IN THE MOMENTS AFTER I LASTED POSTED, I WAS LOOKING AT OTHER PEOPLE'S BLOGS...
I VISITED EM'S (VISIT IT!I COMPEL YOU!!) AS I AM WONT TO DO...
I DISCOVERED A TRULY TERRIBLE TRUTH...
KATUS IS NOT AN AUSTEN FAN, IN FACT SHE DISLIKES AUSTEN'S WRITINGS!
UPON DISCOVERING THIS, I FELT COMMENTING ON EM'S BLOG ABOUT IT WOULD NOT, COULD NOT REGISTER MY EXTREME SHOCK AND HORROR AT MY DISCOVERY (BUT NORMALLY IT COULD, COMMENT ON EM'S BLOG NOW!)
NOR DID I BELIEVE THAT A COMMENT ON KATUSVILLE (A WORTHY PLACE TO VISIT!)COULD PROPERLY REPRESENT THE EFFECTS OF THE REVELATION THAT I HAVE UNDERGONE.
I CANNOT DESCRIBE THE SICK FEELING IN MY STOMACH AT THE THOUGHT THAT KATUS DOES NOT HAVE A SIMPACTICO WITH THOSE OF US WHO LOVE AUSTEN'S WORK.
AUSTEN IS TRULY ONE OF MY FAVORITE AUTHORS.
NOT BECAUSE MANY WOULD INCLUDE HER IN A CANON OF LITERARY WORKS, SIMPLY BECAUSE SHE SEEMS TO BE POPULAR WITH PEOPLE WHO ENJOY OLD ENGLISH WORKS,
BUT BECAUSE HER BOOKS ARE FUNNY, INTERESTING AND WORTH THE TIME YOU GIVE THEM, UNLIKE MANY OTHER BOOKS I REFUSE TO MENTION. THE CHARACTERS ARE INTRIGUING, AND I AM HEARTBROKEN TO THINK THAT THE JOY I HAVE RECIEVED FROM READING AUSTEN'S BOOKS IS COMPLETELY DENIED TO KATUS, WHO HAS CUT HERSELF OFF FROM THEM.
PLEASE, ANYONE, EVERYONE, TAKE THE TIME TO READ THEM YOURSELF. THEY ARE FASCINATING. NOT CHICK-LIT. EVEN TOM LIKES THEM!
WITH A DUE SENSE OF LOSS AND DOULEUR,
SPARKLE*
p.s. georgette heyer rocks too.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
[warning: brace yourself... you're getting more than you bargained for from laconic little kate]
BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Seriously, I am laughing so much I am crying. I LOVE the reactions I get when I mention my loathing of Austen! But it isn't just a dislike of romantic dribble aspect, I have some much better founded reasons. So I'm going to come back at you and defend my dislike.
Her characters are shallow and rather two dimensional, I think. They are far too simplistic and black and white. People do not run thus. They are not so easy to put in boxes of 'intelligent' 'marriagible' 'villain' 'stupid ditz' 'sweet' 'stupid and vulgar' 'doormat'. She does a disservice to her characters by portraying them thus, and insults her readers with such clear cut character types. Find me a person who can be boxed purely into one category. Undoubtedly you will argue that no, her good characters make bad decisions etc, and that's well and good. But one bad or two decisions each on the part of a few major characters does not make for depth and complexity of characters.
They are worse than 'chick-lit'as you call it, because they masquerade as being canon and intelligent reading material. Do not be deceived. They are not.
To heap some more criticism on top of that, I'm going to ally myself with the wise lady who says they are ungodly. I hear your outraged sputtering and questioning of why, and the answer to that is that they encourage dreaming. Admit it girls, how many of you love Mr Darcy and want a Mr Darcy of your own? You just proved my point. Austen is just as unhelpful and ungodly as chick flicks and trashy romance novels are.
And to bring in my pet rant, I despise the saccharine storylines and the implied 'they lived happily ever after' endings. The world is not like this. There is a LOT of pain and suffering in the world and no one lives happily ever after. Stories that try and tell you otherwise only make the real world harder to face and make people want to burrow into these little fantasy worlds where all is well. If you are going to pass your writing off as true to life, as Austen does, then please make it so.
Compare Austen's books with those of Elizabeth Gaskell or the utterly brilliant and truly venerable Chekhov. Or more modern authors such as Harper Lee (who is certainly not mediocre, despite someone recently levelling that accusation at Mockingbird!!! You know who you are!) and my beloved Tim Winton. They are as insightful about the world as Austen but they communicate it. Their characters have depth and their stories show the bad as well as the good.
If you are still reading this you have earned the right to rebut my arguments.
Can I take the opportunity to rebut?
(Hi Ali, sorry about having an argument on your blog. Especially since it's the first time I've replied here. Anyway, hi!)
I may be about to walk into the lions' den here, but anyway:
In my opinion (and I haven't really verified this, nor do I have scholarly or historical basis for it), Austen wrote books not to reflect the state of the world, but as she saw it, in particular its shallowness and how restrained it was. Austen (and Regency women in general) weren't allowed to do or say much at all of substance, and as such they appeared (and perhaps often were) very shallow. Austen wasn't. She was intelligent, and, in these mundane social circumstances, watched and thought about people and enjoyed their little idiosyncrasies and 'peopleness'. I would imagine that she found that many people were indeed shallow and two dimensional- because that was how women were expected to be. It's possible to become like that if you don't want to be anything more. However there are others of her characters who it would be utterly foolish to describe as two dimensional. How, for example, would you class Emma Woodhouse? She is neither wholly bad nor perfectly good. She can be annoying, yet she is charming. Austen describes her in the first sentence of Emma as 'handsome, clever and rich', as she probably would have been viewed by the majority of her acquaintances. But Austen's character is far deeper and more complex than this.
