http://www.jasna.org/info/about_austen.html

http://www.neh.gov/humanities/2013/januaryfebruary/feature/the-mysterious-miss-austen

Chawton Cottage where Jane lived after her father's death.

 http://www.jasna.org/info/about_austen.html

 

 

 

 

Marianne and the emotional state

In the movie Sense and Sensibility, we have been introduced to the two sisters; Elinor and Marianne Dashwood.  Though the two are sisters, they are nearly polar opposites in their social and emotional thinking.  As we have witnessed in the movie,  Elinor takes a more conservative and rational approach to life, while Marianna seems to live by her heart and emotions.  But is there more to these two characters than what meets the eye?  According to Lianna Manukyan,  the differences between Elinor and Marianne represents emotion versus reason (Manukyan).  From the movie,  Marianne seemingly defies the aspect of rationality, while Elinor uses judgment and rational thinking to make decisions.  As Manukyan explains,  the concept of reason over emotion was a value attributed to the 18th century (Manukyan).  Jane Austen essentially captures the two ideas within the characters and plays them off of each other.  Marianne's portrayal allows her to go through many different phases so far in the movie.  Because of her emotional nature, she is more willing to allow her instincts to control her desires, and then act upon them rather than rationally calculating various outcomes.  Marianne's character is essential in explaining the aspect of emotion when compared to reason. Jane Austen's characters have made an impact on women's history.  And the character of Marianne allows the reader to understand the use of emotion in relation to reason throughout the novel. 

Source: http://web.calstatela.edu/faculty/jgarret/467/sample4-2.htm

Mrs. Bennett

While reading Pride and Prejudice I have come to the conclusion that Mrs. Bennett may be one of the main causes that the views on marriage (in regards to women) took an incredibly long time to change. Marriage is viewed as nothing more than monetary contract. A chance to gain wealth that would otherwise be unattainable in the present circumstances. Not knowing any other possible way for her daughters to gain wealth in life, Mrs. Bennett would stop at nothing to ensure that her daughters were married off to some rich man. When Bingley showed up in the story it was difficult to determine exactly who was more in love with him, the daughters or Mrs. Bennett. I can imagine dozens of sidebar conversations going on between Mrs. Bennett and Bingley, with Mrs. Bennett going on and on about wonderful her daughters are and that Bingley should marry them. I feel like she stepped over the line at the point when she sent Jane over to Bingley's house, knowing that Jane would ultimately get stuck there and have to stay. And then refusing to send the carriage to pick her up.

Clearly Mrs. Bennett has no plans on changing the ways that women are treated or how marriage is looked at. Continuing to attempt to send off her daughters to other men. As annoying as I find Mrs. Bennett,how terrible the situation is for her daughters, I can still understand why she does the things she does. Mrs. Bennett is simply a product of her era. To her understanding sending her daughters off to marry wealthy men is the only way that her daughters can thrive and live in this world. Considering that they can not inherit property or business. So in a sense Mrs. Bennett's actions can be seen as acts of love and concern for her children. But unfortunetly continuing with this line of actions will never gain women any progress. It is probably for the best then that Mrs. Bennett's line of thoughts fall out of traditional thinking.

A Rational Creature?

(A photograph showing a first edition of Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen.)

Since this week we are discussing all things Jane Austen, I decided to dive in to a specific idea that has been stirring in my head. This idea relates to Elizabeth Bennet and her supposed “break” from the mold of an ideal woman during eighteenth century England. I refer to her rather dramatic breakdowns in which she berates and blames herself for the situation when in reality it does not help her cause at all. One could argue that Austen does this intentionally to create drama in the story as well as make a more readily identifiable character out of Elizabeth. If she does not have these breakdowns, it is possible less women would relate to the heroine of the story. But by creating such dramatic breakdowns, not in line with the character of Elizabeth, Austen almost harms the character of her heroine by making her inconsistent.

