tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391293127288856260.post7751713441056143581..comments2023-09-27T12:44:03.592+01:00Comments on MsHedgehog: Mr. Wickham's PlanmsHedgehoghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05719152265628932122noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391293127288856260.post-1194606810529531252008-11-02T16:14:00.000+00:002008-11-02T16:14:00.000+00:00The impression I get from the foreword in my editi...The impression I get from the foreword in my edition of MP is that it was mainly based on an early work which she then revised and published late. But I am not sure, as the foreword was mainly not about that.<BR/><BR/>My argument on Wickham looks weaker when you read all the wrap-ups towards the end - where the characters go off stage and the author tells you what happened, like an epilogue. But I am never quite sure how we're supposed to take that part.<BR/><BR/>I think the one that speaks to me most personally is Persuasion, but P&P is just so <I>funny</I>.<BR/><BR/>It's not actually raining here, but it's cold, and the sun is setting, and it's not even quarter past four.msHedgehoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05719152265628932122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391293127288856260.post-70441544217374711192008-11-02T15:58:00.000+00:002008-11-02T15:58:00.000+00:00But Mansfield Park is a late work, not an early wo...But Mansfield Park is a late work, not an early work. I think that the feelings that it is early is because what Austen is trying here is so very difficult, and although she is not successful,(unlike say Emma, which is so well realized) still the attempt is spectacular.<BR/><BR/>I really like the explanation of why Wickham seduces Lydia. I wonder if it was obvious to Austen's readers, in the way that a simple reference to the West Indies meant slavery to them.<BR/><BR/>For many years Mansfield Park was my fav Austen. Now I bounce between Emma and Persuasion, but the very idea of re-reading P&P makes me long for the sofa, hot cocoa, and the dog snoozing on my feet. Can you tell it is raining here?Linera Lucashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04781421823057508241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391293127288856260.post-18005656598517778422008-11-02T02:26:00.000+00:002008-11-02T02:26:00.000+00:00Linera Lucas - thank you!It was the end of Mansfie...Linera Lucas - thank you!<BR/><BR/>It was the end of Mansfield Park I actually had in mind when I mentioned Austen leaving out what she didn't feel she could plausibly do. Of course she has to leave out most of what happens about Maria; but she also leaves out Edmund's change of feeling, and I couldn't help wondering if that was because it was as unsatisfactory to her as it is to me. I felt as though it was an early work, at least mostly, from a time when she hadn't quite decided what a novel should be like.<BR/><BR/>Reading P&P again this week, I realised I'd completely forgotten a very good argument in my favour. The very first time W is introduced to Elizabeth, Darcy is actually present, and we're told this: "Mr. Darcy corroborated it with a bow, and was beginning to determine not to fix his eyes on Elizabeth, when they were suddenly arrested by the sight of the stranger, and Elizabeth happening to see the countenance of both as they looked at each other, was all astonishment at the effect of the meeting. Both changed colour, one looked white, the other red." We're not told which is which, but the conversation goes on for "another minute".<BR/><BR/>I find that little sketch very believable and vivid. We've all been in some scene a little bit like this. If Darcy is having to 'determine not to fix his eyes on Elizabeth', chances are W has already seen enough that, later, it all just falls into place.msHedgehoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05719152265628932122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391293127288856260.post-10980017417849856752008-11-01T22:52:00.000+00:002008-11-01T22:52:00.000+00:00Your explanation certainly makes sense to me, and ...Your explanation certainly makes sense to me, and clarifies my opinion of Austen, who thoroughly understands her characters, atleast in this book. <BR/><BR/>I do take issue with her understanding of Edmund in Mansfield Park, where although I applaud Austen's intent, I find Edmund to be mostly a moving plot point, required to feel first one way, and then another, in order to make the story work. However, to write a novel in which the protagonist does not change, but instead the world around her changes, that is genius.<BR/><BR/>Such a delightful blog. I found it searching for Tango in Seattle, and will be back.Linera Lucashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04781421823057508241noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391293127288856260.post-53103867936275446282008-10-26T01:23:00.000+00:002008-10-26T01:23:00.000+00:00@psyche: That's true about the male characters, an...@psyche: That's true about the male characters, and it makes sense to me, because it's a whole world into which Austen cannot go; the world of men. Things that can't happen, or be said, in the presence of the female characters can't happen on-stage. They can only be related, in more-or-less reliable versions, or divined by the author's voice - and I have the impression she only does that in rather restricted situations. The surprisingness of their behaviour shows that knows what it means that she's presenting a limited view of the men - just the one they choose to present to the women.<BR/><BR/>I think <I>Pride and Prejudice</I> has a lot to say right through about imperfect knowledge of other people.<BR/><BR/>I also have the general impression that Austen had very definite views about what she could and couldn't write plausibly from her own experience, and she very strictly excluded anything she felt risked not being up to standard. When she has to do it she keeps it very short and factual.msHedgehoghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05719152265628932122noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391293127288856260.post-57371816982871288502008-10-25T20:37:00.000+01:002008-10-25T20:37:00.000+01:00I like it very much. It fits everywhere.I'm not ye...I like it very much. It fits everywhere.<BR/><BR/>I'm not yet convinced it's what Austen intended, as if it were, I would have thought she'd be more explicit about it (though perhaps she prefers to let us guess). There are other novels of hers where male characters have behaved astonishingly badly considering what we see of them on screen, and with no apparent reason (Willougby, for example, would have to be really quite remarkably dissolute to do the things we are told he did, and we're given no further character explanation to bridge the gap between the things he did for money (which explains all), and the things he did without even that motivation). <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I don't know whether your theory is what she intended, but either way I applaud it, and I hope she did!Psychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14278866207207171284noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8391293127288856260.post-10820091568669536442008-10-25T15:33:00.000+01:002008-10-25T15:33:00.000+01:00Fascinating! I read the book too long ago to be ab...Fascinating! I read the book too long ago to be able to say whether or not it is obvious to me. But your reasoning is very clear, and suggests a parallel, alternative novel which I can't help thinking would make a great contemporary film; all the bits Jane Austen knew or suspected about people and their motives, and left out, a film of Pride and Prejudice as made by William Hogarth, complete with teenage sex, and lots of money and mercenary double-dealing. I can't wait to see it: a great corrective to the glossy romances of film and TV (which I've never been able to watch).<BR/><BR/>It's hard to keep up with you! Your blogs on teaching and performing were spot-on. Well done for saying all that so clearly. Just hope all the right people are paying attention!tghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12176074871424261732noreply@blogger.com