Book Review: Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice
The Jane Austen Cycle: Pride and Prejudice
I will not waste my time doing Marxist and feminist criticisms in this review. It is all too easy to fall into that mindset and stop appreciating the wit, humour and elegance of Austen's writing. I will spend my time talking a little bit about all the memorable characters (and one not so memorable) Austen created in her delightful novel.
With this second reading, by the end of the novel, I find myself not so much in love with Elizabeth Bennet as before. But I think this is a reflection of Jane Austen's power to create real, rounded characters. As the focus of the novel is on Elizabeth Bennet, so she is by far the most real of them all. Indeed as we are reading the novel we are witnessing first hand the growth and development of a young lady. We find that all that she accuses of Fitzwilliam Darcy - especially pride - applies to her as well. The title of the novel - Pride and Prejudice - is exactly the character of Elizabeth. True enough, Elizabeth recognizes her own error, and true enough, Elizabeth is a character who has both sense and sensibility; yet she never gets away from her pride; rather by the end of the novel it is moderated by her marriage to Darcy. While I would not go so far as to say that Elizabeth is a big snob like Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Elizabeth does bear some of her characteristics, which makes me shy away from her a little bit in this reading. But Elizabeth is not perfect, nor is she meant to be a perfect creation of Austen. She is extremely amiable, but the statement "all men like her, and all women want to be like her" now needs to be reconsidered carefully.
Of the character Darcy I won't say much other than this, that he is truly a subtle hero. Not only does he possess qualities that would make him an ideological ideal, but he has the rare quality of self-reflection (just like Elizabeth). The proposal scene nearing the end of the novel is absolutely amazing, not only because Austen allows us (the readers) to conclusively decide on the character of Elizabeth, but that of Darcy. Through out the course of the novel, we, like Elizabeth, are pre-judging the character of Darcy; we have been seeing Darcy's character from other character's point of view, many whose opinions we soon find out are untrustworthy. Inthe two main passages in which we see the true Darcy - the letter to Elizabeth and the marriage proposal, the self-criticism and self-reflection of Darcy is powerful and insightful. He knows exactly his own behaviour and his own disposition, and he knows how to make amendments, as we can see from the closing scenes of the novel, in which he tries his best to please his mother-in-law.
The quality of the relationship between Darcy and Elizabeth, however, begs some serious questions. The main question is: what is love? Does Darcy really "love" Elizabeth? and does Elizabeth really love Darcy? No doubt Darcy's character is rescued from all the terrible names; but does this follow (in Elizabeth's mind) that she is in love with Darcy? What does gradually happen in the course of the novel is this, that Elizabeth becomes intrigued with Darcy and acquires a most favourable opinion of him through his actions. But that still does not solve the problem of "love".
But let us not apply the modern definition of "love", which has a romantic leaning. We must remember that Austen writes from a neo-classical point of view, in which Reason reigns. Given that, I suppose the idea of being "in love" comes down to the idea of a projection of the probability of future happiness, meaning, if you think you can be happy with that person, then you are "in love". Can Elizabeth be happy with Darcy? The answer is a confident "yes", as Elizabeth herself said so. Can Jane be happy with Bingley? The answer is also a "yes". This idea of "being in love", however, can take on a quite shallow turn, as in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Collins, or the case of Lydia and Wickham: in the first case fortunate plays a huge part; in the second, hormones. But perhaps if realized correctly (like Jane and Elizabeth), this kind of "being in love", without all the Werther-like romantic leanings, is more preferable to our modern concept of "love".
Let us return to other characters. There are so many memorable characters in this novel that I'll just mention their names and briefly comment on them. First of all, I find that I like the characters Bingley and Jane more than Darcy and Elizabeth. Jane deserves a little more of my comments. In this reading I have fallen in love with Jane instead. I like her for her optimism and her willingness to give the benefit of the doubt. Sure enough, it makes her a little ridiculous at times, but it also makes her one of the most easy going of all characters in the novel. And Jane is not by any means lacking sense or sensibility, like Lydia or her mother. Having said that, since the focus of the novel is on Elizabeth, it is necessary for Austen to make Jane a little more simple, and perhaps superficial. If we are allowed to eavesdrop on the conversation of Jane and Bingley, perhaps my opinion would change.