Instead of being “a rational creature” Elizabeth loses herself to the very “foolishness”, she remarks that Kitty and Lydia possess. The reason I question this is a few instances that occur regularly throughout Pride and Prejudice. Two major instances of such breakdowns come to mind. One her breakdown following reading Darcy’s letter, of course some confusion is expected. The fact that she wanders around lost disbelieving for hours on end, and still refuses to believe for a day or two before realizing her flawed logic is extreme. Once she begins to accept the letter as true she still exclaims, “How despicably have I acted! I, who have prided myself on my discernment! I, who have valued myself on my abilities,” (Austen 177). Her exclamation does not end after this, confusion is acceptable, so is disbelief, yet it should not last for pages while she internally debates the situation. It comes across as overkill, at least to me personally. The second instance of such a breakdown is more extreme; it is when she realizes that Lydia has run off with Wickham. She blames herself for the whole thing, just because she did not divulge the secret of Wickham’s character she did not share. Elizabeth says, “When I consider, that I might have prevented it! I who knew what he was. Had I but explained some part of it only – some part of what I learnt, to my own family,” (Austen 231). God forbid she looks at the situation logically and recognizes that this behavior from her sister is expected, if it was not to be Wickham surely it would have been another. Or that she remembers that in fact she did tell someone about Wickham, she told Jane. So she cannot be blamed for the whole situation. All these instances of Elizabeth being dramatic seem contrived and places Elizabeth in a poor light.

Peach pits and syphilis

Doing women's history is hard work--mostly because we want simple and quick answers . . . fast and easy. But as a historian trying to access "facts" to make an interpretation, this can be hindered by the myriad other poor interpretations that intermingle and disturb our vision of the past. I am intrigued by most topics for which I think there is misunderstanding--of course, Joan of Arc, witch-hunts, but also women's history. What makes for accurate history, and how do we know if we've found it?  In most cases, heading to the primary source and records will make for a more accurate recovery of the past; at least, I trust the sources more than I do many modern accounts.

This was made more clear to me as we discussed the theme of women and art in class, and examined an article by Carolyn P. Murphy on Properzia d'Rossia, sculptor from Bologna and amazing peach pit carver (I may have to day trip to Florence to view this at the Pitti Palace in June--get it? . . . pits at the Pitti palace). In class we all were struck by the suggestion that she died in a "syphilitic hospital"--but in looking this over, it seems difficult to justify this assumption (more research needed of course). I would like to know more about the start of the assumption and what century/decade is responsible for it. I was able to find some materials on Properzia, though there is not too much. First, I noticed Murphy used the same reference in her 1996 dissertation  (footnote 3; http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1349274/1/339172_vol1.pdf. Then I read Vasari's account for evidence (thanks to Allison for pointing out the reference to her husband, also fascinating and frequently overlooked). In The Lives of the Artist, sixteenth-century artist and art historian Vasari writes that "she was buried at the Ospedale della Morte", or the Hospital of Death. Syphilis arrived in Bologna around 1495, per an article by S. Sabbatani, and ravaged the city; however, Properzia would have been about five years old at that point. The syphilis hospital was known as the Ospedale della San Giobbe, which was in existence until 1798. There were also 2 other hospitals--the hospital of life and the hospital of death. Vasari tells us she was buried at the hospital of death--and that's it. But this is hardly conclusive to anything. The Hospital of Death was where one went to die--like a hospice, if there was little money. Most would have been cared for by family before going there. I wonder if Vasari's notion that she was lovestruck may have influenced her interpretation as a sexual woman? If so, she would not be the first woman who was viewed through a gendered lens.

Here's some tips, as we head forward into research-land:

1.  Beware the book being touted as a best-seller, or retranslated and republished, and it has to do with women's history and sex. Case in point: The Birth of the Salons, the book discussed last week on the blog.  Sex sells.  To suggest that salons were dens of iniquity seems far-fetched. The problem is in the interpretation of what is a salon. If you have images of movies set in the 18th century in your head (wigs, low cut dresses, etc.), frequently set at Versailles, those are not salons; those are courts, and full of palace intrigue, of course.

2. Many books on women--such as those on the Tudor monarchy--reinterpret history incorrectly and assume that scandalous accusations must be true. This applies to many such as  Anne Boleyn, Eleanor of Aquitaine, and Elizabeth I.

3.  Beware the biography. Many biographies of women were completed before there was a strong idea of gender as a cultural construct that shapes actions and ideas. If you have biographies that go from birth to death without gender analysis, it probably does not do justice to the historical figure.

This is not all bad news. Where there is bad history, there can be good history. It takes some effort, reflection, and usually an analysis that puts women front and center.

Was Jane Austen a Feminist?

