"In Jane Austen's world, human worth is to be judged by standards better and more enduring than social status; but social status is always relevant. With amused detachment, she registers exactly the social provenance of each of her characters, and judges them for the ways in which they judge each other. The importance assigned to class distinction is the source of much of her comedy and her irony, as of her social satire."
McMaster 129
I think this quote is very important in picking out one of the most prevalent aspects of Austen's novels. A character's wealth, how they obtained it, what they do with it, and what happens to it, is a point that Austen makes known with all of her main characters. Through this, though, she also makes known that money is not always an important issue in her novels. So why does she make a point to let the reader in on the monetary value of all of her characters?
For Austen, it is a means to show that money is not something that should be of importance. In her time, money was important, because it was a means to survive, it was a way to show hierarchy, but that is what Austen wants to banish; she wants people to marry for love, and not for money. Now, that's not to say that that didn't happen, I am sure many people married for love during that time, but there were also many occurrences of people marrying for money too, to preserve a name, or preserve a family. Also, Austen showing the value of a family also helped to put people of certain wealth into perspective. The Bennets, for instance, were a very happy family, despite not having a lot, and they managed to make do with what they had. At first, Mr. Darcy, seemed like the kind of man that kept to himself, and that included his wealth, and as his polar opposite, Mr. Bingley just wanted everyone to have a good time, and to enjoy his company.
This idea that money can create a society that is basically a slave to their fame and fortune is mostly what Austen wants to make known about her society, and wants the reader to learn about. Austen wants readers to see that there is more to a person than their title, and more than the dowry that they get in a marriage; she wants us to see the characters as people, and wants us to relate to them.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Monday, October 8, 2012
Literature of Lesbianism
I tried very hard to relate this article back to Pride and Prejudice, but I struggled to find a part of this article to draw from to take back to the characters of Jane Austen's novel. I did, however, manage to find some very interesting aspects of this article.
One of the main things that stuck with me throughout this article, was the idea of lesbian literature, and what are the qualifications of it. At first, it was determined that lesbian literature was written about lesbians, but then what about the women who were declared lesbians, or led homosexual lives?
"More damagingly, even as we labor (with greater or lesser unease) to pigeonhole individual women, we are confronted with the aggravating ambiguities of the term lesbian itself: its psychic and behavioral imprecision, its obscure to refer unequivocally, precisely at those moments when one wants most that it should." -page 5
I love this quote, because we, as people, and as readers, want to group things together, whether they be types of novels we read, authors we like to read, what those authors read or produce, and main themes we like to read about, we are forever trapped asking what types of novels one kind of author writes. This point was made specifically about women who may have led homosexual lives, but never related themselves in that way, nor would they relate their novels that they wrote in that way. These authors just wanted their novels to be something to read, something to be enjoyed, and something to be talked about, and not judged on what kind of content that they produced. This even goes as far as men who wrote about lesbians in their books. There is no way that readers could call men lesbian writers because men cannot lead lesbian lives. So this draws back the question of what defines a lesbian writer or novel, as well as any other types of novels or writers.
One of the main things that stuck with me throughout this article, was the idea of lesbian literature, and what are the qualifications of it. At first, it was determined that lesbian literature was written about lesbians, but then what about the women who were declared lesbians, or led homosexual lives?
"More damagingly, even as we labor (with greater or lesser unease) to pigeonhole individual women, we are confronted with the aggravating ambiguities of the term lesbian itself: its psychic and behavioral imprecision, its obscure to refer unequivocally, precisely at those moments when one wants most that it should." -page 5
I love this quote, because we, as people, and as readers, want to group things together, whether they be types of novels we read, authors we like to read, what those authors read or produce, and main themes we like to read about, we are forever trapped asking what types of novels one kind of author writes. This point was made specifically about women who may have led homosexual lives, but never related themselves in that way, nor would they relate their novels that they wrote in that way. These authors just wanted their novels to be something to read, something to be enjoyed, and something to be talked about, and not judged on what kind of content that they produced. This even goes as far as men who wrote about lesbians in their books. There is no way that readers could call men lesbian writers because men cannot lead lesbian lives. So this draws back the question of what defines a lesbian writer or novel, as well as any other types of novels or writers.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
"It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife."
Pride and Prejudice.
Opening line of the novel.
"Whether she becomes an objet d'art or a saint, however, it is the surrender of her self- of her personal comfort, her personal desires, or both- that is the beautiful angel-woman's key act, while it is precisely this sacrifice which dooms her both to death and to heaven."
"The Madwoman in the Attic"
LT page 817
Looking at the combination of these quotes, one can figure that a man must always want a wife, but that woman, on becoming a wife, must make many sacrifices in order to do what she needs to do as a wife. This angel-figure that the man falls in love with is an image, driven by the creation of man, written down by men. This figure is then spread all throughout literature, that a woman is divine and that she needs to be there to care for the man, and this is what Gilbert and Gubar argue in the article, "The Madwoman in the Attic." From the woman's perspective though, this marriage could drive the woman to become the monster, and could drive her to become something that the husband did not see when he first saw her as the angel. This struggle between what is right for the woman, and what is right for the man, causes a division in literature, and in the image that we use on both men and women in real life.
Women, driven by this concept of being perfect because that is what literature has told us to become, then become overwhelmed and turn into the monsters. They could also become monsters, with the knowledge that the man they are going to marry is "in possession of a good fortune," and its this fortune that turns the women into monsters, because they only marry they man for their money, and are angels to begin with because they are trying so hard to win over the man with the money. If it's not the woman trying to be the wife, it's the mother or father of the woman that is creating this angel/ monster combination to earn money for the family. This can be seen in Pride and Prejudice, especially with the girls' mother trying to marry all five of them off. So, in retrospect, it is the man's money that is turning the mother into a monster, and therefore turning the angelic daughter into a monster because she wants to money because her parents tell her she needs to money to save them.
Pride and Prejudice.
Opening line of the novel.
"Whether she becomes an objet d'art or a saint, however, it is the surrender of her self- of her personal comfort, her personal desires, or both- that is the beautiful angel-woman's key act, while it is precisely this sacrifice which dooms her both to death and to heaven."
"The Madwoman in the Attic"
LT page 817
Looking at the combination of these quotes, one can figure that a man must always want a wife, but that woman, on becoming a wife, must make many sacrifices in order to do what she needs to do as a wife. This angel-figure that the man falls in love with is an image, driven by the creation of man, written down by men. This figure is then spread all throughout literature, that a woman is divine and that she needs to be there to care for the man, and this is what Gilbert and Gubar argue in the article, "The Madwoman in the Attic." From the woman's perspective though, this marriage could drive the woman to become the monster, and could drive her to become something that the husband did not see when he first saw her as the angel. This struggle between what is right for the woman, and what is right for the man, causes a division in literature, and in the image that we use on both men and women in real life.
Women, driven by this concept of being perfect because that is what literature has told us to become, then become overwhelmed and turn into the monsters. They could also become monsters, with the knowledge that the man they are going to marry is "in possession of a good fortune," and its this fortune that turns the women into monsters, because they only marry they man for their money, and are angels to begin with because they are trying so hard to win over the man with the money. If it's not the woman trying to be the wife, it's the mother or father of the woman that is creating this angel/ monster combination to earn money for the family. This can be seen in Pride and Prejudice, especially with the girls' mother trying to marry all five of them off. So, in retrospect, it is the man's money that is turning the mother into a monster, and therefore turning the angelic daughter into a monster because she wants to money because her parents tell her she needs to money to save them.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)