Consider the picnic on Box Hill in Emma. We modern readers can't help thinking about the servants preparing, carrying and setting out the meal, and then waiting respectfully at a distance while the ladies and gentlemen sat and ate it, and then cleaning up after the ladies and gentlemen when they were all finished with their nice al fresco repast. But none of that is mentioned in the novel, only a brief reference to servants and carriages at the end of the passage. To Austen, servants were a fact of life...
While reading Jane Austen: the Secret Radical, I had the irresistible urge to try my own hand at writing a spoof of the type of literary criticism that Helena Kelly employs. It was surprisingly easy -- I had my parodies, published below, written in under an hour. [Update: here is another parody for April Fool's Day] Modern literary criticism contains two basic elements: One, drawing connections between disparate things in the book which have no obvious relevance to the plot or the theme to find symbolism where none was intended. This is an especially clever technique because it is non-falsifiable. You can pronounce that some inanimate object in the book is freighted with meaning, and nobody can dig the author up out of her grave to contradict you. Secondly, investing classic literature with overtones of modern attitudes towards sex, gender identity, colonialism, imperialism, race and intersectionalism.
Consider the picnic on Box Hill in Emma. We modern readers can't help thinking about the servants preparing, carrying and setting out the meal, and then waiting respectfully at a distance while the ladies and gentlemen sat and ate it, and then cleaning up after the ladies and gentlemen when they were all finished with their nice al fresco repast. But none of that is mentioned in the novel, only a brief reference to servants and carriages at the end of the passage. To Austen, servants were a fact of life...
2 Comments
Part three: It's as clear as daylight To begin with, I want to repeat some distinctions I made in part two: Dr. Helena Kelly is not saying [Mansfield Park] is a romantic comedy novel that I don't happen to like, because I don't happen to like Fanny and Edmund. It just didn't hit the mark for me. Nor is she saying, Well, books that mentioned slaves or 13-year-old girls getting married or Jewish money lenders used to be okay in the past, but those subjects are problematic in today's world. And for some people, a book in which the main characters live off of slavery is too problematic to be read with enjoyment today. I am not going to dispute that. If you don't want to read Huck Finn, or The Merchant of Venice, or Romeo and Juliet or Mansfield Park, I think you are missing out on some great literature, but it's your choice. But, as I said, Kelly is going farther than that. Kelly is saying, Austen intended for her readers to regard the main characters who get married at the end of the novel -- you know, like people always do at the end of a romantic comedy -- as bad, horrible people. Mansfield Park and Emma may look like romantic comedies on the surface but they are actually condemnations of slavery and the practise of land enclosure. Kelly is positively allergic to the humour in Austen. Of Knightley and Emma's happy union, Kelly writes, "the marriage itself is made possible only by criminal acts and an elderly man's terror." In case you don't recognize what she's talking about, it's a reference to this: Mrs. Weston's poultry-house was robbed one night of all her turkeys--evidently by the ingenuity of man. Other poultry-yards in the neighbourhood also suffered.--Pilfering was housebreaking to Mr. Woodhouse's fears.--He was very uneasy; and but for the sense of his son-in-law's protection, would have been under wretched alarm every night of his life. Austen treats the theft of the poultry with mock-drama, but of course it's deadly serious to Kelly, a comedy of terrors... Part Two: That's Not Funny!
I begin by reposting the seven points I outlined at the beginning of part one: In Jane Austen: the Secret Radical:
Part One: Buckle Up! It's Going to be a Bumpy Ride! Helena Kelly's analysis of Austen attempts to make the case that she was a secret radical. More than one review of Kelly's book has pointed out that this is hardly a new theory. "Austen has been an icon of many political stripes, including radical and feminist, for generations." Devoney Looser wrote in the Times Literary Supplement. Kelly is not just unoriginal, she is mistaken. I disagree with the premise of this book and I think the examples adduced by the author to make her case are unpersuasive and in some cases risible. I want to discuss my reaction to this book as clearly as I can, so I am going to take my time and start with an outline to lay out the points I will be discussing and elaborating upon... |
About the author:Greetings! I blog about my research into Jane Austen and her world, plus a few other interests. My earlier posts (prior to June 2017) are about my time as a teacher of ESL in China (just click on "China" in the menu below). More about me here. Categories
All
Archives
August 2024
© Lona Manning 2024
|