But what about the second-tier characters? The contrast between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet is unbelievable: how on earth did these two get together? What about Lady Catherine de Bourgh? What a snob! Jane Austen cleverly mocks her by having her come over the Pemberley at the end, which is "polluted" not only by Elizabeth, but also the rest of her family! Yet there are plenty of people in this world who can tolerate snobs like Lady Catherine, like Mr. Collins. It is astonishing that anyone could find any good in Lady Catherine, yet Mr. Collins is a most ready worshipper. Or can anyone be as evil as Miss Bingley, faking all her behaviours and lying in order to attempt to achieve her goal? Thank goodness this is a Austen comedy; but it certainly makes one wonder just how many of these people trampled upon others in order to achieve their own ends.
I do want to take this opportunity to talk a little about the character of Mary. If you cannot remember who she is, I do not blame you. She is the third daughter of Mr. Bennet and is almost non-existent in the novel. I was struck by one sentence that Austen tries to explain the lack of Mary in familial activities: while her sisters are beauties, she is plain. Perhaps beneath all the glow and fun of Austen's world she subtly asserts a dark point: Mary is forced to become accomplished in other activities - she is by far the most educated and philosophical one. Her speeches makes her rather "unfeminine". Her absence in the novel speaks a lot about Austen's contemporary society: due to the ideology of the time, normality is rigidly defined and obssessively upheld. Those who have no qualities to be accepted into society are simply left to rot on their own. Mary, however, seems to be "rotting" in a rather intellectual way, which is not necessary a bad thing. Is Austen herself like Mary? That I cannot tell; but what about a woman like George Eliot?
Overall, I think I've benefited a lot from this second reading of Austen's Pride and Prejudice. Austen's setting of her works might be restrictive, but the observations she derives from her society is certainly universal.
I will not waste my time doing Marxist and feminist criticisms in this review. It is all too easy to fall into that mindset and stop appreciating the wit, humour and elegance of Austen's writing. I will spend my time talking a little bit about all the memorable characters (and one not so memorable) Austen created in her delightful novel.
With this second reading, by the end of the novel, I find myself not so much in love with Elizabeth Bennet as before. But I think this is a reflection of Jane Austen's power to create real, rounded characters. As the focus of the novel is on Elizabeth Bennet, so she is by far the most real of them all. Indeed as we are reading the novel we are witnessing first hand the growth and development of a young lady. We find that all that she accuses of Fitzwilliam Darcy - especially pride - applies to her as well. The title of the novel - Pride and Prejudice - is exactly the character of Elizabeth. True enough, Elizabeth recognizes her own error, and true enough, Elizabeth is a character who has both sense and sensibility; yet she never gets away from her pride; rather by the end of the novel it is moderated by her marriage to Darcy. While I would not go so far as to say that Elizabeth is a big snob like Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Elizabeth does bear some of her characteristics, which makes me shy away from her a little bit in this reading. But Elizabeth is not perfect, nor is she meant to be a perfect creation of Austen. She is extremely amiable, but the statement "all men like her, and all women want to be like her" now needs to be reconsidered carefully.
Of the character Darcy I won't say much other than this, that he is truly a subtle hero. Not only does he possess qualities that would make him an ideological ideal, but he has the rare quality of self-reflection (just like Elizabeth). The proposal scene nearing the end of the novel is absolutely amazing, not only because Austen allows us (the readers) to conclusively decide on the character of Elizabeth, but that of Darcy. Through out the course of the novel, we, like Elizabeth, are pre-judging the character of Darcy; we have been seeing Darcy's character from other character's point of view, many whose opinions we soon find out are untrustworthy. Inthe two main passages in which we see the true Darcy - the letter to Elizabeth and the marriage proposal, the self-criticism and self-reflection of Darcy is powerful and insightful. He knows exactly his own behaviour and his own disposition, and he knows how to make amendments, as we can see from the closing scenes of the novel, in which he tries his best to please his mother-in-law.