      

             Jane Austen’s novels, Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility, seem to have dual reputations among modern audiences. If taken at face value, many readers view the stories to be romantic and idealistic with male heroes and damsels in distress, truly a peek into a time long passed where morals and manners meant everything. On the contrary, when I first read the book a few years ago, I did not enjoy it because it reveals the many difficulties women faced at the turn of the nineteenth century. I felt sorry for Elizabeth because she is an intellectual trapped in a world where most women constantly chattered about frivolous things and I was annoyed by Mrs. Bennet’s scheming to get her daughters married at any cost. Both of these reputations of Pride and Prejudice do not delve into the subversive message which Austen was portraying in her writing outlet. It might have been common for a female author to write about marriage in the nineteenth century; however Austen brings something unique to the table.

                In our discussions about Pride and Prejudice in the “History of European Women” and another class I took earlier, “Women Writers,” I found that my first perception of this novel was entirely wrong. As Dr. Wolbrink discussed today, Jane Austen not only commented on the problems with the marriage system and inheritance laws in her writing, she critiqued them and revealed their absurdities. She set her commentary within a story which could be taken at face value or which could reveal a subversive message about the plight of women and their lack of rights. 

             While Austen did want to show how little rights women had, she also highlighted their agency. For example, the characters of Jane in Pride and Prejudice and Marianne in Sense and Sensibility show how women used their “weaknesses” in their favor. Recall the scene where Marianne falls and hurts her ankle. She is not hysterical or in terrible pain, but she asks her younger sister to go tell her mother to send someone to help her walk back. Along comes Willoughby and saves the day, and for several days she uses this incident to gain sympathy from two male suitors while her mother and sisters play along. Drawing parallels, the character of Jane in Pride and Prejudice also uses an illness to her advantage (with the scheming of her mother). After catching a cold along the way to visit the Bingley sisters, she is asked to stay until she had recovered. Although she originally writes her family that she just has a headache and a sore throat, everyone seems to worry excessively about her. It seems that everyone is happy she is sick (especially Mrs. Bennet) because it gets Mr. Bingley’s sympathy and he is more likely to fall for her. Both of these examples seem to show women’s weaknesses, but if analyzed closely it is evident that Austen is showing how women played a role and worked around obstacles in a male biased society to try to control who they married.

                Because I feel that there are feminist themes in these two works of Austen, I researched what the common consensus was about whether she is considered a feminist or not. Interestingly there is a current debate which was most recently revived with the British printing Jane Austen’s portrait on their money last year. Beulah Devaney urges her audience to “stop calling Jane Austen a feminist” in her article in the Huffington Post. Devaney supports her argument by offering that feminism is a loaded and often misunderstood word that should not be used lightly; she stated that “Saying you're a feminist is to say that you believe that most women are oppressed, that the white, male privilege enjoyed by most of the people who hold power in this country should be overthrown.” I think that although Austen did not directly call for change, her stories reveal that she would probably agree with this modern definition of feminist. Oppositely, Devaney argues that it takes power away from the word because it calls into question what should qualify as active feminism and really there is no purpose for labeling people from the far past as feminists. I understand Devaney’s argument in the context of the modern women’s movement, but in the perspective of a historian I completely disagree. One thing that a women’s history class shows is that women have long been active in furthering their own progress. Jane Austen may not have known what a feminist was but she wrote with purpose. Why is there any harm in grouping her with other famous female writers such as Christine de Pisan? To me, it only highlights how many women across several centuries added to the women’s debate and ultimately the movement for change. 

                Jane Austen wrote from her own experiences as obvious in the many parallels with her personal life and her stories. Her novels were not meant only for entertainment but they give insight into the lives of women and the pressures of nineteenth century society. I now have a new perspective and respect for Elizabeth Bennet's character because as Dr. Wolbrink brought up in class today, she was the “new type” of woman which Austen seemed to say should be a role model for women. Between the Bennet sisters, as well as the Dashwood sisters, Austen showed the many types of women and paths women could take. This new educated “creature of reason” who critiqued marriage and refused to marry Mr. Collins to secure her families future showcased the way women were using their own agency to slowly make change in their world. 

Sources: 

      Leach, Sydney. "Jane Austen: A Feminist Icon?" Crisis Magazine. August 2013. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/jane-austen-a-feminist-icon. 

      Devaney, Beulah. "Why We Need to Stop Calling Jane Austen a Feminist." Huffington Post. October 2013. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/beulah-maud-devaney/jane-austen-feminism_b_4177203.html.