LONA MANNING
  • Home
  • Books
    • Shelley Novella
  • Research
    • About Shelley
    • Peterloo
  • Jane Austen
  • About Me
  • Blog

"It Would Not Be Near So Much Like a Ball"

10/20/2019

0 Comments

 
18th century moralists warned about the effect of novels on susceptible females ..
as do 21st century literary critics.
PictureDangerous Romance
  The unstated assumption behind Shannon Chamberlain’s Atlantic essay is that we shouldn’t enjoy novels with Happy Ever After endings (“What Jane Austen Thought Marriage Couldn’t Do,” October 3, 2019).
   Her opening sentence is: "Spend any amount of time searching for the villainous mastermind behind the marriage plot in Anglophone literature and inevitably Jane Austen’s name comes up."
   Even if the intent is to be tongue-in-cheek, Chamberlain is assuming that a) romantic novels are pernicious and b) her readers will agree with her on this point.
   Admittedly, some avid readers of romance novels make jokes along the same lines: "Mr Darcy," reads the sweatshirt, "giving women unrealistic expectations since 1813."

  Austen, Chamberlain goes on to say, "leaves herself open to several justifiable criticisms... [she focuses] too much on younger women at the expense of making older ones either irrelevant or ridiculous." Also, Austen doesn't illustrate what happens after the wedding.
   These two criticisms remind me of Caroline Bingley’s remark that balls would be more rational if they featured “conversation instead of dancing." "Much more rational,” her brother agrees, “but it would not be near so much like a ball."
   Surely anyone who wants conversation instead of dancing is free to pick up the book of their choice and let the rest of us enjoy some time alone with our favourite Austen heroes?

Picture
  One justification, I suppose, for taking Austen to task is that she is so ubiquitous and influential. Austen’s tone is ironic rather than sentimental and her concluding love scenes are notoriously restrained and brief, yet she is associated with palpitating romance today.
   Chamberlain provides some context for Austen's novels. Austen wrote at a time when marriages were no longer arranged by parents and started being love matches. People began to expect more happiness and fulfillment from marriage. (Let me mention in passing that it is nice to see an acknowledgement in a mainstream magazine that capitalism is responsible for freeing women from being chattel.) So therefore Austen can be criticized because she didn't “leave [her] readers much idea about how to conduct themselves once the rice is swept up and the bill for the reception comes in.“ 

  Plenty of Austen's contemporaries did write novels about how to conduct themselves. In fact the “conduct novel” was a best-selling genre in Austen’s day, giving advice on morality, friendships, and raising children. In Hannah More's Coelebs in Search of a Wife, a saintly wife reforms her husband. Conduct novels were overtly didactic. And most importantly, they weren't funny.
   To fault Austen for not writing about happy marriages is to be tone deaf to the comedy. I get the impression that post-modern interpretations of Austen all begin by draining the comedy out. Without the comedic lens, Mr. Bennet is just a lousy husband and father, and Lady Bertram in Mansfield Park is a negligent mother, and That’s Not Funny.
   But Austen is comic. Austen even laughs at Elizabeth Bennet's sorrow when she changes her mind about Mr. Darcy and laments her lost opportunity. Alas, "n
o such happy marriage could now teach the admiring multitude what connubial felicity really was." 
Picture
    There is a happy marriage, with happy children, in Pride & Prejudice--Elizabeth Bennet’s aunt and uncle, the Gardiners. The Gardiners are pleasant characters but they function essentially as a plot device to get the hero in the same room with the heroine. Catherine Morland’s curiosity about the death of General Tilney’s unhappy wife is crucial to the plot of Northanger Abbey, her own parents’ happy marriage is not.
   This is not a bug, it’s a feature. All of the literary criticism in the world will not change the fact that stories about unmarried young women are more compelling than stories about their mothers, and Ill-matched couples are more useful for comedic purposes than happily-married ones.
   Austen sensitively depicts a man (Edmund Bertram) who is infatuated with a beautiful, cynical woman (Mary Crawford) and he learns a bitter lesson when he finally sees her for what she is. We see marriages in which a woman (Fanny Dashwood) dominates her husband, and we read of a marriage in which the husband (General Tilney) oppressed his wife and dominates his children. Are these not valuable object lessons? For Austen is a moralist as well as a comic. She portrays sensible as well as silly older women, too. As 
Kathryn Sutherland points out, what set Austen apart from her contemporaries was the realism of her novels.

Picture18th century moralists warned against the effect of novels and plays on susceptible females.
     The idea that novels gave young women unrealistic notions of life was a common criticism in Austen’s day as well. To cite just one example, Sir Edgerton Brydges wrote in 1820 that novels “often do much mischief… they cherish… false views of life, which it is the proper business of books to correct and cure.”
   So we find that a 19th century baronet is in perfect accord with a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, Berkeley. 
     I will close with the following quote from Sense & Sensibility, as evidence that Austen perfectly well understood that the intense felicity of courtship settles down into something else after marriage--and she paid her readers the compliment of supposing they understood it as well:

  "[Edmund Ferrars] could do nothing till he were assured of his fate with Miss Dashwood; and by his rapidity in seeking THAT fate, it is to be supposed... in spite of the modesty with which he rated his own deserts, and the politeness with which he talked of his doubts, he did not, upon the whole, expect a very cruel reception. It was his business, however, to say that he DID, and he said it very prettily. What he might say on the subject a twelvemonth after, must be referred to the imagination of husbands and wives."


0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    About the author:

    I'm a writer and a teacher of English as a Second Language.  "Laowai" means foreigner. Check further down for tags for specific subjects. My earlier posts (prior to June 2017) are about my time in China, more recent posts focus on my writing. Welcome!

    RSS Feed

    Categories

    All
    A Contrary Wind
    A-different-kind-of-woman
    Books
    China
    Clutching My Pearls
    Dangerous-to-know
    Differences
    Food
    Friendly-advice
    Ground-rules
    Humour
    Jane Austen
    Newbie-in-china
    Opinion
    Packages-and-ads
    Shelley
    Sightseeing
    Teaching
    Tinyfcc
    Ydcatwtcaettbelh
    Zibo

    Blog glossary:
    JAFF: Jane Austen Fan Fiction
    TINYFCC: This is not your father's Communist China
    YDCTHTCAETTBELH: You don't come all the way to China and expect things to be exactly like home.

    Archives

    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    July 2019
    April 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    April 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013

    RSS Feed

    © Lona Manning 2020


    ​

Proudly powered by Weebly