I think what makes Austen's characters believable and true to life is that while they have their own personalities that colour who they are and the actions they take, these personalities change and develop. Mr Knightley is always a gentleman, throughout the book. But he most certainly has his faults. He admits these himself toward the end of the book. He doesn't change absolutely, but realises his faults, aiming to change them, and always being true to his personality. He is a completely different man from Mr Darcy, or Colonel Brandon, or any other of Austen's male characters. You can't categorise them, as people try to do, as 'the good guys' or something.
Austen's characters are well developed and believable, and it is a mistake to confuse personality with categorisation. They don't do things because as a person they are 'good' or 'bad', but rather because of the type of person that they are.
Austen was very clear that she did not want to dwell on what she called 'pain and misery' (that's a real quote, I swear! I just don't know where it's from). She lived in the world, she knew what it was like. She was lonely and sad and probably depressed (let's face it, she lived in 1800s England). But she also knew happiness and joy and wanted to write about it. Who could blame her? She didn't present the world as perfect, nor did she present her books as an account of real life. Books are seldom meant to entirely and accurately reflect life- that's such a subjective thing. Voltaire's Candide, for example, is certainly not a reflection of the world. But it makes a very powerful point that one can choose to use in their interpretation of the world. Books don't have to be entirely 'realistic' to present a truth or one's point of view.
Moreover literature, because of it's potential for subjectivity, can help us engage really well with other people. Looking at Dickinson's poetry can really help us see how she viewed the world and herself.
To say that Austen's books are ungodly is an interesting statement. Of course, they do not present a Christian worldview, nor do they place emphasis on the truly important things. Thus they are ungodly. But I doubt that's what you meant. It's a separate argument about whether they are helpful for Christians to read.
On one level, they do help us engage with the world and see things from a different point of view. This can be incredibly helpful in our relating to non- Christians. However that in itself is not a good reason for doing or not doing something. While we are to be 'all things to all men', I don't get drunk just because it will help me connect with others.
I don't believe it is an unhelpful thing to appreciate and enjoy the good characteristics there are in people, fictional or not. Generally speaking, the reasons girls like Mr Darcy are not unhelpful.
But to present Mr Darcy as some sort of perfect, ideal man (which, incidentally, I don't believe he is) is extremely unhelpful. Humanity is not perfect. None of us match up to this standard without the work of Jesus. It is utterly ludicrous to expect any guy to be perfect, either in God's sight or our own.
If we are going to read Jane Austen, we do of course need to evaluate them as Christians. The right person for a Christian woman is a Christian man, who loves and serves God above all others. Only secondary to this are the good characteristics presented in Austen and other works.
Wow, I really doubt that was coherent at all. But comments, anyone?
Well...I definitely do not have enough thoughts to compose a critical essay.
But, I have read 3 Austen books and I liked them all....and I *don't* dream about Mr Darcy, he's too serious :P
So, while I like them, I understand how Kate doesn't.
Ow...my butt hurts from sitting on the fence!
LOL Bella!!! Very diplomatic, albeit painful.
I gotta say, Miss Jane doesn't fill me with the same sense of awe and wonder that it does Ali, however i can see both sides of the argument. When one is made to sit through an old greying english teacher's spiel on how fantastic the books are, when all u wanna do is run out the door screaming, they do get on your nerves. ON THE OTHER HAND. I have met people very much like the characters in Austen's novels, i think she hit the nail on the head. Prissy little society bitches (and people in general) living their daily lives and making life difficult for the nice decent people. Little has changed.
Wow. This is a sign that I should read this blog a lot more frequently. However I am here now. :-) And I assure you, I am definitely on Ali and Hannah's side of the fence. In fact, I have a house over there. Very comfortable in it, too.
I love Jane Austen. Like Hannah and Katherine have said, she hits the nail on the head when it comes to character analysis. Sure, the characters are at times superficial and two dimensional. But then, I know at times I am superficial and two dimensional. Human nature is flawed, that is the way we are.
I think that saying that books like P&P and Emma are ungodly are taking it a bit too far, though, to be honest. You'd be hard pressed to find a book that does not make you dream. To go to the extreme, read Song of Songs. If that is not 'chick-lit' I don't know what is. I do not read P&P or Emma and long for a Mr Dary or a Mr Knightley. I see elements of both I am attracted to, naturally, but again, I see that in most books I read.
Girls are going to analyse things and dream accordingly. We do it in real life, we do it in novels. I don't see how Austen is any worse than any other book containing a male and female character. Which is most books.
I think Austen captured her society very well. That was her intent, and from what I have read (in novels and in history) she got it pretty right. I will continue to love them and watch them and read them. :-)
And Ali, I too love Georgette Heyer. She is a wonderful writer. I am reading 'The Masqueraders' at the moment. But if Katus thinks Austen's are bad, she had better not read those!! Which is your favourite?
Hmmm....have only just read this post, and am going to add my comments. Can't comment on Georgette Heyer, but I love Austen - Sense and Sensibility is my favourite. Also love Bronte. Love Wuthering Heights.
Post a Comment