The quality of the relationship between Darcy and Elizabeth, however, begs some serious questions. The main question is: what is love? Does Darcy really "love" Elizabeth? and does Elizabeth really love Darcy? No doubt Darcy's character is rescued from all the terrible names; but does this follow (in Elizabeth's mind) that she is in love with Darcy? What does gradually happen in the course of the novel is this, that Elizabeth becomes intrigued with Darcy and acquires a most favourable opinion of him through his actions. But that still does not solve the problem of "love".
But let us not apply the modern definition of "love", which has a romantic leaning. We must remember that Austen writes from a neo-classical point of view, in which Reason reigns. Given that, I suppose the idea of being "in love" comes down to the idea of a projection of the probability of future happiness, meaning, if you think you can be happy with that person, then you are "in love". Can Elizabeth be happy with Darcy? The answer is a confident "yes", as Elizabeth herself said so. Can Jane be happy with Bingley? The answer is also a "yes". This idea of "being in love", however, can take on a quite shallow turn, as in the case of Mr. and Mrs. Collins, or the case of Lydia and Wickham: in the first case fortunate plays a huge part; in the second, hormones. But perhaps if realized correctly (like Jane and Elizabeth), this kind of "being in love", without all the Werther-like romantic leanings, is more preferable to our modern concept of "love".
Let us return to other characters. There are so many memorable characters in this novel that I'll just mention their names and briefly comment on them. First of all, I find that I like the characters Bingley and Jane more than Darcy and Elizabeth. Jane deserves a little more of my comments. In this reading I have fallen in love with Jane instead. I like her for her optimism and her willingness to give the benefit of the doubt. Sure enough, it makes her a little ridiculous at times, but it also makes her one of the most easy going of all characters in the novel. And Jane is not by any means lacking sense or sensibility, like Lydia or her mother. Having said that, since the focus of the novel is on Elizabeth, it is necessary for Austen to make Jane a little more simple, and perhaps superficial. If we are allowed to eavesdrop on the conversation of Jane and Bingley, perhaps my opinion would change.
But what about the second-tier characters? The contrast between Mr. and Mrs. Bennet is unbelievable: how on earth did these two get together? What about Lady Catherine de Bourgh? What a snob! Jane Austen cleverly mocks her by having her come over the Pemberley at the end, which is "polluted" not only by Elizabeth, but also the rest of her family! Yet there are plenty of people in this world who can tolerate snobs like Lady Catherine, like Mr. Collins. It is astonishing that anyone could find any good in Lady Catherine, yet Mr. Collins is a most ready worshipper. Or can anyone be as evil as Miss Bingley, faking all her behaviours and lying in order to attempt to achieve her goal? Thank goodness this is a Austen comedy; but it certainly makes one wonder just how many of these people trampled upon others in order to achieve their own ends.
I do want to take this opportunity to talk a little about the character of Mary. If you cannot remember who she is, I do not blame you. She is the third daughter of Mr. Bennet and is almost non-existent in the novel. I was struck by one sentence that Austen tries to explain the lack of Mary in familial activities: while her sisters are beauties, she is plain. Perhaps beneath all the glow and fun of Austen's world she subtly asserts a dark point: Mary is forced to become accomplished in other activities - she is by far the most educated and philosophical one. Her speeches makes her rather "unfeminine". Her absence in the novel speaks a lot about Austen's contemporary society: due to the ideology of the time, normality is rigidly defined and obssessively upheld. Those who have no qualities to be accepted into society are simply left to rot on their own. Mary, however, seems to be "rotting" in a rather intellectual way, which is not necessary a bad thing. Is Austen herself like Mary? That I cannot tell; but what about a woman like George Eliot?
Overall, I think I've benefited a lot from this second reading of Austen's Pride and Prejudice. Austen's setting of her works might be restrictive, but the observations she derives from her society is certainly universal.
posted by Tristan at 11:41 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home